You are on page 1of 328

GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK

A GRAMMAR OF

NEW TESTAMENT GREEK


BY

JAMES HOPE MOULTON


J'

M.A. (Cantab.), D.Lit. (Lond.)


GREENWOOD LECTUKEK
TUTOR
IN

LATE FELLOW OF KING'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE IN GREEK TESTAMENT IN THE VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

NEW TESTAMENT LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE


WESLEVAN COLLEGE, DIDSBUKY

VOL.

PROLEGOMENA

SECOND EDITION WITH CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS

Edinburgh

T.

&

T.

CLARK,
I

38

George Street

906

HI
N
\

PRINTED BV

MORRISON AND OIBB LIMITED,


FOR
T.

&

T.

CLARK, EDINBURGH.
AND
CO. LIMITER,

LONDON

SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT,

MEW YORK: CHARLES

SCRIBNER's SONS.

IN

PIAM MEMORIAM

PATRIS
LABORVM HERES DEDICO

PREFACE.
work within six or seven a welcome opportunity appearance gives of making a good many corrections and additions, without Of the scope of these new altering in any way its general plan. features I shall have something to say later at this point I have to explain the title-page, from which certain words have The disappeared, not without great reluctance on my part. statement in the first edition that the book was " based on
call for

The

a second edition of

tliis

months

of its first

mc

W.
for

F. Moulton's edition of G. B. Winer's


it

connexion with a work which for

been in constant use among

New

Grammar," claimed years had Testament students in this


tliirty-five

I should hardly have yielded this country and elsewhere. statement for excision, had not the suggestion come from one whose motives for retaining it are only less strong than my

own.
of this

Sir

John Clark, whose kindness throughout the progress work it is a special pleasure to acknowledge on such

that misapprehension was frewhose knowledge of tliis book quently occurring with those was limited to the title. Since the present volume is entirely new, and does not in any way follow the lines of its great predecessor, it seems better to confine the history of the I undertaking to the Preface, and take sole responsibility. have unhappily no means of divining what judgement either Winer or his editor would have passed on my doctrines and it is therefore, perhaps, due to Pietdt that I should drop what

an opportunity, advised

me

Pietdt mainly prompted.


It is this

now
is

book

forty years since my father, to whose memory dedicated, was invited by Messrs T. & T. Clark
edit G. B. Winer's

to translate

and

epoch-making Grammatik

des neidcstamcntlicJien SpracMdioms.

with Bishop

Ellicott, afterwards

The proposal originated Chairman of the New Testa-

viii

PREFACE.
the last survivor of a band of

ment Eevision Company, and

workers who, while the following pages were in the press, became united once more. Dr Ellicott had been in correspondence on biblical matters with the young Assistant Tutor

and his Wesleyau Theological College, Eichmond estimate of his powers was shown first by the proposal as to Winer, and not long after by the Bishop's large use of my
at the
;

selecting new members of the Eevision Mr Moulton took his place in the Jerusalem Company. Chamber in 1870, the youngest member of the Company; and in the same year his edition of Winer appeared. My brother's Life of our father (Isbister, 1899) gives an account It would not be seemly for me to enlarge of its reception. on its merits, and it would be as superfluous as unbecoming.
father's advice in
I

will only allow myself the satisfaction of quoting a few words from one who may well be called the greatest New
this

Testament scholar

country has seen for generations.


list of

In

giving his Cambridge students a short

Dr Hort

said

{Romans and Ephcsians,

p.

71):

reference books,

Winer's

Grammar

of the

New

Testament, as translated

and enlarged by Dr Moulton, stands far above every other for this purpose. It does not need many minutes
to

learn

the ready use of


:

the

admirable indices, of

passages and of subjects and when the book is consulted in this manner, its extremely useful contents

become in most cases readily accessible. Dr Moulton's references to the notes of the best recent English commentaries are a helpful addition.
In

1875
his

Dr Moulton was

transferred

to

Cambridge,

charged by from the foundation a great Public School.

Church with the heavy task

of building

up

Head Master could spare to scholarship almost entirely pledged to the New Testament and Apocrypha Eevision. Naturally it was not possible to do much to his

What time a was for many years

Grammar when
The

the second edition was called for in 1877.

third edition, five years later,

was even

less

delayed for

the incorporation of

new matter; and

in all essential points, just as it first

the book stands now, came from its author's

pen.

Meanwhile the conviction was growing that the next

PREFACE.
edition

IX

must be a new book.


far

Winer's own lust edition,


;

though antiquated, was growing decidedly old its jubilee is in fact celebrated by its English descendant of to-day. The very thoroughness of Winer's work had made useless for the modern student many a disquisition against grammatical heresies which no one would now wish to drag The literature to which Winer from the lumber-room. was largely buried in inaccessible foreign periodicals. appealed

from

And

as the reputation of his editor grew,

men

asked for a

more compact, better arranged, more up-to-date volume, in which the ripest and most modern work should no longer be

Had

stowed away in compressed notes at the foot of the page. time and strength permitted, Dr Moulton would have consulted his most cherished wish by returning to the work of his youth and rewriting his Grammar as an independent
book.

But

"

wisest Fate said No."

He

chose his junior colas


his

league, to

whom

he had given, at

first

pupil,

and

afterwards during years of University training and colleague-

and principles, ship in teaching, an insight into his methods and at least an eager enthusiasm for the subject to which ho But not a page of the new book had devoted his own life. was written when, in February 1898, "God's finger touched him, and he slept."
Since heredity does not suffice to make a grammarian, and there are many roads by which a student of New Testa-

ment language may come

to his

task, I

must add

a word

to explain in what special directions this book may perhaps contribute to the understanding of the inexhaustible subject

with which

it

deals.

Till four

years ago,

my own
classics

teaching

work scarcely touched the Greek Testament,

of my parative philology claiming the major part I have not felt that this time was ill spent as a prepara-

and comBut time.


of

tion for the teaching of the

New

Testament.

The study

the Science of Language in general, and especially in the field of the languages which are nearest of kin to Greek, is well

view from which new light may adapted to provide points of Theologians, adepts in l)e shed on the words of Scripture.
like this
to a task criticism, experts in early Christian literature, bring an equipment to which I can make no pretence.

But there are other

studies, never

more

active than now,

PREFACE.

which may help the biblical student in unexpected ways. The life-history of the Greek language has been investigated with minutest care, not only in the age of its glory, but also throughout the centuries of its supposed senility and decay. Its syntax has been illuminated by the comparative

method

and scholars have arisen who have been

willing to desert the masterpieces of literature and trace the humble development of the Hellenistic vernacular down to
its lineal

descendant in the vulgar tongue of the present day.

Biblical scholars cannot study everything, and there are some of them who liave never heard of Brugmann and Thumb.
It may be some service to introduce them to the side-lights which comparative philology can provide. But I hope this book may bring to the exegete material more important for his purpose, whicli might not otherwise yet come his way. The immense stores of illustration which have been opened to us by the discoveries of Egyptian papyri, accessible to all on their lexical side in the brilliant Bible Studies of Deissmann, have not hitherto been systematically treated in their bearing on the grammar of New Testament Greek. The main purpose of these Prolegomena has accordingly been to provide a sketch of the language of the New Testament as it appears to those who have followed Deissmann into a new field of research. There are many matters of principle needdetailed discussion, and much new illustrative material ing from papyri and inscriptions, the presentation of which will, I In the present volume, hope, be found helpful and suggestive. therefore, I make no attempt at exhaustiveness, and often omit important subjects on which I have nothing new to say. By dint of much labour on the indices, I have tried to provide a partial remedy for the manifold inconveniences of form which the plan of these pages entails. My reviewers en-

courage me to hope that I have succeeded in one cherished ambition, that of writing a Grammar which can be read. The fascination of the Science of Language has possessed me

boyhood I read Max Miiller's incomparable have made it my aim to communicate what I could of this fascination before going on to dry statistics and formulae. In the second volume I shall try to present
ever
since
;

in

Lectures

and

as concisely as I can the systematic facts of Hellenistic acci-

PREFACE.
clence of

xi

and syntax, not

classical

in the form of an appendix to a cjrammar Greek, but giving the later language the indeit

pendent dignity which


the other older scholars,

deserves.

Both Winer

liimself

and

a reviewer thinks I have unduly will naturally bulk more largely than they can do neglected, in chapters mainly intended to describe the most modern

whom

work.

But the mere

citation of authorities, in

a handlook

designed for practical utility, must naturally be subordinated There will, I hope, to the succinct presentation of results.
be small danger of my readers' overlooking my indebtedness to earlier workers, and least of all that to my primary teacher, whose labours it is my supreme object to preserve for the
benefit of a
It

new

generation.

remains to perform the pleasant duty of acknowledging varied help which has contributed a large proportion of anyTt would be thing that may be true or useful in this book.
endless were I to

name

Cambridge,

to

whom

teachers, colleagues, and friends in through twenty years' residence I con-

tracted debts of those manifold and intangible kinds which no can only be summarised in the most inadequate way
:

Cantab who has lived as long within that home of exact science and sincere research, will fail to understand what I
fail to

Next to the Cambridge iniluences are those express. which come from teachers and friends whom I have never seen, and especially those great German scholars whose labours, too little assisted by those of other countries, have estal)lished
the Science of Language on the firm basis
it

occupies to-day.
level with

In

fields

where British scholarship

is

more on a

that of Germany, especially those of biblical exegesis and of Greek classical lore, I have also done my best to learn what

fellow-workers east of the Ehine contribute to the conmion It is to a German professor, working upon the stock.
material of

provided so My appreciation has produced the chief novelty of my worlc. of the memorable achievement of Dr Deissmann is expressed of the book; and I must only add here my in the
grateful

which our own Drs Grenfell and Hunt have I owe the impulse whicli large a proportion, that

body acknowledgement

of

tlie

many encouragements

lie

has given me in my he has made his own.

eClbrts to glean after

He

him in the field has now crowned them with the

xii

PREFACE.
generous appreciations of
to

all too

my work

which he has conTheo-

tributed

the

Theolofjische

Literaturzeitung and the

Another great name figures on most of logische Bundscliau. The services that Professor Blass the pages of this book.
has rendered to
to those

New

he has rendered

Testament study are already almost equal I have to classical scholarship.

frequently obliged to record a difference of opinion, " though never without the inward voice whispering imiyar But the freshness of view which this congressus Achilli."

been

great Hellenist brings to the subject makes him almost as and helpful when he fails to convince as when he succeeds
;

have learned more and more from him, the more earnestly The name of another brilliant I have studied for myself. writer on New Testament grammar will figure more constantly in my second volume than my plan allows it to do in this. Professor Schmiedel has unfortunately been called
I

away from grammar by the h'ne Jcrahmcel, to perform a postThe unmortem examination upon the Gospel history. But rivalled ability of his dissection is beyond question.
as there
is

reason to believe that the Gospels

may

still

be

studied for some time to come, we will venture to express an earnest hope that the learned and painstaking grammarian

may

soon resume his place

clude the

among the interpreters, and conmonumental work which keeps Winer's memory

green in the country of his birth. The mention of the books which have been most fre-

quently used, recalls the need of one or two explanations


before closing this
Preface.

The text which

is

assumed

The throughout is naturally that of Westcott and Hort. principles on whicli it is based, and the minute accuracy with
which they are followed out, seem to allow no alternative to a grammatical worker, even if the B type of text were held But in to be only the result of second century revision. frequently quoting other readings, and especially those which
belong to what
I

Dr Kenyon

follow very readily the precedent of Blass. say that Mr Geden's Concordance has been
use. I have not felt " of higher criticism."

conveniently calls the S-text, I need not


in

continual

l)Ound to enter

much

into questions

the assumption of the

"

In the case of the Synoptic Gospels, " has suggested two-source hypothesis

PREFACE,
a

xiii

Grammar helps grammatical points of interest. which bind together the writint'.s of Luke, and those of Paul (though the Pastorals often need while the Johanniue Gospel and Epistles separate treatment) Whether the similarly form a single grammatical entity.
of

number

to

rivet closer the links

remaining Books add seven or nine to the tale of separate for the Apocalypse, 1 Peter authors, does not concern us here and 2 Peter must be treated individually as much as Hebrews,
;

whether the traditional authorship be accepted or rejected. Last come the specific acknowledgements of most generous and welcome help received directly in the preparation of this
myself fortunate indeed in that three rank in different lines of study have read my proofs through, and helped me with invaluable It is only due to them that I encouragement and advice.
I

volume.

count

scholars of the

first

should claim the sole responsibility for errors whicli I may have failed to escape, in spite of their watchfulness on my
behalf.

Two

of

them are

old friends with

whom

have

G. G. Findlay has gone over my work with minute care, and has saved me from many a loose and ambiguous statement, besides giving me the

taken counsel for

many

years.

Dr

profound and accurate exegesis, which students works on St Paul's Epistles know well. Dr Eendel Harris has brought me fresh lights from other points of view and I have been particularly glad of criticism from a
fruit of his of his
;

specialist in

Syriac,

who speaks with

authority on matters

which take a prominent place in

my

argument.
of

The

third

name

is

that of Professor Albert

Thumb,

Marburg.

The

kindness of this great scholar, in examining so carefully the work of one who is still ayvoovfipo<; tu> nrpoaajTru), cannot
be adequately acknowledged here. Nearly every page of my book owes its debt either to his writings or to the criticisms and suQ-crestions with which he has favoured me. At least CO twice he has called my attention to important articles in and in my illustrations English which I had overlooked from Modern Greek I have felt myself able to venture often into fields which might have been full of pitfalls, had I not
;

been secure in his expert guidance. Einally, in the necessary of index-making I have had welcome aid at home. drudgery drawing up the index of Scripture quotations, my mother

By

XIV has done for


ago.

PREFACE.

me

wliat she did for

My

brother, the Rev.

W.

my father nearly forty years Fiddiau Moiilton, M.A., lias

spared time from a busy pastor's


index.
to

To

all

these

life to make me the Greek who have helped me so freely, and

many

others whose encouragement and counsel has been

I would mention especially my Manchester colleagues, Dr E. W. Moss and Professor A. S. Peake I tender my heartfelt thanks.

a constant stimulus

The new features


within narrow range.

of

this edition are necessarily confined

The Additional Notes are suggested

by my own reading or by suggestions from various reviewers and correspondents, whose kindness I gratefully acknowledge. A new lecture by Professor Thumb, and reviews by such scholars as Dr Marcus Dods, Dr H. A. A. Kennedy, and Dr Souter, have naturally provided more material than I can at 'present use. My special thanks are due to Mr H. Scott, of Oxton, Birkenhead, who went over the index of texts and two or three complicated numerical computations in the body of the book, and sent me unsolicited some corrections and additions, for which the reader will add his gratitude to mine. As far as was possible, the numerous additions to the Indices have been worked in at their place but some pages of Addenda have been necessary, which will not, I hope,
;

seriously inconvenience the reader.

The unbroken kindness

of

my

reviewers makes

it

needless for

me

to reply to criticisms

I am tempted to enlarge upon one or two remarks in the learned and helpful Athenaeum review, but will confine myself " to a comment on the " awkward results which the writer

here.

anticipates from the evidence of the papyri as set forth in my " work. Prolegomena, he says, really prove that there can

My

be no grammar of New Testament Greek, and that the grammar of the Greek in the New Testament is one and the same with the grammar of the common Greek of the I agree papyri." with everything except the " awkwardness " of this result for me. To call this book a Grammar of the Common
'

'

'

'

Greek, and enlarge it by including phenomena which do not happen to be represented in the New Testament, would But the practical advantages of certainly be more scientific. attention to what concerns the confining grammatical interpretation uf a

Book

of

unique importance, written in a language

rilEFACE.

XV

which has ahsoUitoly no otlier literature worthy of the name, need hardly be laboured here, and this furevvurd is already
lono;

enough.

am

as conscious as ever of the shortcomings


in the

of this

book when placed

succession of one which has

so

many associations of learning and industry, of caution But I hope that its many deficiencies flawless accuracy.
not prevent
it

and

may

from leading its readers nearer to the meaning Tiie of the great literature which it strives to interpret. new tool is certain not to be all its maker fondly wished it but from a vein so rich in treasure even the poorest to be
;

instrument can hardly

fail to

bring out nuggets of pure gold.


J.

H. M.

DiDSBURY College, Aug.

13, 1906.

COI^TEN^TS.

FA OK
I.

General Characteristics
History of the "Common" Greek

II.

22

III.

Notes on the Accidence

IV.

Syntax

The Noun

V. Adjectives, Pronouns, Prepositions VI. VII.


VIII.
IX.

The Verb The Verb The Verb The

Tenses and Modes of Action


Voice

The Moods

Infinitive and Participle

Additional Notes

.... .... ....


. .
.

42 57
77

108 152

164

202

233
242

Additional Notes to the Second Edition


I.

Index to Quotations

250 266 270 282

II.

Index op Greek Words and Forms Index of Subjects


to Indices

III.

Addenda

xvi

ABBREVIATIONS.

names of Books of Scripture will explain themand Apocrypha the names of the Books follow the English RV (except Ca for Song of Songs), as also do the numbers for chapter and verse the LXX numbering, where it differs, is added widiiu
Abbreviations
In the
for tlie
selves.

OT
:

brackets.

date

Centuries are denoted iii/B.c, is given. Where the date may


iv/v a.d., etc.

ii/A.D., etc., fall

except when an exact within wider limits, the notation


or inscriptions are not dated,
I (c)

is ii/i B.C.,
it

Where papyri

may

generally be taken that no date is given by the editor. The abbreviations for papyri and inscriptions are given in Index
(d),

below, with the full titles of the collections quoted. The ordinary abbreviations for MSS, Versions, and patristic writers are used in textual notes.
pp. 251
ft",

and

hoped, need no explanation perhaps It should be oliserved that references are to pages, unless otherwise stated papyri and inscripIn all these documents the usual tions are generally cited by number. notation is followed, and the original spelling preserved.

Other abbreviations
for

will, it is

MGr

Modern Greek should be mentioned.

Abbott
.4

see Index

I (e)

iii.

JP=American Journal

of Philology, ed. B. L. Gildersleeve, Baltimore

1880 fF. Archiv see Index I (c). Audollent see Index I

(c).

BGHsee Index
tr.

(c).

Blass = Grammar of

NT Greek, by F. Blass. Second English edition, (This diff^ers from ed.^ only Thackeray, London 1905. by the addition of pp. 306-333. Occasional reference is made to the second German edition, GiJttingen 1902.) Sometimes the reference the context is to notes in Blass's Acta AiMstolorum ((iuttingen 1895)
H. St
J.
:

Tenses, by E. D. Barton. Second edition, Edinburgh 1894. Buttmann = Grammar of New Testament Greek, by A. Buttmann. Andover 1876. English edition by J. H. Thayer, 1892 ff. 7?Z=Byzantinische Zeitschrift, ed. K. Krumbacher, Leipzig

make it clear. Burton ilfr=New Testament Moods and


will

Gauer

see Index

I (t).

C'(Tjr=

Cambridge Greek Testament

for Schools xvu

and

Colleges.

xviii
CJ2 = Classical

ABBREVIATIONS.
Review (London 1887
ft'.).

Especially reference

is

made

forms and syntactical examples from the papyri, in CR xv. 31-38 and 434-442 (Feb. and Dec. 1901), and xviii. 106-112 and 151-1.55 (March and April 1904 to be continued).
to the writer's collection of

Dalman
tr.

Worils = T\\Q

Words

of Jesus,

by G. Dalmau.

English edition,

D. M. Kay, Edinburgh 1902.


(rra?7i?ji.

Dalman

= Grammatik

des jiidisch-palastinischen Aramiiisch,


5 vols.,

by

G. Dalman, Leipzig 1894. 2)5= Dictionary of the Bible, edited by J. Hastings. 1898-1904.

Edinburgh

Deissmann 6'= Bible Studies, hj G. A. Deissmann. English edition, mc\\x(}i\\\g Bihelstiulien and Neue Biheldudien, tr. A. Grieve, Edinburgh
1901.

Deissmann In

Chrisfo

= T>ie neutestamentliche
*

Formel " in Christo

.Jesu,"

by G. A. Deissmann, Marbui'g 1892. Delbrilck Grundr. = Grundvisis der vergleichenden

Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, by K. Brugmann and B. Delbriick Dritter Band, Vergleichende Syntax, by Delbriick, Strassburg 18931900. (References to Brugmann's part, on phonology and morphology, are given to his own abridgement, Kiirze vergleichende Orauunutik, 1904, which has also an abridged Comparative Syntax.)
:

Dieterich

[/"HicTs.

Sjjrache,

= Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der griechischen von der hellenistischen Zeit bis zum 10. Jahrh. n. Chr., by
Literaturzeitung, Leipzig.

K. Dieterich, Leipzig 1898.

DLZ= Deutsche

J5 = Encyclopaedia Biblica, edited by T. K. Cheyne and J. S. Black. 4 vols., London 1899-1903. (tT= Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. 4 vols. (vol. iv. not jet published), London 1897-1903. 49 vols., London Exj) i?= Expositor's Bible, edited by W. R. Nicoll.
1887-1898.

Expos = The Expositor, edited by W. R. and page. London 1875 ff.

Nicoll.

Cited by series, volume,


ff.

Exp

T= The Expository Times, edited by J. Hastings. Edinburgh 1889 = Studies in Honor of Professor Gildersleeve, Baltimore. Gildersleeve *%?(i. = Syntax of Classical Greek, by B. L. Gildersleeve and
Gildersleeve iSiwdies

C.

W.

E. Miller.

Giles ilffmMaZstudents,

=A

Part i. New York 1900. Short Manual of Comparative Philology for classical
of the

Second edition, London 1901. Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb, by W. W. Goodwin. Third edition, London 1889. Goodwin Greek Gram. = A Greek Grammar, by W. W. Goodwin. London

Goodwin

MT= Syntax

by

P. Giles.

1894.

Grimm-Thayer = Grimm's

AYilke's Glavis

Novi Tesfamenti, translated and

Hatzidakis = Einleitung in die Hatzidakis. Leipzig 1892.

" enlarged by J. H. Thayer, as Testament." Edinburgh 1886.

Greek-English Lexicon of the

New

neugriechische Grammatik, by G. N,

ABBREVIATIONS.
Hawkins HS^Hovtc

xix

HR = A Concordance
Oxford 1897.

Oxford 1890. Synoplica', hy J. C. Hawkins. to the Septuagint, by E. JIalcIi and II. A. Itcditatli,

IMA see Index


Imlo<j.
i'^orsc/i,.

(c).

= Indogermani.sclie

and W. Streitberg.
Jannaris

HG=A

Forschungen, edited by K. I'riigmanii Strassburg 1892 ff. Historical Greek Grammar, l)y A. N. Jannari.s. London
Literature.

1897.

JBL = J onrnul of Biblical JHS see Index I (r).


J'TS= Journal
Jiilicher
JHi)-0(:Z.

Boston 1881

ff.

Testament, by A. Jiilicher. Ward, London 1904. Kiilker = Qua3stiones de elocutione Polybiana, by F. Kaelker. In Leipziger

of Theological Studies. Introduction to tlie

London 1900 ff.

New

English edition,
III. ii.,

tr.

by

J. P.

Studien

1880.

Kiihner''', or Kiihner-Blass,

Kiihner-Gerth = Ausfiihrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sjirache, by R. Kiihner. Third edition, FAiiiiiuDlar- und Formenlehre, by F. Blass. 2 vols., Hannover 1890-2. Hatzhhre, by
B. Gerth. 2 vols., 1898, 1904.
fiir

iirZ=Kuhn's Zeitschrift
Giitersloh 1852
ff.

vergleichende Sprachforschung.
II.

Berlin and

LS = A Greek-English
edition,

Lexicon, by

G. Liddell and R. Scott.

Eighth

Oxford 1901.
^5

= Grammatik der attischen Inschriften, by K. Meisterhaus. Third edition by E. Schwyzer (see p. 29 n.), Berlin 1900. = Concordance to the Greek Testament, by W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden. Edinburgh 1897. = Commentary on the Gospel of St John, by W. Milligau Milligan-]\Ioulton and W. F. Moulton. Edinburgh 1898. see Index I {d). Mithraslit. Second edition, Monro 170 = Homeric Grammar, b}- D. B. Monro.
Meisterhans

MG

Oxfor.1 1891.

Nachmanson = Laute und Formen der Magnetischen


Nachmanson, LTppsala 1903.

Inschriften,

b_v

E.

Ramsay Paul^Vawl the Traveller and Roman Third edition, London 1897.
^J53=Herzog-Hauck
Realencydo'ptkUe.

Citizen,

by W. M. Ramsay.
Leipzig.

(In progress.)

REG'r = 'R.evne des Etudes grecques. Paris 1888 tf. Reinhold = De Grtccitate Patrum, by H. Reinhold.
i2fcikf=Rheini&ches

Halle 1898.

Museum.

Bonn 127

ff.

Riddell = A Digest of Platonic Idioms, by the Ajiology, Oxford 18C7).

J.

Riddell (in his edition of

Rutherford

NP = The New Ph rynichus, by W. G. Rutherford, London


= Beitragezurhistorischen
fl".

881

Schanze^<r.

Syntax der griechischen Sprache,

edited by M. Schanz. Wiirtzburg 1882 Schmid Attic. = 1)61' Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern von Dionysius von Halikarnass bis auf den zweiten Philostratus, by W\ Schmid. 4 vols, and Register, Stuttgart 1887-1897.

XX
Schmidt
J'os.

ABBEEVIATIONS.

Schulze Gr.

Schwyzer

= De Flavii Joseplii elocutione, by W. Schmidt, Leipzig 1893. = Gr0eca Latina, by W. Schulze, Gottingen 1901. = Graminatik der pergamenischeu Iiischrif'ten, Ijy E. Pe?-^.
Zrt<.

Schweizer

(see p.

29

n.),

Berlin 1898.

SH = The

Eomans, by W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam. Fifth edition, Edinburgh 1902. T/iI(Z= Theologische Literaturzeitung, edited by A. Harnack and E.
Epistle to the
Schiirer, Leipzig 1876 ff. Die griechische Hellen.

Thumb
Thumb

Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus,

hy A. Thnmb, Strassburg 1901.

i7c?6. = Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache, by A. Thumb, Strassburg 1895.

Ti = Novum Testamentum Greece, b_v C. Tischendorf. Editio octava critica maior. 2 vols., Leipzig 1869-72. Also vol. iii, Ijy R.

Gregory, containing Prolegomena, 1894. Viereck SG see Index I (c).

Viteau=: Etude sur

Le Verbe

le grec du Nouveau Testament, by J. Viteau. Vol. i, vol. ii, Sujet, Syntaxe des Propositions, Paris 1893
;

ComiDlement et Attribut, 1896. Volker= Syntax der griechischen Papyri.


Miinster
i.

L Der

Artikel,

by F. Vdlker,
C.

W.

1903.
of the Infinitive in Bil)lical Greek,

Votaw = The Use

by
J.

W. Votaw.

Chicago 1896. Wellh. = Einleitung in die drei ersteu Evangelien, by


Berlin 1905.

Wellhausen.

WH = The New Testament


F. J. A. Hort.

in the Original Greek,

by B. F. Westcott and
;

Vol.

i.

Text

(also ed.

minor)

vol.

ii,

Introduction.

WH

WM

WS = G.

Cambridge and London 1881. ^y^. = Appendix to WH, in vol. ii, containing Notes on Select Readings and on Orthography, etc. = A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, regarded as a sure basis for New Testament Exegesis, by G. B. Winer. Trans lated from the German, with large additions and full indices, by W. F. Moulton. Third edition, Edinburgh 1882.
B. Winer's

Grammatik des neutestamentlichen

Sjirachidioms.
ff.

Eighth edition, newly edited by P.


(In progress.)

W.

Schmiedel, Gottmgen 1894

^iVT?F= Zeitschrift
E. Preuscheu.

fiir

die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by


1900f;'.

Giessen

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

PROLEGOMENA.
CHAPTER
I.

General Characteristics.

New

As
Lights.
of

recently as 1895, in the opening chapter


a

beginner's

manual

of

New

Testament

Greek, the present writer defined the language as "Hebraic In this definition Greek, colloquial Greek, and late Greek." features of the dialect were expressed the characteristic according to a formula which was not questioned then by
It was entirely any of the leading writers on the subject. Dr W. F. Moulton, who would undoubtedly at approved by that time have followed these familiar lines, had he been able

to achieve his long cherished purpose of rewriting his English Winer as an independent work. It is not without imperative reason that, in this first instalment of a work in which father's collaborator, I have been comto be I

hoped

my

the position he took, in view of pelled seriously to modify fresh evidence which came too late for him to examine.
" coinmon In the second edition of the manual referred to,^ " is substituted for the first element in the definition. Greek The disappearance of that word "Hebraic" from its prominent place in our delineation of NT language marks a less than rechange in our conceptions of the subject nothing It in theory alone. This is not a revolution volutionary.

Introduction to the Study of Neic Testament Greek, witli a First Reader.


(0.

Second Edition, 1904


I

H. Kelly).

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

It demands large touches exegesis at inuumerable points. modifications in our very latest grammars, and an overhauling To write a new of our best and most trusted commentaries.

so soon after the appearance of fresh light which transforms in very important respects our whole point of But it must not view, may seem a premature undertaking.

Grammar,

be supposed

that

we

are

concerned with a revolutionary

our science to theory which needs time for readjusting The development of the Greek language, in conditions. Plato and Demosthenes from our period which separates has been patiently studied for a generation, and
days,

new
the

own
the

main

have been thoroughly estabWhat has happened to our own particular study is lished. the larger science which only the discovery of its unity with
lines of a scientific history

has been maturing steadily

all

the time.

"

Biblical

Greek

"

was long supposed

to lie in a

backwater

it

has

now been

brought out into the

we have now
a more

full stream of progress. fresh material for illustrating our subject, and certain methodology for the use of material which

It follows that

we had

already at hand.

The
"(SSk^"^
in

isolated position of the

Greek found
this
liter-

the LXX and the NT has

been the problem

dividing grammatical students of

That the Greek Scriptures, and ature for generations past. of writings which in language go with the small body
them, were written in the Koivr], the
" istic

"

common "

or

"

Hellen-

Greek ^ that superseded the dialects of the classical But it was most obviously period, was well enough known. It could not different from the literary Kotvr) of the period. be adequately paralleled from Plutarch or Arrian, and the Jewish writers Philo and Josephus ^ were no more helpful
than their
"

"

profane

contemporaries.

Naturally the pecu-

Greek came to be explained from its own conditions. The LXX was in " translation Greek," its syntax determined perpetually by that of the original Hebrew. Much the same was true of large parts of the NT, where
liarities of Biblical
^

I shall

use the terms Hellenistic, Hellenist, and Hellenism throughout for

the Greek of the later period, which had become coexteusive with Western
civilisation.
2

See below,

p.

233.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS.

translation had taken place from an But original Aramaic. even where this was not the case, it was argued, tlie writers used Greek as foreigners, Aramaic thought underlying Greek Moreover, they were so familiar with tlie LXX expression.

that

its

idiosyncrasies

passed
"

largely into their


"

own

style, dis-

which accordingly was charged with Semitisms from two


tinct sources.
"

Hence

this

Judaic

^ language of the Holy Ghost," and never profaned by common

Greek, this found in the sacred writings


It

or

"

Biblical

"

use.

was a phenomenon

against which the science


objection.
classical

of

language could raise no a priori

The Greek

Purist, who insisted on finding parallels in literature for everything in the Greek NT,

found his task impossible without straining language to the His antagonist the Hebraist went absurdly breaking-point.
far in recognising

operative. like G. B.

Semitic influence where none was really But when a grammarian of balanced judgement Winer came to sum up the bygone controversy, he

was found admitting enough Semitisms to make the Biblical Greek essentially an isolated language still. It is just this isolation which the new ^"^^'i^^^ comes in to destroy." The Greek Deissmzmn
'

papyri of Egypt are in themselves nothing but their importance for the historical study of the language did not begin to be realised until, within the last
novel
;

decade or
of

so, the explorers began to enrich us with an output treasure which has been perpetually fruitful in surprises.

The attention

of the classical

world has been busy with the

and the new poets Bacchylides and while theologians everywhere have eagerly disHerodas, " But even these last must cussed new Sayings of Jesus." in importance to the spoil which has been gathered yield from the wills, official reports, private letters, petitions, accounts, and other trivial survivals from the rubbish-heaps of antiquity.^ They were studied by a young investigator of
lost treatise of Aristotle

genius, at that time known only by one small treatise on the Pauline formula ev Xpiarw, which to those who read it now shows abundantly the powers that were to achieve such

So Crenier, Bihlico-Theological Lexicon of


(Cited by

NT

ing Rothe.

Thumb,

Hellenisvius 181.)

Greek, p. iv (E.T.), follow["''See p. 242.

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

Deisssplendid pioneer work within three or four years. mann's Bihelstiulien appeared in 1895, his Neuc Bihelstudien ^
in 1 8 9 7.
It is needless to describe

how

these lexical researches

and the later inscriptions proved that hundreds " technical words, of words, hitherto assumed to be Biblical," as it were, called into existence or minted afresh by the were in reality normal firstlanguage of Jewish religion, Greek, excluded from literature by the nice century spoken Professor Deissmann dealt but canons of Atticising taste.
in the papyri

with the grammatical features of this newly-discovered but no one charged with the duty of editing a Grammar of NT Greek could read his work without seeing that a
briefly

Greek

systematic grammatical study in this field was the indisIn that conviction the pensable equipment for such a task.
present writer set himself to the study of the collections which have poured with bewildering rapidity from the busy

workshops

of

Oxford

and

Berlin,

and

others,

only,

less

The lexical gleanings after Deissmann which conspicuous. these researches have produced, almost entirely in documents
published since his books were written, have enabled me to confirm his conclusions from independent investigation.^ large part of my grammatical material is collected in a
series of papers in the Classical Bevietv (see p. xviii.), to which I shall frequently have to make reference in the ensuing

pages as supplying in detail the evidence for the results here to be described.

The new linguistic facts now in evidence show with startling clearness that we have Greek at last before us the language in which the The papyri exhibit in their apostles and evangelists wrote.
writers a variety of literary education even wider than that observable in the NT, and we can match each sacred author

with documents that in respect of Greek stand on about the same plane. The conclusion is that " Biblical " Greek, except where it is translation Greek, was simply the vernacular of
daily
^

life.^

Men who

aspired to literary fame wrote in an

See p. xviii. above.

See Expositor for April 1901 and February anrl December 1903. ^ Cf Wellhausen (Einl. 9): "In the Gospels, spoken Greek, and indeed Greek spoken among the lower classes, makes its entrance into literature."

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS.
artificial dialect,

a would-be revival of the langungc of Athens


as educated

in her prime, mucli

profess
in

to do.

The

NT

writers

Greeks of tlie present day had little idea tliat they

literature. The Holy Ghost spoke absolutely the language of the people, as we might surely have He would. The writings inspired of Him were expected those

were writing

AVhich he

may

Or builds tho

read that binds the sheaf, house, or digs the grave,


tlie

And

those wikl eyes that watch


reef.

wave

In roarings round the coral

The very grammar and dictionary cry out against men who would allow the Scriptures to appear in any other form than
that
.

"

uuderstauded
.

of the people."

__

There
^

is

Language.
It

^^ ^^ study

one very striking fact brought out of papyri and inscriptions which

was

language

preserve for us the Hellenistic vernacular. without serious dialectic differences,

except presumably in

The history of tliis pronunciation. Here it lingua franca must be traced in a later chapter. suffices to point out that in the first centuries of our era
Greek covered a
far larger proportion of the civilised world

than even English does to-day." Juvenal (iii. 60 f.)

The well-knuwn heroics


ferre, Quirites,

of

Non possum
Graecam Urbem
joined with the Greek and the Greek Epistle
that a
It
"

Ek

'Eavrov
little

"

of tlie

Eoman Emperor

to the

Romans, serve as obvious evidence


Latin to live in

man need have known

Eome

itself.^

was not Italy but Africa that first called for a Latin Bible.^ That the Greek then current in almost every part of the Empire was virtually imiform is at first a startling fact, and to no one so startling as to a student of the science of language.
Dialectic differentiation
is

the root principle of that science

^
;

Cf A. S. Wilkins, Roman Edvcalion 19 SIX Hi fF. So at least most critics believe. Dr Sauday, however, j)refer.s Antiocli, which suits our point equally well. Rome is less likely. See Dr Kennedy in

Hastings'
*

BD

iii.

54.

See, for instance, the writer's I'wo Lectures on the Science of Langna'je, [ See p. 242. pp. 21-23.

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

and when wc know how actively it works within the narrow limits of Great Britain, it seems strange that it should apparently be suspended in the vast area covered by Hellenistic shall return to this difficulty later (pp. 19-39): Greek. for the present we must be content with the fact that any

We

exist is mostly beyond the range Inscriptions, distributed knowledge to detect. over the whole area, and dated with precision enough to trace the slow development of the vernacular as it advanced towards Mediieval and Modern Greek, present us with a grammar which only lacks homogeneity according As we have seen, the as their authors varied in culture. papyri of Upper Egypt tally in their grammar with the language seen in the NT, as well as with inscriptions like No one can fail to those of Pergamum and Magnesia. see how immeasurably important these conditions were for The historian marks the fact the growth of Christianity.
dialect variation that did
of our present

that the Gospel began its career of conquest at the one period in the world's annals when civilisation was concen-

under a single ruler. The grammarian adds that was the only period when a single language was understood throughout the countries which counted for the history The historian and the grammarian must of of that Empire. " course refrain from talking about Providence." They would " " an apologetic bias or " an edifying tone," be suspected of and that is necessarily fatal to any reputation for scientific attainment. We will only remark that some old-fashioned
trated
this

people are disposed to see in these facts a way as instructive as the Gift of Tongues.

cyi/fxelov

in

its

It is needless to observe that except in the Greek world, properly so called, Greek did not hold a monopoly. Egypt throughout the long of the Greek papyri is very strongly bilingual, the period mixture of Greek and native names in the same family, and

cult to tell the race of


^

the prevalence of double nomenclature, often making it diffian individual.^ bilingual country

It should lie noted tliat in the papyri we have not to do only witli In Par P 48 (158 B.C.) tlierc is a letter addressed to an Egyptians and Greeks. Aral) by two of liis hrothers. The editor, M. Brunet de Presle, remarks as follows on this :^" It is worth our while to notice the rapid diffusion of Greek,

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS.

is vividly presented to us in the narrative of Ac 1 4, where the apostles preach in (Ireek and are imahlc to understand the excited populace when they relapse into Lycaonian. What the local Greek was like, we may gauge from such specimens as the touching Christian epitapli published by Mr Cronin in

" httle 430), and dated if at all later than We need not develop the evidence iii/A.D." for other countries it is more to the point if we look at the

JHS, 1902,

p.

369

(see

Exp T

x\y.

conditions of a
at

bilingual country, such as we have in the country of Wales. Any popular English politician or preacher, visiting a place in the heart of the Princi-

modern

home

pality, could be sure of an audience, even if it he would speak in English. If he did, they

were assumed that would understand

But should he unexpectedly address them in Welsh, we " be very sure they would be " the more quiet and a may speaker anxious to conciliate a hostile meeting would gain a
him.
;

great initial advantage if he could surprise them with the sound of their native tongue.^ Now this is exactly what

happened when Paul addressed the Jerusalem mob from the stairs of Antonia. They took for granted he would speak " in Greek, and yet they made a great Xp " silence when he faced them with the gesture which indicated a wish to address them. Schiirer nods, for when he calls in Paxil's Aramaic speech as a witness of once,
.

the people's ignorance of Greek."


"
"

inadequate
for

possibility

It does not prove even the which he gives as the alternative knowledge " the lower classes, if by inadequate know-

after Alexander's conquest, anions a mass of people who in all other respects The jealously preserved their national characteristics under foi'cign masters. here Arabs, who do not appear papyri show us Egyptians, Persians, Jews, and We must not be too to the upper classes, using the Greek lan'j;uagc. to

belong Nevertheless tlie letter wjiich exacting towards them iu the matter of style. follows is almost irreproachable in syntax and orthography, wliieh does not in always happen even with men of Greek birth." If these remarks, published had been followed up as they deserved, Deissmann wouhl have come
1865, too late.
It
is

how little attention was aroused by tlie great collections and London, until the recent flood of discovery set in. 1 These words were written before I had read Dr T. K. Abbott's able, but On ]i. 164 he gives an not always conclusive, article in his volume of Essays. incident from bilingual Ireland exactly piirallcl witli thai iuingined aliovo. Prof. T. H. Williams tells me he has often heard Welsh teachers illustrating the (On Lystra, see p. 233.) narrative of Ac 21'*" 22^ in the same way.
strange
of papyri at I'aris
2

Jexoish Peoi^le,

ii.

i.

48 (^

ii.

63).

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

" would have been unable to ledge is implied that the crowd follow a Greek speech. They thought and spoke among themselves, like the Welsh, exclusively in their native tongue but we may well doubt if there were many of them who could
;

not understand the world-language, or even speak in it when We have in fact a state of things essentially the necessary.^ But the imperfect knowledge of Greek same as in Lystra.

which may be assumed

for

the masses in Jerusalem

and

Lystra is decidedly less probable for Galilee and Hellenist Jews, ignorant of Aramaic, would be found there as and the proportion of foreigners would be in Jerusalem much larger. That Jesus Himself and the Apostles regularly
Peraea.
;

beyond question, but that Greek was also There is not the at command is almost equally certain. slightest presumption against the use of Greek in writings purporting to emanate from the circle of the first believers.^ They would write as men who had used the language from
used Aramaic
is

boyhood, not as foreigners painfully expressing themselves Their Greek would differ in an imperfectly known idiom.
in

quality

private

letters

according to their education, like that of the But it does among the Egyptian papyri.

not appear that any of them used Greek as we may sometimes find cultured foreigners using English, obviously transEven lating out of their own language as they go along.
the
^

Greek

of the

Apocalypse

itself

does not seem to owe any

in his Einl. in das

Greek in Palestine is very fully stated by Zahn Of also Jiilicher in EB ii. 2007 ff. I am glad " Hellenism in to find my view corroborated by Mahaffy, in his lectures on Alexander's Empire" see pp. 130 f., where he says, " Though we may believe that in Galilee and among his intimates our Lord spoke Aramaic, and though we know that some of his last words upon the cross were in that language, yet his public teaching, his discussions with the Pharisees, his talk with Pontius Pilate, were certainly carried on in Greek." Professor Mahaffy is no specialist on Gospel criticism any more, I might add, than on Buildliism, and it would be hard to persuade modern scholars that Christ's ^*?<&//c (p. 100), But though he goes too far, he takes the teaching was mainly in Greek. direction in which every student of Hellenism is driven. I wish he had developed his thesis we could have spared for this purpose many space-filling allusions to modern politics, on which the Professor is no wiser than the rest of us. Dr T. K. Abbott {Essays 170) jtoints out that Justin Martyr, brought up near Sichem early in ii/A.D., depends entirely on the LXX a circumstance which is ignored by Mgr Barnes in his attempt to make a different use of
for the use of

The evidence

NT,
:

ch.

ii.

Justin

{jrS

vi.

369).

(See further below, p. 233.)

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS.
.

Apocalypse.
casual reader.

of its blunders to " ircbiaisin."

The author's
.

uncertain use ot cases

is

obvious to the most

.,

In any other writer we might be tempted to time over ra? Xv^fia^ in V^, where twv spend \v)(vio)v is for him it is enough to say that the clearly needed
:

neighbouring
find

01/9

may have produced


indifferent to

the aberration.

We

him perpetually

concord.

educated papyri give us plentiful jiarallels Semitism cannot be suspected.^ After all,

But the less from a field where

Shakspere

of
^

you and I." modern times would say " between I and you," any more than the author of the Apocalypse would have said airh
/MapTVi 6 TTio-To? (1^): it is only that his grammatical sense is satisfied when the governing word has afTected the case of

we do not suspect because he says " between foreign upbringing Neither he nor his unconscious imitators in

one

object.^

We

shall find

that other peculiarities of the

footing. Apart from places where he may be definitely translating a Semitic document, there is no reason to believe that his grammar would have been materially different had he been a native of Oxyrliynchus, Close to assuming the extent of Greek education the same.'*

writer's

Greek are on the same

See

my

neglected, in CH xviii. 151. an intentional tour de force.


'Irjaov
^
.

exx. of jiom. in apposition to noun in another case, and of f^encliT Cf also below, p. 60. ('AttA 6 wv, V, is of course Note the same thing in the 5-text of 2 Th 1, )

didovs

(D*FG and

sonic Latin authorities).

Antonio's letter). Mercliant of Venice, in. ii. (end ^ "Drive far away the There are parallels to this in liorrect English. " disastrous Keres, they who destroy (Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of
p. 168) would not be mended by substituting Ihcm. The grammatical peculiarities of the book are conveidently summarised for a full account sec the inin a few lines by Jiilicher, Introd. to NT, p. 273 It may be well to troduction to Bousset's Commentary, in the Meyer series. observe, a propos of the curious Greek of Eev, that grammar here nnist play a It will not do to appeal to grammar to prove that part in literary criticism. the author is a Jew as far as that goes, he might just as well liave been a farmer of the Fayiim. Thought and material must exclusively determine that But as that point is hardly doubtful, we pass on to a more iuii)ortant question.

Greek Religion,
*

from the imperfect Greek culture of this book. If its date was 95 A.D, the author cannot have written the fourth Gospel only a short time after. Either, therefore, we must take the earlier date foi' Rev, which would allow the Apostle to improve his Greek by constant use in a city lilvc Eiihesus where his Aramaic would be useless ; or we must suppose that someone (say, the author of Jn 21--') mended his grammar for him throughout the Gospel.
inference

10

A GRAMxAIAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

the other end of the scale comes the learned Eabbi of Tarsus. " Hebrew, the son of Hebrews," he calls

^Hebrews^'
as his

himself (Phil 3^), and Zahn is no doubt right in inferring that he always claimed Aramaic

mother tongue. But he had probably used G-reek from childhood with entire freedom, and during the main part of
his life
all.

may have had few


(Rom
8^^,

opportunities of using Aramaic at

Father
of

It is highly precarious to "

argue with Zahn from "Abba,

Gal

Paul's prayers. belonging to the first

4^), that Aramaic was the language The peculiar sacredness of association

word

of the Lord's Prayer in its original

of its liturgitongue supplies a far more probable account cal use among Gentile Christians.^ Finally, we have the

Luke^ and the audor ad Hcbra:os, both of whom known no Aramaic at all to the former we may Between these extremes the NT must return presently. and of them all we may assert with some conwriters lie fidence that, where translation is not involved, we shall find hardly any Greek expression used which would sound strangely
Gentile
well have
: ;

to speakers of the Koivrj in Gentile lands.

To what extent then should we expect .^^ ^^ Jewish Greek writers ^^ Semitisms. ^ ^ ^.^ coloured by the influence of Aramaic or Hebrew ? Here our Welsh analogy helps us. Captain Fluellen is marked in Shakspere not only by his Welsh pronunciation of

Genume

^^

look you." English, but also by his fondness for the phrase Now " look you " is English I am told it is common in the
:

"

man we

it from Shakspere's Welshshould probably not be struck by it as a bizarre But why does Fluellen use it so often ? Because expression.

Dales, and

if

we could

dissociate

Here we ouly state the Otherwise, we must join the ranks of the Xwpijo^'res. contribution f;rammar must make to this great problem : other considerations must decide the answer. Dr Bartlet (in Ex}^ T for Feb. 1905, p. 206) puts Rev and assigns it to the author of Jn he thinks that Prof. under
Vespasian
:

Ramsay's account {Seven Churches, p. 89) does not leave sufficient time for the development of Greek style. ^ Cf Bp Chase, in Texts and Studies, i. iii. 23. This is not very different from but Paul will not allow the devout Roman Catholic's "saying Paternoster" even one word of prayer in a foreign tongue without adding an instant translaNote that Padcr is the Welsh name for the Lord's Prayer. (See p. 233.) tion. 2 Cf Dalman, Words, 40 f.
;

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS.
it

11

two or three Welsh phrases of nearly identical which would be very much on his tongue when meaning, For the same reason the talking with his own countrymen. modern Welshman overdoes the word " indeed." In exactly the
translates

same way the good Attic interjection tSov is used by some writers, with a frequency quite un-Attic, simply because they were accustomed to the constant use of an interjection in their

NT

own

tongue.^

Probably this

equivalent is the furthest

extent to which Semitisms went in the ordinary Greek speech or writing of men whose native language was Semitic. It

brought into prominence locutions, correct enough as Greek, but which would have remained in comparatively rare use but for
the accident of their answering to Hebrew or Aramaic jihrases. Occasionally, moreover, a word with some special metaphorical

meaning might be translated into the literally corresponding Greek and used with the same connotation, as when the verb pn, in the ethical sense, was represented not l)y the exactly But these answering avacnpe<^ecr6ai, but by Trepnrareiv? cases are very few, and may be transferred any day to the
other category, illustrated above in the case of Ihov, by the It must not be forgotten discovery of new papyrus texts.
Note that James uses lSo6 6 times in his short Epistle, Paul only 9 times In Ac 1-12 it appears 16 times, (including one quotation) in all his writings. in 13-28 only 7 its rarity in the Gentile atmosphere is characteristic. It is
:

instructive to note the figures for narrative as against speeches

and
4

OT quotations.
Lk
16/1/40;

Mt
Ac

has 33 in narrative, 4 in quotations, 24 in speeches Add that .In 0/1/3. (1-12) 4/0 12, Ac (13-28) 1/0/6
;

Mk

0/1/6;

Hob has

OT quotations

and no other occurrence, and Rev has no less than 26 occurrences. It is obvious that it was natural to Hebrews in speech, and to some of them (not Mk or Jn) in narrative. Luke in the Palestinian atmosphere (Lk, Ac 1-12) employs it freely, whether reproducing his sources or bringing in a trait of Hort {Ecdesia, p. 179) says l5ov local character like Shakspere with Fluellen. is "a phrase which when writing in his own person and sometimes even in speeches [Luke] reserves for sudden and as it were providential interpositions." He does not appear to include the Gospel, to which the remark is evidently inAc 1-12. But applicable, and this fact somewhat weakens its application to with this reservation we may accept the independent testimony of Horfs instinct to our conclusion that Luke when writing without external influences upon him would use l5o<> as a Greek would use it. The same is true of Paul. Let

me

toLk

quote in conclusion a curiously close parallel, unfortunately late (iv/v a.d.) 13'" BU 948 (a letter) yiviiiuKeiv iOiXwori direvo Kpayfj-aTevrrji on i) fjL-qrrip
:

cov aaOcvZ,
^

ei5ou,

d^Ka rpls
29).

firjves.

(See p.

70.)

It

weakens the case


4^ al.

for

Aramaism (Wellh.
Deissmann,

BS

194.

IIo/)et/oynot is

thus used in

Pet

12

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

that the instrumental eV in ev fxaxaipr] (Lk 22^^) and ev pdjBSw the class of "Hebraisms" (1 Co 4^1) was only rescued from

Tchtunis Pajj^jri (1902), which citations for it.^ presented us with half-a-dozen Ptolemaic very important distinction must be

by the publication

of

the

between Semitisms concerning vocabulary and those which affect The former have occupied us mainly so far, and syntax. Gramthey are the principal subject of Deissmann's work. We matter. matical Semitisms are a much more serious native might indeed range under this head all sins against Greek style and idiom, such as most NT books will show.

andLexicaf

^^^"^'^ at this point

Co-ordination of clauses with the simple /cai,^ instead of the use of participles or subordinate clauses, is a good example. It is quite true that a Hebrew would find this style come
natural to him, and that an Egyptian might be more likely, in equal absence of Greek culture, to pile up a series of geni-

But in itself the phenomenon proves nothing " more than would a string of " ands in an English rustic's elementary culture, and not the hampering presence story
tive absolutes.

of a foreign
its

idiom that

is

being perpetually translated into

most

literal

equivalent.
is

contravenes Greek syntax have seen that airb 'Irjaov Xpiarov o jxapTVi o iria-TO'i But Rev 2^^ iv rat? does not come into this category. 6 fjuuprvi ... 09 direKTavOt] would be a 'AvTLTra^

what we have

Semitism which definitely to watch for.

We

rjfiepat^

glaring example, for as an indeclinable.

it is

impossible to conceive of 'AvTL7ra<i

The Hebraist might be supposed to that the nom. is unchanged because it would be unargue But no one would seriously changed (stat. ahs.) in Hebrew.
imagine the text sound it matters little whether we mend it with Lachmann's conjecture 'Avriira or with that of the
:

later copyists,

The
^

who repeat ah after rj/xepat^ and drop 6'?. case of iyevero rfkOe will be discussed below typical
vii.

Expos. VI.

112

cf
f.,

OR

xviii. 153.

on the frtquency of Kal in Mk. Tluinili observes that /cat in place of hypotaxis is found in MGr and in Aristotle {Hdlenismus So rjpOe Kaipbs kC dppioa-TT]aei' (Abbott 70). here even Viteau gives way. 129) The simple parataxis of Mk 15^^, Jn 4^^ uss^ js illustrated by the uneducated document Par P 18, ^ri 5i;o -q/iipas ixott-^v xai cpdaaofMev eis IiT]\ov<n.

"

Cf Hawkins

HS

120

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS.
and
in the course of our
'^9

13

like

enquiry we shall dispose of others, TO dvjdrptov avTrj'i (Mk 1-^), which we now find occurring in Greek that is beyond suspicion of Semitic influences. There remain Semitisms due to translation, from the

Hebrew

the OT, or from Aramaic sources underlyingof the Synoptists and Acts. The former case covers parts all the usages which have been supposed Translation e ^x. ^ i arise from over-literal rendering in the Greek LXX, the constant reading of which by Helof
,

"

"

lenist

of course

Jews has unconsciously affected their Greek. Here we have abnormal Greek produced by the effort of

Greek-speaking men to translate the already obsolete and When the Hebrew puzzled imperfectly understood Hebrew. them, they would take refuge in a barbarous literalness, like
a schoolboy translating Vergil.

ignorance
It
is

of

avv,

6 KecjitiXaiM eKTcaev

It was ignorance of riN, not which was responsible for Aquila's iv ^eo? avv rov ovpavov Kal avv ttjv yrjv.

not

antecedently

probable
free

that

such

"

translation

Greek"

would influence

Greek except
:

by supplying

would not become models

these phrases phrases for conscious or unconscious quotation to be followed by men who wrote

such foreign idioms by examining our own. may which have been literally We have a few foreign phrases translated into English, and have maintained their place
the language as their own. may get into a language, we
far

How

see

without consciousness
saying," or
"

this

that goes without of their origin to think," will serve as gives furiously
:

"

quotations, Many more are retained as conscious " examples. To return no effort to assimilate them to English idiom. with " our muttons illustrates one kind of these barbarisms but to there are Biblical phrases taken over in a similar way without form. We must notice, however, sacrificing their unidiomatic
;

that such phrases are sterile: we have only to imagine another verb put for sai/ing in our version of Cela va sans dire to see how entirely such an importation fails to influence

the syntax of our language.


^"

The general discussion

subject the diction of Luke, whose varieties of style in the different parts of his work form a particularly interesting

^^^l\T

may

of this important be clinclied with an enquiry into

14

A GKAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

I restrict myself to grammatical and important problem.^ Hebraisms mainly, but it will be useful to recall Dalman's list (Words 20 ff.) to see how far Luke is concerned in it. He gives as pure Aramaisms (a) the supertluous a(/)et? or KaTaXtircov and rjp^aro, as more Aramaic than Hebrew the

use

of

elvaL

Aramaic
iXOoiv,

or

Hebrew
(c)

Either with participle as a narrative tense. will account for (b) the superfluous
eo-T&)9,

Kadiaa'i,

and

dvaard<i

or

eyepdei'i.

Pure
classical

Hebraisms are
of

the periphrases with Trpoawitov, the use

eV

Tft)

with

infinitive,
-

but
f.),

this

is

found

in

historians, in Polybius
fairly be reckoned,
IBXeylrere (see

and

in papyri,

the types aKofj

and therefore cannot uKovaere and ^Xe7rovT<;


/cat

below, pp. 75

iXdXrjaev
1

XuXmv and

and the formulae In class aTroKfjideU eiTrev.^

eyevero,

(a),

we

find

In a-ssumhig the unity of the two books ad Theophihim, I am quite To be a great "philologist" is content to shield myself beliiud Blass. as to be an "apologist," to apparently as sure a guarantee of incompetence But common sense suggests that on the judge from Jalicher's lofty scorn. narrow training of the professional NT integrity of a Greek book the somewhat critic cannot compare with the equipment of a master in criticism over the

whole range of Greek


2

literature.

See Kiilker 253, and below, p. 215.

Add Par P

63 (ii/B.c.)

n's

yap ourm

iarlv d.vd\yT]T(i}i ev rqi Xoyl^eadai Kal Trpd.y,uaTos oiatpopav (vpciv, Ss ouS' avrb tovto dw-naeraL (jvvvoelv ; It is of course the frequency of this locution that is due to

what is said of t'Soi^, above, p. 11. To class (c) I may append a note on which in Mt 27^- (5-text) and 1 Th 4" takes a genitive. This very literal translation of n.s'-ipb, which is given by HE as its
Semitic thought ^ See Wellh.
:

cf

16.

e/s
is

a-rravT-qaiv ,

of course a

original in 29

with dative. (Variants avvav., viravr., and others are I count all places where one of the primary authorities has often occurring In addition there are a few places eh air. with gen. or dat. representing '''?. where the phrase answers to a different original also 1 ex. with gen. and
places, as against 16
:

Luke (Ac 28*') uses it with dat., and in 3 with dat. from the Apocrypha.) Now this last may Mt 25*^ it appears absolutely, as once in (1 Sa 13'^).

LXX

Tb P 43
In

be directly paralleled in a Ptolemaic papyrus which certainly has no Semitism


(ii/B.c.) irapeyvf}drifj.ev els airduTriaiv (a

newly arriving magistrate).

362 (215 A.D.) Trpbs [oyiravrrjl^aLv Tov]i]y/x6pos has the very gen. we want. One of Strack's Ptolemaic inscriptions (Archiv iii. 129) has iV elSiji fjv ^axv^^v It seems tliat the special idea of the TTpbs avTou T) wtiXi's evxdpicTTov aTrdurrjaiv.

BU

word was the

official

welcome of a newly arrived dignitary


exx.

an

idea singularly

in place in the

NT

idiom, the gen. as in by the verb. If in the

The case after it is entirely consistent with Greek our "to his inauguration," the dat. as the case governed

LXX

seemed so

literal

a translation of the Hebrew.

the use has been extended, it is only because it Note that in 1 Th I.e. the

authorities of the o-text read the dat., which is I suspect better Greek. (What has been said applies also to eis viravT-rjcriv avrQ, as in Mt S^'*, Jn 12^^ the two
:

words seem synonymous).

See also

p.

242.

GENERAL CHAEACTERISTICS.

15

Luke unconcerned with the first case. The third we must return to (see pp. 225 If.): suffice to say n^vv that it has its roots in classical Greek, and is at most only a more lil)eral use of what is correct enough, if less common, pjut rjp^aro laises an interesting question. In Lk Z^ we find koI ap^ijade
fj,i]

Dalman (p. 27) shows that in narrative XeyeLv iv eavTot<;. " the Palestinian-Jewish literature uses the meaninirless he " a conventional locution which was evidently parallel began,'
'

with our Middle-English auxiliary gan.


in

It is very

common

the Synoptists, and occurs twice as often in Luke as in Dalman thinks that if this Aramaic ''']f with Mattliew.
participle find the

happens

had become practically meaningless, we might well same use in direct speech, though no example to be known. Now in the otherwise verbally

identical verse

Mt

3^

we
is

find

S6^i]Te

for ap^Tjade,

"

do not

presume

thoroughly idiomatic Greek, and manifestly a deliberate improvement of an original preserved more exactly by Luke.^ It seems to follow that this original
to
say,"

which

was a Greek translation


in

of the

Aramaic %m-document, used

both Evangelists, but with greater freedom by If Luke was ignorant of Aramaic,- he would be the first. led by his keen desire for accuracy to incorporate with a minimum of change translations he was able to secure, even

common by

when they were


idiomatic.

execvited

by men whose Greek was not very


is

This conclusion, which


of

in of

harmony with our


using
his

general

impressions

his

methods

sources,

seems to me much more probable than to suppose that it was he who misread Aramaic words in the manner illustrated (Exjy T xv. 528): we may just as by Nestle on Lk 11*^ well accuse the (oral or written) translation he employed.
*

Passing on to Dalman's (l) class, in which Luke is concerned equally with the other Synoptists, we may observe that
In only a very free translation would drop these pleonasms. " " a sense they are meaningless," just as the first verb is in He " went and did it all the same," or He got tip and went out," " So he or (purposely to take a parallel from the vernacular)

^ But see E. Norden, Antil-e Kvnstjjrosa ii. 4S7. -Luke "probably did not understand Aramaic," says 359. That Dalman ( JVcn-ds 38-41) holds this view, is almost

Jiilicher,

Introd.

decisive.

16

A GEAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

ups and says."


they may add

and

But however

little

additional

information
"
is

for us at least

not a supertluous touch

they add

the

"

stand praying

a distinct nuance to the

whole phrase, which Luke was not likely to sacrifice when he it in his translation or heard it from the avToirrai whose The same may be said of the story he was jotting down. which begin and end Dalman's list of pleonastic phrases In this class (c) therefore there remains "pure Hebraisms."

met

only the construction with Kal iyevero, answering to the narrative ^7^5, which is (strangely enough) almost peculiar to Luke in the NT. There are three constructions (a) eyevero
:

rjXde, (b) eyevero Kal rfkde, (c) iyevero (avrov) eXOelv} occurrences of these respectively are for Lk

The

22/11/5, for
:

Ac 0/0/17.^

It

may

be added that the construction occurs

almost always with a time clause (generally with iv) in Lk The phrase was clearly there is only one exception, 16^-. " therefore temporal originally, like our It was in the days
." (This is (c), but we could use the form, or even (b), without transgressing our paratactic (a) Driver (Tenses, 78) describes the ""ni!! construction idiom.)

of

that

as occurring

when

there

is

inserted

"

a clause specifying the

circumstances under which an action takes place," a description which will suit the Lucan usage everywhere, except

sometimes in the (c) class (as 16"), the only one of the three which has no Hebrew parallel. We must infer that the

LXX
which
to

translators used this locution as a just tolerable Greek literally represented the original f and that Lk (and

a minute extent Mt and Mk) deliberately recalled the Greek OT by using the phrase. The (a) form is used elsewhere in the NT twice in Mk and five times in Mt, only in the phrase eyevero ore ireXeaev ktX. Mt 9^** has (b) and Mk 223 has (c). There are (a) forms with eVrat Ac 2i7-2i 323^ Rom 92^ (all OT citations) and (c) forms with ylveTai Mk 2^^,
;

^ -

Once (Ac

10-^),

Blass cites

Ac

4^

iy^veTo toO elaeXde?!' rhv Ilirpov. D for (a), aud linds {b) in H''. Certainly the latter sentence

may
"

construction

be thus construed (see below, p. 70); nor is it a fatal objection that the is otherwise isolated in Ac. See p. 233.
:

W.

forms

F. Moulton (\VM 760 n.) gives a number of LXX exx. for the () aud the only approach to the (c) form is 2 Mac 3^^, ^v optjvra .
.

(b)
.

TirptocTKecrdai.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS.
eav jev')]Tac Mt 18^^, and otto)? /a); yei^tjTat Ac 20^^ what sense is any of this to be called " Hebraism " ?
(b) is
is

Now
It is

in

obvious that
it

a literal translation of the Hebrew, while at least grammatical as Greek, however unidiomatic.

retention to a limited extent in Lk (with a single doubtful case in Ac), and absence elsewhere in NT (except for Mt 9^, which is affected by the author's love for koI
Its
l8ov), are
it

best

was

rather

preferred even

interpreted as meaning that in free Greek an experiment, other constructions being by a writer who set himself to copy the
first

LXX

style.

At

sight (a)
it
is

would seem worse Greek

still,
:

but we must note that


Pallis's version
(})vye
.
.

apparently

known

in

MGr
.

cf
.

of

Mt

.,

etc.

We
was
at

11^, Kal avve^7]Ke, aav TeKiwae ., cannot suppose that this is an inva-

sion
"

of

Biblical
I

Greek, any more than our

own

idiomatic

(c), happened which is characteristic of Luke, and adopted by him in Ac as It starts from an exclusive substitute for the other two ? The normal Greek awe^r) Greek vernacular, beyond doubt.

It

home

that day."

What

then of

still
is

takes what represents the

ace.

ct

inf.

avve^ri

on

rjpde

modern Athenian speech, against hv)(e va eXOrj which, I am told, is commoner in the country districts. But eav ryevrjrai with inf. was good contemporary vernacular: all see AP 135, BM 970, and Paj). Catt. (in ArcUv iii. 60) So was jiverat (as Mk 2^^) cf Par P 49 (ii/B.c.) jiveTai ii/A.D.
idiomatic in

jap

ivTpaiTrfvaL.

Luke alone
ex. in

of

NT

ejevero is but a step, which the isolated writers seems to have taken

From

this to

Mk

2^^ is

perhaps a primitive assimilation to


this

Lk 6^^

Cf Thumb's remarks on
"
:

suspected of Hebraism

What

must count
2

as

Greek

if it

criterion of genuineness in vernacular appears Hebraism or Aramaism in the Bible shows itself as a natural development in the MGr

vernacular" {Hellcnismus 123).

An interesting suggestion is made by Prof. B. W. Bacon in Expos., April over from the 1905, p. 174 n., who thinks that the "Semitism" may be taken "Gospel according to the Hebrews." The secondary character of this Gospel,
has been sufficiently proved liy Dr 139 ff.); but this does not prevent our positing pp. Adeuey Bacon's quotation for this earlier and purer form as one of Luke's sources. is after the (a) form : ^'Factum est autem, cum ascendisset . ., dcscendil ..." The [a] form occurs in (No. 4 in Preuschen's collection, Antilcgomcna, p. 4).
as

judged from the extant fragments,


[Hihbert

Jounud,

iii.

frag.
*

2 of the "Ebionite Gospel


Uapairopevea-dai

"

(XALA

al)

may

(Preuschen, p. 9). be a relic of Mk's original text.

18

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


"
.

By
.

this time

ticiently

we have perhaps dealt sufwith the principles involved, and may

proper

places
is

in

leave details of alleged Semitisras to their have seen that the the grammar.

We

elseonly complicated in the Lucan writings problem where we have either pure vernacular or vernacular tempered
:

with

"

translation

Greek."

In Luke, the only

NT

writer

except the author of

Heb

Greek ideas of from Aramaic

style,
left

show any conscious attention to we find (1) rough Greek translations


to

mainly as they reached him, perhaps because their very roughness seemed too characteristic to be and (2) a very limited imitation of the LXX refined away
;

idiom, as specially appropriate while the story The conscious adaptation of his Jewish world.

moves

in the

own

style to

that of sacred writings long current among his readers reminds us of the rule which restricted our nineteenth century Biblical Revisers to the English of the Elizabethan age.

On the whole question. Thumb (p. 122) quotes with " Semitisms which are in approval Deissmann's dictum that common use belong mostly to the technical language of reliSuch gion," like that of our sermons and Sunday magazines. " alter the scientific description of the language Semitisms
as little as did a

victorious

march
^

of

few Latinisms, or other booty from the Greek over the world around the Medi-

terranean."

over
too

NT
far.

In summing up thus the issue of the long strife Hebraisms, we fully apprehend the danger of going
Semitic thought, whose native literary dress was foreign to the Hellenic genius, was bound to

necessarily

fall sometimes into un-Hellenic language as well as style. Moreover, if Deissmann has brought us a long way, we must not forget the complementary researches of Dalman, which

have opened up a new world of

possibilities in the scientific

reconstruction of Aramaic originals, and have warned us of the importance of distinguishing very carefully between

What we Semitisms from two widely different sources. can assert with assurance is that the papyri have finally destroyed the figment of a NT Greek which in any
material
respect
*

differed

from

that

spoken
EE^
vii. p.

by
638.

ordinary

Art. Hcllenistisches Griechisch, in

GENERAL CIIARACTERiyTICS.
people in daily life tliroughout the natural objection is raised that there

19
world.
If

Eoman
niu.st

the

have

lieen dialectic

variation where people of very different races, scattered over an immense area, were learning the world language, and that " " Jewish-Greek is thus made an a iwiori certainty, we can

meet the difficulty with a curiously complete modern parallel. Our own language is to-day spoken over a far vaster area and we have only to ask to what extent dialect difference affects the modern Weltsiirache. We find that pronunciation and vocabulary exhaust between them nearly all the
;

phenomena we could catalogue. Englishman, Scotchman, American, Colonial, granted a tolerable primary education, can interchange familiar letters without betraying except in
trifles

the dialect of their daily speech."

This fact should

help us to realise
to to

show
us

local peculiarities can be expected themselves at such an interval in a language known

how few

solely

from writing.

We

may add

that a

highly

educated speaker of standard English, recognisable by his intonation as hailing from London, Edinburgh, or New York, can no longer thus be recognised when his words are written

down.

The comparison

will help us to realise the impression


["

made by

the traveller Paul.

See

p.

243.

There
diction'

is

one general consideration which


little

must detain us a

at

the

close

of

this introductory chapter.

Those who have

studied some recent work upon Hellenistic Greek, such as Blass's brilliant Grammar of Greek, will probably be led

NT

to feel that

modern methods

result in a considerable levelling


lexical,

of distinctions,

grammatical and

of the past has laid

fore

at the outset

great stress. to put in a

on which the exegesis seems necessary thereplea for caution, lest an


It

exaggerated view should be taken of the extent to which our new lights alter our conceptions of the NT language and its interpretation. We have been showing that the NT But that does not the language of their time. writers used

mean

their own.
this for

that they had not in a very real sense a language of assert Specific examples in which we feel bound to

them

will

come up from time


of

to

time in our inquiry.


are compelled to
figure largely in

Tn the light of the papyri and

MGr we

give up some grammatical scruples which

20

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

great commentators like Westcott, and colour many passages But it does not follow that we must promptly of the EV.
obliterate every grammatical distinction that proves to have

century no danger now of reviving Egyptian Hatch's idea that phrases which could translate the same Hebrew must be equivalent to one another. The papyri have slain this very Euclid-like axiom, but they must not enslave ua
farmer.

been unfamiliar

to the daily conversation of the first

We

are

in

The NT must still be studied largely by light drawn from itself. Books written on the same subject and within the same circle must always gather some amount
to others as dangerous.
of identical style or idiom, a

kind of technical terminology,

which may often preserve a usage of earlier language, obsolescent because not needed in more slovenly colloquial speech The various conservatisms of our own of the same time. religious dialect, even on the lips of uneducated people, may The comparative serve as a parallel up to a certain point. correctness and dignity of speech to which an unlettered man
will rise in prayer, is a very familiar phenomenon, lending strong support to the expectation that even a<ypdfiixaTot would instinctively rise above their usual level of exactness in

expression, when dealing with such high themes as those are justified by these considerations which fill the NT.

We

examining each NT writer's language first by itself, and then in connexion with that of his fellow-contributors to the and we may allow ourselves to retain the sacred volume original force of distinctions which were dying or dead in
in
;

every-day parlance, when there

is

Of course we argument when the whole


evidence.

shall not be
of

a sufficient body of internal tempted to use this

our evidence denies a particular in such a case we could survival to Hellenistic vernacular
:

only find the locution as a definite literary revival, rarely possible in Luke and the writer to the Hebrews, and just
conceivable in Paul.
It

seems hardly worth while

to

discuss

Latinisms

^" ^ general

way the supposition that Latin In the has influenced the Koivr] of the NT.

borrowing of Latin words of course we can see activity enough, and there are even phrases literally translated, like Xa^elv TO Uavov Ac 17^; irotetv to i Mk 15^^ (as early as

GENERAL CHARACTEEISTICS.
Polybius);
/ierA

21
etc.

TroWaf ravTa^i

7)/iepa<i

Ac

1^,

But

grammar we must

regard as anotlier matter, in spite of such collections as Buttmann's (see his Index, s.v. Latinisms) or
iii. It will suffice to refer to 40). Tliayer's (Hastings' Romans writProf. Thumb's judgement {Hellenismns 152 f!'.).

DB

ing Greek might be expected to have difficulties for example as I have noticed in the English ef'lbrts with the article ^

of

Japanese boys at school in

this

country

but even of this

And though the there seems to be no very decisive proof. bulk of the NT comes to us from authors with Roman names,
no one will care to assert that Latin was the native language ^ or Luke or Mark. of Paul Apart from lexical matters, we " Of any efl'ective a general negative. may be content with influence [of Latin] upon Greek there can be no grammatical at any rate I know nothing which could be question So says Dr instanced to this effect with any probability."
:

Thumb, and the

justification

of his decision in

each alleged

It should example may be safely left till the cases arise. course be noted that Prof. Blass (p. 4) is rather more of Greek and Latin disposed to admit Latinisms in syntax.

were so constantly in contact throughout the history of the Latinisms in Greek or Graecisms Kotvr'], that the question of
in Latin

answer

lie outside the range of really decisive our decision will turn largely on general impressions of the genius of each language, and for this point the specialist in KoLU7] Greek seems better qualified than the specialist in

must always

the classical language.


1

long inscription of Antiochus berger's notes on p. 596 (vol.


"

witness the a .stainlJing-block Foreigners sometimes did find the article OGlii 383 (i/is.c.) see Ditteni of Commageue,
:

i.).
:

see the This does not involve denying that Paul could speak Latin additional note to p. 7 (p. 233 below). 3 How inextricably bound together were the fortunes of Greek and Latin in

the centuries following our era, is well shown in W. Schulze's pamphlet, Gmcca He does not, I think, jirove any real action of Latiu on Greek early Latina. lor some mere trifles. enough to affect the NT, except

CHAPTER
History of the
"

II.
"

Common

Greek.

We
is

proceed to examine the nature and This history of the vernacular Greek itself.
a

study

present Hellenistic literature for the sake of

which has almost come into existence in the scholars have studied the Classical generation.
its

matter

its

language

was seldom considered worth noticing, except to chronicle " In so good Greek." contemptuously its deviations from
perhaps the authors only received the treatment deserved for to write Attic was the object of them all, they pursued doubtless with varying degrees of zeal, but in all cases removing them far from the language they used in
suffering,
;

daily
its

life.

possible, for the

The pure study of the vernacular was hardly Biblical Greek was interpreted on lines of

own, and the papyri were mostly reposing in their Egyptian tombs, the collections that were published receiving but little attention. Equally unknown was the (Cf above, p. 7 n.)
scientific

study of modern Greek.

To

this day,

even great

philologists like Hatzidakis decry as a mere patois, utterly unfit for literary use, the living language upon whose history The translation of the Gospels they have spent their lives.

into the

idiom,

Greek which descends directly from their original treated as sacrilege by the devotees of a "literary" It is dialect which, in point of fact, no one ever spoke
is
!

foreigners to recognise the value of Pallis's version Greek in the light for students who seek to understand
left

to

NT

of the continuous
of

development

of the language

from the age

Alexander to our own time. As has been

See

p.

243.

study of

NT

in the preceding the materials for our present-day paragraph, Greek are threefold: (1) the prose literature

hinted

HISTORY OF THE "COMMON" GREEK.


of the post-classical

23

period,

ing the

LXX

from Polybius down, and includtlie

(2) the Koip/] inscriptions, and


(3)

Plgyptian

non-literary papyri; especial reference to

modern vernacular Greek, with

its dialectic variations, so far as these are at present registered. Before we discuss the part which each of these must play in our investigations, it will be necessary to ask what was the Koivi] and how it arose. should premise that we use the name here as a convenient

We

term for the spoken dialect of the period under review, using " and similar terms when the dialect of literary Kolvi] Whether this Polybius, Josephus, and the rest, is referred to.
"
is

the ancient use of the


curious
will
find

name we need
a

the

Jannaris in CE xvii. 93 ff., and we have misused the ancient grammarians' phraseology.

not stay to examine f paper on the subject by Prof. which may perhaps prove that he
["Seep. 243.

Ou

(ppovrh 'iTTTTOKXeiSr].

Greek and
Dialects

^^
its

history,

geography,
jointly

and etlinology
for

^^

Hellas

are

responsible

the

phenomena which even the The very schoolliterature of the classical period presents. in his first two or three years at Greek has to realise boy " " He has not thumbed that Greek is anything but a unity. the Anabasis long before the merciful pedagogue takes him on to Homer, and his painfully acquired irregular verbs demand a great extension of their limits. When he develops into a Tripos candidate, he knows well that Homer, Pindar, Sappho, Herodotus and Aristotle are all of them in their several ways defiant of the Attic grammar to which his own
remarkable

And if his studies ultimately composition must conform. invade the dialect inscriptions,^ he finds in Ehs and Heraclea, Lacedaemon and Thebes, Crete ^ and Cyprus, forms of Greek
which his literature has almost entirely failed to prepare Yet the Theban who said Fltto) Aev<; and the Athenian with his laro) Zem lived in towns exactly as far apart as Liverpool and Manchester The bewildering variety of dialects within that little country arises partly from racial
for

him.

An

extremely convenient

available in the
seledae,

Teubner

series

Inscriptiones Graecae ad inlustrandas Dialectoa


pp.,
^

little selection

of dialect inscriptions

is

now

by Felix Solmsen. The book has less than 100 might be relied on to perplex very tolerable scholars
!

but

its

contents

See

p. 233.

24

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


Upon
the

differences.

indigenous population, represented

(it would seem) by the Athenians of history, swept first from Northern Europe ^ the hordes of Homer's Acha^ans, and Dialectic then, in post-Homeric days, the Dorian invaders. conditions were as inevitably complex as they became in our own country a thousand years ago, when successive waves of Germanic invaders, of different tribes and dialects, had settled in the several parts of an island in which a Keltic

best

population still maintained itself to greater or less extent. Had the Norman Conquest come before the Saxon, which

determined the language of the country, the parallel would have been singularly complete. The conditions which in were largely supplied by distance, were supplied in England Greece by the mountain barriers which so effectively cut off each little State from regular communication with its an effect and a cause at once of the passion for neighbours which made of Hellas a heptarchy of heptarchies. autonomy

Meanwhile, a steady process was going u^ a u ^^ whicfi determined a finally the character Fittest of literary Greek. Sparta might win the of Greece at Aegospotami, and Thebes wrest it hegemony from her at Leuktra. But Sparta could not produce a man of letters, Alkman (who was not a Spartan !) will and Pindar, serve as the exception that proves the rule " the lonely Theban eagle," knew better than to try poetic
.

Survival of the

-i

if

in Boeotian. The intellectual supremacy of Athens was beyond challenge long before the political unification of Greece was accomplished and Attic was firmly established as the only possible dialect for prose composition. The
flights
;

writers wrote Attic according to their lights, tempered generally with a plentiful admixture of grammatical and lexical elements drawn from the vernacular, for which tliey had too hearty a contempt even to give it a name. Strenuous efforts were made by precisians to
post- classical

improve the Attic quality of this artificial literary dialect and we still possess the works of Atticists who cry out
^

as proved tlio thesis of Prof. Ridgeway's Early Age which seems to me a key that will imlock many problems of Greek history, religion, and language. Of course adhue sub iudice lis est ; and with Prof. Thumb on the other side I sliould be sorry to dogmatise.
I

am assuming

of Greece,

HISTORY OF THE
against the
"

COMMON" GREEK.
"

25

of their contemporaries, thus incidentally providing us with information concerning a Greek which interests us more than the artificial Attic they prized so highly. All their scrupulousness did

bad Greek

"

aiul

solecisms

"

not however prevent their deviating from Attic in matters more important than vocabulary. The optative in Lucian is perpetually misused, and no Atticist successfully attempts to reproduce the ancient use of ov and fii] with the
participle.

Those writers who are less particular in their purism write in a literary Koivr'] which admits without difliculty many
features
of

various

origin,

while generally recalling Attic.


of

No

doubt

the

influence

Thucydides

encouraged

this

The true Attic, as spoken by educated people in was hardly used in literature before iv/B.c. ^ Athens, while the Ionic dialect had largely influenced the somewhat artificial idiom which the older writers at Athens used. It was not strange therefore that the standard for most of the post-classical writers should go back, for
freedom.
;

instance,
TrpaTTQ}

to of

the Trpdaaai of Thucydides Plato and Demosthenes.


,

rather
"

than

the
"

Such, then, was the


of

Common Greek
we have
still

literature,

from which

to

derive our illustrations for the

Any
the

lexicon

will

show how

very large extent. for our purpose is important

NT

to a

And

the Koim] writers, from Polybius down. even the most rigid Atticists found themselves unable to avoid words and usages which Plato would not have

vocabulary of

But side by side with this was a fondness for recognised. Take vav^;, for obsolete words with literary associations.
Aelian, Josephus, and does not appear in the indices of eight volumes of Grenfell and Hunt's papyri except where literary fragments come in, nor in those to vol. iii

example, which
Koivi]

is

freely

found in

other

writers.

It

of the Berlin collection


(I

am naming

all

the collections that

me.)

We

turn to

and the small volume from Chicago. I happen to have by the NT and find it once, and that is

extant prose

15 n., cites as the earliest Scliwyzer, Die Weltsprachcn des AUerhims, p. monument of genuine Attic in literature, tlie pseudo-Xenophoii's

De

413 c.c. repuhlica Atheniensi, which dates from before

26
in

A GEAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GEEEK.


Luke's

shipwreck narrative, in a plirase which Blass {Philology 186) suspects to be a rcmiuiscence of Homer. In style and syntax the literary Common Greek diverges

more widely from the colloquial. The bearing of all this on the subject of our study will come out frequently in the Here it will suffice to refer course of our investigations. to Blass, p. 5, for an interesting summary of phenomena which are practically restricted to the author of Heb, and to parts of Luke and Paul,^ where sundry lexical and grammatical elements from the literary dialect invade the colloquial style which is elsewhere universal in the NT.

The
"Attic"
guage on the
Essentially

writers

who
to

figure

in

Dr

W.

Schmid's well-known

book,
of

Dcr Atticismus,
ancient Attic.
in

were not the


artificial

last

found a literary lanthe


tried

resuscitation
is

the
of

same thing

being

our

time.

"The

purists

"are like the

to-day," says old Atticists to a

Thumb
hair."

(Hellenismns 180), Their " mummy-

language," as Krumbacher calls it, will not stand the test of use in poetry but in prose literature, in newspapers, and in Biblical translation, it has the dominion, which is
;

vindicated
if

by

need

be.-

We
of

Athenian undergraduates with bloodshed have nothing to do with this curious


to

warn students that before citing MGr NT, tliey must make sure whether their source is Kadapevovaa or ofitXovfxevT}, book Greek or The former may of course have borrowed spoken Greek. for it is a medley far from ancient or modern sources more mixed than we should get by compounding together the particular feature for which it Cynewulf and Kipling But it obviously cannot stand in any line of hisis cited. torical development, and it is just as valuable as Volaptik to
phenomenon, except
illustration

in

the

Luke (Ac
in
d7r6

In quoting Blass here, we do not accept unreservedly his opinion that The Kolvt) passages cited 20-") misused the literary word d(pL^is.

Grinim-Thayer are at any rate ambiguous, and the misunderstanding of the may have been no peculiarity of Luke's. There is also the suggestion that Paul meant "after my arrival, home-coming." For literary elements in NT writers, see especially E. Norden, Antike Kunsiprosa ii. 482 ff. See Krumbacher's vigorous polemic, Das Problem d. li.eugr. Schri/tsprache, summarised by the present writer in Exp T xiv. 550 ff. Hatzidakis replies witli equal energy in REGr, 1903, pp. 210 ff., and further in an 'ATrdcTTjcrij (1905).

HISTORY OF THE "COMMON" OREEK.

27

the student of linguistic evolution. The popular patois, on the other hand, is a living language, and we shall soon see that it takes a very important part in the discussions on

which we are entering.

We
Koii/ii
:

pass on then to the spoken dialect


^^"^^

Sources.

^^
its

century Hellenists,

its

history
are, in

and

peculiarities.

Our sources

order of importance, (1) non-literary papyri, (2) inscriptions, The literary sources are (3) modern vernacular Greek. almost confined to the Biblical Greek. few general words

may
-

be said on these sources, before

we examine

the origin of
dis-

the Greek which they embody.

The papyri have one very obvious

advantage, in that, with the not very important exception of Herculaneum,^ their provenance is limited shall see, however, that the to one country, Egypt.

We

They date from The monuments of the earliest period vii/A.D. iii/B.c. are fairly abundant, and they give us specimens of the spoken KoLvrj from a time when the dialect was still a novelty. The papyri, to be sure, are not to be treated as a unity. Those which alone concern us come from the tombs and waste paper heaps of Ptolemaic and Eoman Egypt and their style has the same degree of unity as we should see in the contents
to
;

disadvantage does not practically count.

the sacks of waste paper sent to an English paper-mill solicitor's office, a farm, a school, a shop, a manse, and Each contribution has to be a house in Downing Street.
of

from a

considered separately. Wills, law-reports, contracts, censusreturns, marriage settlements, receipts and ofiicial orders as formulse tend largely ran along stereotyped lines; and,
to be permanent,

we have

language which is Petitions contain this element in greater or less trammels. extent, but naturally show more freedom in the recitation of
grievances for which redress is claimed. Private letters are our most valuable sources; and they are all the better for the immense differences that betniy
the
particular

a degree of conservatism in the not seen in documents free from these

On

these see the

monumental work of W. Cronei t, Memoria Graeca Her-

culanensis (Teubner, 1903).

28

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


The well-worn
;

themselves in the education of their writers.

epistolary formuhe show variety mostly in their spelling and their value for the student lies primarily in their rouiarkable

resemblances to the conventional phraseology which even the NT letter-writers were content to use.^ That part of the
letter

which
its

is

free

from formuhe
is

is

when

grammar

weakest, for

perhaps most instructive it shows which way the

language was tending.


the letter of the

Few papyri are more suggestive than lower-school-boy to his father, OP 119

It would have surprised Theon pere, when he (ii/iii A.D.). applied the well-merited cane, to learn that seventeen centuries afterwards there might be scholars who would count his boy's

new fragment of It must not be inferred by the way. from our laudation of the ungrammatical papyri that the NT writers are at all comparable to these scribes in lack of The indifference to concord, which we noted education. in Eev, is almost isolated in this connexion. But the illiterates show us by their exaggerations the tendencies which the better schooled writers keep in restraint. AVith writings from farmers and from emperors, and everj^ class " " between, we can form a kind of grammatometer by which
audacious missive greater treasure than a

Sappho

But

this

is

to estimate

how

the language stands in the development of


to investigate.

any particular use we may wish


,,

^.
^,
.

(2)

Inscriptions.

Inscriptions ^
.

come second
. .

to papyri, in

this

connexion, mainly

because

K their

very

Their Greek material shows that they were meant to last. not be of the purest but we see it, such as it is, in its best may
;

The special clothes, while that of the papyri is in corduroys. value of the Common Greek inscriptions lies in their corroboratlittle dialectic difference

ing the papyri, for they practically show that there was but between the Greek of Egypt and that of

Asia Minor, Italy, and Syria. There would probably be varieties of pronunciation, and we have evidence that districts differed but in their preferences among sundry equivalent locutions
;

a speaker of Greek would be understood without the slightest difficulty wherever he went throughout the immense area
this point see Deissmann, BS 21 G. G. Findlay, Thess. {CUT), Ixi.

On
ir.
;

ff'.

Ifil

J. R. Harris, in Expos, v. Robinson, Eph. 275-284.


;

viii.

HISTORY OF THE "COMMON" GREEK.

29

over which the Greek world-speech reigned. With the caveat that inscription-Greek may contain already implied, literary elements which are absent from an nnstudied private letter,

we may use without misgiving


collections
of

later
is

the immense and ever-growing Greek epigraphy. How much may be

made

of

them

well

seen in

the

Frcisschri/t

of

Dr

E.

Schwyzer,^ GrammatiJc dcr rergamenischcn Inschriftcn, an invaluable guide to the accidence of the Koivrj. (It has been followed up by E. Nachmanson in his Laute tmd Formen der
Magnetischen Inschriftcn (1903), which does the same work, section by section, for the corpus from Magnesia.) Next to the papyrus collections, there is no tool the student of the NT Koivrj will find so useful as a book of late inscriptions,

such

as

Dittenberger's

new

Oricntis

Graeci

Insci'iptiones

selectac?
^

Greek

The Finally we have MGr to bring in. discovery that the vernacular of to-day goes back historically to the Koivi] was made in
in

1834 by Heilmaier,
"

book

on

the

origin

of

the

Eoraaic."

that

we
It

This discovery once established, it became clear could work back from MGr to reconstruct the

known oral Greek of the Hellenistic however only in the last generation that the age.^ importance of this method has been adequately recognised. We had not indeed till recently acquired trustworthy materials. Mullach's grammar, upon which the editor of Winer had to depend for one of the most fruitful innovations of his work,* started from wrong premisses as to the relation between the We have now, in such books old language and the new.^
otherwise imperfectly
is

Schweizer in 1898, when this book was published, but lias changed He has edited Meisteihantj' Grammalik der attischcn Inschriftcn^, and written the interesting lecture on Die IFcltsprache named
1

He was

since, to

our confusion.

above.
^

The appearance

of vol.

ii.

the provision of a word-index,


peculiarities. ^ I cite from
*

has made it many times more valuable by and an excellent conspectus of grammatical

Kretschmer, Die Entstchunrj der YLoivii, p. 4. Cf index s.v. "Greek (modern)," p. 821. ^ Cf Krumbacher in A'^^' xxvii. 488. Krumbacher uses the epithet "dilettante" about Mullach, ib. p. 497, but rather (I fancy) for his theories than his facts. After all, Mullach came too earl}' to be blameworthy for his unscientific

WM

position.

30
as

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

Thumb's Handhuch der neugriechischcn Volkssjirache and Hatzidakis's Einleitung in die neugricchische Grammatik, the which were means of checking not a few statements about

MGr

really based

on the

artificial

Greek

of the schools.

The

per-

petual references to the NT in the latter work will indicate forcibly how many of the developments of modern vernacular had their roots in that of two thousand years ago. The
gulf between the ancient and the modern is bridged by the material collected and arranged by Jannaris in his Historical

Greek Grammar.

The study
;

of a

Gospel in the vernacular

version of Pallis^ will at first produce the impression that but the strong points of conthe gulf is very wide indeed
in time. Hatzidakis indeed " the language generally even goes so far as to assert that spoken to-day in the towns differs less from the common tact will

become very evident

language of Polyljius than this last


of

differs

from the language


enquire how this rose out of the

Homer."

We
the K
'

are

now ready
of the

to

Common Greek

NT

classical language. Some features of its are undoubted, and may be noted first. The development which produced it lay, beyond question, in the work impulse

of

Alexander the Great.


first

The

unification of Hellas
of

necessary

step in the

accomplishment

his

was a dream of

Hellenising the world which he had marked out for conquest. To achieve unity of speech throughout the little country

and military triumphs had was a task too serious for him, virtually conquered Alexander himself to face. But unconsciously he effected and the this, as a by-product of his colossal achievement next generation found that not only had a common language emerged from the chaos of Hellenic dialects, but a new and
which his
father's

diplomatic
for

^"H
(Pallis

Ne'a

AiaOi^Ky],

iJiTa<ppa<r/j.Prj

awb rbv 'AXef.

IIciXXtj

(Liverpool,

has now translated the Hind, and even some of Kant

with

1902).

striking

Thumb's opinion, DLZ, 1905, pp. '2084-6.) Unfortunately the B.F.B.S. version contains so much of the artificial Greek that it is beyond the comprehension of the common people the bitter prejudice of the educated classes at present has closed the door even to this, much more to
success, in
:

Pallis's version.
2

REGr,

1903, p. 220.

(See a further note below, pp. 233f.)

HISTORY OF THE

"

COMMON

"

GREEK.

nearly homogeneous world-speech had been created, in which Persian and Egyptian miglit do business together, and
proconsuls issue their commands to the subjects of a His army was in mightier empire than Alexander's own. itself a powerful agent in the levelling process which ultiThe mately destroyed nearly all the Greek dialects.

Koman

Anabasis of the Ten Thousand Greeks, seventy years before, had doubtless produced results of tlie same kind on a small
scale.

Clearchus the Lacedaemonian, Menon the Thessalian, Socrates the Arcadian, Proxenus the Boeotian, and the rest, would find it difficult to preserve their native brogue very long free from the solvent influences of perpetual association

during their march


of

and when Cheirisophus of Sparta and Athens had safely brought the host home, it is Xenophon not strange that the historian himself had suffered in the purity of his Attic, which has some peculiarities distinctly The assimilating process would foreshadowing the Koiv^}
;

go

much

further in the

camp

of

prolonged campaigns, tent-fellows and messmates, with no choice but to accom-

men from

all

Alexander, where, during parts of Greece were

modate
istics

their

mode

of speech in its

more individual character-

which was gradually being average In this process naturally evolved among their comrades. those features which were peculiar to a single dialect would have the smallest chance of surviving, and those which most of many dialects successfully combined the characteristics
to

the

Greek

would be surest

of a place in the resultant

"

common

speech."

The army by
itself

itself

only furnished a nucleus for the new growth.


victoriously into Asia, and established, shores of the eastern Mediterranean, the'

As Hellenism swept

on all the mixture of nationalities in the new-rising commimities de-y

manded

common

language as the

medium

of intercourse,

have dialect, the Athenians have what is compounded from all the Greeks and barbarians." The vase-inscriptions abundantly evidence this. (Kretschmer, Entstehimg d. The importance of Xenophon as a forerunner of Hellenism \a 'KoivT), p. 34.) well lirought out by Mahaffy, Progress of Hellenism in Alexanders Eminrt,
;

1 Cf Rutherford, A^P 160-174. The same may be said of tlie Liiiguage of thehiwerclassesin Athens herself in v/b.c, consisting as they did of immigrants from all parts. So [Xenophon] Constitution of Athens 11. 3 : "The Greeks and manner of life and fashion of th.eir own hut an individual

Lecture

i.

32

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


of

and the Greek


for

the victorious armies of Alexander

was

the country purpose. ready motherland, the old dialects lived on for generations but by this time Greece herself was only one factor in the great Hellenisinn; movement to which the world was to owe so
the
districts of
;

In

the

which strikingly differed from were spoken by races that mostly lay outside the movement. History gives an almost pathetic interest to end of an inscription like that from Larissa (Michel 41 where the citizens record a rescript from King iii/B.c), Philip V, and tlieir own consequent resolutions TayeuovTovv 'jivayKLTnroL HerOakeioc k.t.X., ^CKnnroi toZ f3acri\eio<; iTrcaroXav airvareWavro'i ttot to? 7070? Kal rav
much.
the
Besides, the dialects
Kolvi]

new

TToXiv rav viro'ye'ypa/jifjbepav

Baai\ev<i ^tXiTTTro? AapLcratcov Tot9 Tayol'i kui


-^aipeiv

rf]c

TroXet

(and so on in normal Koivrj).

The old and the new survived thus

side

by side into the imperial age; but Christianity Dialects had only a brief opportunity of speaking in In one corner of Hellas alone did the old dialects of Greece. the dialect live on. To-day scholars recognise a single modern idiom, the Zaconian, which does not directly descend from

As we might expect, this is nothing but the the Koivj]. ancient Laconian, whose broad d holds its ground still in the speech of a race impervious to literature and proudly conservative of a language that

was always abnormal

to

an

extreme. Apart from this the dialects died out entirely.* They contributed their share to the resultant Common Greek but it is an assured result of MGr philology that there are
;

no elements
of
of

of

ancient dialects,

speech whatever now existing, due to the which did not find their way into the stream

development through the channel of the vernacular Koivij more than two thousand years ago. [ See p. 243. So far we may go without difference
, ^
.

Relative ContriThe only serious dispute arises ^^ opinion. ^ butions to the ^ ^u ^ *- when we ask what were the relative magniResultant tudes of the contributions of the several

That the literary to the new resultant speech. was predominantly Attic has been already stated, and Koiv^ But was Attic more than one is of course beyond doubt.
dialects

HISTORY OF THE "COMMON" GREEK.


among many elements
It

33

assimilated in the new vernacular ? has always been taken for granted that the intellectual queen of Greece was the predominant partner in the business of establishing a new dialect based on a combination of This conclusion has recently been challenged the old ones.

by Dr Paul Kretschmer, a

brilliant

comparative philologist,

previously distinguished for his

the Greek vase-inscriptions and In his tractate entitled Lie Entstchung nearest neighbours.^ der Kotv7], published in the Transactions of the Vienna

studies on the language of on the dialects of the Greeks'

1900, he undertook to show that the oral elements from Boeotian, Ionic, and even Koivrj North-west Greek, to a larger extent than from Attic. His affects That Boeotian pronunciation mainly. argument

Academy

for

contained

monophthongising of the diphthongs, Doric softening of /3, h and 7, and Ionic de-aspiration of words beginning with A, affected the spoken language more than any Attic influence
of this nature, to features

might perhaps be allowed. But when we turn which had to be represented in writing, as contrasted

with mere variant pronunciations of the same written word, Boeotians may have supplied the case becomes less striking.
3 plur. forms in -aav for imperfect and optative, but these do the not appear to any considerable extent outside the

LXX

and they are surprisingly rare in North-west Greek has the accusative plural in the papyri.2 in -69, found freely in papyri and (for the word Teaaape^) of elfii, and the MSS of the NT also the middle conjugation Doric contriconfusion of forms from -dco and -eco verbs. verbs in -^<w, and a few lexical butes some guttural forms from Ionic supplies a fair number of isolated forms, and items.
exx.

NT

are precarious,

be responsible for many -co or -w flexions from -/xi oaTewv or verbs, and some uncontracted noun-forms like

may

Xpvo-im.

But the one peculiarly Attic feature of tlie Kocvv Kretschmer does allow, its treatment of original d, in which contrast with Ionic phonology on one side and that of the in its effects remaining dialects on the other, is so far-reaching

1 Die griccli. Faseninsehriften, 1894 Einleiiung in die Gatchiehte der griech. Sprache, 1896. 2 See CE xv. 36, and the addenda in xviii. 110.
;

34
that

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


we cannot but

feature.
to

And

give it more weight than to any other while the accidence of Attic has bequeathed

the vernacular

much matter which

it

shared with other

may question whether the accidence of any dialect would present anything like the same similarity single We can hardly resist to that of the Kotv^ as the Attic does. the conclusion of the experts that Kretschmer has failed to At the same time we may allow that the prove his point. influence of the other dialects on pronunciation has been commonly underestimated. Kretschmer necessarily recognises
dialects, one

that Attic supplied the orthography of the Koivrj, except for those uneducated persons to whom we owe so much for their instructive mis-spellings. Consequently, he says, when the

was

Hellenist wrote ^ai'pet and pronounced it cMri, his language It is obvious that the really Boeotian and not Attic.^

question does not seriously concern us, since we are dealing with a language which, despite its vernacular character, comes to us in a written and therefore largely Atticised form." For
'our purpose we may assume that we have before us a Greek which includes important contributions from various dialects,
of Attic

but with Attic as the basis, although the exclusive peculiarities make but a small show in it. We shall see later on

(pp. 213ff.) that syntax tells a clearer story in at least matter of importance, the articular infinitive.

one

At
rronuncmtion
Tradition.

this point it should be observed that


is

pi^-onunciation matter of no

not to be passed over as a practical importance by the


of Hellenistic.

modern student

able fact tliat phonetic spelling which during the reign of the old dialects was a blessing common to all was entirely abandoned by educated people generations before the Christian

The undeni-

era,

has some very obvious results for both

grammar and
ot

textual criticism.

That ai and

e,

ei (rj)

and

t,

and v were
scribe
sense,

identities for the scribes of our

made
^

his choice according to

MSS, is certain.^ The the grammar and the


see

Against this emphasising of Bceotian,

Thumb, Hellenismus

228.

the date of the levelling of quantity, so notable a feature in MGr, see Hatzidakis in 'A6i]vd for 1901 (xiii. 247). He decides that it began outside
Greece,

On

and established
so,

itself ver}' gradually.

It

must have been complete,


["

or

nearly

before the scribes of N

and B wrote.

Seep. 243.

HISTORY OF THE "COMMON" GREEK.


just

35

as we choose between hings, Icing's, and kings', or between how and hough. He wrote av nominative and aol \vaaa6ai infinitive and Xvaaade imperative (^tXet?, dative ecSofiev indicative, and ^iX?}?, 'iSwfiev subjunctive ^ovkec verb,
;
;

but ^ovXfi noun


difference,
if

here of course there was the accentual


to

he wrote
prevent

dictation.

There was
i^6(pvr)<i,

nothing
e^i^t'Sto?,
;

however

to

him from writing

knowledge failed while between (for example) infinitive and imperative, as in Lk 19^^, was determined only It will be seen by his own or perhaps a traditional exegesis. therefore that we cannot regard our best MSS as decisive on such questions, except as far as we may see reason to
there were

dcfyetprjfxevo'?, etc., if

times

when

his antiquarian his choice

may

trust their general accuracy in grammatical tradition. be justified in printing liva eTriaKidaei in Ac
.
.

WH

5^'\

after

but the passage is wholly useless for any argument as to the use of Iva with a future. Or let us take the constructions of ov fir] as exhibited for text
cursives
;

B and some

WH

(MG). There are 71 occurrences with aor, and 2 more in which the -aco might theoretically be subj., future. Against these we find 8 cases of the future, and 15 in which the parsing depends on our choice between ei and i^. It is evident that editors cannot hope to decide here what was the autograph spelling. Even supposing they had the autograph before them, it would be no evidence as to the To this we may author's grammar if he dictated the text. add that by the time N and B were written o and co were no longer distinct in pronunciation, which transfers two more
in the concordance

cases to the

list of

the indeterminates.

It

is

not therefore

simply the overwhelming manuscript authority which decides "Without the help of the versions us for exoifiev in Eom 5^ and patristic citations, it would be diflicult to prove that the

orthography of the
the Apostle's

MSS

is

really based on a very ancient


It
is

inquiry.^

indeed quite possible that did not distinguish o and co pronunciation without his making sufficiently to give Tertius a clear lead, In all these matters we may fairly recognise a
traditional interpretation.

own

and w were confused in various quarters before this date cf Schwyzer, Pergam. 95 Nachmanson, Magnet. 64 Thumb. Re^lenismus 143. We have
'
: ;

36

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

case nearly parallel with the editor's choice between such alternatives as TtVe9 and rive<i in Heb 3^", where the tradition

The modern expositor feels himself entirely to decide according to his view of the context. liberty our choice in Eom, I.e., see below, (p. 110).
varies.

at

On

Before
Contributions
f

NW Greek
Some

'^

i.

we make
i

leave dialectology, it may be ^ a lew more remarks on 4--u the


j?

nature of the contributions which


noted.

we have

the importance of surprise may the elements alleged to have been brought into the language

be

felt

at

which lies altogether outside The group embraces as its main constithe literary limits. tuents the dialects of Epirus, Aetolia, Locris and Phokis, and Achaia, and is known to us only from inscriptions, amongst
by the North-west Greek,"

"

which those
but
it is

of

Delphi are conspicuous.


its

It is the

very

last

we should have expected


has been very marked.
plur.

to influence the resultant language,

soon observed that

part (on Kretschmer's theory)


characteristic

The

Achaian

accus.

in

-69

Greek, as its Its prominence in the papyri^ indicates that it was shows. a good fight, which in the case of Taaape<; had making

successfully established itself in the common presence in the vernacular of to-day sufficiently

already become a fairly assured victory. In the NT Teacrapa<; never occurs without some excellent authority for reaaape^i ^
:

cf

WH A2yp 150.'^

aarepe^ -with omission of ex'^v, it is true, but this may well be an effort to mend the grammar. It is of course

Moreover we

find that A, in

Eev

1^^,

has

but taking into account impossible to build on this example the obvious fact that the author of Eev was still decidedly
;

dypdfi/jbaTO'i

in

Greek, and remembering the similar phen-

omena
exhibit

of

papyri, accusatives in

the

we might expect
-e?,

his

autograph to
beside
is

and in

other
of

instances
el/j.t

re'crcra/je?.

The

middle

conjugation

given

by

confusion of this very word in BIT 607 (ii/A.D.). Par P 40 (ii/s.c), vnth. &vtos, MaKedihvos, etc., shows us how early this begins with illiterates. See also p. 244. 1 Brugmann, Ghr. Gramm.^ 17. [" See jDp. 243 f. ^ See on XV. 34, 435, xviii. 109. I must acknowledge a curious mistake I

made
2

there in citing
.N

Dr Thumb
2723

for,

instead of against, Kretschmer's argument

on this point.

Jn 11"

A Ac
;

and Rev 9" n

Eev

4* n

(AVHmj?), 7'

bis

seviel.

HISTORY OF THE "COMMON" GREEK.

37

Kretscbmer as a Greek feature but the Dclpliiiiu i}Tat and eoivTUi are balanced by Messenian rjVTai. and Lesbian ea-ao, which looks as if some middle forms had existed in the earliest Greek. But the confusion of the -day and -eco verbs, which is frequent in the papyri ^ and NT, and is complete in MGr, may well have come from the Greek, though
;

NW

NW

We cannot attempt here to discuss the encouraged by Ionic. question between Thumb and Kretscbmer; but an a 2'>'riori argument might be found for the latter in the well-known
fact that

between

iii/

and

i/B.c.

the political importance of

Aetolia and Achaia produced an Achaian-Dorian Koivq, which yielded to the wider Koivrj about a hundred years before Paul
it seems antecedently probable that this began to write would leave some traces on that which superseded it. Possibly the extension of the 3rd plur. -aav, and even
:

dialect

the perfect -av,


is

may

be due to the same source

^
:

the former

also Boeotian.

The

peculiarities just mentioned have in

common

their sporadic acceptance in the Hellenistic of i/A.D.,

which is just what we should expect where a dialect like this contended for survival with one that had already spread over a The elements we have tentatively set down very large area. Greek secured their ultimate victory through to the The fusion of -dw and -e'tu verbs their practical convenience. two grammatical categories which served no amalgamated The acous. in -e? useful purpose by their distinctness.

NW

reduced the number of case-forms to be remembered, at the cost of a confusion which English bears without difficulty,

and even Attic bore


the

other

novelties

in TroXet?, /SacrtXet?, TrXe/'ouv, etc. while both reduced the tale of equivalent
;

and (in the case of -aav) provided a useful means of distinction between 1st sing, and 3rd plur We come to securer ground when we and of Ionic, gg^-^^^^^g ^^^ p^^.^ taken by Ionic in the formation of the Koivi], for here Thumb and Kretscbmer
suffixes

The former shows that we cannot safely trace of some any feature of Common Greek to the influence
are at one.
1

-Tjffo,

'

minently,

CR xv. 36, 435, xviii. 110. Thumb suggests that the common aor. in started the process of fusion. The -ffixv suffix is found in Delphian (Valaori, Ddj^h. Dial. 60) rather proThe case for -av (ibid.) is weaker. both in indie, and
See
opt.

38

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

particular dialect, unless it appears in that dialect as a distinct new type, and not a mere survival. The nouns in -a9 -aBo^;

and

-0U9 -ovSo'i are

by

this principle

debt of

MGr

to

Ionic

recognised as a clear elements in the Koivrj. Like the

which came from a single ancient dialect, had to struggle for existence. We find them in the they Greek but in the NT -a9 makes gen. -a, as often Egyptian even in Asia Minor, where naturally -aho'i was at home.^ Kretschmer gives as Ionic factors in the Koivri the forms KiOoiv ( = ')(iToiiv) and the like,^ psilosis (which the lonians shared with their Aeolic neighbours), the uncontracted noun and verb forms already alluded to, and the invasion of the
other elements
;

verbs by thematic forms (contract or ordinary).^ He explains the declension (nrelpa <77relp'r]<; (normal in the Koivrj from i/B.C.) as due not to lonism, but to the analogy of <y\wacra
-fiL
<y\(i)aar]<;.

To his argument on this point we might add the consideration that the declension -pd -pr)<i is both earlier and more stable than -via -VLr]<i, a difference which I would connect
with the fact that the combination
irj

continued to be barred

in Attic at a time

(from pFd) was no longer objected to (contrast vyta and Kopr]) if Ionic forms had been simply taken over, elSvcr]<i would have come in as early as cyrrelprj'i.
pr]
:

when

Did

dialectic
,

But such discussion may be


pj^Hoiogical journals.

left to

the

differences

What

concerns the

NT

persist?

student
Ai-e

is the question of dialectic varieties within the Kolvi] itself rather than in its

previous history.
features in Asia

we
;

to

expect

persistence
of

of

Ionic

Minor

and

will the

Greek

Egypt, Syria,

1 But -d8os is Nachmanson 120.

rare both at

Pergamum and

at

Magnesia: Schwyzer 139


;

f.,

and it is rather Kt^cii', Kvdpa and ivBavTa occur not seldom in papyri MSS. I can only find in Ti curious that they are practically absent from XeLdQiva-i D* (Mt 10") and wrwi^as B* (Mk 1463_"ut alibi .v," says the editor).

"

NT

'Kvdpa

occurs in Clem.

Roin.

17
I

fin.

(see

Lightfoot).

Bci^/jaKos,

found in 160 f.

MGr

(as

Abbott 56)

cannot trace, nor

iradv-i].

which is Cf Hatzidakis

^ The perfect 'iuKa from tiqixi (NT dcpiuvrai.) is noted as Ionic rather than Since this was a prehistoric form (cf Doric by Thumb, ThLZ xxviii. 421 n. Gothic saisu from sam, "sow"), we cannot determine the question certainly. But note that the imperative dcpewcrdo} occurs in an Arcadian inscription (Michel

585'^

iii/?B.c.).

Its survival in Hellenistic is the

really existed in

two or three dialects of the

more easily understood, if it classical period. [" Sec p. 244.

HISTORY OF THE

COMMON" GREEK.

39

Macedonia, and Italy differ to an extent which we can detect after two thousand years ? Speaking generally, we may Dialectic differences there must have reply in the negative.

But they been in a language spoken over so large an area. need not theoretically be greater than those between British
and American English, to refer again to the helpful parallel we examined above (p. 19). We saw there that in the modern Weltsprachc the educated colloquial closely approximates everywhere when written down, differing locally to some extent, but in vocabulary and orthography rather than The uneducated vernacular differs more, but in grammar. The study still show least in the grammar. its differences and the Koivrj inscriptions of Asia Minor disof the papyri There closes essentially the same phenomena in Hellenistic. few points of grammar in which the NT language differs are from that which we see in other specimens of Common Greek vernacular, from whatever province derived. We have already mentioned instances in which what may liave been quite overworked because it happens possible Hellenistic is heavily
to coincide with a Semitic idiom. Apart from these, we have a few small matters in which the NT differs from the The weakening of ov ixr] is the most usage of the papyri. of these, for certainly the papyri lend no counimportant tenance whatever to any theory that ov fi^ was a normal

unemphatic negative in Hellenistic.


at a later stage (see pp. ou fi/] that in the

We

shall return to this

NT

Greek" can be suspected show


"translation

but meanwhile we may note seems nearly always connected with the places where no Semitic original

187

ff.)

it

only in the very emphatic sense

which

is

common

to

classical

and Hellenistic

use.

Among

smaller points are the NT of penalty, and the prevailing


vdfirjv
:

construction of evoxo^ with gen. use of a-jreKpid'nv for aireKpL-

usage; has good Hellenistic warrant, is shown by Phrynichus 186 ff.), by the witness of Polybius, and (see Eutherford, iVP by the MGr airoKpiOrjKa.

with

in both of these the papyri wholly or mainly agree but that in the latter case the the classical

NT

The
Thumb's Verdict.

whole question
^^^^

of

dialectic differ-^

^^^^^^ ^.^^^.^

^p^^.^^ j^^^^^

judicially

summed up

by our

greatest living

authority,

Dr Albert

40

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

in chap. v. of his book on Grcch in the HelHe thinks that such Age, ah^eady often quoted.^ differences must have existed largely, in Asia Minor especially

Thumb,
lenistic

but that writings like the Greek Bible, intended for general circulation, employed a DurchseJinittsprache which avoided local

though intended for single localities. (The letters Paul are no exception to this rule, for he could not be familiar with the peculiarities of Galatian or Achaian, still
peculiarities,

of

less of

Eoman,

Kotvr}.)

To the question whether our autho-

speaking of a special Alexandrian Greek, For nearly all the practically returns a negative. /purposes of our own special study, Hellenistic Greek may be
rities are right in

Thumb

Y^
13

f
/

regarded as a unity, hardly varying except with the education of the writer, his tendency to use or ignore specialities of

and the degree of his dependence upon which might be either freely or slavishly foreign originals
literary language,

rendered into the current Greek.

however to be noted that the minute dialectic which can be detected in NT Greek are sometimes significant to the literary critic. In an article in
It
is

differences

ThLZ, 1903,
ence of

p.

421,

Thumb

calls attention

to

the promin-

He tells us iixo^ in Jn, as against fiov elsewhere.^ that ijjio'i and its like survive in modern Pontic-Cappadocian
Greek, while the gen. of the personal pronoun has replaced it in other parts of the Greek-speaking area. This circumstance contributes something to the evidence that the Fourth

We might add that on the Gospel came from Asia Minor. same showing Luke should come from Macedonia, or some
other country outside Asia Minor, for he hardly uses e/A09 while Eev, in which out of the four possessive pronouns e/409 alone occurs, and that but once, seems to be from the pen of
;

a recent immigrant. Valeat quantum ! Thumb shows that the infinitive still

In the same paper


survives
in

Pontic,

Cf Blass 4

n.

"

'E/x6s occui's

the rest of the

NT.
:

36 times in Jn, once eacli in 3 Jn and Rev, and 34 times in It must be admitted that the other possessives do not tell

the same story the three together appear 11 times in Jn (Ev and Epp), 12 in Blass (p. 168) notes how vixQiv in Paul (in the Lk, and 21 in the rest of NT.
position of the attribute) ousts the emphatic 170-01; oi;o-ta, Mitliraslit. p. 17 and note.)
v/j-erepos.

(For that position cf

HISTORY OF THE "COMMON" GREEK.


while in Greece proper

41

it yields entirely to the periphrasis. conditions under which the infinitive is found syntactical in Pontic answer very well to those which appear in the NT: in

The

such uses Western Greek tended to enlarge the sphere of tW. This test, applied to Jn, rather neutralises that from eVo<f see below, p. 205, 211. Probably the careful study of local

MGr

patois will reveal

more

of these minutiae.

Another

field

for research is presented

by the orthographical peculiarities of the NT uncials, which, in comparison with the papyri and of the MS8, and inscriptions, will help to fix the provenance
is

thus supply criteria for that localising of textual types which an indispensable step towards the ultimate goal of criticism.^
this direction are given by Thumb, Hcllenismus K. Lake's remarks on the problems awaiting us iu textual See also p. 244. criticism, in his inaugural lectui-e at Leiden (Oxford, 1904).
1

One

or

two hints in

179.

Of

Prof.

CHAPTER

III.

Notes on the Accidence.


examine the conditions i Hellenistic syntax, we must devote a the Pauvri short chapter to the accidence. To treat the forms in any detail would be obviously out of place in these Prolegomena. The humble but necessary work of
to

The Uncials and

Before we begin
^

rr

^^

^-

i.

i.

i.

gathering into small compass the accidence of the NT writers I have done in my little Introduction (see above, p. 1 n.) and
;

it

have to be done again more minutely in the second of this Grammar. In the present chapter we shall try part
will
to prepare ourselves for

answering a preliminary question

of

great importance, viz., what NT writers between the literary and illiterate Greek of their
time.

was the position occupied by the

purpose the forms give us a more easily than the syntax. But before we can use them we must make sure that we have them substantially as they

For

this

applied test

stood in the autographs.

and

still

more

have
as

May not such MSS as N and B conformed their orthography to the


of

" the " Syrian revision conformed it in some respects to the literary standards ? cannot give a universal answer to this question, for we have seen already that an artificial orthography left the door open

popular

style, just

those

We

few uncertainties. But there are some suggestive that the great uncials, in this respect as in others, signs are not far away from the autographs. very instructive phenomenon is the curious substitution of idv for av
for not a

which have faithfully reproduced numberless places from the MSS. This was so little recognised as a genuine feature of vernacular Greek, that the
after 09, ottov, etc.,
in

WH

editors of the
"
1.

dv

"

volumes of papyri began by gravely subscribing wherever the abnormal edv showed itself. They

NOTES ON THE ACCIDENCE.

43

were soon compelled to save themselves the trouble. Deissmann, BS 204, gave a considerable list from the papyri, which abundantly proved the genuineness of this edv; and
four

years
it

later

(1901) the material had grown


to

so

much
of

that

was

possible

determine
If

the

time-limits

the

peculiarity with fair certainty.


:

my
4:8
i/

count

is

right,^ the
B.C.

proportion of edv to dv is 13 29 in papyri dated proportion was soon reversed, the figures being
i/A.D.,

The
for

25:7

76:9

for

ii/,

9:3

for

iii/,

for

iv/.

This edv

occurs last in a vi/ papyrus. It will be seen that the above construction was specially common in and when edv
ii/,

greatly predominated, and that the fashion had almost died It seems away before the great uncials were written.

that in this
originals

small

point

the

uncials

written

under

conditions

long

faithfully reproduce obsolete.^ This


;

but we particular example aflbrds us a very fair test reinforce it with a variety of cases where the MSS may
accurately reproduce the spelling of i/A.D. the order of the material in App 141

We
ff.

will follow

WH

("Notes on

Orthography ") it is unnecessary to give detailed references papyrus evidence, which will be found fully stated We must bear in the papers from CR, already cited.
:

for the

in

mind throughout Hort's caution


have to a greater or
XV. 32, XV. 434
I
foi"

(p.

141) that "all our

MSS
1

less

extent suffered from the

CR

the exx. B.C.

have added

subsequently read.
further on p. 234. 2 The case of av,

am

sorry I caiuiot

now complete

from papyri the statistics. See


figures

where

In the NT this is confined apparently to Jn, In the papyri it is decidedly a symptom of illiteracy. With this agrees what Meisterhaiis^ 255 f. says: "Only six times is cfc found The form av is entirely foreign to the Attic inscripfrom v/ to iii/B.C. tions, though it is often found in the lonicising literary i)rose of v/ Since 6.v is the modern form, we may of the Tragedians)." (Thucydides
if, is

separate.

it

occurs six times.

perhaps regard it as a dialectic variant which ultimately ousted the Attic i&v. It is not clear to what dialect it is to be assigned. Against Meisterhans' suggestion of Ionic stands the opinion of H. W. Smyth (Ionic Dialect, p. 609)
that
its

the normal Ionic form, but

(So gives iav as the only form from Magnesia. Some peculiar local distribution is needed to explain why 6.v (if) is absent Both from the incorrectly written Rev, and reserved for the correct Jn. av and idv are found promiscuously in the Herculaneum rolls (Crbnert

occasional appearances in Ionic are due to Atticising Certainly S.v may have been Ionic as well, though rarer.
!

r)v is

Mr

P. Giles.)

Nachmanson

(p. 68)

130).

44

A GRAMMAR OF NEAV TESTAMENT GREEK.


" "

effacement of unclassical forms of words."

statement

that

the

Western

"The orthography of tendency. certain extent was used by all the writers of the
iu

Note also his show the reverse common life, which to a

MSS

NT, though

degrees, would naturally be introduced more freely in texts affected by an instinct of popular adaptation." He would be a bold man who should claim that even Hort

unequal

has said the last word on the problem of the S-text; and with our new knowledge of the essentially popular character
of Greek as a whole, we shall naturally pay special attention to documents which desert the classical spelling for that which we find prevailing in those papyri that were

NT

written by men of education approximately parallel with that of the apostolic writers.

We
forms

Orthography.
cicptBe

unusual aspirated begin with the . i^ox 'jl' '^ /O' 's^' (p. 143), e^ eXTnoc etc., kuU ibiav,
/
's:

"

For all these there is a large etc., and ov-^^ 6X1709.* There are a body of evidence from papyri and inscriptions. good many other words affected thus, the commonest of which, eVo?, shows no trace of the aspiration in NT uncials. Sins of commission as well as omission seem to be inevitable when initial h has become as weak as in later Greek or in

modern English. Hence in a period when de-aspiration was the prevailing tendency, analogy produced some cases of
reaction,
etc.
^
;

Kad' eVo? due to kuO^ rjixepav, acpiBe and the two types struggled for survival. shows that the aspirated form did not always

to

acpopav,
icjiiro

MGr
yield.

The

uncertainty of the spelling thus naturally follows from the history of the aspirate. It is here impossible to determine the spelling of the autographs, but the wisdom of following the

MS

The reverse great uncials becomes clearer as we go on. phenomenon, psilosis, exx. of which figure on p. 144, is part of the general tendency which started from the Ionic
and Aeolic of Asia Minor and became universal, as MGr shov/s. The mention of Ta/meiov (p. 146 add Trelv from
'

^ The curious coincidence that many, but by no means all, of these Avords once began with F, led to the fancy (repeated by Hort) that the lost consonant had to do with the aspiration. I need not stay to explain why this cannot be accepted. The explanation by analogy within the Koivi^ is that

favoured by

Thumb.

(See additional note, p. 234.)

["

See p. 244.

NOTES ON THE ACCIDENCE.


p.

45

viz.

170) brings up a universal law of Hellenistic phonology, the coalescence of two successive i sounds the inf. Scacrelv
(L2g

for -aeUiv

i/B.c.)

will serve as a good

avaal

in

Lk 23^

t^.^

Tafielov, irelv

and

v'^eia

cf example are overwhelm-

ingly attested by the papyri, where there are exx. of the curious reversion seen in Mt 20^-,

only rare

In

akeel<;

(Mk V^
to

al)

we have

dissimilation

instead

of

contraction.

Under the head


in the

of Elision (p. 146), it of this

mention that the neglect

MSS

at 1

Co

15^^, is

may be worth while even in a verse citation, as in accord with an exceedingly

common
movable
natural.
p.

The presence or absence of practice in inscriptions. v (pp. 146 f.) cannot be reduced to any visible rule:
nasal in

the evanescence of the

Cf

p.

49 below.
a(f)vpL<i,

pronunciation makes this Among the spellings recorded on


(vegetable product), and while the wavering of
;

148 we note
^

yevrj/na

-'^vvvco

as well attested in the papyri

usage between pp and


istic

pa- is traceable

down through Hellen("only

to

MGr.^
is

The case
instructive.

of

the spelling apa^cov

Western")

Deissmann (^>S^ 183) gives but one ex. of the pp form, and nine of the single consonant, His natural questioning of Hort's from three documents. is curiously discounted by the more recently orthography " " published papyri, which make the totals 1 1 for the Western and 15 for pp^ The word will serve as a reminder that
only the unanimity of the papyri can make us really sure The of our autographs' spelling: cf Deissmann, BS 181.

wavering

of

inscriptional testimony as to Zfxupva


;

{ib.

185)

makes

impossible to be decisive but the coincidence of Smyrntean coins makes it seem " difficult to reject the witness " Western taint. In words with aa the of i, on suspicion of
it

as
"

papyri show the Attic tt in about the same small proportion the NT uncials, and with much the same absence of
13^* SD, also banned as Western ") has some papyrus warrant, and survives in the It started (Cappadocian) opvLX- cf Thumb, ffellen. 90. to the note on reaa-ape<; and Teaa-ain Doric Greek. Coming
inteUigible
principle.

"Opvc^ (Lk

MGr

1 2

Correct Ti in

loc.

owe the
*

ref.

to Buresch

EhM xlvi.
423.

213

n.

So

MGr (Cyprus), Thumb I.e. 422.

says

Thumb

in

ThLZ xxviii.

C'R xv. 33, since supplemented.

46

A GRAMMAK OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


(p.

paKovra
few,

150),

uncials and papyri.

we meet our first dissonance between NT The e forms are in the latter relatively
illiterate, in

and distinctly

the

first

centuries a.d.

Indeed

the evidence for reaaepa or riaaepa'i is virtually nil before the Byzantine age,^ and there does not seem to be the
smallest probability that the Apostles wrote anything but For reaaepuKovra the case is a little better, the Attic form.

but it is hopelessly outnumbered by the -ap- form in documents antedating the NT uncials the modern aepdvra, side by side with aapavra, shows that the strife continued. No doubt before iv/A.D. Teaaepe'i -a (not Teaaepwv) had begun to
;

establish themselves in the place they hold to-day.


is

'Epavudco

certain

from

i/A.D.

onward

;2

and Deissmann (S 182)

gives a iv/A.D. papyrus parallel for i^yapevo) (X his, B semel). Spellings like Kpi/xa (p. 150) are supported by a great multiplication
in Kotvr]

documents
(p.

of -/xa

nouns with shortened

penultimate.
'EXk'r]vLKOi<i
;

Cf Moeris

and note

28), dvadrjixa ^Attlko)'^, avdde/xa 2 d(jiupefjba his in Par P 6


(ii/B.c).
1^^,

Even

how

(Tvcnep,a is found (not "^crvaTa/jia), Gen late and mechanical this process was.

which shows

The convenient

^ meaning between dvdOrjfxa and dvade/ia preserved the former intact, though xADX are quotable for The complete estabthe levelling in its one NT occurrence. lishment of el jjirjv by the papyri is an interesting confirmation of the best uncials. Despite Hort (p. 151), we must make " the difference between el jirjv and rj fjbrjv strictly orthograph" after all, if the alternative is to suppose any connexion ical

differentiation of

with
tion

el, if.

Numerous

early citations
ei

make

impossible*

On

and

(p.

assump153) the papyri are

this last

"

Tiacrapes ace. is another matter : see above, p. 36. Whether it was general in the Koipr) is doubtful.

MGr

has ^pevva

cf

also

Par P 60-

(ii/B.c.

?),

Tb P

38

{ib.).

note also

Thumb,

Hcllcn. 176

f.,

who

See Buresch, xlvi. 213 f.; but disposes of the notion that it was an

BhM

Kretschmer, BLZ, 1901, p. 1049, brings j^arallels from Thera See papyrus citations in CR xv. 34, xviii. 107. (ai)- in compounds of eC). ^ Deissmann has recently shown that dvaOe/xa, curse, is not an innovation of

Alexandrinism.

"Biblical Greek"
*

(ZNTJF ii.

342).

have 8 exx. from papyri between ii/u.c. and i/A.D. Still more decisive is the syntax of el fudv in a well-known Messenian inscription, dated 91 B.C. (Michel 694) opKt^ovTU) rbv yvvaLKOvSfioV el jxav e^etv eiritxiXeiav, kt\. (The same inscription has the form etrev for eTra, found in Mk 4^^. )
I
:

NOTES ON THE ACCIDENCE.


:

47

At any
from

ei even for l is an entirely indecisive everyday occurrence. rate they give no encouragement to our

yeivofiai

and yeivcoaKco, as would mere impressions, yivofiai is at


is

WH

introducing
:

like

to do

least as

common

to judge as
et

jeLvo/xai.

This matter of the notorious equivalence of

adduced by Thumb (reviewing Blass^, ThLZ, 1903, 421) as a specimen of philological facts which are not always he cites present to the minds of theological text-critics Brooke and M'Lean (JTS, 1902, 601 ff.), who seriously treat

and

various readings deserving a place in the Ti did the same in Eev, where even (see App 162) marked iSov, etc., as alternative. In this matter no reader
iSev, cSov, as

text.

WH

LXX

much store by some of the which so conscientiously gather from the great It would probably be safer in general to uncials. spell for even admit that their paraaccording to tradition
of

the papyri would care to set

minutiffi

WH

WH

authority on behalf of ei as be mentioned a notable matter against Finally might of pronunciation to which Hort does not refer. The less educated papyrus writers very frequently use a for av, before
witness, B,
i."

mount

"

has

little

Its frequent appearance in consonants, from i/B.c. onwards.^ Attic inscriptions after 74 B.C. is noted by Meisterhans^

In Lk 2^ (Ayovarov) this pronunciation shows itself, but we do not seem to find dro^, earov, according to XC* J An excellent etc., in the MSS, as we should have expected.^
154.
;

suggestion
following
2^'*

is

made by Dr
of

J. B.

up one

Hort's

Mayor

{Expos,

vi. x.

289)
2

that

d.Kara'Trdarov';

in

Pet

be thus explained: he compares d-^firjpoj V^ A. In arguing his case, he fails to see that the dropping of a u but (or rather F) between vowels is altogether another thing his remaining exx. (to which add those cited from papyri in
;

AB may

CR XV. 33, 434, xviii. 107) are enough to prove his point. Laurent remarks (BCff, 1903, p. 356) that this phenomenon was common in the latter half of I/b.c. We need not assume
its

existence in the

NT

autographs.

1 The same tendency appeared in late vulgar Latin, and perpetuated itself Romance see Lindsay, Latin Language 41 f. 2 In MGr (see Thumb, Handhuch, p. 59) we find airbs (pronounced aft6s) side by side with dros (obsolete except in Pontus), whence the sliort form t6,

in

etc.

There was therefore a grammatical difference in the

Ko^v-f] itself.

48

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

Inflexion

Nonns
-7)<;

pass on to the noun flexion (p. 156). " i li -vta JNouns in -pa and participles the form genitive and dative in papyri regularly
-vt

We

.-i

except that -via?, -via are still found in the Ptolemaic Here again the oldest uncials alone and even they period. are not without lapses support the unmistakable verdict of
-7],

saw reason the contemporary documents of the Koivi]. to regard this as the analogical assimilation of (above, p. 38)

We

somewhat later and less -pa nouns (and to the other -a flexions of the participles)
rather than as an Ionic survival.

markedly
first

via

declension,

We may add that as /jid-^acpa

S6^r]<;, so, by a produced fu,axci^pv^ reverse analogy process, the gen. Nv/jb(pr]<; as a proper name produced what may be read as Nv/jucpa Nv/jb(f)av in nom. and

on the model of So^a

ace.

the best reading of Col 4^^ {avTi)<=; B) may thus stand, without postulating a Doric Nv/jbcf)dv, the improbability of
:

The heteroclite which decides Lightfoot for the alternative.^ names, which fluctuate between 1st and 3rd decl., are proper
Critics, like paralleled by Egyptian place-names in papyri. whose keen scent has differentiated documents by the Clemen,

evidence of Avarpav and AvaTpoi,<; in Ac 14^-^ (see Knowling, UGT in loc), might be invited to track down the " redactor "

who presumably
uov^wv
in

perpetrated either KepKecrovxj}


(ii/A.D.).

or

Kep'^e-

GH

46

Eamsay {Paul 129) shows that


-cov.

Mvpa

had

ace.

-av and gen.

perhaps

feel

encouraged

thus

to

believe

Uncritical people that Mt 2^

may
and The

Mt

2^,

despite the heteroclisis, are from the same hand.*

variations between 1st

and 2nd

decl, in
:

words

like eKarovrap-

%09 (-779) are found passim in papyri for conscientious labour wasted thereon see Schmiedel's amusing note in his Preface
to

WS.

abundant

Xpvadv
tion of

nouns and adjectives we have for forms like ocrrecdv, XP^<^^^^> 9,nd for parallels The good attesta(formed by analogy of apyvpdu).
In
contracted

be

the type vo6<i vol, after the analogy of /3oi)9, The fact that we do not observed in passing.

may
find
is

short
1

forms

of

nouns in

-to9

-lov

(e.g.

Kvpt<;,

rrabhiv)

See the writer's paper in Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. Oct. 1893, p. 12, where Cf AoGXa as a is suggested as the connecting link. proper name (Dieterich, Unters. 172), and Wiprivix in a Christian inscr. (Ramsay,
the archaic vocative in -a
C. tfc.
ii.

497n.).

[6Seep. 244.

NOTES ON THE ACCIDENCE.


noteworthy
in
test
of

-10

for the papyri

show them even

the educational standard of the writers, as early as and always iii/]5.C.,

company with other indications of comparative illiteracy. These forms, the origin of which seems to me as perplexed as ever, despite the various efforts of such scholars as Thumb,
Hatzidakis, and

Brugmann

to

unravel

it,

ultimately

won

We must not omit monopoly, as MGr shows everywhere. " Mixed Declension," which arose from mention of the analogies in the -d- and -o- nouns, and spread rapidly because
The stem especially for foreign names. vowel or diphthong, which receives -9 for nom. and -V for ace, remaining unchanged in voc, gen. and dat. It sing. 'It]crov^ is the most conspicuous of many NT exx. over the exact a large part in MGr.^ Passing lightly plays correspondence between uncials and papyri in the accusatives
of its convenience,

ends in a long

of /cXetV

and

%a/ct9 (p.

157),

we may pause on %etpay

in

The great frequency of this formation in uneducated papyri, which adequately foreshadows its victory in MGr," naturally produced sporadic examples in our MSS, but it is not at all likely that the autographs showed it (unless

Jn

20^^ x'^AB.

Gregory (in Ti, vol. iii. 1 1 8 f.) registers possibly in Eev). forms like acr^akrjv and 7roSi]pr]v, which also have papyrus from the analogy parallels, but could be explained more easily
of 1st decl. nouns.
of

Mei^wv

ace.

(Jn

5^"^

ABEGMJ)

is

a good

have example been added after long vowels almost as freely as the equally One further noun calls for comment, viz., unpronounced i.^ The noun iXaicov = olivetum 'EXai,covo<i in Ac l^MP- 158). occurs nearly thirty times in papyri between i/ and iii/A.D.,
the irrational addition of
v,

which seems

to

which prompts surprise at Blass's continued scepticism. 'EXiKcov (salicetum) is an ancient example of the turning of a similar word into a proper name.^

1 -

See
It

CR

xviii. 109,

Kiihner-Blass 136.

seems most probable that the


See
-v final.
,

modem

levelling of 1st
28, 35;

and 3rd
also p.

decl.

started witli this accusative.

Thumb, ffandbuch
tjv
{

IS for

the pronunciation of
=*

Thus aXwt

is

ace. sing.

while

r))

is

sometimes subjunctive.

For

exx. see

So lia-a iav 9ji> in Gen 6"E. *See Deissmami, BS 208 ff., and the addenda in See also p. 214. 429 ; also below, pp. 69 and 235.

CE

xviii. 108.

Exjjos. vi. vii. Ill, viii.

50

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


Two
Adiect-ves
ica-^lj

curious indeclinables meet us periodamong the adjectives. UXrjprj'i should

be read in

Mk

42s

(C^% Hort) and

Ac

6^

(AC*^DEHP
Cf 2 Jns
(L),

al.),

and
8^^^

is

Mk

occurrence of an oblique case (AEL 13). Thus in every of this word we meet with the indeclinable form in good
citations for this^ scarcely begin, howand we cannot well credit educated ii/A.D. writers with such a form. We may probably assume that in Jn 1^* an original ifKrjpr] was corrupted to the vulgar B. Weiss and others would make irXijpi]'; in an early copy. the adj. depend in sense upon aurov, but So^av seems more appropriate, from the whole trend of the sentence it is the
uncials.

(AFGM NT

probably to be recognised in Jn 1^*. al), Ac 6^ al.) ID^s

(AEHP

The papyrus
;

ever,

before

"

"

glory

or

"

self-revelation

"

of the

Word

that

is

"

full

of

grace and truth." One might fairly doubt whether expositors would have thought of making Kal eOeaad^eOa irarpo^ a parenthesis, had it not been for the supposed necessity of
. .
.

construing

TrX^jprj^;

as a nominative.

We may

regard

as

having either preserved or successfully restored the original

The other indeclinables in question are TrXelco reading here.^ and the other forms in -to from the old comparative base in
Cronert (in Philologus Ixi. 161 ff.) has shown how -yos. frequently in papyri and even in literature these forms are used, like irki^prj'i and ij/xLav, without modification for case. In Mt 26-^^ we have a good example preserved in nBD, the
later

MSS

duly mending the grammar with TrXetbu?.

Is it

possible that the false reading in


original /xei^o) of this kind
?

Jn

10^^ started from an

Many more noun

forms might be cited in which

the

MSS

prove to have retained the genuine Hellenistic, as evidenced by the papyri but these typical examples will serve.
;

GE
f.
;

561

ex. I
^

XV. 35, 435, xviii. 109. See also C. H. Turner in JTS i. 120 iT. and Radermaclier in FihUflvil 151 Eeinliold 53. LPc (ii/n.c.) is the onlyknow, eai'lier than ii/A.D. It may very well be original in Mk.
;

"Winer, p. 705, compares the "grammatically independent" ir'Krfprjs clanse with the nom. seen in Phil 3", Mk 12'*''. W. F. Moulton makes no remark there, l)ut in the note on Jn 1^* (Milligan-MoTilton in loc.) he accepts the construction found in the RV, or permits his colleague to do so. At that date the case for the indeclinable ttXij/jtjs was before him only in the LXX (as Job 21^^

nBAC).

See also p. 244.

NOTES ON THE ACCIDENCE.

51

Verbs naturally supply yet more abundant material, but we need not cite it fully here. Pursuing the order of A]')}'', ^ pause a moment on the dropped augments, xr

WH

etc.,

in pp.

161

f.,

which are well

illustrated

in papyri.

Augments.
first to

This phenomenon goes back to Herodotus, and may well be a contribution of Ionic to the

^ Common

"^

/^,

tTreek.
:

-rx-

Diphthongs are naturally the


likely, for

,,

,,

show the tendency it is not Drs Grenfell and Hunt would now,
of "

example, that

as in

more

the Oxyrhynchus Logia (1897, p. 7), " serious error than ai for e or ei for
of direKaTeaTadi] in papyri
trifle

the editio princeps call olKoSofjL7)fj.evr] a


t.

The double
be noted as

augment

and

NT may

a suggestive
'

under

this

on.
,.

Very

augments before satisfactory confirmation


of

head

we
of

pass our

of

is supplied by the personThe functionally useless difference endings. ending between the strong and the weak aorist began to

uncial tradition

disappear in our period.

Tlie strong aorist act. or mid. is

in only found in some thirty -w verbs (and their compounds) the NT and while the great frequency of their occurrence of protected the root-form, the overwhelming predominance the sigmatic aorist tended to drive off the field its rival's
;

The limits of this usage in the NT text are person-endings. Thus we in accord with the better-written papyri. entirely
find little
of
[.
.

encouragement for ^evdixevo^^ for which any number But when we notice 'yeva papyrus citations may be made. in BU 1033 (ii/A.D.) corrected to ^evo ... by a second .]

hand,2

we

see that education

ment, which had begun

rebelled against this developwith the Attic etTra? centuries before.


still

The tendency, in fairly cultured speech, mainly concerned the For the details see the careful act., and the indie, middle. Whether the same intrusion should note in WS p. 111.
there is no furtlier uncial B, and Mk G^s and \b^- A in a total of 40 occurthroughout Mt, Mk, and Lk, The ptc. does not occur in Jii. I have not looked further. rences. 2 D) is perhaps due to the frequency EupdMefos in Heb Q^- (all uncials except The ptc. itself appears in an inscr. of the Roman age, of 1st aor. in -pa. I?JJ iii. 1119. P. Buttmann cites Yei'd^fos from Archimedes (iii/i;.c.), though 2i3 ft'.) Wilamowitz-Mollendorf in his extracts from the Psammites {Lcsehich But in a Doric author the question concerns us seven times. edits
1

So Lk

22-*-'

N,

Lk 24-

support, if Ti

is reliable,

yevSfievos

little.

MGr

shows that

yevdp.euos

came

to stay.

52

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


e.g.

be allowed in the imperf.,

el^av

Mk

8^, is

doubtful, in

It is for the view of the scanty warrant from the papyri. same reason more than doubtful whether we can accept TrapeXd^oaav 2 Th 3*^ n*AD''^ I have only 4 imperf. and
:

2 aor. exx. from Ptolemaic

times,

veaav and dcplXeaav (BM 18, 41, 161 91 n.^) show that the innovation had
fixity before I/a.d.

and the forms iXafx^dB.C. cited by

WM

not attained great

in 2

Th

I.e.

The ocular confusion suggested by Hort would be furthered by the later currency of this

convenient ending.
writer
of
;

What we
is

find
little

it

hard to allow in a
easier

Paul's

culture

in

Jn

(IS^^-^*

kBL

etc.)

and

iSoXiova-av

Kom

3^^

(LXX) might have been

by Paul himself, apart from quotation we can hardly any other 3 pi. imperf. from -ow verbs. As see Nachas ii/B.c. we find r/^tovcrav in Marjn. 47 early The -e? of 2 sg. perf., read manson's parallels, pp. 148 f. in Eev 2^-^ 11^'^, and in 1st aor. Kev 2^ may by be allowed in Eev as a mark of imperfect Greek perhaps The it has no warrant from educated writing outside.^ 3 pi. perf. in -av is well attested in Ac 16^*^ and Ko 16'^
written
cite
:

WH

kAB, Lk

936

BLX, Col

2^

s*ABCD*P,

as well as in Jn, Jas

It certainly makes and Eev, where it raises less difficulty. a fair show in the papyri, even as early as the Ptolemaic period, but not in documents which would encourage us to As the only difference between receive it for Luke or Paul. and 1 aor.-endings, the -acri was foredoomed to yield to perf. the assimilating tendency but possible occurrences of -av are relatively so few, and the witness of the papyri so dubious,
;

it a vulgarism If it were an early scribe.^ as Sextus Empiricus says, we could really Alexandrian, but understand its comparative frequency in the papyri Thumb decisively rejects this (Hellenismus 170), on the

that

it

is

safer,

except in Eev, to suppose


of

due to the occasional lapse

ground
'

of its frequent

appearance elsewhere.^

The termina-

Even B sliows it, in Ac 21". Yeyovav formed the starting-point of a valuable paper Idj K. Burescli in EhM, 1891, pp. 193 ff., which should not be missed by the student of Hellenistic, though it needs some modification in the light of newer knowledge. Thus he
-

accepts the Alexandrian provenance of this and the


^

-otra!'

type.

At Delphi,

for

example, with imperf. and

aor. -offav (see p. 37).

NOTES ON THE ACCIDENCE.


tion -aac invades

53

what is formally, though uot in meaning, a in the case of rjKaa-i, which is a genuine vernacular present, WII {AjJ}} 169) reject form (cf ijKUfiev in Par P 48
it

8^ regarding it as a paraphrase of elaiv (BLJ); but it must be observed tliat the Lewis Syriac is now to be added to xADN, with the Latin and It is after all a form other versions, which support it. which we might expect in Mk, and equally expect to find removed by revisers, whether Alexandrian or Syrian. By
as

"

Western

"

(ii/B.c.)).

in

Mk

way
the

of

completing the person-endings, we

may

observe that

pluperf. act. has exclusively the later -eiv form, with ^ and that the 3 pi. imper. in -Tcoaav and -ei- even in 3 pi.
;

-aOodcrav are unchallenged.

Taking up the contract verbs, we note how the confusions between -dw and -eco forms (p. 166) are supported by our Our first serious revolt from external evidence, and by MGr. concerns the infinitive in -olv (and by analogy -av). The

WH

cf "small, but of good quality" (p. 166 in fact confined to B*D in Mt 13^^^ B* Introd. I 410): it is in 432, s* in 1 Pet 2^^ BD* in Heb 7^ (where see Ti), This evidence may pass if our and a lectionary in Lk 9^^

evidence for

it is

Mk

merely to reproduce the spelling of the age of B but absolutely no corroboration seems discoverable, earlier than the date of B itself, except an inscription cited in
object
is
;

193),^ and a newly published papyrus, also Blass (p. 48) does not regard the form fromii/A.D., can quote against it from as established for the NT. a dozen examples of -ovv in papyri. (That -ovv and

Hatzidakis

(p.

PFi 24.

We

i-iv/A.D.

-av (not av) are the correct Attic forms, may be seen from Meisterhans^ 175 f., which Hort's hesitation as to -av

Gramm:^ 61, or WS 42.) Brugmann, irregularity Next may be named, for -dw verbs, the 2nd sing. pres. mid. in
see
Gr.
in the
^

prompts

me

to

quote

for

the

reason

of

the apparent

-daaL (Kavxdcrat,, ohvvdaai), which has been formed afresh Kolv^ with the help of the -aai that answers to 3rd
Tliere are isolated exceptions in the papyri.

Two other inscriptions are cited by Hatzidakis, but So AVS 116 n. Vitelli (on PFi I.e.) refers to Ciunert 220 n., who corrects without dates. the form is of course a simple product of analogy Schniiedel's pliilology
2
:

Xvei.

Xveiv

orjXol

OrjXo'ii'.

54

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


It
is

sing. -Tat in the perfect.^

well paralleled by the early


'^apiecraL

Ptolemaic future )(apieiaai, for which

appears in

OP 292

(i/A.D.).

^djeaai and

irieaai,

which naturally went

together, give us the only exx. outside -dw verbs, to which the quotations in G. Meyer Gr. Gram?' 549 suggest that

The later extensions the innovation was mainly confined. be noted in Hatzidakis 188. Note the converse change may
in hvvrj.
subj.

Unfortunately we do not seem to have exx. of the


-0(0

parsing of Xva ^rfKovre and Blass (Kuhner^ i. 2. 587, and Gr. 48) (p. 167). accepts Hort's view that the subj. of these verbs became identical with the indie, just as it always was in the -atu
of

verbs, to help the

the like

verbs.

(See
.
.

W.
.

F.

Moulton's note,
there cited,

WM

363.

Ex

l^e ^Vai/

a very good example.) oxtl, fiacovaOe But Blass rightly, I think, rejects the supposition that euoScoTat (1 Co 16^) can be anything but a pres. subj. To read evoBcorai, as perf. indie, is possible, though the editors
kuI
is

by their printing to have favoured that That it is a perf. subj. is extremely unlikely. The parallels on which Hort (p. 172) relies set forth with do important additions in Blass's Kiihner i. 2. 100 f. to make it likely that the Koivrj had any perf. subj. nothing It is hard, apart from the ordinary periphrastic form.^
do
not
alternative.

seem

moreover, to see
see

why

the pres. subj.


loc.

is

not satisfactory here


vol.
ii.).

Dr

Findlay's note in

{EGT

Finally we

the disappearance of the -rjoi verbs from the Koivrj, with the exception of ^i-joi and ^pjyo/iat ^ (as we ought to call

note

them)
iSeero

also

Lk

8^^

the sporadic appearance of the uncontracted (B and a few others -ecTo, which looks like a

It is supported by Esth 14=^ A, BU 926 correction). (H/a.d.) and the Mithras Liturgy (p. 12): it is probably, as Blass suggests, a mere analogy-product from Seofiat conjugated
^ To suppose this (or (pdyeffai, similarly formed from (pdyeraL) a genuine survival of the pre-Greek -esai, is characteristic of the antediluvian philology which still frequently does duty for science in this country. Krumbacher, xxvii. 497, scoffs at E. Curtius for talking of an "uralte" -(xai.

KZ

would demand a very technical discussion. It is enough and fiefivw/xai. are not derivative verbs, and that the three derivative verbs which can be quoted, from Doric, Cretan and
2

To argue

this

to say that the Attic KeKrQfiai

Ionic respectively, supply slender justification for the sui^jjosed Koij'^ parallel. ^ XpS.a6aL was the Hellenistic infin., but there is no example of it in NT,

NOTES ON THE ACCIDENCE.


like

55

It affordg no Xvoixat^ and owes uothiiig to Ionic. warrant for suspecting uucontracted forms elsewliere Kare'^eev Mk 14^ is an aor., as in Attic.
:

The verbs
the
process

in

-/^t

continued in Hellenistic to suffer from


extinction

of

gradual
in

which

began

even

in

every form outside the verb "be." The papyri agree with the NT uncials in showing forms like Bvvouat and , in Verbs -/xi. ,^ /?. x -edTo well as -edoTo), and various (as flexions after contract verb types. New verbs like la-rdvo) ^
.

Homeric Greek, and

MGr

has

eliminated

and new tenses like eaTuKa (transitive). The most important novelty apart from these is the aor. subj. Sol and fyvoi,^ as to which W. F. Moulton's view (WM 360 n.)
are formed,
is

finally established
subj.
SiSol,

by good
the
later
us.

pres.

after

-6co

attestation from papyri. The verbs, set the analogy at

work.
opt.

That in much

need not trouble

documents such forms may be The form Smt] is more difficult.


for
7roia)r]
:

Schwyzer (p. 191) quotes Moeris Greek, and calls in the analogy of
to
Smt]

in

Common

rc/xMr]

(also

attested

that

8oL7]

drew towards
p.

monosyllabic: 'see
ical

by Moeris) was dll, and would consequently become 45. Jm-jj (subj.) seems a syntact1^''

the further step eased by the fact

necessity in uncials in Eph 3^^

Eph

(B
15^*"):

Sm),

Tim

2-^

(cf

later

and Jn

this form, well

known

in

Homer,
ligible

survives in Boeotian and Delphian inscriptions, as


that

Michel 1411

NW

(ii/B.c, Delphi),

1409 (doy

It is quite intel-

Greek
to

thus contributed

36 f.) should have (cf above, p. the Koivrj an item which (like other

contributions from a single quarter, e.g. rea-aape^; ace.) kept only a precarious existence by the side of other forms.

We

return to this later (pp.


as in

193

f.).

From

olSa

we have

perfect indie, flexion,^ and with occasional literary revival of the older irregular yheiv, forms. Finally, in the conjugation of el^ll, the middle forms

NT, ordinary

in papyri, pluperf. for

1
''

See below, p. 234.

is interesting in that it exactly The form -crTavu in n and (p. 168) 53 (iii/A.c), in Wilcken's reading. So anticipates the MGr. So in 2nd person also, airoSois Lk 12''' (as papyri). * See G. Meyer Gr. Gramm." 656. ^ Probably Ionic so Herodotus, and even our texts of Homer {Od. i. 337).

NP

56

A GEAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


{rnjirjv,

are well established

i^fieOa

see above, p.

37), as to
present"

still

further extent

MGr.

Even the
G.

MGr
{Gr.

elixai is

found already in a Phrygian inscription ap. Eamsay


ii.

G.

and B.

565

(early Iv/a.d.).

Meyer

Gramm.^

569) regarded

eo-rat as the
;

3rd

sing, of this, transferred to

but this view seems questionable. future meaning It may be noted that the old 1st sing, ^v reappears in at Ac 20^^: elsewhere ijfjLTiv stands alone. The rarer tjtq) alternates with

a-T(o,

in papyri

and
^

late inscriptions, as in
It
is
,,

NT.
any
-,

Miscellaneous.
"

,_.

needless to add

details as to

noteworthy principal among of verbs. parts Papyrus parallels may be cited for ^volyqv, for the double formation of dpird^co and ^aard^w (rjpTrdjTjv and ijpirdadrjv, ijBdaTaaa and i^dara^a^), for the alternative perf. of Tvy^^dvca (see Ti on Heb 8*^), for the 1 aor. of ci>y(o, etc. Note especially the intrusion of the from the present
yu,

forms

the

of \a/jb^dvco into various parts of the verb, and into derivative nouns (p. 142). This is normal in the papyri after the
is still some lingering of The same phenomenon occurred partially but the Ionic f ut. Xd/juylro/xai,, by taking over the d in Ionic as well as the nasal of the present, shows that it was an

Ptolemaic period, in which there


the older forms.
;

independent development in the

Koivrj.

This will serve as

a final example to show that the late uncials and cursives, in restoring classical forms which the best MSS set aside, were
deserting the Greek of the
artificial

NT

period in the interests of an

grammar.
1

So P

38 in

Rev

2".

It is

MGr, and may quite probably be read

in

Rev:

cf Suo-^da-raKros

Lk

11*^.

CHAPTER
We
the

IV.

Syntax: The Noun.


address ourselves to the syntax, beginning with that of There are grammatical categories liere that Noun. scarcely ask for more than bare mention.

Number

On

the

obvious thing to
,

say

subject of Numher the dual has gone.

there

is

one

Many Greek
hoary luxury born;

dialects, Ionic conspicuously,


.

had discarded

this

_^

long before the


^"^^

Common Greek was

^^*^ theory of the relation of the Koivrj to the dialects would allow Attic to force on the resultant speech a set of forms so useless as these. The

Neuter Plurals.

dual

may

weljl

not count beyond two

have arisen in prehistoric days when men could and it is evidently suffering from
;

senile decay in the very earliest monuments we possess of Indo-Germanic language. It had somewhat revived in Attic

witness the inscriptions, and folk-songs like the Harmodius " but it never invaded Hellenistic, not even when a Hebrew
"

dual might have been exactly rendered by its aid. We shall see when we come to the adjectives that the disappearance

between duality and plurality had wider mere banishment of the dual number from declensions and conjugations. The significant new flexion of
of the distinction

results than the

hvo should be noted here

there

is

a pluralised dative hval,

but in other respects hvo is indeclinable. "AfK^w has disappeared in favour of the normally declined aix(^6repo<i. Apart from this matter the only noteworthy point under

Number

is

the

marked weakening

of the old princiijle that

neuter plurals (in their origin identical with collectives in -a ^) took a singular verb. In the NT we have a large
ManuaP, 264 ff. (I might add here that Mr Giles thinks the may have been originally a specialised form of the plural, used (as in Homer always) to describe natural or artificial pairs. That this is its earliest
^

See Giles,

dual

57

58

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

licence,

extension of what in classical Greek was a comparatively rare the plural verb being allowed when the individual

items in the subject are separately in view, while the singular The liberty of using treats the subject as a collective unity.^ the plural freely makes the use of the singular distinctly

more
' '

Pindaric Construction

significant than it could be in classical Greek. It may be added that the


.

converse

pl^enomenon, known
pLKov, is

as

the
:

found in the

NT

see

Mk

^xvi^^ IltvSa4*\ Mt 5^^

It is really only a special case of 6'^, 1 Co 15^*^, Eev 9^^. anacoluthon, no more peculiar to Pindar than to Shakspere. An interesting communication by Prof. Skeat to tlie Cam-

bridge Philological Society {Proceedings, Ixvii. p. 2) describes " a rule in English, from Alfred downwards, that when a verb occurs in the 3rd person in an introductory manner .,
. .

it is

may
the

often used in the singular number, though the subject be in the plural." Thus " what cares these roarers for

and now dbideth faith, hope, [love], the last being as true to English idiom That the construction is also posas to its original Greek. " sible with order inverted, is shown by another citation, For

name

of

"

these three,"

king

"

etc.

thy three thousand ducats here

Plural
of

is six." (See also p. 234.) idiomatic use of the plural appears ^^ passages like Mt 2- redvyKaaiv, Lk 12^0

An

acTovcnv,

the

we

subject in get the effect

where there is such a suppression bringing emphasis on the action, that of a passive, or of French on, German
"

is like it. Lightfoot compares the "rhetorical plural" in Euripides IT 1359, Kke'movTe<i e'/c Add Livy ix. 1, 7?}9 ^oava koI 6v7)7r6\ov<i (i.e. Iphigenia).

man.

Our

"

they say

"

auctores

belli

[one

man] dedidimus."

Winer

gives

other

parallels,

but rightly refuses to put Mt 98 27*^ 1 Co 1529 16^ into this category. If Heb 10^ has not a primitive

error (as
extant use

Hort suspected), the plural subject

of irpoaj^epovaiv

is certain, but its origin may very well have been as suggested above. There are savages still who cannot count beyond two see Tylor, Primitive The Indo-Gernians had numerals up to 100 before their Culture, i. 242 f. separation but the superfluous dual, I suggest, had been already utilised for a
:
;

new purpose.
^

This

is

conspicuous in

(Wellh. 12).

SYNTAX: THE NOUN.


and ZvvavTaL might
;

59

for the fairly be described in this way are certainly not prominent in the writer's priests thought, and a passive construction would liave given the meaning

exactly.

So Westcott

Eev

12",
,

Mt
:

7^^

Mk

_, Gender

say.

(for irpoacf).) who quotes Jn 15" 20-, See also p. 163, n.\ lO^^ Lk 17^^. On Gender likewise there is not much to

ihere are sundry differences the gender of particular words but even MGr is nearly as much under the domination of this outworn excrescence on language as was its classical ancestor. That English should still be almost
;

the only European language to discard gender, indicating only distinction of sex, is exceedingly strange. As in the case of

Number, we have

to refer to ordinary grammars for some Greek shares with the classical. uses of gender which One or two cases of slavish translation should be mentioned.

NT

In

Eom

11* the

LXX

tw BdaX

is

cited as

rfj

B.,

which

occurs however three times in


Prof. E. C. Burkitt

LXX, and

in Ascensio Isaiae 12.

(OB xiv. 458), in commenting on this last the explanation that the gender is deterpassage, accepts mined by the Q'rt nt:'3, translated ala^vi'V- In Mk 12^^
and

Mt

21*2

^g

hsiYe the

LXX

avrrj

= niiv.

the translators

may perhaps have interpreted their own Greek by recalling Ke^aXrjv <y(ovia<;. Breach of concord in Gender has been already alluded to in a note on the ^^
,

Greek

of

Eev

(p. 9)."

The very

difficult

el'

Ti?

comes in here, involving (TTrXdyxva koL olKTcpfxoi of Phil 2^ as it does both number and gender. might quote in illus-

We

tration

Par

P 15
et
rt,

(ii/fi.C.)

iirl

re fiiav

rwv

oIklcov,

and

BU
But
si

326

(ii/A.D.)

el

Se rt TrepLaaa ypd/x/jiaTa

KaroKiTrw.

read throughout, is a great improvement: the sense required, as Lightfoot practically quid H. A. A. Kennedy {EGT in loc.) shows by his translation. makes independently the same suggestion. Note that the Codex
Blass's
valet
is
["''See p. 244. Amiatinus (and others) read si quid viscera. A significant remark may be quoted from the great of these breaches of Byzantinist, K. Krumbacher, a propos In his ProUem d. ncugr. Schriftsioraclie (p. 50) he concord. " If one finds in Greek literature, between the early observes
:

mistakes Byzantine age and the present day,


<jv<yxwpovvT(iiv,

like Xeaivcov

firj

j>v\al

KaTa\a^6vre<;, ttuvtcov

tmv jvvatKMU,

CO

A GRAM]\[AR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK

etc., it shows that we have to do with a half-dead form, in which mistakes slip in as soon as grammatical vigilance nods."

When we remember
we can
see

that the

MGr

present participle,
"

e.g.

8evovTa<;, is as indeclinable as

our

own equivalent

binding,"

some reason

for the frequency of

non-agreement

in this part of the verb. What became common in the early Byzantine literature would naturally be incipient in the

vernacular of imperfectly educated persons centuries before, like the author of Kev.^ A few nouns waverina; in o;ender

may be named, ^t/w.09 is masculine in Par P 22 (ii/B.c.) and feminine in 26, which is written by the same hand; further parallels need not be sought for the inconsistency between
Lk
42^

and Ac

ll^^,
rj

Lk

IS^'*,

variation between
inscriptions.^
'jrXovTO'i,

^eo?

and

rj

6ed in
-09

The apparently purposeless Ac 19 is explained by


nouns
like

Some masculine
in

eXeo?,

^'/^o?,

passed into the neuter declension in

Hellenistic,

and remain there


Qg^gg
.
.

MGr:

We
mena

Disappearance of the

see Hatzidakis, pp. 356 ff. are free now to examine the phenoof Case, To estimate the position of

Hellenistic cases alono- the line of develop-

ment, we
at the

may sum up

briefly

what may be seen

two ends

of this line.

ourselves possess nominative, accusative, and genitive. (The survival of a few vocative forms, in which MGr and
Hellenistic are on practically the same footing, does not affect this point, for the vocative is not really a case.) At the

we

MGr

has only the three cases

very dawn of Greek language history, as we know it, there is only one more, the dative, though we can detect a few moribund traces of instrumental, locative, and ablative. For all practical purposes, we may say that Greek lost in pre1

Of Reiuhold 57
tlie
:

f.,

and

p.

234 below.
:

cord from
fxT]

papyri.

eidihs yp{a.fj.fj.aTa)

37 (ii/A.D.)"Hpw;' iypa\pa vwep avrov Firstly, case this is quite true as it stands, but Heron meant et'Soros
!

KP

We may cite typical


.

breaches of con-

So

6 Siaroxoi ( = 5ta5.). OP 527 (ii-iii/A.D.) wepi Tou yvacpews 6 avvepya^Sfievos.'^^ Tlien gender: 997 (ii/s.C.) ttjv vwdpxov avrQi oUiav. lb. 577 (iii/A.D.) e/c tt]s fierriWax^TOS yvvaiKav. lb. 1013
. .

31 {eid6sl). 1002 149 (ii/A.D.) Tov a.5e\(pou .

BU

BU

{ij B.C.)

'AvTt(pl\ov"'EX\7iv

iTnrdpxvs.

Letr.

Hieprivov

BU

(i/A.D.)
OeGiv
-

7]

ofioXoyiov.

lb.

dvaaaov aKovaavra.

AP

Cf Blass on
.
. .

19"^

" Usitate dicitur

1036 (ii/A.n.) crT6\i)v Xeivovf. 113 (ii/A.D.) 6 TereXeyxryKws


ij

LP

(ii/B.c.) ttjv tCiv

aiirrjs fi-qryip.

0e6s (ut v.^^)

Ephesia
. . .

ry

fieyia-Trj deq,'E(piii(}'ApT/j.L8L,

cnm

alibi

verum etiam iiiscriptio ^ ^eds eadem dicatm-.


,

Itaqueformulamsollemneni^/xe7aXi; ^ed"A. raira diligentia L. conservavit."

See p. 244.

SYNTAX: THE NOUN.

61

historic times three out of the primitive seven cases (or ei^'ht,
viz., the from case (ablative), the (instrumental ^), and the at or in case (locative), all of which survived in Sanskrit, and a})preciably in Latin, though obscured in the latter by the formal syncretism of
if

we

include the vocative),

xvith case

and (except in singular of -a- and In other words, the purely local cases, nouns) locative. in which the meaning could be brought out by a placeadverb (for this purpose called a preposition), sacrificed their distinct forms and usages.^ Greek is accordingly marked,
ablative, instrumental,
-01,

-^^^^

English, by the very free use of preposi^^^^^

of Prepositions

'^^o^^-

characteristic

intensified in Hellenistic,

is most obviously where we are per-

petually finding prepositional phrases used to express relations

which

in

classical

Greek would have been adequately


It is needless to illustrate
this
fact,

given by a case alone.

except with one typical example which will fitly introduce We have already (pp. 1 1 f.) the next point to be discussed.
referred to the instrumental
lation of the familiar
eV,

Hebrew

3,

formerly regarded as a transbut now well established as

The examples " " armed with adduced all happen to be from the category but it seems fair to argue that an instrumental sense for iv
vernacular Greek of Ptolemaic and later times.
;

is

generally available
is

if

the context strongly pleads for


"

it,

without regarding this restriction or assuming Hebraism.^

Nor

Biblical the intrusion of iv exclusively a feature of Greek, in the places where the prep, seems to be superfluous. Thus in Gal 5^ the simple dative appears with eve-^ofiat,:

"

Par

P 63

(ii/B.C.

a royal letter) gives us

toi)?

eVecrp^T^yaeVoi;?

' The instruiiiental proper all but coincided with the dative in form so that the still surviving throughout the sing, of the 1st and 2iid decl., dative of instrument may in these declensions be regarded as the ancient case " a preposition, except the comitative ^\ith," however, was always expressed by
:

in the idiom
2

avToh

dvdpda-L,
to

and the "military

dative.'

Note that the

ire

Romam.

The

case also disappeared, the "terminal accusative" seen in surviving Greek cases thus represent purely grammatical

remoter object, relations, those of subject, object, possession, I should not wish to exclude the possibility that this iv,
vernacular Greek,

and instrument.
although correct

came to be used rather excessively by translators from was Aramaic. The use would be Hebrew, or by men whose mother tongue as that of iSov on p. 11. explained on the same lines

62

A GRAMMAU OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


lu Par

ev Tiacv dyvo/jfjiaa-Lv.

P 22

(ii/B.c.)

we have rw

Xifjua.

hiaXv6r)vaL,
Tft>

Xt/Ao5.

while the contemporary 28 has htaXvoixevai ev What gave birth to this extension of the uses

imply a growing lack of clearness in the simple dative, resulting in an unwillingness to trust it to express the required meaning without
of

eV

It

seems

certainly

to

see in the multiplied use of prepositions an incipient symptom of that simplification of cases which culminates in the abbreviated case system of to-day.

further definition.

We may
The

NT

student

may

easily overlook the

Dative
a page at

^^^^

^^^^

^^
that

dative

has

the

way

leads to extinction.

already entered I take

random from

Mk

in

WH,

and count 21 datives

random page against 23 genitives and 25 accusatives. from the Teubner Herodotus gives me only 10, against 23 and 29 respectively; one from Plato 11, against 12
and 25.
nothing cona large area, but clusive until they were continued over they may be taken as evidence that the dative is not dead
figures could obviously prove
.

Such

yet.
^"^^^^^

Prenositions

and

as a whole, the dative prepositions falls behind the accusative genitive in the proportion 15 to 19 and

Taking the

NT

17

respectively.

This makes the dative considerably more


in
classical

and post-classical historians.^ due solely to eV, the commonest is, however, of all the prepositions, outnumbering et? by about three to two were both these omitted, the dative would come down to 2 1 in the above proportion, while the accusative would still
prominent than

The preponderance
:

be 10.
influence
^

And
^

in the

although ev has greatly enlarged its sphere of NT as compared with literary Kolv^j, we

Helbing, in Schanz's Beitrdgc, No. 16 (1904), p. 11, gives a table for the respective frequency of dat,, gen., and accus. with prepositions, wliich works out 1 "2 for 3 for Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon, taken together, at 1
: : ;

twelve post-classical historians, from Polybius to Zosimus, at 1 1'5 2'4. ^ This is well seen by coniiiaring the statistics of Helbing, pp. 8 f. He gives the figures for the three favourite prepositions of the historians. 'Ei* is one of the three in every author except Polybius, Diodorus, and Joseplins ; e/s falls out
: :

of the

list in

Eusebius only.

The
and

total occurrences of
;

et's

in the three classical

historians
writers

amount

to 6,531, those of iv to 6,031


ev to

while in the twelve Hellenistic

ds

is

et'y conies to 31,651, preferred to iv only in

only 17,130.
list in p.

Contrast the

Mk

and Heb, and the

total occurrences
:

NT, where amount to

1,743 and 2,698 respectively.

See the

98 below

note there also the

SYNTAX: THE NOUN.

63

find very clear examples of et9 encroachinp; on its domain." There are many NT passages where a real distinction between et? and iv is impossible to draw without excessive subtlety, for which all the motive is gone when we find in MGr <tt6 with accusative ( = et<? t6v) the substitute for the now obsolete

while the language in its intermediate stages steadily tends towards this ultimate goal.^ By the side of this we may put the disappearance of vtto with the dative, the
dative
;

accusative serving to express both motion and rest


classical historians the dative is

in

the

nearly as frequent as the


its

accusative,

and some
it

of

their successors, notably


rival

see Helbing, in op. cit., p. 22. Similarly tt/oo? with dative stands in the ratio of less than '01 to 7rp6<; with accusative in the three

Herodian, made

greatly outnumber

Appian
:

and

NT

classical historians it averages nearly '12 in the later twelve, '01 again. 'Eirl and Trapd are the only prepositions in which
;

the use with three cases


illustrates our

substituted

is really alive and even iirL rather than contradicts it see p. 107. tendency We pass on to other symptoms of senOtner cases ^. ^. t ^i ^i escence the dative. In the papyri there
;

m
.

are

some

expressing point of

clear examples of an accusative time instead of duration (see CE xviii.

152); and in Ac 20^*^ and Jn 4^^, Eev 3^ we may recognise the " same thing.^ Of course the dative of " time when was still There were not wanting, indeed, very much more common. instances where a classical use of the accusative, such as that of specification (Goodwin Greek Gram. 1058), has yielded to a
its

dative of reference (instrumental).^ survival in Jn 6^'' cil 288 f.)

We
;

have examples

of

(WM

the dative is very much commoner. decay of the dative was examined with great minuteness by
F.

but, as in the papyri, The evidence of the

Krebs

in his three pamphlets,

Zur Rection

cler

Casus in dcr
deals only
literary Koivri

spdteren historischen Grdcitdt


marked drop
comes not
1

(1887-1890).

He

in the total for

iirl,

which in the twelve writers of

far

behind

ev (14,093).

See below, p. 234.

-Thus OP 477 (ii/A.D.) rb TreixirTov iTO% "in the fiftli year" a recurrent formula. Add Gen 43"^ (Dieterich, Untcrs. lol). With ihpav, liowovor, the
See also p. 245. use began in classical times see Blass 94. 2 Cf OR XV. 438, xviii. 153, and the useful Frogmm by Compernass, Dc Sermone Gr. Volg. Pisidiae PJirygiaeque vicridionalis, ]ip. 20 f. ["See p. 245.
:

64

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


;

with the literary Kolvtj but we may profitably take up his points in order and show from the NT how these tendencies
of the artificial dialect are really derived

from the vernacular.

with verbs which are beginning to take the accusative, having been confined to the dative in the earlier

Krebs

starts

The distinction in meaning between transitive language. verbs and verbs whose complement was properly instrumental
which itself takes an abnormal accus. in (as with 'x^pdadac 1 Co 7^^)," or the dative of person interested, inevitably faded

away with

time,

and the grammatical distinction became

Of Krebs' exx., rroXefieiv accordingly a useless survival. takes accus. also in vernacular, ivehpeveiv and euBoKelu in the NT but ^evl^eadai, airavTciv and viravTav retain the dative
;

there.^

The
of

movement
reaction.

was

accompanied

with

various

TIpoaKvvelv in the NT takes the The phrase dative about twice as often as the accusative.^

symptoms

Trj "^v^y (Polybius) is matched in respect of dative by irapa^oXevea-Oat in Phil 2^''. its innovating will dismiss the decay of the dative with the remark that

irapa^aXkeaOai

We

the more illiterate papyri and inscriptions decidedly show it had acquired any antiquity. The schoolboy before the

NT

of

OP
;

ypdcfico

119, referred to already (p. 28), uses ere for croi after while later samples (see CB as above) include such
\6jov,
a-vv

monstrosities as rivt

tcov

vicov,

x^pL^ere

e/xov.^^

Dittenberger

would actually recognise the same thing in

OGLS 17
But
at

^A6i]vat Ilcoreipa the beginning of


is

NUr]
iii/B.c.

koI /Saa-iXifa UrokeixaLov.


this

confusion

is
:

surely

unthinkable, and there


the Kai be transposed?^

a curious asyndeton left

should

Even OP 811

(a.d. 1), ev-)(apiOT(ov

We may 'EpfiLTTTTou, seems much too early to be intentional. follow Krebs further as he shows the encroachments of the accusative upon the genitive, and upon the field of verbs
which
^

M'ere formerly intransitive.

It will be seen that


Akoiju})

the

Also,

(i/i!.c.),

OP

we may add, weiOapxew, which takes a gen. (like 265 (i/A.D.), and the "Gadatas" inscr. (Michel
Magn. 114,
etc.

32).

in Tb P 104 For the dat.,

as in

NT,

cf

EvSoKely

c.

ace. is

-Contrast the inscriptions: see


iva TTpoaKwrjcrrjs avTov.
^
*

CH

xv. 436.

only in a quotation. But note Par P 51

(ii/B.c.)

See other exx. in Dieterich, Unters. 150. D.'s further ex., No. 87 (iii/u.C.) vn^p paaCKiuis

Kal pacriXicrarj^

Kal riroXe/iatwi Twt vlQi

seems merely a mason's carelessness.

["^See

p. 245,

SYNTAX

THE NOUN.

65

does not tally in details with the literary Kotvi], though In independently shows the same tendencies at work. his second part Krebs turns to the tjenitive. Accusative gams -'-"^ "^^^ ^^^'"^ ^^^ which we are interested is from genitive, the late compound airekirii^eLv, which geneThis it seems rally takes ace. instead of the natural gen. to do in Lk 6^^, if we read /irjBeva with s* etc. and the
it

NT

r.

^ so Ti Syriac EVnig. KpuTeiv (Krebs ii. 14) takes the gen. only 8 times in NT, out of 4G occurrences, but Sia(f)6peiv (" surpass ") has gen. always. 'Ev-

Lewis

WHmg

Tpeireadai (p. 15) takes only the acc.,^ and so does KXrjpom/xelv. Apdcrao/jbat (p. 17) has the ace. in the only place where it

occurs (1 Co

3^^,

cited from the

LXX).
al.

'ETridvfxcb

to this list, if

we may

follow

BD

in

Mt

5-^.

may be added Add likewise

see

the sporadic exx. of ace. with verbs of filling (Eev 17^ al; Blass 102): Thumb observes (ThLZ xxviii. 422) that

the

usage
.

lives
.

on
of
,

in

MGr.^

intransitive
,

from intransitive
construction

^^ begun to take a direct object in the

,-i

verbs

There follows a category which in Hellenistic

i-.i-^-^i
NT AB

ace.

ivepjelv (six times), a-vvepyeiv (in Rom 8-^ irXeoveKrelv (four times, and once in passive),

and from dat. and gen. after compounds

examples and Origen), and 'x^oprjyeiv. The third part of Krebs' work deals with Here compound verbs and their cases.
'.

Of these we recognise as

'n-poa^wveiv

c.

ace.

may
;

claim

tt

Lk

u b^^ but
pi"?
*.

-i.

it

has the dat. four times

vTroTpi'^eiv has ace.

in its only occurrence; eTrepx^o-dai has only dat. or prepositional phrase Kara^apelv occurs once, c. ace. KaraXaXelv takes gen. in
; ;

once passive, as is Karairovelv in its two occurrences while KaTLCT'xveiv shows no sign of the ace. construction.

NT, but

is

It

would
^j^^

Limits of the
blurring of old
distinctions.

^^^^

i v ^j^ general tendency, but exhaustive discussion must proceed to is not needed here.
i
*.

-^rp

of course be easy to supplement gj-^mmar these illustrations of

We

note a few special characteristics of the individual cases as they appear in NT Greek, in uses deviating from earlier
1

MrjUv,

if

not to be read

ix-q5iv\ is

an internal accus., nil deapcrantes.


16),

passage from Dionysius (Krebs

ovre delov

(po^Tid&Tes x^^o" o^^^

av6pu}iriv7\v ivrpairei'Tes vi/xecriv,


'^

bears a curiously close resemblance to

Lk

18'.

See further, p. 235.

66

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

Before doing so, however, we must make some language. general observations, by way of applying to noun syntax the should not assume, from principles noted above, p. 20.

We

the evidence just presented as to variation of case with verbs, that the old distinctions of case-meaning have vanished, or
that

we may

treat as

mere equivalents those constructions

The very which are found in common with the same word. fact that in Jn 4-^ irpoaKvveiv is found with dat. and then
with ace.
is is

enough

to

prove the existence of a difference,

subtle no doubt but real, between the two, unless the writer

The fact that guilty of a most improbable slovenliness. the maintenance of an old and well-known distinction between
the ace. and the gen. with aKovco saves the author of Ac 9'' and 22^ from a patent self-contradiction, should by itself be

enough to make us recognise it for Luke, and for other writers So with the subtle and suggestive until it is proved wrong. variation in Heb G"*^- from gen. to ace. with yeveaOai}"
Further, the argument that because et? often denotes rest in or at, and sometimes represents that motion toivards (as
distinguished from motion to) which may perhaps have been the primitive differentia of the dat., therefore it is immaterial whether et? or iv or the simple dat. be used with any particular word,

would be entirely unwarrantable.


itself.

It

depends

upon the
limited,
it

character of the word

If

its

content be

may

well happen that


placing
it

hardly any appreciable

difference is

made by

in one or another of cer-

tain nearly equivalent relations to a noun.

But

if

it

is

word

of large content

and extensive

use,

to find these alternative expressions

we naturally expect made use of to define the


qualify, so as to

different ideas connected with the


set

word they

up a series of phrases having a perfectly distinct meaning. In such a case we should expect to see the original force of
these expressions, obsolete in contexts where there was no-

To

illustrate

with a lexical example, we need not think that the evidence

ipcordp in the vernacular no longer restricted to the meaning question (cX Expos. VI. viii. 431), compromises the antithesis between the verbs Our English ask is the complete equivalent in Ju 16-^, rightly given by RVmg.

which proves

and if we translated air-qariTe by some other word, say of the Hellenistic epwrdv See Westieg ov petition, we should naturally take ask to mean question there. cott or Milligan-Moulton in loc, or Loisy, Le Quatritme jEvangile, p. 789.
;

See p. 245.

SYNTAX

THE NOUN.

67
cif

distinction
is

thing to quicken it, brought out vividly where the need stimulated it into new life. critical

afforded

by the construction
(P- 11*^)
,

of iricrTeva), as to

example which Blass


,
.

. X^ Construction of

declares that (beside the prepositional -.i .1 ,. " construction, with the meaning believe in

it
'

takes the dat. "passim even in

tlio

sense

to believe in,' as in

Ac

5^* 1 8^."

Again,

el<i

alternates

with

ivLar.

ev

(Mk

2o, Tnarevetv l^^) and Tnar. eiri, in


p. 1
irta-T.

"

addition to which the correct classical

nvl appears."

Let

In classical Greek, as LS observe, " the two notions [believe and believe in] run into each To be unable to distinguish ideas so vitally different other."
this.

us examine

scheme of Christianity would certainly have been a serious matter for the writers. Blass allows that with
in the

NT

the preposition the meaning ever found with the simple

is

believe

in.

Is

this

meaning
approit

dat., or is Triareveiv rivo


?

priated entirely for the other idea

The answer must,

would seem, come from examination of the NT passages, rather than from outside. There are about forty occurrences of TTiaTevetv with dat., apart from those where the verb means
entrust.

It will be

these passages the

meaning

admitted that in the great majority of is believe. There remain a few

^^ passages where tlie alternative is arguable, such as Jn 5-^(in which the XG709 just preceding shows that believe is more

appropriate), 8^^ (where the variation from the previous tt. et? cannot be merely accidental), Ac 5'^'^ (where the dat. may be
accepting the

construed with irpoaeTidevTo, as in liV), 16^* and 18^ (where truth of God's word satisfies the connexion). It might be said that the influence of the (See p. 235.)

LXX
TT.

Tw

tends to weaken the normal distinction in the phrase But it is very clear that the LXX is not redeep.
the

sponsible for

NT

use of

irtarevetv.

The only preiv,

is that witli positional phrase used in the and this occurs in only one is itself very rare,

LXX

which

NT

passage,^

Mk
is
1

V^, where there


2

can be
"

little

doubt that
in

Deissmann

right

in

translating

believe

(the

sphere of)" the

The second passage

Eph

the

first,
3

is ch-opped in -, but not in the English edition. only an apparent exception, for the second ^v y is as.-iiinilated to and its sense is determined by ea<ppayic6r]T.

1^^ is

In Christo 46

f.

["^eu

p.

245.

68

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


1

Gospel": he compares

Th

The construction
than
its
et?, is

ttlot. iiri,

found in
in

Is 28^,

3^, Eom 1^ 2 Co S^s iQi*, etc. which outside John is commoner where B omits eVt, and conformity

may well have occasioned would seem therefore as if the substitution of et? or eVt for the simple dative may have obtained currency first in Christian circles, where the importance of the difference between mere belief (? PP!??!]) and personal The prepositional constructrust (3 "n) was keenly realised. was suggested no doubt by its being a more literal tion
to the

NT application of
AQ.

the passage
It

insertion

was entirely on the language, as we have

3, But in itself it development of the Greek seen. There was, moreover, a fitness in it for the use for which it was specialised. To repose one's trust tqjon God or Christ was well expressed by iria-reveiv

translation of the

Hebrew phrase with


lines

of

iiri,

ative

the dative suggesting more of the state, and the accusmore of the initial act of faith while el<; recalls at once
;

the bringing of the soul into that mystical union which Paul loved to express by ev Xpicnu). But as between eVt and we may freely admit that it is not safe to refine too 619,

much

the difference may amount to little more than that between our own believe on and believe in} The really important matter is the recognition of a clear distinction between believe on or in and believe with the dative simply.:

^ For a closely allied equivalence, cf that of ev and eVi ry ovofxan, as demonstrated by Heitraiiller, Im Namen Jesu (1903), i. ch. i.

not = entrust.

We may

give a table of the constructions of

As elsewhere,

it

depends on

WH text,

iriaTevio,

when not

absolute,
[[

and
]].

ignoring passages in

SYNTAX

THE NOUN.
still to

69

Special uses ^ of the Cases : P^"^^

Nominative,
to

gather some noteworthy e i.i "se of the cases, particularly ^he Nominative, on which nothing has been
j.

We

have
^.v,

^^

^'^^

said hitherto. The case has a certain tendbe residuary legatee of case-relations not ency obviously We have its use as the nameappropriated by other cases.

unaltered by the construction of the sentence, in Eev the fact that this has classical parallels (see Blass 85) is perhaps only accidental, for we have already seen that ungrammatical nominatives are prevalent in Eev (see p. 9),
case,

9^^:

and the general

NT usage is certainly assimilation (Mt 1^^ The classical parallels may serve for a 3^^ Ac 27^). writer such as Luke, if we are to write eXaiwv in Lk 1929 21^7. In and the it is eXaiSyv, gen. pi., and so

Mk

WH

RV

49) the conclusive evidence which compels us to accept the noun iXamv, oliveticm, as a word current in the Kolvj]. {App 158) regard the presence of 'E\aLO)vo<i in Ac V^ as corroborating the argument drawn from the unambiguous to 6po<; tmv iXatcov. Tertullian's in Elaconem secedehat, the prevalence of olivetum in the Latin versions, and the new fact (unknown to WH) that ekaiwv is a word abundantly occurring in the vernacular, may together
Blass.
(p.

We noted

above

WH

Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Weiss (cf

perhaps incline us rather to the other view, with Deissmann, W. F. Moulton's note in
227).
Certainly,
if we were forced to emend on in one of which 'EXacwva in Lk ll.cc. makes it especially easy would following

WM

conjecture, to substitute

places the initial d. cause much less disturbance than to

force

Blass's

iXaioJv

upon Acts and Josephus.


"

The
Nominativus , " head Pendens
,

(See further on p. 235.) nominative which stands


i

at
i-

the
is

of

clause

witliout

vi

*.

construction

i-

a be
illustrated:
it

familiar
is

phenomenon hardly needing


of

to

one
in

the

easiest

of

and as much

at

home

Enghsh

as

in

anacolutha, The Greek.

special case in wliich the participle is concerned will enTypical exx. are Lk 21^, gage our attention later (p. 225).

Ac
Eev

7*^

Mt
as
gtc

5**^

(6

deXcov
is

o^e? avTu>

a
1

plausible

reading,
226,

to,

OeXovn

an

easy correction),

Jn
is

2-*,

The parenthetic nominative

in expressions of time

well

}y

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

seen in

Mt
.

1 5^-,

Mk

8^, also

Lk

O^s.

construction goes as far back as v/b.c.^

In popular Attic the Viteau {Sujct 41) cites

Nominative

Eccles 2^^ (note emendation in A and x'^- ^) and '^'^^ ^^^' ^^^ ^^^*^ latter Nestle notes {Ex}-) T
xvi.

429) that

(ert r^ixepai rpet?

Kat

Sia-

^aivere) gives the rationale/' Deissmann adds from the Acta Fauli et Theclae (in OP i. p. 9) t'^ixepai^ap i'jSrj rpet? Kal vvkt<;
T/3t9

GeKXa ouK

ij/jjeprai.'^
5"^

We

must leave
to

it

an open quescategory:
it

tion whether

Ac

(see p.

16) belongs

this

means an isolated return to the construction of iyevero which Luke used in his Gospel, but then abandoned. This may not The use of parenthetic nominathowever be quite decisive. ives appears in the papyri most abundantly in descriptions " with ov\r/ or iyLTOve<;. Thus " 6LK6ve<i ^ will run, " to A.,
and a long-faced, straight-nosed, a scar on his right wrist " of land or a house is inventoried with piece belonging to its neighbours on the south the open street, on the west A.,
;

"

the house of B."

all

nominatives without construction.

We

compare such examples as Jn 1*^. There is a very marked increase in the Articular ^^g^ ^^ ^j^^ articular nominative in address.
in address

NT.

Nearly sixty examples of it are found in the There seems no sufficient reason for

assigning any influence to the coincident Hebrew use, for The rough classical Greek shows the idiom well established.

and peremptory tone which characterises most of the other Contrast the Aristoexamples seems to have disappeared. " " 6 iraU uKoXovOei, there the lad, I mean you phanic
!

(Blass), with the tender


still

t]

Trat? eyecpe

in

Lk

8^*

we may

recognise a survival of the decisiveness of the older use. Descriptiveness, however, is rather the note of the articular

nom.

of address in the

NT:

so in
"

Lk

12^^,

Jn

19^,

where we
"
!

may represent the miance by Fear not, you little flock " " In the latter passage we can easily Hail, you King feel the inappropriateness of the /SaaiXev found in K, which
' '
!

would admit the royal


1

right, as in

Ac

26^.

Its

appearance

Mcisterlians'' 203.

See OP. xvii. 197, where Cronert reads in


(

(no.

417^iv/A.D.) eTTELSi] dcxoXiD eXOlv irpbs oiv avri a violent example if true. Of j). 11 n.^ ad Jin.

= -ai) rjp-ipe,

BM ii. 299 " "his diebus


["Sec p. 245.

See p. 235.

SYNTAX: THE NOUN.


in

71
writer's

Mk

15^^
to

is

merely

note of

the

imperfect

more delicate shades of Greek idiom. sensibility Note that Lk, and perhaps Mt (xAL), correct Mk here. The anarthrous nom. should be regarded as a mere substitute for the vocative, probably
the

which begins from the earliest times to be supplanted by In MGr the forms in -e are practically the the nominative. vocatives surviving. Hellenistic has little only separate
more, retaining some in -a and -eO, with the isolated <yvvai, but the nom. is beginning to assert irdrep, and Ov^arep itself even here, for irari'ip^"' and Ovycnrjp are well attested
;

(see the evidence in

Blass 86

n.).

The vocative

itself

need

not detain us, the presence or absence of w being the only In the Lucan writings only is feature calling for comment.
the interjection used in the classical manner without emphasis. Elsewhere it is mostly used as we use 0, except that this is with us appropriate in prayer, from which it is markedly

absent in

Greek

of

NT, though not entirely in the translation the OT. The progressive omission of w is not wholly
the

easy to explain, for the classical examples (see Gerth's Kiihner^ 357. 4) show that the simple voc. has normally a touch of dignity or reserve. specially good ex. occurs in

Plato Crito 52a, ravTai^

Sij

jiafxev

Kal

<xe,

l!coKpaTe<;,

rah
is

to alriaa ive^eadac, increase the impressiveness, since w l!(i)KpaTe<; is the regular mode of address in English we obtain the same effect by

where

"

the

effect

of

omitting w

exactly the

opposite

means" (Adam).

NT

use has

thus

and may well have travelled upon approximated the same path without any outside interference, such as A. Buttmann would find in Latinism.^ Common to nominative and accusative is the use of et? with ace. to replace a predicate, in such phrases as ehai ek
to our own,

and

iryeipecv

ek (Ac

8^3 1322).

This cannot fairly be described

There seems no adeiiuatc reason


J.

A. Scott, in

AJP
w

of w.

He shows

tliat

used until the familiar language comedy, the language of literature, when the vocative rarely appears without the interThe Attic scrmo vulgaris in this case did not determine the usage of jection."
the Hellenistic vernacular.

to write Tarrjp, as [App 158). xxvi. 32-43, has a careful study of the classical use "with the vocative was familiar, and was not freely hecarae of dialectic, and the law courts

WH

["Seep. 215.

72

A GRAMMAR OF

NEW TESTAMENT

GREEK.

as a Hebraism, for the vernacular of the old use of


et<?

shows a similar extension


:

expressing destination
(ii/A.D.), ea'^ov

so for

example

KP
Freoicates
"

46

irap

vfMcov ei? 8d(veiov)

It is obvious airep/xaTa, a recurrent formula. " " I received it as a loan and "for a that
differ

The fact that this except in grammar. found in translation falls into line with other et? is mainly phenomena already discussed the overdoing of a correct locution in passages based on a Semitic original, simply
loan

do not

because
,

it

has the advantage of being a literal rendering. may pass over the accusative, as

We

little

remains to be said
to

of

it

except on

points of detail.

the genitive, readers of Winer will need reminding now-a-days that to call the perhaps hardly " " is an utterly obsolete case unquestionably the whence-case

As

The Greek genitive is syncretic (cf p. 61); and procedure. " case the ablative, the only case which answers to Winer's of proceeding from or out of" is responsible for a part of the

Most of the uses of the genitive in which it was merged. divisions of the case we find still in extensive use. ordinary
The
objective gen. is

very prominent, and exegesis has often

to discuss the application of this or the subjective label to a It is as well to remember that in Greek particular phrase.
is entirely one of exegesis, not of grammar. no approximation to the development by which we have restricted the inflexional genitive in our language almost

this

question
is

There

entirely to the subjective use.

The
e'/c,**

jmr^tYtvc gen.

is

largely
freely,

replaced by the abl. with airo or

but

is

still

used

In Mt 28^ (KV) we have sometimes in peculiar phrases. " " cf Tb P 230 with this gen., late on the sabbath oy^re (ii/B.c.) and Par P 35, 37 (ii/B.c.) oyjre t^? copa<;, and oyjrLTepov tj}? wpa?, Philostratus (a^?. Blass^ 312) o'^e twv TpwiKwv, "at a late
:

This last writer however has also stage in the Trojan war." " these things," and Blass now (I.e.) adopts after 6y\re tovtcop, This use of this meaning in Mt, giving other quotations.
oyjre

= after

involves an ablative

"

gen.,

late

from!'

There
Syr.,

remains the

vefipere sabbati of the Latt. etc.

and the Lewis


oyjre

favoured by Weiss, Wright,


practically as an indeclinable

Since
(see

could be used
al), this

noun
the

Mk

11^^
is

seems
to

a natural development,

but
"See

question

not easy

p. 245.

SYNTAX: THE NOUN.


decide.^

73

How freely the partitive gen. was used in the Koivi) be seen in passages like Ac 21i, wliere it is subject of a See sentence. 253 for classical parallels: add OGIS 56^'-'
may
6
it

WM
.

7rpo(f))]rr)<;

rj

tmv

lepewv

oiaei.
ri<;,

How
may

was there
"

for Dittenberger to insert


(f)LXwv,

unnecessary be seen from

the standing phrase 6 Belva rwv

"

X.,

one of the Privy

Council
.

(as
.

Par P

15

(ii/B.c), etc.).

The
Place, g"^*^^^^
"

papyri
of

Timrand

time

the south," erov<i


of possession,
"

show us abundantly the and 2Jicicc, like v6tov " on It /S "in the 2nd year."
of all genitives, that
abl. is possible, as

comes most naturally from the simplest


belonging to
"
;

but the

we

find
"

the

Time

place idea expressed in Piev 21^^ by airo votov. " " or place vnthin which cf rov oVto? fMT]v6<; within

the current month,"


of
this genitive,

is the normal differentia which has thus perhaps its closest affinity with the partitive. For time, this genitive is common in

FP 124

(ii/A.D.)

NT,

as in phrases like vvKro'i,

^eLfjLMvo<;,

opdpov ^aOew^, rov

XobTTov.
])]irases
irov.

For
like
is

place,
iroia';

we have mostly stereotyped words and Lk 5^^, and ancient words like avrov,

strange that the commentators and grammarians have so much neglected the difficult gen. in Ac 19^^ Dr
It

Knowling merely declines Hackett's suggestion that 'E(^4gov and irdar]<i rrj^ 'A(Tia<; depend on oxXov, for which however

we might quote a good parallel in Sophocles OT 236 (see The gloss ew? (D), " within," may possibly express Jebb).
the meaning but the vernacular supplies no parallel, except the stereotyped phrases for points of the compass, nor was it ever normal in classical Greek after the Epic period see the
;
:

exx., nearly

all

poetical, in Kiihner-Gerth

i.

384

f.

On

the
all.

whole, one feels disposed to

make o^Xov
is

responsible after
"

The question
of definition.

of

Hebraism
of

raised again by the genitive

Some

the

"

long series of phrases

coming

1 See below, p. 101, for a construction which may be parallel. There is a note in Dalman's Gram. d. jM.-imI. Aram. p. 197, in which Lightfoot'.s 'pD3 {Hor. Hchr. 500) is tentatively approved as the original of 6\pi. The phrase "means always the time immediately after the close of the Sabbath." In Mt 28', " at most a late hour of the night would be designated the term accordingly, A reckoning of the Sabbath from sunrise to sunrise is impossible for dawn.
:

(Weiss iw

loc.) is

unheard

of."

74
under

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


this

head
(p.

"

obviously take their origin from Hebrew,"

says Blass

98).

The
note

poetical

examples

collected

in
(or

Jebb's

on

Sophocles,

Antig.

114

Snitfon^
"

Hebraisms

"

more fully in Kiihner-Gerth, p. 264), include some which are quite as remarkable as the Thus KapBia irovrjpa quotable from the NT.
3^^)

diria-TLa'i

(Heb

will pair

off'

well with roaovSe toX/a?;?

That many of these phrases TrpoawTTov (Soph. OT 533). really are literal translations from the Hebrew need not be
questioned
purpose,
;

and
is

if

an existing usage was available for the


its

Our being overstrained. where no Semitic original passages is admissible. In these it seems fair to assume that the poetical phraseology of the Attic period had come down
only concern

we can understand
with

into

the

cnreipaaTO^;

market-place, KaKOiv Jas

as
1^^,

happened

also,

for
(p.

example, in

aKaTa7rdarov<i

47)

d/iapTia'i

2 Pet 2^^ which have plentiful illustration from papyri.^ The rapid extension of the genitive
A if ^\ T^ Absolute.

absolute
. .

is

a very

lenistic

are not tempted to In the papyri it may here. often be seen forming a string of statements, without a finite verb for several lines. also find there a use frequently

Greek dwell on it

''

obvious feature
. ,

of

Hel-

so obvious, indeed, that

we

We

seen in the ^Te.g., in Mt l^^ 31 g^^, Mk 13\ Lk 12^, Ac the gen. abs. referring to a noun or pronoun already 22^'', etc.-

in the sentence, without

any

effort

to assimilate the cases.^

Rarely in NT, but frequently in papyri, we find a participle


standing by itself in gen. abs. witliout a noun or pronoun in A violent use occurs in agreement: thus Mt 17^*, Ac 2P^.

Heb

8^

(LXX)

ev ri/xepa eirtXa^opLevov /xou

so Blass,

but

the construction was probably suggested innnediately by the


original
a/jiivov

old accus. abs., belonging to impersonal " " verbs, has vanished except in the word Tvyov perhaps (1 Co
16*^):

Hebrew. aov avrcp.

Westcott compares Barn

2^^ ev v/jiepa evreiX-

The

Blass points out

classical

how Luke avoids it in Ac 23^*^, where Greek would demand ixrjwOev c. ace. et inf. The papyri
passim
for the classical i^ov, it hcing allowed.

show

i^6vTo<;

See

p. 235.
;

Cf exx. from I'olybius in Kalker 281

and bolow,

p.

236.

SYNTAX

THE NOUN.

75

One example of a noteworthy pure dative, the dalivva In liev 2-'incommodi, may Ije briefly refeii-ed to. ep^ofial croc is used rather markedly in place of e. a reason tt/do? ae
'''
:

for

the
'''

]3eculiar

phraseology

is

offered

in

"^^^
Difadvlntage.

^^^-

^^ should

however be added

now that the very phrase occurs in a recently published papyrus, BU 1041 (ii/A.D.), an illiterate document, with context less clear than we should like. See p. 245.
Side by side

with the

common

locative

Datives of

accompaniment
it.

time (point of time), we have an '^'''^stricviental dative of extension of time,


fiative

of

which

is

Thus

in

Lk
"

8^^

TroXXot? -x^povoi^
"

not always easy to distinguish from " " is oftentimes (loc.)

in

RV

text,
is

which

alwvioi'i

The latter, (instr.) in mg. found in XP^^^V i^i^d-vip Lk 8^^, and ^9^^^^ clearly Eom 16'-^, is supported by the recurring formula in
of

a long time

The private letters, eppwadal ere evxpiiai, iroWol'; p^powt?.^ field of accusative and instrumental is contiguous also in the
"

dative of reference

":

^evei in

Mk

7^6,

Ac

4^6 al, as in

(ii/A.l).) 7ei'et

^pvylav.

Jn

6^ affords

one of the few


1

BU 887 NT exx.

of the ace. in Korat;


i'jSr]

similar construction.

TP

(ii/B.c.) irpo^e^r]-

to69

shows how not need it

ereaiv (class.), compared with Lk V- ^^ 2^^, the ubiquitous iv came in with datives that did
:

here

difficult dative in

we may presume an Aramaic background. Eev 8*, Tat<; irpoaevxah (EV text " with

the prayers," and so Milligan and Holtzmann), is probably 69 (ii/A.P.) to lie taken as the sociative instrumental: cf

BU

a9 Kal airohoicrw
i^t.e.

aot, rai

at the time of)

my

evyidTa So6i]crofiev(p o-^covup, 'ivith next wages." Cf Abbott Joh. Gr. 519.

"

Finally,
,.

we may speak
which
aKofi

of one

more dative

J.

use, that of

uKovaeTe,
"

Mt

13^*,

will

serve as a type.

In giving a

list

of

the usage is an these phrases, Blass (p. 119) remarks that like nv:^ ni?3, and imitation of the Hebrew infinite absolute

consequently found already in the analogous classical phrases such as


is
1

LXX";
'^dfiat

also

that "the
('in

'yafxelv

true

W.

Scliulze {Gr. Lett. 14)

of this extension.

"by

lapse of

would make Latin responsible for the first start But it must be allowed that the classical phrase ry x/^''V, For the antiquity of time," was capable of giving the impulse.

this instrumental, see Delbriick,

Gnmdr.

109.

Cf

CR

xv. 438, xviii. 153.

76

A GRAMMAPt OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


'),

wedlock

cf^vyfj

(f)vyeiv

{'

to

Hee with

all

speed

')

are only

There are two points here on accidentally similar to these." which we might venture to state the case rather differently.
It

may

be freely allowed that this construction, and that

with the participle (^Xeirovre'; ^Xeyjrere) are examples of " But in what sense are they imitations of translation Greek." It seems to me that such a description implies the Hebrew ?

something much nearer and more literal, such as aKoveiv aKovaere} Is it then mere accident that we find the Hebrew
locution represented by

Greek which
(pevyetv

recalls respectively the

7a/i 'ya^elv and (^v^y known Aeschylean

quoted by Blass, and the welle^XeTrov


fjLarrjv,

ot TrpcoTa fiev ^Xeirovre'?

KXuovTe<; ovk t^kovov (P.V. or the (f>vycov eK(f)evyi of Herodotus

447
?

f.),^

The Greek

translator,

endeavouring to be as literal as he could, nevertheless took care to use Greek that was possible, however unidiomatic.'* Those who have had to do much in the way of marking
examination papers, know very well that possible, but unidiomatic," is a good general description of the kind
classical
"

of language

used by translators who have attained the con-

scientious accuracy, but not the sure-footed freedom, of the matiu'e scholar.

^ As we actually tind in Jos 17^'^ e^oXeOpevaaL de aiTous ovk e^uXeOpevaav emends oXeOpevaet.. (I owe this to Votaw, p. 56.) ^ The idea of these words became provei'bial cf [Demosthenes] 797, ware, to Of com'se the resemTTJs irapoifiias, opwvras /mrj opav Kai aKovovras fir] aKoveiv. " blance to Mt I.e. is more superficial than real, for Aeschj'lus means tlioiigh they saw, they saw in vain." But there is enough nearness to suggest the NT form An exact parallel is quoted by Winer from Lucian (Dial. as possible Greek. the participle has vanished in the Teubner text, Marin, iv. 3) l5Cov eldov

whether with or without

MS

authority

cannot stop to examine.

It sliould be
!

made penal

to introduce emendations into classical texts without a footnote

See p. 245.

CHAPTER

V.

Adjectives, Pronouns, Prepositions.


...

^.

There
^^'^*^

is

not
"

much

to

Duality,"

^ Adjectives, except

"

be said under the on the important

Duality

The comparison. pronouns of the erepof


of

question raised by the phenomena question touches the use of dual class, as well as the relation between

The abolition of a discomparative and superlative. tinction between duality and plurality is almost inevitable sooner or later in language history. English affords us
instructive parallels.
suffixes -er

and

-est

The simphcity and convenience of our have helped to preserve in common speech
Piut

the old degrees of comparison.


"

how

often does the


"

man

in the street say the better of the two ? like to say offhand how far in this matter

One would not modern litera-

impeccable on Lindley Murray rules but in converthe most correct of us may at times be caught tripping, and even when the comparative is used we are most of us conscious of a kind of pedantic accuracy. That " the
ture
is
;

sation

best of the
assertion.

two

the English of the future is a fairly safe ^ Whether, adjectivally, is as archaic as irorepo'i
is
:

"

when we
archaism

translate

rlva

airo

tmv Bvo (Mt

27^^)

by the

" whether of the twain," we are only advertising the fact that the original was normal speech and our trans" lation artificial. have not yet arrived at either of the

We

three," but people say "either A. or B. or 0." without a Of course the first step was taken ages ago in the qualm. extinction of the dual, the survival of which in Germanic

the indices, and that

have twelve papyrus collections by nie, with oiie oceurreiice of Tr&rtpos in is nearly illegible and (to me, at least) quite unintelligible
77

(AP

135, ii/A.D.).

78
is

A GRAMMAE OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


evidenced, centuries
after
tell

the

NT, by
tale.

Wulfila's

Gothic.

Other modern languages


.
.

the same

In the

NT

the

obsolescence of the superlative, except in the elative sense, is _ most marked. It is mere chance that only in Comparison, . , i one example ot ^i, the -raro? superlative has

in the papyri. Of the the examples there are genuine superlative sense, however, very rare practically we may say that in the vernacular documents the superlative forms are used to express the
survived,^ for there are scores of
;

them

sense

of

our
is

"

superlative

The very." well seen in


i^k'^iarov

confusion

of

comparative and
papyri, where occur. One or

some

illiterate

phrases

like

to

two typical examples


the
XV.

'yvrjcnooTepQv of irregular comparatives

/cat

may

be cited

references

CR

439
of the

be found, witli other examples, in and xviii. 154. Specially instructive is the
will

papyrus

astronomer Eudoxus, written in

ii/B.c.

There

(f)po/iivo<i rrjv fiev rjfiepav /Spw^vThe context demands repav Troiel rrjv Be vvktu fiuKporipav. a superlative, and Blass no doubt rightly assumes that the author (iv/B.C.) wrote ^pa'^vTurrjv and fiaKpordnjv. In that

we have

KaG' ov o 7]Xio^

case the scribe's alteration

same way altered


he
writes
iv

/xeyLaTrj

(twelve) signs,"
a^ioy/jbaTt,

eKurepwi In Tb

very significant. He has in the to p-ei^ovei in another place, and " rcov ^(oiBicov for in each of the
is

P 33
It
is

(ii/B.c.)

we have

iv

fiel^ovi

an

elative.^

in fact
:

practically obsolete in Hellenistic is as significant as its absence from

clear that /neyia-ro'i is its appearance in 2 Pet

the rest of

the

NT.

The

may

Eevisers' scrupulous margin in 1 Co 13^^ "and Mt 18^ be safely dispensed with, on the new evidence. KpeirTcov

and xelpcov are always strictly comparative in NT, but they BeXTicov^ have no superlatives:^ KpdTiaro<i is only a title. occurs once, in 2 Tim l^^but does not appear in any (in adv.) of Grenfell and Hunt's papyri, except in an official Ptolemaic document ^eXrca-TOf (not in NT) has a somewhat better claim (ter in ii/B.c). 'A/xeLvcuv and dpcaTO'i (not NT) appear Note especially OP 716 (ii/A.D.) ryi/ ajxeivova occasionally.
:

Ac

26", in true superlative sense

this speech

is

niucli affected

by

literary

style.
*

See p. 236 below.

ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS.


"

79

a'ipeaiv 8iS6vtl,

in

OP 292

among

Yet apLaro^ is ff)uud a vernaenlar document, but the sole witness (i/A.D.), the papyri named. 'EXdaacov is common, but i\d^i(TTo<i

to the highest bidder."

an official (a true superl. in 1 Co 15, as in Tb P 24 (ii/B.c.) document, but in veiy bad Greek) has not wholly disappeared. TlXelwv and TrXelaro'i are common, but the latter is generally
elative in the

papyri

note however

Tb P 105

(ii/n.c.)

rrjv

eao/xevr)v irXeiarrjv rifirjv,

and other exx. which may support

1 Co 142". ^i^ lyio j-,,.^y gjjQ^ j-l^g elative "those very " numerous mighty works but tlie other rendering is as good. In Jn 1'^ TrpcoTo? jjlov, and 15^^ nrpuiTop vficov, we have the
;

superlative ousting the

(WM
(ii/iii

Winer quotes Aelian comparative. 306), and we can add aov TrpcoToi; elfii from LPw A.!). magic)." There seems no longer adequate reason
;

to question that irporepo^ has here been superseded for the great rarity of the comparative form in the papyri reinforces the natural inference from Jn ll.cc. In the Gren fell-

Hunt volumes
The mere use
very
little

it

of tt/jwto? in Ac as to the author's

only occurs once, in a legal document. P, it must be allowed, proves


intention
to

write a

third

treatise.

Pamsay
of

himself

absence

Trporepo? certainty for the hypothesis. The case

{Paul, p. from the Lucan

28) admits that the


writings
p.

precludes
["Seep. 245,

See further
is

236.

not quite so strong for the

There are plenty of places where pronouns. Pronouns repo<i, e/carepo?, oTTorepoq, etc., are used of more than two, and a\Xo<; of two only; but also j>laces where the pronouns are used carefully according to classical precedent. It seems a fair assumption that these words held much the

same

was described just now for our own " and superlative in phrases like the better (best) comparative of two." Educated men would know the distinction and In these cases we must let observe it, unless off their guard. the context decide, paying due attention to the degree of
relative position as

grammatical precision usually attained by each several author. It is remarkable that in this respect we find Luke by no means particular. In Lk 8" ^ he actually substitutes eTepo<i for the correct aX'\o<i which appears in his presumed source, Mk 4^-8 (cf Mt IS'^-s) and in Lk 6^9 he does not alter ttjv
;

aW'rjt' (a-iayoi'a

!)

whicli appears also in

Mt

5'^^,

but

is

corrected

80
in

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


Clem. Horn. 15^.
This will clearly need remembering

when we examine
,,

other "dual" words in Luke.^ See pp.

245 f.

was used

for

examples of it Byzantine use,

by The probability that afi<}>oTepoi ircivTe^ in BM 336 and two clear (ii/A.D.), in NP 67 and 69 with the undeniable (iv/A.D.),^ form a strong temptation where the relief would
difficulty
is

under

this

head

raised

Ac 19^^

be so great.^ I cannot but think that Ramsay is quite right " in saying {Paul, p. 272), The seven sons in v.^* change in an unintelligible way to two in v.^^ (except in the Bezan text)."

Luke must have been a very slovenly writer if he really meant this, and the Bezan reading of v.^'* does not help us to " understand how the more difficult " neutral text arose if it On the other hand, Luke is one of really was secondary.
the last

NT

writers

whom we

should expect to

fall
:

into a

that he colloquialism of which early examples are so rare shares the loose use of eVe/ao?, etc., current in his time, does If we are to defend nothing to mitigate this improbability.

and in a purely Eamsay's criticisms grammatical discussion we cannot deal with them except on this side must we not assume that the original text of v.^*
these
verses from

is lost ?"

If

this contained a fuller statement, the abruptness

to irovrjpov in v.^*, and of our a/jL(f)OTpo)v, might be removed without compromising the characteristic eTTTtt we might also have a clearer term to describe Sceva's office. The alternative is to suppose the verses an interpolation from a less educated source, which has been imperfectly
of

ro

TTvevfia

adapted to Luke's style.^ We pass on to the Article, on which there is not very much to say, since in all essentials its use is in agreement
^ dWov in Lk 7^^^- B is most simply explained by The aberrant 'irepov supposing that the scribe has found a place for two variants. If we press the no longer reading, the messengers are represented as softening the message, "another kind of Messiah," but "another of the same kind": cf Gal l**^-.
.
. .

The meaning "different" naturally developed out of "the other class (of two)," See also p. 246. and it survived when the normal use of ^r epos had faded out.
-

A much
;

earlier ex.
I

seemed to present
d/x(poTipti}v

(13 B.C.)

but

think the

itself in the just published BU 1057 can be otherwise referred than to the

three names immediately preceding. ^ See notes in Expos, vi. viii. 426 and
*

CP>,

xv. 440.

The Sahidic and some

later versions took dfKporepuv as

"all."

Were

this

better supported,

we should

find another ex. in

Ac

23**

["See

p. 246.

ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS.


with Attic.
this respect
,
.
.

81

might indeed be asserted that the NT is in " " correct when compared witli the remarkably It shows no trace of the use of the papyri.
It

" Correctness " ^^^^'^'^ ^^ ^ relative, whicli is found in classical ^^^eek outside Attic, in the later of NT Greek, papyri,^ and to some extent in MGr. The

papyri

likewise exhibit

some examples

of the article as demonstra-

tive, apart from connexion with /lev or Se7 whereas the NT has no ex. beyond the poetical quotation in Ac 17-^. Further, we have nothing answering to the vernacular idiom by which the article may be omitted between preposition and infinitive.

In family or business accounts among the papyri we

find with significant frequency an item of so much et? Tretj/, with the dative of the persons for whom this thoughtful

provision

is

made.
behaves

where

avri,

There are three passages in Herodotus thus: see vi. 32, uvtI ehai, with

Strachan's note, and Goodwin, 3IT 803 (see further below, In these three points we may possibly recognise p. 216). Ionic influence showing itself in a limited part of the

vernacular

it

is

supply

parallels for

at least noteworthy that Herodotus will them all. The Ionic elements in the

37 f.), where other was noted for the sporadic character of these infusions, and their tendency to enlarge their borders in the later development of the Common Greek. We are not much troubled with HebraBlass (p. 151) ism under the article.^
evidence
.

KoLvrj were briefly alluded to above (pp.

regards

as

"

thoroughly

Hebraic

"

such

phrases

as
;

irpo

TrpoacoTTov Kupiov, ev 6<p6a\/jbOi<i '^/xcov, iv rjH'epa 0/57% KUT oIkov avTcbv " Is a regular phrase and perhaps

but
not

Hebraism."

Where

Semitic

originals
;

lie

behind

our

sion

but the mere admisGreek, the dictum is unobjectionable that KUT oIkov avTcbv is Greek shows how slightly

these phrases diverge from the spirit of the translator's Phrases like tou? iv oXkw, hia x^''P^^ ^^ oIkov, language. such as etc., are recurrent in the papyri, and the extension, The it is, lies in the addition of a dependent genitive.-"^
principle of
1

"

correlation
also

"

in (on which see the note


2

WM,
f.

See Volker 5

f.

CR

xviii. 165.

gge

p. 236.

See pp. 99

82
p.

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


175) here supports the strong
after

tendency to
is

drop
in

the

article

papyri: cf

the This seen working a preposition. Without laying olker, Der Artikel pp. 15-17. down a law that the noun is naturally

Anarthrous
Prepositional

anarthrous

Phrases

to a preposition, .> ^ .i. that the usage is so pre^^ "^^^ certainly say dominant that no refinements of interpreta,

when attached
.

tion are justifiable. Obviously iv oIkw (Mk 2^) is not in a house," nor iv dyopa (Lk 7^^) "in a market-place," nor
in a street." iv dyvia, in the current papyrus formula, " " " from start to on 'Change," " in bed," say down town,"
finish."
^

"

"

We

If

to the end,"

we we

substitute
are, it

"

in

my

"

bed,"

from the beginning


;

seems, more

pictorial
is

we

point, as

it

were, to the objects in question.

There
;

about the anarthrous noun there


qualitative

nothing indefinite but for some reason the


the deictic,
is

aspect

of

noun, rather than

appropriate to a prepositional phrase, unless we have special reason to point to it the finger of emphatic particularisation.

To

this

Dr Findlay adds

the consideration that the phrases

in question are familiar ones, in which triteness has reduced their distinctiveness, and promoted a tendency to abbreviate.
is on the same lines as Greek, makes the anarthrous use with prepositions which, however, much more predominant than it is with us. Pursuing further the classes of words in which we insert the use ^^^ translation, we have the anarthrous "Headines"

It

would seem that English here

(Hort, 1

"in sentences having the nature of headings" Hort assigns to this cause the Peter, p. 15&).

dropped articles before 6eov, 'Kvevixaro^; and a(^iaTo<i in 1 Pet 1^; Winer cites the opening words of Mt, Mk, and The lists of words which specially affect the dropped Eev. article will, of course, need careful examinaQualitative

Force in

Anarthrous Nouns.
in

tion for the individual cases. Thus, when Winer includes irarrip in his list, and quotes j^ ju and Heb 12^, we must feel that
is

both passages the qualitative force

very apparent

^ According to Ramsay {Paul, p. 195), irapa Trora/jLov, Ac 16'^, shows familiTo accept this involves giving up ivonl^ofxev Trpoarevxvv arity witli the locality. (nABC), a step not to be lightly taken. (See further p. 236.)

ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS.


"

83

what son
"
?

is

there

whom

chasten

the note in

WM

(On

the former

151.)

a father, does not passage see margin, and For exegesis, there are few of the
his father, as

KV

finer points of Greek which need more constant attention than this omission of the article when the writer would lay stress on the quality or character of the Even the

EV

object.

misses this badly sometimes, as in Jn 6<^s. ^ Scholarship has not yet solved completely Proper Names. the problem of the article with proper names.

An illuminating little paper by Gildersleeve may be referred to {AJP xi. 483-7), in which he summarises some elaborate researches by K. Schmidt, and adds notes of his own. He
shows that this use, which was equivalent to pointing at a man, was originally popular, and practically affects only prose The usage of different writers varies greatly and the style. familiar law that the article is used of a person already
;

named (anaphoric
formly observed.

use), or well

known

already,
to

is

not unithe

Deissmann has attempted

define

papyrus usage in the Berlin Philol. Wochensclirift, 1902, He shows how the writers still follow the classical p. 1467. use in the repetition with article of a proper name which on its first introduction was anarthrous. When a man's father's
or mother's

the article.

is appended in the genitive, it normally has There are very many cases where irregularities occur for which we have no explanation. See also Volker,

name

p. 9,

who

notes the curious fact that the names of slaves and


first

animals receive the article when mentioned the

time,

where personalities that counted are named without the article. The innumerable papyrus parallels to I!av\o<i 6 kuI TTayXo? (Ac 13^) may just be alluded to before we pass from this subject see Ueissmann BS 313 ff., and Eamsay, CB xix. 429. The position of the article is naturally
:
. .

Article

much

affected by the colloquial character of

NT
of

guous position
cleared

In written style the ambilanguage. top OdvaTov, Eom 6*, would have been elq
rov,
if

up by prefixing

the meaning was (as seems

^ The marginal reading stood in the text in the First Revision. It is one among very many places where a conservative minority damaged the work by

the operation of the two-thirds rule.

84

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


"

In most cases, by this baptism into his death." probable) there is no doubt as to whether the prepositional phrase very curious misplacebelongs to the neighbouring noun.

^ ment of the article occurs in the o o%Xo9 ttoXu? of Jn 1 2^. As Sir K. C. Jebb notes on Sophocles, OT 1199 i., the noun and adjective may be fused into a composite idea but Jebb's exx. (like 1 Pet 1^^ and the cases cited in W. F. Moulton's
;

note,

WM

166)
ri]<i

adjective after

I/a.D.

illustrate only the addition of a second the group article-adjective-noun (cf OP 99 avro) fjb'r)TpiKt]<; olKia<i rpLaTe<yov)r vTrap'^ovarj'i

We

cannot discuss here the problem of Tit 2^^ for we must, see 162, 156 n. as grammarians, leave the matter open
:

WM

But we might

what they are worth, the papyri BU 366, 367, 368, 371, 395 (all vii/A.D.), which attest the " " our great God and Saviour as current among translation eV ovo/xaTt rov Greek-speaking Christians. The formula runs
cite,

for

rov deov koI (ra)T7Jpo<; Kvpiov Kol heairoTOV 'Irjaov Xpicrrov KOI rr]<i 8eo-7roti^j;? rjfjbMi> tt}? a<yi,a<; deoroKov, ktX. 't]fi(av, curious echo is found in the Ptolemaic formula applied to the

deified kings:

15 (u/b.c), rov fxerydXov deov evepthus The phrase here KOL (7WTrjpo<i [ein^avov^^ ev^apiarov. lyeTov
is,

GH

of course, applied to

find

that P.

Wendland,

One is not surprised to one person. at the end of his suggestive paper

v. 335 ff., treats the rival rendering on Xwrrjp in in Tit I.e. summarily as "an exegetical mistake," like the severance of toO Qeov rj/juMv and (T(oTrjpo<; 'I. X. in 2 Pet 1\

ZNTW

flaunts itself Familiarity with the everlasting apotheosis that in the papyri and inscriptions of Ptolemaic and Imperial times, lends strong support to Wendland's contention that Christians,

from the latter part of i/A.D. onward, deliberately annexed for their Divine Master the phraseology that was impiously to themselves by some of the worst of men.
arrogated
Personal

From
sonal
u

the Article

we turn
very
of

to

the Per-

Pronouns:
" Semitic

Pronouns.

short

excursion

here brings us up against another evidence


^f
^^le

Redundance."

dependence

[NT] language on
dwb tQu

If it is

7rX??pcjjudTwc
^

merely careless Greek, one nray compare Par P 60" (ii/B.c. (On the whole subject, see further p. 236.) apxaiuv.

?)

See note in

CH

xviii.

154a.

ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, TREPOSITIONS.


Semitic
"

85

speech," in the extraordinaiy frequency of tlic " oblique cases of the personal pronouns used without emphasis

(Blass
to

164).

be

very

strongly

Dependence on Semitic would surely need evidenced in other ways before we

could readily accept such an account of elements affecting the whole fabric of everyday speech. Now a redundance
personal pronouns is just what we should expect in the colloquial style, to judge from what we hear in our own vernacular. reader of the peti(Cf Thumb, Hcllcn. 108 f.).
of

and private letters in a collection of papyri would not notice any particular difference in this respect from the Greek For example, in Par P 51 (ii/B.c.) we see an of the NT. redundant pronoun in avv'^w ( = nvolya)) tov<; eminently A specially good case is OP 299 (i/A.D.) 6cf)da\fjbov<i fiov.
tions
Ad/MTTcovt
is

ixvodrjpevTrj

eSooKa

avrco

Spa'^fia<i

rj

the

Kalker (Quccst. 274) exactly that of Eev 2'^, etc. syntax Slo koX irakiv eTreppcocrOrjcrav Bia ravra from Polybius, quotes Such a line as this with other redundances of the kind.

from a Klepht ballad (Abbott 42),


("

and he twirls

Kal arpi^eL to fiovaTaKL tov, KXcoOei Koi ra fiaWla rov his moustache and dresses his hair ") illus-

In trates the survival of the old vernacular usage in MGr. words like Ke^aXi], where the context generally makes the ownership obvious, NT Greek often follows classical Greek and
is

content with the


crov
rrjv

aXeiy^al

would
is

suffice

(cf

But such a passage as Mt 6^^ where the middle voice alone Ke^aXijv, that the language already p. 236), shows
article.

The strength of this learning to prefer the fuller form. enhances the probability that in Jn 8^ rov irarpof is tendency
"the Father" and not
see Milligan-Moulton. perhaps rather too readily taken for Emphasis in j.a^nted that the personal pronouns must always be emphatic when they appear H. L. Ebeling (GUdcrslcevc Studies, the nominative case. out that there is no necessary emphasis in p. 240) points
yoiir father":
"

It

is

the

Platonic

rjv

S"

iya),

ecf^rjv

eyo),

ft)?

av

<f)rj<;,

etc.;

and

Gildersleeve himself observes (Synt. the 1st and 2nd persons is not to
in

"The emphasis of 69): be insisted on too much

poetry or in
iycZfiac"

familiar

prose.

iyfZSa,

Are

we

Notice the frequency of obliged then to sec a special

86

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


pronoun whenever Pythagorean auTo<i e(pa ?
it
it

stress in the

denotes the Master, like

the

We may

perhaps

better

as fairly represented to the eye by the capital in " to the ear by the slower pronunciation which reverence He," likes to give when the pronoun refers to Christ. Generally

describe

the pronoun

onwards
obvious

-cf Lk 19^. The question suggests itself whether are compelled to explain the difficult av etTra? and the like (Mt 26^^ I52, Lk 227o 23^, Jn IS^O by putting

is unmistakably emphatic in nom., from but occasionally the force of the emphasis

Mt
is

1^^

not

we

27^Mk
it,"

a stress on the pronoun.


"

Can we drop
That
"
is

this
?

and
is

translate,

You have
26*^*
is

said

"
i.e.

right

however by Thayer (JBL

xiii.

40-49)

pointed out that the ttXijv in


It

Mt

by making the phrase a mere of mention only one of the passages equivalent We seem thrown back on Thayer's where difficulties arise. " You say it," " the word is yours." rendering There remains here the difficult question . . for Eyw ? . p mi Hfj,eis or the use 01 77/^6*9 tor eyoo. ihe grammarian's part in this problem is happily a small one, and K. Dick, in his elaborate study need detain us only briefly. of the question,^ gives a few apposite examples from late Greek literature and from papyrus letters, which prove beyond all possible doubt that / and we chased each otlier We throughout these documents without rhyme or reason. his exx. with a few more references taken at may supplement random. See for example Tb P 58 (ii/B.c), and AP 130 (I/a.d. a most illiterate document) add Tb P 26 (ii/B.c.) ovti /loi iv iireTreaev rj/xlv, JITS xix. 92 IlToXefjbaiSei (ii^A.D.) xcupe kol (^povri^ere -^ficov oaa ev veKpol^, and jjLOi, fi^jrep jXvKVTdTTj, BU 449 (ii/iii a.d.) oKovaa^ on vcoOpevr] d<y(ovtov/jiev. Dick
not
satisfied " " Yes to

'

'

quotes as a
interesting
iii.

particularly

letter,

276.**

He

good ex. BU 27 (ii/iii a.d.), an reproduced with some notes in Expos, vi. succeeds in showing so Deissmann thinks

that

every theory suggested regularising It would seem that these pronouns breaks down entirely. the question must be passed on from the grammarian to

for

Paul's

use of

^ Der schriftstellerisclic Plural bei Paxdiis (1900), pp. Deissmann's summary of this book, Theol. Rundschau \. 65.

18

ff.

See also

["Seep. 246.

ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, rREPOSITIONS.


;

87

argue Latin to Greek, or we might expect help from Prof. Convi'ay's careful study of 7ios in Cicero's Letters;^ Init the tone of superiority, in various forms, which the nos carries, has no parallel in Greek.
K6fl6XiV6

for our grammatical material the exegete gives us not the evidence of any distinction hetween the two numbers in ordinary writing. It is futile to from

slightest

Pronoun

The reflexive pronouns have developed some unclassical uses, notably that in the
plural

they are

all

fused

into

the

forms

The presence originally appropriated to the third person. or absence of this confusion in the singular is a nice test of the degree of culture in a writer of Common Greek, In the
papyri there are a few examples of it in very illiterate documents,^ while for the plural the use is general, beginning to
This answers to what we where some seventy cases of the plural occur NT, without a single genuine example of the singular ;* late scribes, reflecting the developments of their own time, have introduced it into Jn 18=^* and Eom 13^ (Gal 5^*). As in the papyri, kavTov<; sometimes stands for aX\7]Xov<;,'* and somefind in the

appear even in classical times.^

times

is

itself

replaced

by

the

personal

pronoun.

In

translations from Semitic originals we may find, instead of eavTov, a periphrasis with "^/^f;^?; ;^ thus Lk 9^^, compared
its presumed original Mk 8^*^. have to be most carefully restricted passages and even there it would be has been levelled up to t7]p >^v'^i]v has been emptied of meaning.

with

But

this

principle will

to definitely translated truer to say that eavrou

avTov, than that i/^f^^


is

"Exhausted"
I'Sios

In one class of phrases eavrov


^^j|3i^Q^^t;

used

emphasis, in a way that brings up the discussion of its fellow tS^o?.^ In sepulchral
inscriptions

we

find

son

describing his

'

'

See
is

Transactions of Cambridge Philological Society, v. i., 1899. CR xv. 441, xviii. 154. I find it rather hard to believe that Lucian's

text
^

sound where he
iv. 3^

is

recorded as using this eminently illiterate idiom


p. 277).

e.g.

Dial. Marin,

Mn
'

Polybius always uses avrwv (Kiilker, Quxstiones, 1 Co 1029 iavTod= "one's."

See J. A. Robinson, Study of the Gospels,

p. 114,

on periphrases for the


["''See p. 246.

reflexive.

88

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

father as o irar-qp, 6 t'Sto? Trarrjp, or 6 eavrov irarrip, and the difference between the three is not very easily discernible.

IMA

In a number of these inscriptions contained in vol. iii. of the I count 21 exx. with t'Sto?, 10 with eavrov, and 16

The papyrus formula used in all legal with neither. documents where a woman is the principal, viz. fxeTu Kvplov Tov avT7]<; avBp6<; (aBeXcjiov, etc.), gives a parallel for this It starts the more rather faded use of the reflexive.
serious question whether weakened in Hellenistic.
t8io<; is

to
is

be supposed similarly
often
affirmed,

This

and

is

vouched

for

by no
calls

123

f.).

He

an authority than Deissmann (BS special attention to such passages in the


less

LXX
9^^

as

Job 24^^

(ockcov

Ihiwv),
.

Prov
.

27-^^

{tov IBiov otKov),

{tov eavTov afxiTekwvo^

{lScoi<; hecriTOTai'^),

tov ISlov jecopyiov), 22^ in which the pronoun has nothing what.

He reminds us that ever answering to it in the original. " " occurs in writers of the literary exhausted iSto? the Koivrj, and that in Josephus even olKeio^ comes to share this
weakening a few Attic inscriptions from I/b.c. (Meisterhans^ Our 235) show XBta with the like attenuated content. inference must be that in Ac 24^* Luke is not ironically suggesting the poverty of Felix's title, and that in Mt 22^ there is no stress on the disloyal guest's busying himself with his own farm instead of someone else's. (Cf p. 237 below.)
:

Perhaps, however, this


in

doctrine

of

the exhausted

IfSto?

is

some danger
f.

of

being worked too hard.


all

In

GB

xv.

440
i.

are put
ii.,

down

the occurrences of tSio? in

BU

vols,

which contain nearly 700 documents of various It is certainly remarkable that in all these antiquity. there is not one which goes to swell Deissmann's passages Not even in the Byzantine papyri have we a single list.

and

I'Sio? is not exactly represented by the English In a papyrus as early as the Ptolemaic period we 6Wa r)p.wv cBtov, which find the possessive pronoun added 2 Pet 3'% Tit l^^, Ac 2.) is just hke "our own." (Cf This use became normal in the Byzantine age, in which cBia still had force enough to make such phrases as iSiav koI

case where
oivn.

vofiijxriv

yvvoLKa.

Now,
to

we cannot venture
still less

deny in

in the face of the literary examples, ioto the weakening of tSto?,


lhio<i

the practical equivalence of

and eavTov, which

ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS.


is

89

evident from the sepulchral inscriptions above cited, as well as from such passages as Prov 9^^ ^nd 1 Co 7^. But the strong signs of life in the word the papyri throughout
for.

have to be allowed In correlating


bring in
the

these

perplexing

following

considerations:

Josephus similarly weakens olKeio<; question turns on thought ratlier than on words. (2) It is possible, as our own language shows, for a word to be simultaneously in possession of a full and an attenuated " It's an awful nuisance," will meaning.! People who say without any sense of incongruity say " How awful " when
!

phenomena, we may (1) The fact that seems to show that the

No they read of some great catastrophe in the newspaper. doubt the habitual light use of such words does tend in time to attenuate their content, but even this rule is not
To annoy modern French ffe7icr.
universal.
"
"
is in Hellenistic a-KvWetv,^ and in There was a time when the Greek

in thus speaking
alive,

compared

when

the

Frenchman

his trouble to the pains of flaying recalled the thought of Gehenna


;

but the original full sense was unknown to the unlearned Sometimes, however, the full sense speaker of a later day.

and even succeeds in ousting the lighter sense, as word vast, the adverb of which is now rarely heard as a mere synonym of veri/. (3) The use of the English
lives on,

in our

07on

will in

help
his

us

somewhat.

"

Let
of

each
14'^)

man
has
the

be

fully

assured

own mind" (Eom

double

advantage of being the English

our

daily speech

and

of representing literally the original ev tm tS/w vot "What It is not, as normally, an function has the adjective there ?

emphatic assertion
assured in

of property
else's

am
It

someone

mind.

is

in no danger of being simply a method of


"
:

ev tm vot and in laying stress on the personal pronoun " his mind alike transfer the stress to the noun." This fact

at once

shows the equivalence

of tSio^

and eavrov
"

in certain

locutions.

look at the examples of exhausted we find that they very largely are attached to words I'Sto?," Husband and wife that imply some sort of hclonging.

Now, when we

account for seven examples in the NT, and other relation^

Cf

p.

237 below.

See Ex^ms. vi.

iii.

273 L

[" iScc p. 2itJ.

90

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

that of master and slave, for a good many large number come under the category of the House, mind, thoughts and passions, and parts of the body. or language, and similar very estate, riding-animal, country
ships, including

more.

intimate
this

If occasionally possessions receive the epithet. sense of property is expressed where we should not express it, this need not compromise the assertion that

iSto? itself was always as strong as our English word own. There are a host of places in the NT, as in the papyri, where its emphasis is undeniable e.g. Mt 9\ Lk 6^\ Jn 1*^ (note its position) 5^8 etc., Ac V\ 1 Co 3^, Gal 6^ Heb V\
;

One feels therefore quite decisive. the argument of Westcott, Milliganadopting justified Moulton, etc., that the emphatic position of rov iBtov in Jn 1*^ was meant as a hint that the unnamed companion of Andrew,
and many others equally
in

presumably John, fetched his brother. cases as Ac 24-* and Mt 22^ is not easy and it insert own in the latter place
;

What
to say.
is

to do in such

The Eevisers
argue that

fair to

the word suggests

the

strength

of

the

counter-attraction,

which

is

Lk

14^^.

more The

enough

to

fully expressed in the companion parable, It is hardly case of Drusilla is less easy. that tSto? is customarily attached to the plead
;

for (with the Eevisers) we instinctively feel relationship that oivn is appropriate in 1 Pet 3^ and similar passages, It is the only but inappropriate here. passage where

NT

there
in

is

any

real difficulty
IBla,

and since

stands almost alone

reading

strong.

The error may have


>]

the temptation for once to prefer N is very arisen simply from the commonISla yvvrj,
it

ness of the combination

ferred to a context in which


,

which was here transwas not at home.

Before leaving tSto? something should be said about the use of o t8io<i without a

This occurs in Jn 1^^ 13\ Ac 4^-^ 24^^ In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term 6 Betva rw IhUp of endearment to near relations e.g.

noun expressed.

'Xaipeuv.

In Expos.

VI.

iii.

277

ventured to

cite

this as a

possilile

encouragement

to

those

would translate Ac 20^^ "the


own."

(including B. Weiss) blood of one who was

who
his

Mt

authorities,

27^*, according to the text of sL for the will supply a parallel

and the

later

grammatical

ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PllEPOSITIONS.

91

ambiguity: there as here we have to decide whether the second genitive is an adjective quahfying the first or a noun The MGr use of o cSio^, as substitute for dependent on it.
the old 6 avT6<;, has nothing foreshadowing it in the NT but in the papyrus of Eudoxus (ii/B.c.) we find a passage
;

where

ttjl

Ihiai is followed

by

rrji

avrrjt in the

same
was

sense,

so that

it

seems inevitable to

trace,

with Blass, an antithe


use
locally

cipation
restricted.

of

MGr
'
V

here.

Perhaps
is

., X , Auro? o and
.

There
f

an
11

6 auTos.

ai^T09 o

the

Hellenistic, which tends to blunt distinction between this and e'/cetvo? 6.

TT

apparent

weakening

of

Dean Eobinson

(Gospels, p.

hour" (Mt 1125 iv eKelvM It is eKeivr)), and 1 01


himself
"
;

106) translates Lk lO^i "in that Kaipw), and so Lk 12^2 q^^-^ j 311 difficult to be satisfied with " John
tu>

in Mt 3* and in Luke particularly we feel that the pronoun means little more than "that." Outside Luke, and the one passage of Mt, avT6<i 6 has manifestly its full classical force. From the papyri we may quote OP 745
(i/A.D.)
(ii/B.c.)

avTov Tov "Avrav," thQ said A.": note also


o avTo<i ''flpo'i, "

GH

26

the same Horus,"

and so in BU 1052 (i/B.c). We find avrb to Kpl(xa, "this sin" (Abbott 184), etc. MGr, e.[j. We have already seen (p. 86) that the emphatic avro'^ standing alone can replace classical iKelvof. (See now Wellh. 26 f.)

the aforesaid," the former use in


i.e.

"

Use of

oa-Tis

Turning to the Eelatives, we note the liting of 6a-Ti<;, a conspicuous trait of the vernacular, where the nominative (with the

NT

neuter accusative) covers very nearly all the occurrences of the pronoun. The phrase eft)9 orov is the only exception in Greek. The obsolescence of the distinction between 09
oo-Tf9
is

and

type like

Lk

asserted by Blass for Luke, but not for Paul. 2* et9 ttoXlv Aavelh yri^ KoXelrat BTjOXecfi,

and from papyri


on
1

be exactly paralleled from Herodotus (see Blass 173) so in an invitation formula avptov 7]Tt<i icTTlv Te, "to-morrow, which is the 15th" cf Mt 27^'^. Hort,

may

{Comm. p. 133), allows that "there are some places in the NT in which oo-Tt9 cannot be distinguished from "In most places, however, of the NT," he proceeds, "oc-Tt9 09."
Pet
2^^

apparently retains

its

strict

classical

force,

either

generic,

92
'

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


'

which, as other like things,' or essential, which by its very in nature.'" large number of the exceptions, especially

Lucan

by no means cases of equivalence whether agreeing or disagreeing with Some of them would have been expressed classical use. with oairep in Attic: thus in Ac 11^^ we seem to expect Others throw a subtle stress on the relative, iyevero.
writings,
09

seem

to be

between

and

o(nL<i,

y^irep

"

which can be brought out by various paraphrases, as in Lk 1^^, Or oVrt? represents what in English which for all that." would be expressed by a demonstrative and a conjunction, as
In Mt we be taken away." find oarci used four times at the beginning of a parable, as where, though the principal figure is formally described

in

Lk

10*2, c^and it shall not

an individual, he
appropriate.
of

is

We may
oo-rt?,

really a tyj^e, and 6(ttl<; refer to Blass 173, for

is

therefore

examples

09

used for
of

with indefinite reference.


o(TTt<i is

The

large

number
is

places in

to classical use,

may

not yet dead. further here, but

We

obviously right, according the distinction fairly stand as proof that must not stay to trace the distinction

which

may

venture on

the

assertion

that

the

two

relatives

blurred

may

are never absolutely be the outlines of the classical distinction in

convertible, however

Luke, and possibly in sporadic passages outside his writings. Kalker (Qucvst. 245 f.) asserts that Polybius uses oaTi,^ for 09 before words beginning with a vowel, for no more serious
reason than the avoidance of hiatus
;

and

it is

curious that

among twenty-three more


Lucan
any Kalker

or less unclassical examples in the books fourteen do happen to achieve this result.

We

chronicle this fact as in duty bound, but without suggesting If inclination to regard it as a key to our problem.

and there certainly seems right for Polybius occurs just where weight in his remark that this substitution we may have to admit that the forms of 09 end in a vowel
is

the distinction during the Koiv^] period had worn rather It would be like the distinction between our relatives thin. who and that, which in a considerable proportion of sentences
are sufficiently convertible to be selected mostly according this, however, does not to our sense of rliythm or euphony
:

imply that the distinction

is

even blurred, much

The

attraction of

the Ptelative

which,

less lost.

of

course, does

ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS.


not involve
A
4.4.

93

oo-ri?

is

a construction at least as popular in late


It appears abundantly even in the most illiterate

+
;

^^ ^^ classical Greek.
in

the papyri,

of

them
oa-cov

and
iav

in

stretched
Tj

further

legal documents we in formulae, such as


ovao)v.

have the principle apovpfav BeKa Svo


to

waiv

There are

be

noted

some

exceptions to the general rule of attraction, on which see In several cases of alleged breach of rule we may Blass 173. more probably (with Blass) recognise the implied presence
of the

"

internal accusative

"

so in 2

Dr Plummer (CGT,

Co

I.e.)

Co 1*, Eph 1^ 4\ where would make the dative the

original case for the relative.

Relatives and
Interrogatives confused.
of r)XLKo<;
<

rogative

Confusion of relative and indirect inter" is not uncommon. ''Oo-o9, olo<;,


,
,
.

o7roio<i,

^jXt/co?

occur in the

with the exception interrogatives, and also as relatives," W. F. Moulton observes 210 n.);

NT

as indirect

(WM

and in the papyri even o? can be used in an indirect question. Good examples are found in Par P 60 (ii/B.c.) uTroarikop /xoi TToaov e^ei Tvapd aov 2. koI [ckJ)'] ov '^povov, and EL 29 (iii/B.C.) (jipd^ovTe'i [to Te] avrwv ovoiia kov iv rji km/xtjl oIkovctlv kuI So already in Sophocles, Antiy. 542, 7r[6arov Ti.jjLc!)v]Tai. OT 1068 (see Jebb's notes); and in Plato, Euth. 14e a fxev yap
It is superfluous to say that this usage cannot possibly be extended to direct question, so as to justify
8i86a(Tiv, Travrl Sr]Xov.

the

AV

in

Mt
ri<i

26^^*.

tions

show

The more illiterate papyri and inscripfor relative oo-ri? not infrequently, as evpov

avra ekKvarj '^^'^ "^ kuko)^ rtfo? eav XP^^^ ^XV^ Jebb on Soph. OT 1 141 remarks that while " Ti9 in classical Greek can replace oVrt? only where there is Hellenistic Greek did not always an indirect question, There is no adequate reason observe this rule: Mk 14^^." for punctuating Jas 3^^ so as to bring in this misuse of tw.
'yeopjov Tt9
'7roi7]aeL,^ etc.
. . .

But

Mt

10^^ and

Lk 17^

are essentially similar ;2 nor does

there seem to be any decisive reason against so reading Ac 13^^ Dieterich (Unters. 200) gives several inscriptional exx., and observes that the use was specially strong in Asia

BU

822

^ I

nmst

239 (Iv/a.d.), JffS xix. 299. (iii/A.D.), retract tlie denial I gave in CH xv 441.

BM

94
Minor.

A GRAMMAE OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


It is interesting therefore to note
xxviii.

Thumb's statement

{ThLZ
Pontic

now

423), that the interrogative is similarly used in a clear case of local survival. The use of

NT

oTi for t/ in a direct question

confusion

between the

two

a curious example of the categories, a confusion much


is

further developed in our

own

language.
.
.

Developments
in

MGr.

developments are instructive when _ ,, ,. ^^ ^^^ exammmg the relatives and mterThe normal relative is ttoO, folrogatives.
,
.

MGr

lowed by the proper case of the demonstrative, as


irov

^larpo^

rov

GaTeika,

"

the

doctor

whom

sent,"

etc.

The

ingenious Abbe Viteau


Tjvew^ev

discovers a construction very much like this, though he does not draw the parallel, in Jn 9" oVt

thou whose eyes he hath Since 6 ti opened": he cites Mk 6^"- 8^* as further exx. and "1^^^. are passable equivalents, we have here a " pure Hebraism " a gem of the first water We might better
rov'i
6(f)daXfiov<i,

aov

"

Viteau's instruction

by tracing

to

the same fertile source

the

MGr

idiom,

supporting our case with a reference to


7^5 (^9 . . . parallels to It will be wise however for us to sober

Jannaris ^6^
avrrj<;)

1439, on
like.^

MGr

Mk

and the

ourselves with
after

a glance at Thumb's remarks, Hellen. 130, which we may proceed to look for parallels nearer home than Hebrew. In Old English this was the regular con"

struction.

Thus, asend waes" (Gen

thurh God,

the ic

thurh his willan hider

45^); "namely oon That with a spere was thirled his brest-boon" (Chaucer, Knightes Tale 1851 f.). " Of the German " der du bist = who art.^ The idiom is " still which her among us and Mrs Gamp, remarking
;

name
The

Harris," will hardly be suspected of Hebraism affords an almost decisive presence of a usage in
is

Mrs

MGr

disproof of Semitism in the Kolvtj, only one small corner of whose domain came within range of Semitic influences and we
;

have merely
idioms

may

to recognise afresh the ease with arise in totally independent


is

which identical
It does

languages.

not however follow that Blass

wrong when he claims

See below, p. 237 also Wellh. 22, who adds exx. from D. See Skeat's Chaucer, Frologue and Knightes Tale, p. xxxvi,
;

owe the sug-

gestion to

my

frieud

Mr

E. E. Kellett.

ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS.

95

Mk 72^ 1^ 13^", Lk 3i, and passages in Eev, as "specially The phenomenon is frequent suggested by Semitic usage." in the (see 185), and the NT exx. are all from places where Aramaic sources are certain or suspected.

LXX

WM

vernacular use

natural limits,
Blass's

may be stretched when convenient for

(cf pp.

10

f.)

literal translation.

own quotation, ov r) irvoij avrov iv t'l^lv a piece of free Greek. That this use did exist in the from from any Semitic influence, is proved old vernacular, away

beyond its But eariv} comes

The quotations in Kiihner-Gerth by the papyri (p. 85). and in Blass and Winer ll.cc, show that it had 561 n.^, As was natural in a its roots in the classical language. which started from anacoluthon, the relative and usage the pleonastic demonstrative were generally, in the earlier
examples, separated by a good

many

intervening words.
for ri? has

just as our tuhat (historically identical with the Latin qtiod) has become The indifferent in gender. decidedly shows the early It will not do for us to of this extension of ttoIo^;. stages

The modern Interrogative is mostly Troio?, practically worn down to the indeclinable rt,

NT

refine too

much on

the distinction between the two pronouns.

The weakening

of the special sense of irolo'i called into being a

new pronoun
was the old

to express the sense qualis,name\y,7roTa7r6<;,which

what country ? "), modified by popular and thus denuded of its associaetymology tion in meaning with dXX.oS-aTro'i, rjfA,e8-a'ir6<;, and vfjLeB-airo^} We take next the Numerals. The use Numera s . " ^^ ^^ ordinal is ^^ ^^^ undoubtedly a
TroSaTro? (" of

to suggest ttotc,

CIS 3'S OrCilll3;i

Hebrew
by
the

idiom,

accordmg
in

to

Blass, p. 144.
;

-i

A A

Our
are

doubts,

nevertheless, will

not be repressed

encouraged

query

Thumb's

review.

and they To

begin with, why did the Hebraism affect only the first If the use was vernacular numeral, and not its successors ? Greek, the reason of the restriction is obvious tt/jwto? is the only ordinal which altogether differs in form from the
:

Clement ad

Cor. 21 Jin.

(Lightfoot, p. 78).
birth.

Nestle

{ZNTW

i.

178

tf.)

tliinks the writer

was of Semitic

2 The suffix is that of Latin joro^-Mig'wos, long-inquos, Skt. anv-anc, etc. ttoSand dWoS- are quod, xvhut, aliud, while i)ixto-, vfieS-, answer to ablative forma
:

in Skt.

96

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


When we

add that both German and English say "^ja^ forty" (WM 311), we are prepared for the belief that the Greek vernacular also had this natural use. Now, although et? Koi elKoaTO'i, unus et vicesimus, one and hoenticth, are (as
cardinal.^

Blass says) essentially different, since the ordinal element is present at the end of the phrase, this is not so with r^ fxia koI
elKciht,^

BU

623

(ii/iii A.D.).

But the matter

is

really settled

by the fact that in MGr the cardinals beyond 4 have ousted the ordinals entirely (Thumb, Hanclbuch 56); and Dieterich
(Unters. 187 f.) shows from inscriptions that the use is as old as Byzantine Greek. It would seem then that the encroach-

ment of the cardinal began in the one case where the ordinal was entirely distinct in form, spread thence over other numerals, and was finally repelled from the first four, in which
constant use preserved alike the declension and the distinct ordinal form. Had Semitic influence been at work, there is no conceivable reason why we should not have had tj} irevre
at the

same

time.

Simultaneously with this process we note the firm establishment of simplified ordinals
^^'^^

to 19th, which now (from iii/B.c. are exclusively of the form rptaicaionwards) 8eKaTo<;, reaa-apeaKacBeKaTO'i, etc., with only isolated exceptions.
" of the " teens

13th

Similarly

we

find SeVa rpet?, 8eKa e^, etc., almost invariably in


SooSeKa.^"'

papyri, and SeKu Bvo more often than

These pheno-

mena
19

all started in

the classical period: cf Meisterhans^ 160. There is a further use of eh which calls

as Indefinite Article

remark,
article, like

i-i.ii its
is

development into an mdennite cin in German, un in French, or


complete.

j.

-in-.

our

own an

in

MGr

the process

The

fact that

connect them.

dvo, but popular etymology would naturally Curiously enough, Hebrew shares the peculiarity noted above, which somewhat weakens our argument: Aramaic, like Latin and English, uses

Aevrepoi

is

not derived from

Hebrew has lost Jirst. and Aramaic shows them only in the Jerus. Targ. See Dalman, Gramm. 99 f. For days of the month, the encroachment of cardinals has gone further still in both dialects. The fact that the ordinals up to 10 are all treated alike in Hebrew, reinforces our view. ^ EtVds, like Tpids, Sefcds, rpiiKas, etc., was originally either No. SO or a set Cf rpids in Vhilo = 3Td day of 20, though used only for the 20th of the month. (LS), and rerpas, the usual name for Wednesday, surviving in MGr see p. 237. * Wellhauseu notes that D has ouh Sh-a 8iJ0 and ip. [" See p. 246.
all

a word distinct from the cardinal for second as well as


ordinals beyond 10,

ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS.

97

in classical

eh progressively ousted ri'? in popular speech, and that even Greek there was a use which only needed a little

diluting to make it essentially the same,^ is surely enough to prove that the development lay entirely within the Greek language, and only by accident agrees with .Semitic. (See

Wellh. 27.)
8^^),

We

must not therefore follow Meyer (on Mt

in
:

denying that eU
it is
,

of Tt9

is ever used in the NT in the sense dangerous to import exegetical subtleties into the

NT,

Greek.

against the known history of the Common The use of 6 eh in 14^*^ is, as

Mk

noted in Expos, vi. vii. Ill, paralleled in early papyri.^ In Blass's second edition (p. .330) we find a virtual surrender of the Hebraism in hvo hvo, (rvuiroaia ., _^. JJistributivss. /Tii ntnt \ //.

c>

cv

in

a very probable reading, as accounting for the Epiphanius he remarks on fxiav /xiav in Sophocles (Frag. 201) variants):
that
"

av/jLTToaia

(Mk

O"*'''-),

oea/jba<i oecr/xa?

(Mt

13^'^

Atticists had evidently complained of it as vulgar, and was not only Jewish-Greek." Winer compared Aeschylus PerscG 981, /Mvpia fxvpia TrefMiraaTav. Deissmann (ThLZ, cites Syja-rj rpia rpla from OP 121 1898, p. 631) (iii/A.D.) and (as W. F. Moulton noted 312 n.) the usage is found in MGr.^ Thumb is undeniably right in calling the coincidence with Hebrew a mere accident. In the papyri
it

WM

(e.g.

Tb V 63^

an elative
that in

= fieydXou

ii/B.C.)

the repetition of an adjective produces /xeydXov = fiejiarov. It should be added a mixed distributive dva 8vo Svo

Lk 10^ we have

(B 92

al): so in Ev. Petr. 35, as Blass notes,


(Tisch.).^

and Acta Philippi

Two
eigntn person.
1.J.I..

single passages claim a

word before
"OyBooj>

we

pass
,

on from
/
,

the
2

numerals.

Nm

<j)v\a^v in

Pet 2^ presents us with


els

It is difficult to see

any
eh

difference between

and

ris in

Aristophanes,

Av. 1292

:
7re'p5i^ /jAf

KdTri]\os wvofid^ero
5'
tji'

X0}\6s, MeulTTTrqi

xeXtSibi' roijuo/xa, k.t.X.

From
^

the papyri

(sc. irpo(TK\7)divTO$)

We may

30 (ii/B.c.) Kou8v\ov ivbs tQv aXieluv 1044 (iv/A.D.) eVos {sic = eh) Xeyb/xevov (=-o$) t'a^tris. add good exx. from Par P 15 (ii/E.C.) tov eva avrwu^Qpov tov eroj
cite as exx.
;

we may

AP

BU

Twv iyKoXovfievaiv 'Nexovdou.


3

Thumb, ffcllen. 128, Handburh See W. Schulze, Graeca Latina


7

57.
13.

Add now

Wellh. 31.

98

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

a classical idiom which can be shown to survive at any rate see exx. in in literary Common Greek 312, and Schtefer I have not noticed any occurrences in the papyri, and I.e.
:

WM

in

The AV of Pet we rather expect bookish phrases. is an instructive illustration for our inquiries passage " " Noah the eighth person is not English, as to Hebraisms.
2
this
for all its

appearing in a work which we are taught to regard

It is a piece of as the impeccable standard of classic purity. " translation English," and tolerably unintelligible too, one may well suppose, to its less educated readers. Now, if this

specimen of translators' "nodding" had made its way into " " we strain at a gnat lilce the misprint the language " " as hitherto Hebraism should have had a fair parallel for As it stands, a phrase which no one has ever understood.

thought of imitating, it serves to illustrate the over-literal translations which appear very frequently in the LXX and in

NT, where a Semitic original underlies the Greek text. (Compare what is said of Gallicisms in English on p. 13.)
the
"

Last in this division comes a note on

Seventy times
seven.

j^^.

j^g22_

gj^gg janores entirely the


.

ren-

" (KVmargin), dering seventy-seven times the fact that this meaning is unmistakable in Gen 4^* despite (LXX). It will surely be felt that W. F. Moulton

"

314) was right in regarding that passage as


definite

decisive.

(WM A

allusion to the Genesis story is highly probable: Jesus pointedly sets against the natural man's craving for seventy-sevenfold revenge the spiritual man's ambition to

For exercise the privilege of seventy-sevenfold forgiveness. a partial grammatical parallel see Iliad xxii. 349, heKUKt^ [re] " Kol FeUoai, tenfold and twenty-fold," if the text is sound.
It will be

worth while

to give statistics

Prepositions

^^^

^.j^g

Freauency

^^ ^^'
If

relative frequency of Prepositions in answering to those cited from Helbing


f.)

(above, pp. 6 2
classical historians.

for

the classical and post-

represent iv by unity, the order of et? "64, i/c "34, eTrt "32, 7rpo<? precedence works out thus: 25, Std -24, ciTTo -24, Kara "17, //.era "17, irepl -12, vtto

we

08, -rrapd "07,

vTrep

-054,

aw

dvd -0045.

We

shall

have

-048, irpo -018, civtc 008, to return later to prepositions

compounded with

verbs, following our

present principle of

ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS.


dealing with
witli

90

them in connexion with the parts of speech which they are used. A few miscellaneous matters
in

come

best at this point.

First

let

us
of

notice

the

pro-

minence
Prepositions

in

Hellenistic

combinations of

prepositions

with adverbs.
^'^
'^^'^^'

In

papyri

we
acf)

Adverbs.

^^^

'^"^^

'^^

^^ 486 OP 528

utto (ii/A.D.),

'rrepvai

(Deissmann

^aS'

221), and even


(ii/A.D.).

6t tXovau/j,7]v, "since I last bathed,"

In

NT we

totc, utto irepvai, air' apn, e/c irakai, e(j>' The roots of the usage may be seen in aira^, enrl rpk, etc.

have uTrb

the classical eV del

and the

like.

Some

of these
"

combinations
This

became
of

iixed, as

vTroKuro),

virepdvo),
"

Karevavrt.

may
All

be set beside the abundance of


these,

Improper

prepositions.

except i<y'yu<;, take the genitive only. comments ^ on the survival of such as eco?, eirdvo),
vTroKUTQ), in

Thumb
ottiVo),

MGr.
it

Hebraism
for the

in

this

field

was supposed
till

to

have been responsible

coining of eva>inov,

Deiss-

The compound preposition dva it has turned up abundantly fieaov was similarly aspersed in the papyri, not however in any use which would help 1 Co 6^, where it is almost impossible to believe the text
vernacular.^

mann proved

but

sound.

(An exact

parallel occurs in the

Athenmum

for Jan.

14, 1905, where a writer is properly censured for saying, " I have attempted to discriminate between those which are " well authenticated," i.e. (presumably) [and those which are It is hard to believe Paul would have been so slovenly not]." We have a further set of in writing, or even dictating.) " " Hebraisms in the compound prepositions which are freely made with irpoaooirov, ')(elp and aTo/xa (Blass 129 f.): see Even here the Semitism is still on the above, p. 81. familiar lines a phrase which is possible in native Greek
:

is

extended widely beyond


a

its

idiomatic

limits

because
;

it

exactly conscious use of Biblical turns of speech explains the application of such phrases on the lips of men whose minds are

translates

common Hebrew

locution

and

the

saturated with the sacred writers' language.


1

As

early as iii/B.c,

TkLZ xxviii. 422. BS 213. Gi Expos,

vi.

iii.

113

add now
I

in the formula of a libclhis.

Tb P

OP 658 (iii/A.P.), where it appears 14 (114 B.C.) TrapriyyeXKdTes ivuinov, "I


have seen.
F>ut see p. 246.

gave notice in person,"

is

the earliest ex.

100

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

in a Libyan's will, we meet with Kara irpoa-ui'Trov rtvo'i ;^ and in mercantile language we constantly find the formula Slu
X^'-po'i,

used absolutely,

it is

true

e.g.

hand

to hand," as contrasted with

"

25 (iii/B.c), "from through an intermediary."


^

MP

We may
eh TO
to use

refer to Heitmilller's proof


Tivo<i is

that the kindred phrase

The strong tendency which we have been compound prepositional phrases, illustrating already, would make it all the easier to develop
ovofid

good vernacular.

these adaptations of familiar language. as

,;+irv,^ witn one case.

The eighteen classical prepositions we have iust seen, all represented in


,

are,

NT

Greek, except afx^i, which has disappeared as a separate word, like anibi in Latin, and like its correlative in English, the former existence of which in our own branch

shown by the survival of um in modern German. It was not sufficiently differentiated from irepl to assert itself in the competition and the decay of the idea of duality weakened further a preposition which still proclaimed its
is
;

on both sides," by its resemblance to original meaning, ^Avci has escaped the same fate by its distributive ajji^orepoi.
use,

"

for four,

which accounts for seven instances, the phrase ava fjueaov 'Avrl occurs 22 times, and dva fiipo^ for one.
oiv

but dvd'

reduces the

number

of free occurrences to 17.


of,"

Bare though it is, it retains its individuality. " In front with a normal adnominal genitive, passes naturally into
of,"

"

in

with the idea of equivalence or return or substituplace For the preposition in Jn l^*", an excellent tion, our for.
parallel

from Philo

is

given in

WM

(p.

456

n.).^

JJpo occurs

48
TOV

times, including 9 exx. of irpo tov

c. inf.,

which invades

the province of
irda-^a,

Kalendas.

In Jn 12^ we have irpb e| ij/xepMV irpiv. which looks extremely like ante diem iertium The plausible Latinism forces itself on our

attention all the

more when we compare

IMA

iii.

325

(ii/A.D.)

Deissmami

BS \iO.
100
ff.

2 *

Tm Namen Jem

So

p. 63, for ^v ovd/j-aTi

on,

Mk

9^i.

wpb yrj? eXavveuOaL, "from one liind to another," cXirLaiv i^ eX-n-iduv, and the like (p. 124). The Philonic passage is from De Sib rets wpwras akl xctptras, irplv Kopeadei'Tas Poster. Caini 145 (p. 254 M.)
Blass compares yiju
:

e^v^piaaL roi)s \ax6vTas, eVicrxwj' Kfxl Ta/juevadp-evos ehavOis erepas dur' eKelvuiv, KoX rpiras dvri tCov devrepwv /cat akl vcas dvri iraXaioripuv iiribibuai.
. . .

ADJECTIVES PRONOUNS, PREPOSITtONS.


TTjOo

101

le

KaXavhwv

Av<^ovar(i)v,

and

parallels

iu

translated

docunieuts to be seen in Viereck's

12, And yet it is soon found that the same 13, 21, etc.). construction occurs in phrases which have nothing in common with the peculiar formula of Latin days of the

JScr/no Grc/'cns (see pp.

month.

In the Mysteries inscription from Andania (Michel 694, iJB.G.) we recognise it iu Doric Trpb afxepav BeKu twi/

/jbvaTTjpLcov
irpoi

and the

illiterate

vernacular of
Trj'i

FP 118
eio^T?}? ("

(ii/A.D.),

Suo

rjfiepov

dyopaaov ra opviddpia

buy the

fowls two days before the feast"), when combined with Jn I.e., makes the hypothesis of Latinism utterly improbable. The

second genitive in these three passages is best taken as an " It is found as ablative starting from the mysteries," etc.

early as Herodotus,

who has

(vi.

46) Sevrepo)

eVet Toyxtuj^,

"

in

the second yearfroin these events": cf also OP 492 (ii/A.D.) fier " a year after (starting from) ivcavTov eva Trj<i re\evTr]<; fiov, See also the note on oi/re, stipr. p. 72. There death." my

remains the idiomatic use of

irpo,

seen in 2 Co 12^ irpb iroiv

Blass (p. 127 n.) heKareaadpwv, "fourteen years before." cites irpo d/xepdv 8eKa from the will of Epicteta (Michel 1001), written in the Doric of Thera, "end of iii/B.c. or

beginning of

ii/B.C,

therefore

pre-Roman"

to cite Blass's

own

becomes clear that historically the resemtestimony.^ blance between the mite diem idiom and the Greek which translates it is sheer coincidence, and the supposed Latinism goes into the same class as the Hebraisms we have so often
It

This enquiry, with the general condisposed of already.^ siderations as to Latinisms which were advanced above (pp.

20

f.),

will serve to encourage scepticism

when we note
P

the

Add FP

122

(i/ii

a.p.),

BU

592

(ii/A.D.),

NP

47

(iii/A.D), Cli

15 (iv/A.D.), of passages

BU836{vi/A.D.).
2

W.

Schulze, Graec. Lat. 14-19, has a long

and striking

list

how common it became. His illustrating the usage in question, wliich shows earliest citation is irpb TpiQv Tj/xepuiv ttjs reXevT-qs from Hippocrates (v/b.c),

Wo have accordingly will go with that from Herodotus given above. both Ionic and Doric warrant for this Koivrj construction, dating from a period which makes Latin necessarily the borrower, were we bound to deny independent Our explanation of development. Schulze adds a parallel from Lithuanian
which
!

the dependent gen. as an ablative


in

OGIS

435
it

(ii/B.c.)

supported by and Jos. Ant. xiv. 317 ^


is
:

Trpb /^las 7]fj.^pas

))

c.

ace. et inf.,

rei)laces the ablative genitive

exactly as

does after comiJaratives.

102

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


&)<?

resemblance of
hus

diro a-rahiuiv SeKUTrevre

(Jn

11^*^) to

a milli'
14-*^,

passimm duobus (Blass


of

95).

Blass cites

Jn

21^,

Eev

Koivy writers like Diodorus and Plutarch. Mutatis mutandis, this idiom is identical in principle with that
After noting the translation-Hebraism just quoted for irpo. = Lk 12*),^ we proceed to observe (^o^eladai diro in Mt 10^* (
the enlargement of the sphere of
eK,
vTTo,

and the usage

and
"

irapd!^

The

title

Gospels, /jL6Ta(f)pacr/jiivr] diro that diTO has advanced further in the interval.

which encroaches upon modern vernacular top '-4Xe^. UdWrj" reminds us


citto,

of

the

the
{e.g.

NT
Lk

it

Already in sometimes expressed the agent after passive verbs where it is quite unnecessary to resort to 8'*^),

refinements unless the usage of a particular writer demands The alleged Hebraism in Ka9apb^ d-no is dispelled by them. The use of prepositions, Deissmanu's quotations, B& 196.

Greek would have been content with a simple in NT to outnumber d^rd still, though e'/c obsolete to-day,^ except in the Epirot d-^ or h-^?Thus dTrd is used to express the partitive sense, and to replace the where
case,

earlier

enables

genitive of material (as

Mt 27"^ 3*); e/c can even make a of becoming subject of a sentence, as partitive phrase capable in Jn 16^'^. For present purposes we need not pursue further
the

which may be sought in the but we may quote two illustrative inscriptional Letronne 190 and 198 have acoOeU eK, passages with e. " " safe home from (a place), which has affinity with Heb 5'^ and virdp'^wv 6eo<i eK deov koX ded<;, from the Eosetta stone {OGIS 90 ii/B.c), will elucidate Phil 3^ if the reader of the Greek should, conceivably, fall into the misconceptions which so many English readers entertain. It gives us an unpleasant start to find the language of the Nicene Creed
eK,

NT

uses of diro and

lexicon

used centuries earlier of Ptolemy Epiphanes ^ We have already (pp. 62 f.) sketched the developments of
!

^ Were the active 4>o^elv still "do not be panic-stricken by."

extant (below, p. 162), this might be taken as


It is

much

^
^

Thus ox

TO ^ovvd,

" from the

like Trpoa^x^iv dird,

Lk

12^.

hill," occurs in

Epiphanes = Avatar

tenable.

: the common See Ditteuberger's note, OGIS

a modern song, Abbott 128 f. translation "illustrious" is no longer


i.

p. 144.

So this

title also

antici-

pates the

NT

{i-TrKpaveia).

terms, above, p. 84.

(On

said on Christian adaptations of heathen cnrd see also below, p. 237.) ["^See p. 246,
is

Cf what

ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS.


elf,

103

and need say no more


one very
uses

with

^^ Further
q.

the single-case prepositions; The late Greek uses of large exception/* iv would take too much space if discussed in
of
n

^^

lull here,

t^

it has

become

so

much

a maid-of-

all-work that we cannot wonder at its ultimate disappearance, as too indeterminate. Students of Pauline theology will not need to be reminded of Deissmann's masterly " monograph on The NT Formula iv Xpiar<p 'Ir]aov," with its careful investigation of LXX uses of iv, and proof of the But SH (on Eom 6^^) seem riglitly originality of Paul's use.
to

urge that the idea of the mystic indwelling originated witli


:

own teaching the actual phrase in Jn 1 5'' may be determined by Pauline language, but in the original Aramaic teaching the thought may have been essentially present.
the Master's

While there are a good many


:

NT NT

uses of iv which

may

be

paralleled in vernacular documents, there are others beside this one which cannot in their case, however, analogy makes
it

highly improbable that the

writers were innovating.

If

we

papyri have irpo^e^rjKore'i t/Bt} Tot9 ereatv (TP 1 ii/B.c), need not assume Hebraism in Lk 1'^ merely because the
is

evangelist inserts iv
'})/j.epaL<i

his faithful preservation of his source's In Ac V^'* another matter. See pp. 6 If. above.
:

(LXX) we have

ev

= " amounting
differ.

to,"

from which that


is

in

Mk 4^ by BU
BU
Lk

his

does not greatly

This

precisely paralleled

970

(ii/A.D.) irpoolKa iv

(ii/A.D.) ecr-^^e?

hpa'^jiah iwaKoaLai^, OP 724 Soaiv ev Bpa-y^fxal^ reacrapaKovra, ttjv irpdiTqv


. . .

1050

(i/A.D.) i/jbaTia
").

iv

8pa^ixai<;

eKurov ("to
consisting of," as in

the value of
in," is
2^9,

akin to
ev Tot?

The use in Eph 2^^ ev 86y/xaai.v, " this. Por ev toZ<? " in the house
(iii/e.G.)

we have EL 382

ev

toi'; 'A-rroXXcoviov,

Tb P 12

'Aixevvewf "in A.'s office/' OP 523 (ii/A.D.) (ii/B.c.) ev Toh KXavSlov: cf Par P 49 (ii/B.c.) eU to, npeoTdp-^ov We have in KaTaXvao), and even ev rwt, "Slpov in Tb P 27.
official

documents ev meaning " in the department of ": so Tb P 27 (ii/B.c.) TO iv avrcoc 6(f)6i'\.6fievov, 72 a? iv Map pel I do not recall an exact NT parallel, but To-KoypafxfjbaTei, al.
1

Co
in

6-, el ev v/xtv

Kpiverat 6
ev with
:

K6a-fj,o<i,

is

not far away.

We

have another use


"

of
"

judgement Such uses would answer

my

a personal dative in 1 Co 14^^ possibly Jude^ ev 0ea) is akin to this.


to Trapd

c.

dat. in

classical

Greek

See p. 246.

104
The

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

last might seem to be expressed more naturally by the "dative of person judging" (like Ac ^-'^ dareto^i rai Qew, or But the earliest 1 Co I.e. 'iaofiat tu) Xakovvri ^ap^apo'i).

and locative have some common ground, which indeed the leading cause of their syncretism. Thus we find loc. in Sanskrit used quite often for the dat. of indirect object How readily ev was added to the after verbs of speaking.
uses of dative
is

dative,
tion,

which
"

in older

Greek would have needed no preposi-

we

see well in such a passage as

OP 488

where
"

more

particular dative
the

is

This hy one aroura is expressed by eV. an instrumental the same case as our
"

"

(ii/iii a.d.),

more

the merrier
"

of ev fia^acprj,

and is therefore parallel to that armed with a sword," which we have already
,

mentioned (pp. 12,61). We may fairly claim that " Hebraistic" ev is by this time reduced within tolerably narrow limits. One further iv may be noted for its difficulty, and for its bearing on Synoptic questions, the o/xoXoyelv ev tlvl which is conmion to Mt 10^^ and Lk 12^: this is among the clearest evidences of essentially identical translations used in Mt and Lk. W. F. Moulton (WM 283 n.) cites, apparently with approval, Godet's

" the repose of faith in Him whom it confesses": explanation so Westcott, quoting Heracleon, who originated this view

{Canon^ 305

Hebrew rendering

Deissmann {In Christo 60) quotes Delitzsch's ^3 ru\\ and puts it with Mt 3" 9^* 1 1^ 23-^ as an example of a literal translation "mit angstlicher,
n.).

die hermeneutische Pedanterie nahelegender Pietat." Dr Eendel Harris recalls the Grascised translation in Eev 3^, and On the whole, it seems best not gives me Syriac parallels.
to look for justification of this usage in Greek. of

The agreement

Lk, in a point where accidental coincidence is out of the question, remains the most important element in the

Mt and

knowledge

it does that Luke did not use any Aramaic so as to deal independently with the translated Logia that came to him.^ Of the prepositions with two cases, hid Prepositions ^^^^^ nerd show no signs of weakening their ^^^^ Kara c. gen. and irepi, ^^^^^ ^ ^^^ Cases virep and vtto c. ace. distinctly fall behind.

whole matter, proving as


of

'

Cf the similar agreement as to

(po^eladai dird, above, p. 102.

ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS.

105
ace.

We may
279;
165,
irepi geu.

give

the statistics in proof.

Aid
gen.

gen.

382,

fierd

gen.

361,

ace.

100; Kara

73, ace.

391;

38; virep gen. 12G, ace. 19; viro gen. Comparing this list with that in a classical Greek grammar, we see that /xerd, irepl and vtto ^ have been detached from connexion with the dative a fact in line with those noted above, pp. 62 ff. Turning to details, we find that Kard (like dvd, Eev 2V"^) is used as an adverb
ace. 50.

291,

ace.

14^^ [Jn] 8^, KaOeva^, each," preserves this, which probably started from the stereotyping of to Kaff eva, ev Ka& ev, etc., declined by cf evStjfio^ from ev analogy

distributively, as in to Kad^
1

eh or eh Kara eh
"

Mk

Kom

2^

The

MGr Ka6eh or

The enfeebling of Sj;/x&) (mv), or proconsul from pro consule. the distinction between irepl and virep c. gen. is a matter of some importance in the NT, where these prepositions are
Eedeeraer to
for

used in well-known passages to describe the relation of the man or man's sins. It is an evident fact that
virep is often a colourless
"

example, scores of times in accounts, witli


to."

"about," as in 2 Co 8^^ it is used, the sense of


:

our commercial

fullness of content
definitions,

This seems to show that its original must not be presumed upon in theological
it

although

may
avri,

The

distinction

between

not have been wholly forgotten. and the more colourless virep, in
is

applying the metaphor of purchase,


(

well seen in

Mk
c.

1 0^^

= Mt

20"*^)

XvTpov dvTi iroXkcov, and the quotation of this


irdvrcov.'^
"

logion in 1 Tim 2^ dvriXvrpov virep " retains its meaning for tlie sake of,"

Aid
of,"

ace.

because

distinct

from the meaning " through," " by the instrumentality of," which belongs to the genitive. As early as MP 16 and 20 (iii/B.c), we have iva Sia ae /dacriXev rod Zikulov rvyoa;

meant " through you," he would have addressed the king as a mere medium of favour referring to a sovereign power, the ordinary meaning " " because of you This applies exactly is more appropriate. to Jn 6^''. So Eom 8-^, where Winer's explanation is correct
but
if

the

humble

petitioner

had

(p.

498).
'

In much later Greek, as Hatzidakis shows


v(p'

(p.

213)

For

and
-

OP

Ii-kI) c. dat. can be quoted OGIS 54 (iii/u.c.) 708 (as late as ii/A.D.) ^k tov virb aol vo/xou.

eavrwL

woirja-d/ji.ei'Oi,

Note

tliat
:

oous iavrhv is substituted for the translation-Greek Sovvai Tj]f


p. 87.

^vxr]v avTov

on this see above,

See further on vw^p, p. 237.

106
Bed
c.

A GEAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


ace.

monopolised the
the
genitive,

field,
Su'i
is

which
often

it

still

holds in

MGr.^
e/c,

With
8,

contrasted

with

vTTo, etc., as

as 1
final

Co

Mt

denoting mediate and not original authorship, In Heb 2^^ it is used of God, who is " the 122.
of
"

Cause and the efficient Cause There seems no adequate reason


jectural emendation, 8c
"

all

things

(Westcott).

for accepting Blass's con" because of an uadev6ia<i, in Gal 4^^


:

illness

in loc),
Blass's

an entirely satisfactory statement (see Lightfoot and the Vulgate per is not strong enough to justify
is

confidence.^

Merd

c.

gen.

has in

Lk

1^^

use

influenced by literal translation from Semitic."^ Its relations with avv are not what they were in Attic, but it remains

very

much

the

commoner way
al!"

of

points out {Hellen. 125) that in TToXe/juelv jxerd 7ivo<i, Eev 1 2'^

MGr

Thumb saying ivith. use disproves Hebraism

44 iroXefiTjae 3000 Turks."


:

fie

rpel<^

'^tXcdSe'i

TovpKOVi,

Thus, for example, Abbott " he fought with

and with
three

The category of prepositions used with . i ^ 4.three cases is hurrying towards extinction,
,

,.

as

we should

expect.

Merd,
;

have crossed the


7r/jo9
c.

line into the two-case class

irepc and and in the


its

vtto

NT
are

has nearly gone a

step

further,

for

figures

gen. 1

(Ac 27^\
ter
it

literary),

dat.

="

close

to" or "at,"
the dative,
c.

in

Mk, Lk, Ju

and Eev),
in

ace.

G79.

With

however,

occurs

104 times

LXX, and 23
A.d.

times

gen.

the decay seems to have been rapid


7r/309

Cf however PFi

TM

TTvXcovi, as late as

245

c. gen. 78, dat. 50, ace. 60. only used of persons, as generally in classical Greek, except One phrase with rrapd calls for a note on its in Jn 19'"'''. 01 Trap* avrov is exceedingly common use in the papyri.

are,
is

For irapd the numbers Blass notes that c. dat. it

or It has his agents representatives." find parallels for hitherto been less easy to 3'-i, where " " see Swete and Field in loc. his family it must mean

there to denote

"

"

"

Mk

We
^

can

now
Ac

cite

GH
OP

36
41

(ii/B.C.)

01

irap

7)/j,mv

irdvre'i,

Contrast

24- with

(iii/iv

a.d.)

ttoWQv dyaOui'

d.iTo\avofii>

Slo.

aai.

Ov 8vvd/jLepos 5i' acydeveiav -ir\evcrai maybe quoted from OP 726 and a like phrase from OP 261 (i/A.u.), but of course they prove

(ii/A.D.
little

),

or

nothing.

["

See pp. 246

''

f.

see p. 247.

ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS.

107

998 (ii/B.c), and Par P ;5G {u/r..c.)} Finally we come tW, the only preposition which is still thoroughly at home with all the cases (gen. 21G, dat. 176, ace. 464). The weakening of case-distinctions is shown however by the very disproportion of these figures, and by the confusion of meaning
to

BU

which is frequently arising. In Heb 8^*^ 10^^ we construe Kap8la<i as ace. only because of eVi ttjv Suivoiau which follows it in the latter passage on the other hand, the original in Jer 31(38)^^ is singular, which favours taking it as genitive.:

Our
dat.,

local tipon

or ace,

can in fact be rendered by eV/ with with comparatively little difference of

gen.,
force.

the reason
traced

Particular phrases are appropriated to the several cases, but is not always obvious, though it may often be

back to
"

classical

rather clearer.

Among
together,"

language, where distinctions were the current phrases we may note


"

tVt TO avTo

in all," often

used in arithmetical
as

statements: see

Ac

1^^

2*'^.

Blass^

330 might be read

which recurs scores of times. The common i(f>' & c. fut. indie. " on condition that," does not appear in the NT. But with a in 2 Co 5^ and an aor. in Eom 5^^, the meaning is pres. essentially the same (" in view of the fact that "), allowing for the sense resulting from a jussive future.
suggesting comparative rarity for
this phrase,
Expos. VI. vii. 118, viii. 436. See also Mk 6"^ eirl ri xpTV> where Mt 14^* substitutes iirl tou x-, but witli eVi Tbv X- in D. In Ac 7*^ D substitutes gen. for ace, and in 8'" ace. for In Epli 1'" it seems diffieult to draw any valid distinction between the dat. To add one further example, there cases of iirl toIs ovpavoh and iirl ttjs 7^5.
^
^

seems no dilference between iir iaxa-rov in Heb (ii/B.c), &V Tj 5ioiK7](Tii iw iuxo-TO! TiraKTM.

1^

and the dative

in

Tb P

69

CHAPTER

VI.

The Verb: Tenses and Modes of Action.

Our
not

first

subject under the

Verb

will

be one which haa

For yet achieved an entrance into the grammars. the last few years the comparative philologists mostly in
" Aktionsart."
. ,
.

action

"

ai^ , oi / ^ ah/ the problems or Akhonsart, or ^i the knid ^ The subject, denoted by different verbal formations.
;

Germany

have

been

busily

investigatino-

complex in itself, has unfortunately been entangled not a but it must be studied by little by inconsistent terminology all who wish to understand the rationale of the use of the Tenses, and the extremely important part which Compound Verbs play in the Greek and other Indo-Germauic languages.

The English student may be referred to pp. 477 ff. of Mr P. Giles's admirable Manual of Comparative Philology, ed. 2. A fuller summary may be found in pp. 471 ff. of Karl Brugmann's Griech. Graiiim., ed. 3, where the great philologist sets forth the results of Delbrlick and other pioneers in comparative syntax, with an authority and lucidity all his own. The student of Hebrew will not need
Conjugation and Tense

Stems

Celling that a Tense-system, dividing verbal action into the familiar categories of Past, Present and Future, is by no means so
. .

necessary to language as we once conceived it to be. may be more of a surprise to be told that in our

It

own

family of languages Tense is proved by scientific inquiry to be relatively a late invention, so much so that the elementary

and Present had only been developed extent when the various branches of the rudimentary family separated so that they ceased to be mutually intelAs the language then possessed no Passive whatever, ligible.
distinction between Past
to a

and no

distinct Future,

it

will be realised that its resources


108

THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.

109

needed not a little supplementing. But if they were scanty in one direction, they were superabundant in another. Erugmann distinguishes no less than twenty-three conjugations,
or

and there are must add the


parallel.

present-stem classes, of which traces remain in Greek others preserved in other languages. We
aorists

In

most

of

and perfect as formations essentially these we are able to detect an

Aktionsart originally appropriate to the conjugation, though It is seen tliat the naturally blurred by later developments.
action,^ th.-it is, it punctihar regards action as a point: it represents the " let fly," ^aaCkevaai point of entrance {Ingrcssive, as ^aXeiv " come to the throne "), or that of completion (Effective, as
.

Aorist has a

"

"

"), or it looks at a whole action simply as having without distinguishing any steps in its progress occurred, (Constaiive,^ as ^aaiXevaai, "reign," or as when a sculptor " X. made it "). On says of his statue, eitoirjaev 6 Selva

"

/3a\Lv

hit

Persnective
" linear,"
.

the same graph, the Constativc will be a reduced to a point by perspective. The Present has generally a durative action
^^^^

we may
, .

call

is

Lmear Action
The
Perfect

illustration
;

mg,
action
.

keep up " in ^dXkeiv ^ ^ / u to be on paaikeveiv


it,

"

to

the

same graphic
to
^-i

as

be throwi-u

.-

tlie

throne.

variety

bsg^ii ^^ t^6 P^st

by ^^^
"

itself,
^^i^^

denoting what continues: thus


"

from

the

point

root
"

wcido,

discover,

I discovered {elhov) descry," comes the primitive perfect olha, and still enjoy the results," i.e. " I know." The present stems which show an t-reduplication (to-TT^/tt, yiyuo/xat) are supposed to have started with an Iterative action, so that <yi'yvo^ai would originally Action present the succession of moments which are

And so throughout individually represented by iyevofirjv. Other conthe conjugations which are exchisively present. jugations are capable of making both present and aorist
^

venture to accept from a correspondent this new-coined word to represent


the

the

German jmiili.vcll, the English of wliich is preoccupied. " Unity of terminology demands our accepting this word from

German

and thus supplementing the stores of the New Etiglish Dictionary. Otherwise one would prefer the clearer word "summary."
pioneers,

110

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

stems, as ecpijv compared with e/3r]v, ypcKfjetv with rpairetv, areueiv with ^yevicrdai. In these the pure verb-root is by

nature either (a)


being both.
essentially a
it

Thus the root

punctiliar," (5) durative, or (c) capable of of evejKeiv, like our h^ing, ia " " " " Effective word, being classed as point
:

"

forms no present stem. That of (pepco, fcro. accordingly " linear ", hear, on the other hand, is essentially durative or and therefore forms no aorist stem.^ So with that of eo-rt, est,
is,

which has no aorist, while ijevofirjv, as we have seen, had no durative present. An example of the third class is e^o, " which (like our own have) is ambiguous in its action. I had
" " "

your money may mean either I received it (point action) " " or I was in possession of it In Greek (linear action). the present stem is regularly durative, " to hold," while eay^ov
is

a point word, I received ea^op jrapa aov is, for instance, the normal expression in a papyrus receipt.^ Misappre:

"

"

is responsible for most of ep^;&) the pother about e^co/xev in Eom 5\ The durative present " can only mean " let us enjoy the possession of peace (BiKam-

hension of the action-form of

the unexpressed antecedent premiss and Paul wishes to urge his readers to remember and make full use of a privilege which they ex hypothesi possess from
0evTe<;) e(T-)(oiiev elpijvTjv is

the

moment

of their justification.

See

p.

247.
root,

It is evident that this study of the kind ^

^Defcti^

of action

denoted by the verbal

and the

modification of that action produced by the Verbs formation of tense and conjugation stems, will have considerable influence upon our lexical treatment
of the

many

from different
is

verbs in which present and aorist are derived " roots. beware ") 'Opdoa (cognate with our
it

very clearly durative wherever


*

accurs in the

NT

and

The new

aorist (historically perfect) in the

Germanic languages (our

hore)

has a constative action.

Note also a petition, Par P 22 (ii/u.c.), in which the tenses are carefully distinguished, as the erasure of an aorist in favour of the imperfect shows. Two women in the Serapeuni at Memphis are complaining of their
mother,

who had

deserted her husband for another

man

/cat

tovto

irorjffacra

Sr]\ovfxeuos,

ovK i(JX^ '^ fV^ ddiKriffdar]^ irpbawwov, aXKk crvuripyaaaTO (lis eirave\e'iTai avTov o "she did not put on the face of the wrong-doer, but (her parato intrigue

mour) began

with her to destroy (her husband)."

THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.


we

HI

are at liberty to say that this root, which is incapable of " forming an aorist, maintains its character in the perfect, I have watched, continuously looked upon," while oirwira would

be

"

have caught
"

sigiit

of."

Elhov
of,"

"

discovered,"

and

io^Qrjv

came before the eyes

words, and can form no present.


ability,

obviously pointElirov has a similar dis{F)e'iro<;,

are

and we remember

at once that its congeners


:

much the vox, Sanskrit vac, etc., describe a single utterance same is true of eppidrjv, and its cognate nouns {F)'prj[Jia,
verhum, and
loord.

On

the other hand, Xeyco, whose constative

aorist eXe^a is replaced in ordinary language by el-rrov, clearly denotes speech in progress, and the same feature is very

marked in X0709. The meaning of /V.0709 has been developed in post-Homeric times along lines similar to those on which
scro.

the Latin serino was produced from the purely physical verb One more example we may give, as it leads to our
'Eadico
is

remaining point.
fier
i/jiov,

Mk
is

14^^, is

"he who

very obviously durative 6 eadiwv is taking a meal with me."


:

The root ed

so distinctly durative that

it

forms no

aorist,

" but the punctiliar ^ayetv (originally to divide ") supplies the It will be found that j)a'^eLv in the NT is invariably defect.

denotes simply the action of ia-dcecv seen in perspective, and not either the beginning or the end of that
constative
:

it

action.

But we

find the

Compounds and
Action

compound

KareaOieiv,

^aracpayeiv, used to express the completed


^'^^>

little

sating something till it is finished. How the preposition's proper meaning affects
is

the resulting sense


is

seen by the fact that what in Greek

Karea-Oieiv
"

and

in

Latin
"

"

f?cvorare,"

is

in

"

English

eat

up

and

in Latin also

comesse."

In

all

the Indo-Germanic

in the languages, most conspicuously and systematically Slavonic but clearly enough in our own, this function of verb

compounds may be
is to

seen.

The choice
^

of the preposition

which

produce

this perfective action

depends upon conditions


where
ore
tlic

There
I

is

one apparent exception, Rov


it

10',
is

^(payov

avro

is

"when

had eaten

up."

But

i(pa.yov

simply

continuation of

KaTe(payoi' (see behjw, p. 115).


One could wish that a term had been chosen which would not have "Perfective action" has nothing suggested an echo of the tense-name. whatever to do with the Perfect tense.

112

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


"

which vary with the meaning

an imperfective verb, when the are capable of perfectivising adverb's local sense has been sufficiently obscured: original

of the verbal root. "

Most

of

them

We may
sit

compare in English the meaning of hring and hring and sit down, drive and drive away and drive home} up, knock and knock in and knock doion, take and overtake and take over and betake, carry and ca^^y off and cai^ry throufjh, vjork and work out and work off, fiddle and Jiddle in (Tenny" son's Amphion "), set and set hack and set at and overset, see and see to, vjrite and write off, hear and hear out, break and to-break (Judg 9^^ AV), make and make over, wake and loakc up, follow and follow up, come and come on, go and go round,,
shine

and shine away


this
list

= dispel
will

by

shining).

Among

all

the

varieties of

be seen that the compounded adverb in each case jierfcctivises the simplex, the combination denoting action which has accomplished a result, while the
it

simplex denoted action in progress, or else momentary action In the above list to which no special result was assigned.
are

included
is

adverb
drive

off,

exx. in which the local force of the from being exhausted. Drive in, drive out, very drive away, and drive home are alike perfective, but

many
far

goals attained are sense of the adverbs.

the

different

according
it

to

the

distinct

In a great many compounds the


is

local force of the

adverb

so strong that

leaves the action

of

The separateness of adverb and verb in English, as in Homeric Greek, helps the adverb to retain its force longer than it did in Latin and later
the verb

untouched.

Greek.
verbs

In both these languages

many

of

the

have

prepositional element, which is This is confined to its perfectivising function. accordingly the case with com {con) and ex (e) in Latin, as in especially " ^ " " and with work out follow 07it, attain," efficcre consequi
originally
;

completely borne by the

lost

consciousness

of

the

compound meaning

OTTO,'* Zed,

Kara and
"

crvv
"),

in

Greek, as in dirodaveiv
"

"

die

"

{Ovrja-KeLV
"
flee "),

be

"

dying

Siacfivyeiv

escape
"

KaTuSicoKeiv

"

hunt

down

(Bicokq)

= {^evyeiv = " pursue "),

"Prepositions," when compounded, are still the pure adverbs they were is entirely on all fours first, so that this accusative noun turned adverb ^ gee p. 237. with the rest. ["^ee p. 247.
'

at the

THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.


"

113
{rrjpeiv

KaTepyd^ecrdai

work

" out,"

"

avvrrjpetv

"

watch

").

An
this

example

may

be

keep safe brought iu

here

to

principle works in details of exegesis. In Lk 8-^ the true force of the pluperfect, combined with the vernacular usage of ttoXXo?? 'xpovoi'i (see p. 75), goes to show
illustrate
is "it had long ago obtained and now kept complete mastery of him." Xwapira^oi then, as the perfective of dpira^co, denotes not the temporary paroxysm,

how

that the meaning

but the establishment of a permanent hold. The interpretation of (Tvv here depends upon the obvious fact that
its

normal adverbial force is no longer at work. It is however always possible for the dormant (tvv to awake, as " Seize and a glance at this very word in LS will show.
is the common meaning, but in ^vvapirda-aa-ac carry away ra? e'/ia? eL-)(^ov ^e'pa? (Euripides Hec. 1163) we may recognise the original together. Probably the actual majority of

"

compounds with these prepositions are debarred from the in perfective force by the persistency of the local meaning
:

types like hiairopevea-Oat, Kara^aiveiv, a-vvepj(6adaL, the preposition


is still

very

much

alive.

And

though these three

prepositions show the largest proportion of examples, there are others which on occasion can exhibit the perfectivising

power.

One

is

rather inclined to bring livL'^ivuxTKOi under this

category, and so take a middle course between the old view of Lightfoot and that recently propounded by Dean Eobinson The present simplex, fyLVMaKeiv, is durative, {Ephes. 248 ff.). " The simplex aorist has point to be taking in knowledge."
action,

generally

effective,

meaning "ascertain,

realise,"
:

but

occasionally (as in Jn l7^^ 2 Tim 2^^) it is constative e'yvwv ae gathers into one perspective all the successive moments of
yivcoaKcoari
is

ETnyvcovai, "find out, determine," rather more decisive than the yvcovai, (effective) but in
;

ai in Jn 17^.

'

the present stem it seems to differ from jivtoaKeiv by includit tells ing the goal in the picture of the journey there Thus 1 Co 13^^ may be of knowledge already gained.

"

paraphrased,

Now
:

partial at best know, as God in

I am acquiring knowledge which is only then I shall have learnt my lesson, shall my mortal life knew me."

The
tivised

meaning
roots

of

the

Present-stem

of

these

perfec6v)]-

naturally

demands explanation.

Since

114
aKiv
there

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


is

"

to

be

"

dying

and aTToQavelv
?

"

to

die,"

what

is

left

for

airoOvrjdKeLv

analysis rences of this stem in the

An

of

the

occur-

Present btem

Verbs

will anticipate gQj^g important points we shall have to make under the heading of Tenses. Putting aside

NT

the special use fieXkco airoOvrjaKetv}


the present stem used as an iterative in 1

frequentative in Heb 7^ 10"^, 1 Co 15^-, latter describes action which recurs from time to time with

we find Co 15^^, and as Eev 14^^: the

different individuals, as the iterative describes action repeated by the same agent.^ In Jn 21^^ and 1 Co 15^^ it stands
for a future,

Co

6^,

on which usage and Heb 11^^ is it

see p. 120.

Only

in

Lk

8*^,

strictly durative, replacing the

obsolete simplex The simplex, however, OvrjcrKoo.^ " vanished only because the " linear perfective expressed its meaning sufficiently, denoting as it does the whole process

now

leading

up

to

an attained

goal.

KaracftevjeLv, for

example,

implies that the refuge is reached, but it depicts the journey there in a coiqj d'ceil KaTacj>vy6lv is only concerned with the moment of arrival. very important example in the
:

NT
*

is

the recurrent

oi

"

airoWvixevou

the perishing."

Just as

its passive diroOvrjaKw, air oXkv fiat the completion of the process of destruction. When implies " we speak of a " dying man, we do not absolutely bar the

much

as aTTOKTelvo)

and

possibility of a recovery, but our word implies death as the goal in sight. Similarly in the cry of the Prodigal, Xifim Lk 15^*^, and in that of the disciples in the storm, aTToWv^ai,

acoaov, aTroWv/ieOa, Mt 8^^, we recognise in the perfective verb the sense of an inevitable doom, under the visible conditions,

averted.

even though the subsequent story tells us it was In oi airoWvjjbevoL, 1 Co 1^^ al, strongly durative
is,

though the verb


goal
^

we
:

see perfectivity in

the fact that the


of
its

is

ideally reached
c.
;

complete

transformation

M^XXw
also

(/i.

iaeadai)
;

c.

pres. inf. comes eighty-four times in aor. six times (Ac 12", 8^^ Gal Z^'\

NT

c. fut.

twice in

Ac

Rom

Eev

3^ {airoBavdv) Z^^

12*

Lk

20"" in
(.

^
^

Both

will be
is

l^dvrjKa

Marcion). a series of points, on the graph hitherto used. a perfect needed no perreally the perfect of airodvydud}
.

D and
.),

fectivising in a
*

"point-word"
all

like this.
is

Note that in

three the simplex

obsolete,

for the

same reason

in

each case.

THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.


subjects is required to in their state.
.

115

briug them out of the ruin imphcit

Before
^iirvival in

passing

on,

norrTpe!ted.

NT

we may note
of

the

Greek

classical

idiom
is is

by which the preposition in a compound


the
sense,

omitted, without weakening


repeated.

when the verb

Thus in Euripides, Bacch. 1065, KaTrj<yov, rj'yov, answers to the English " pulled down, down, down." rjjov, I do not remember seeing this traced in the NT, but in

Eev

of Karecpayov

1 0^ {supra, p. 1 1 1 n.) ecpayov seems to be the continuation in Jn 1^^ eka^ov takes up irapiXa^ov, and in
;

Eom
(It is

15*

7rpoe<ypd(jiT]

vwvT6<; 1

Pet

1^*^^-,

repeated as evSu(Td/jL6Vot 2 Co
is

ijpd(f)r).

So also epavarrjvat

5^,

and
is

Eph

6^^

just possible that rj'yeade in 1 to the ciirayofievoi that follows, but

Co 12^
its

similarly related position makes serious

are justified in treating the difficulty.) as a full equivalent of the compound. simplex " The perfective Aktionsart in Polybius,"
all

In

these cases

we

Growtn

01

^YiQ earliest

Aorist

^^

of the great Kotvi] writers, forms subject of an elaborate study by Dr


ix.

Eleanor Purdie, in Indog. Forsch.

63153

In a later volume, xii. 319-372, H. Meltzer con(1898). and an independent troverts Miss Purdie's results in detail
;

comparison with results derivable from NT Greek ehows that her conclusions may need considerable qualification. Eesearch in this field is, as Brugmann himself observes (Griech.

Gram?

484),
is

still

in its initial stages

but that the

Newnham

philologist of the best


thesis

on the right
authorities,

lines generally, is held

including

by some Thumb, who thinks her


is

supported by MGr."
the
aorist

Her contention
expense of
;

that since

Homer

simplex
at

had been progressively taking


its

the constative

colour,
tiliar

the

earlier

puncis

character

and

that

there

wp^f

>

growing

Compounds

tendency to use the compounds, especially those with Zid, Kara, and avu, to

sufficiently indicated

the

NT

express what in the oldest Greek could be by the simplex. To a certain extent Thus (f)vyelv is use agrees with that of Polybius,
"

constative eleven times,

to flee,"
"

prolongation of flight ((pevyeiv) or


See
p. 247.

with no suggestion of the of its successful accom-

116

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

(It seems to me clear plishment {hiac^vyetv or Kara^vyetv). that in Heb 11^* we have ecfivyov for the heginning of action,

not the goal of safety attained, but the

first

and decisive step

away from danger. Similarly in Mt 23^^ we should read " " how are ye to flee from the judgement of Gehenna ? ^just The thought is not of the inevitableness of God's as in punishment, but of the stubbornness of men who will not take a step to escape it. The perfective therefore would be inapThe papyri decidedly support this differentiation propriate.) of simplex and compound. In the same way we find that

3'''.

StM^ai is always constative in NT, while the perfective " hunt down," occurs once in Mk 1^^, where KaraStM^ai, " " followed after (AV and EV) is not exact. 'Epydaaa-dat
is

certainly constative in Mt 25^"^, 3 Jn^, and Heb 11^^: it surveys in perspective the continuous labour which is so often In Mt 26^*^, and even 2 Jn^, the expressed by ipyd^eaOai.

same

is probably the case the stress lies on the activity rather than on its product. This last idea is regularly denoted
:

by the perfective compound with Kara.


seems always constative, Sia(f)v\d^aL
in
"

^vXd^at
"

"

"

guard

Lk

4^*^.

"

Similarly
"

r'rjprjaac
:

preserve occurring watch, keep," a continuous


Bta-rrjpelv (present

process seen in perspective

aw- and
237.)

stem

only) denote

"

watching
(See

which succeeds up
p.

to the point of

time contemplated.
a good perfective,

^Aycovi^ea6atis only used

in the durative present, but Kara<ycoviaaadat,

(Heb
differ

11^^) is

^ayeiv and Karacpayelv


the

On Polybian lines (see above). verbs Miss Purdie examines, the


use of the
constative
aorists

other

quite on hand, in the


less

NT

makes decidedly
;

compound than does Polybius


which
she

while the non-

exceptions to the general tendency are reinforced by others which in Polybius are seldom such. Thus ISelv is comparatively rare in
"

notes

as

Polybius

in several cases the


in

and those exx.


admitted
frequent
^

meaning is purely constative, which a perfective ^ meaning must be

bear a very small proportion to the extremely occurrences of the compound verb in the like
"
"

That is, punctiliar : Miss Purdie does not distinguish this from perfective proper (with preposition). Brugmann, following Delbriick, has lately insisted on reserving "perfective" for the compounds. Uniformity of terminology
is

so important that

have adapted the

earlier phraseology

throughout.

THE VERB
sense"
ISetjj

TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.


94

1 1 7

{op. cit. p.

is

In the NT, however, the simplex f.). common, while the compound {Kadopav, exceedingly

so far as I can only appears once. It is moreover without the labour of a count as often punctiliar judge
1-^)

Kom

Mt 2^*^, when they caught sight (ingressive) as constative of the star," will serve as an example, against constative " uses like that in the previous verse, the star which they
:

"

saw."

(In numerous cases it would be difficult to disHere comes in one of tinguish the one from the other.) Meltzer's criticisms, that the historian's strong dislike of hiatus (cf above, p. 92) accounts for very many of his

preferences
of

for

compound

verbs.

This

fact

undeniably

damages the case


pose

for Polybius himself; but it does not dis-

inferences

less

decided,

which may be drawn from

NT

not unimportant Greek and that of the papyri.

but

We

are not surprised to find that the

NT

has no perfective
set

compounds
ap'^o/xai,

of Oedofiat, Oecopico, Xoycl^ofiai, irpdcrcrfo, KivSvvevco,


opji^o/jbac,

/jbeXXo),

Svvco, or fxlcryco (fxtyvvfic), to

beside those cited (rightly or wrongly) from the historian. Noeo) is rather difficult to square with the rule. Its present

often obviously linear, as in vowv koX ^povoyv, the standing phrase of a testator beginning a will the durative " " " " conceive is the only possible translation understand or

simplex

is

in

The aor. in Jn 12*'' and Eph 3* may passages. " realise." of this, or it may be ingressive, be the constative

many

NT

But

it is

often difficult to

make

a real perfective out of the

compound KaravorjcraL, which should describe the completion In some passages, as Lk 20-^ ("he of a mental process. detected their craftiness "), or Ac 7^^ (" to master the mystery "), but the durative action is most certhis will do very well
;

tainly represented in the present Kuravoetv, except Ac 27^^ " Madeiv is sometimes connoticed one after another "). (?

summing up the process of /lavddveiv but it has often purely point action, "ascertain": so in Ac 2327, Gal 3^, In other places moreover it and frequently in the papyri. describes a fully learnt lesson, and not the process of study.
stative,
;

On Miss

Purdie's

KarafjbaOelv,

which

principle this occurs in Mt

should
6^^
:

be

reserved

for

both here and for

KaTavorjcrare in the Lucan parallel 122*-27 the PtV retains " " understand. It may however mean the durative consider."

118

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


The
:

take in this fact about."

NT

use of reXew, again, differs

widely from that of Polybius, wliere the perfective compound in NT the simplex outnumbers (avvT.) greatly predominates Moreover the aorist in the NT is always punctiliar it fourfold. " " a perform (" finish ") only in Gal 5^^ is the constative
:

possible alternative. 'OpjLa-dPjvai, is another divergent, for " instead of the perfective Biopy., fly into a rage," we six times have the simplex in the NT, where the constative
aorist

be angry never occurs.^ Finally we note that " sit is always purely durative in NT (" sit," not Kade^eaOat down," which is KaOia-ai), thus differing from Polybian use.

"

"

A few additions might be made.


"

irpa^ixa-revcracdai
v.^^

trade,"

Thus Lk 19^^ has the simplex with the perfective compound in

But the great BteTrpay/xarevaavTo "gained by trading." of the hid compounds retain the full force of the ^La. majority The net
Provisional Results
, ,

result of this comparison

perhaps

be

stated

^^1^.1

thus,

may
c
:

provisionally

tor

anything wait for some )(^aX/cevTpo^ grammarian who will toil right through the papyri and the Koivrj literature with a minuteness

like a

decisive settlement

we must

a matching Miss Purdie's over her six books of Polybius task for which a year's holiday is a condicio sine qua non.

The growth
in the

of the constative aorist of

was certainly a feature


:

development

later

Greek

its

consequences will

occupy us when we come to the consideration of the Tenses. " But the disuse of the " point aorist, ingressive or effective,

and the preference of the perfective compound to express the same meaning, naturally varied much with the author. The general tendency may be admitted as proved the extent In the of its working will depend on the personal equation.
;

compound verbs, especially, we cannot expect the negligS of ordinary conversation, or even the higher degree of style
use of
elaboration to which
to

Luke or the auctor ad Helrceos could rise, come near the profusion of a literary man like Polybius.^
Perhaps
Tense
this brief

account of recent resuffice to

searches, in a field hitherto almost untrodden

by
^

NT

scholars,

may

prepare the

Rev

11^^

might mean "were angry," but the ingressive "waxed angry"


King) suits the context better.
*

(at the accession of the

See

p. 237.

THE VERB

TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.

way for the necessary attempt to place on a scientific basis the use of the tenses, a subject on whicli many of the most It has been made crucial questions of exegesis depend.
clear that the notion of (present or past) time is not by any means the first thing we must think of in dealing with tenses.

For our problems


(peuyo) is
:

it is a mere accident that and e^evyov, ecpvyov, and <^v<yoiv (generally) present past the main point we must settle is the distinction between ^eu7 and ^vy which is common to all their moods.

of

Aldionsart

Tli6 Pr6S6nt

'

On the Present stem,


.

as normally denoting o
./

linear or

durative

action,

not

much more

The reader may be reminded of one idiom need now be said. which comes out of the linear idea, the use of w^ords like trakat with the present in a sense best expressed by our Thus in 2 Co 12^^ "have you been thinking all perfect. this time?" or Jn 15^'^, "you have been with me from the
So in MGr, k^rivra jirjva^ aa'^aTroi (Abbott 222). beginning." The durative present in such cases gathers up past and preIt must not be thought, however, sent time into one phrase.
In that the durative meaning monopolises the present stem. the prehistoric period only certain conjugations had linear
action
;

and though

later analogic processes

mostly levelled
of

the primitive

diversity,

there

are

still

some survivals

The punctiliar force is obvious in certain importance. " Burton (ifT 9) cites as "aoristic presents such presents.
words as jrapayyeXko)

moment
etc.
its

forgiven,"

Ac

16^^, acpievTat
d(})ecovraL

Mk

contr.

Lk

5^^),

2^ ("are this larai Ac 9^^


acfiyJKafiev

So possibly

a^ioiJiev

Lk ll^ which

has

as

to But here it seems representative in Mt. " " for we hahitually forgive recognise the iterative present this is like the generalising of Luke seen in his version of for daily bread. the (Cf also Lk 6^0.) Blass (p. 188)

better

prayer adds aa-TTd^eTat as the correlative to the regular da-TrdaaaOe.

It is very possible that in the prehistoric period a distinct aorist stem, such as Giles present existed for the strong

plausibly
epxecrOai}

traces

in

apxecrOat compared

The conjecture
The ap

which
r.

with the durative

is

necessarily unverifiable

ManuaP

482.

is like

familiar pa in rpaireTv against Tpivuv, the

Greek representative of the original vocalic

120

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


sufficiently

would
But
it

may

explain this verb's punctiliar action, indeed be suspected that point and line action
forsuffix.

were both originally possible in present and aorist-stem


mations which remained without formative prefix or

On
for

this assumption, analogical levelling

the

durative character which

special conjugation stems of


jectural,

was largely responsible to most of the the present. But this is conbelongs

and we need only observe that the punctiliar roots which appear in the present stem have given ,f denotmg future e ^^ j ?

timeaKo/Mev (1

so-called present tense to denote future time.^ In avpiov airodvy^^^^

^^

^.-u

4.

Co 15^2) we have a verb in which the perfective prefix has neutralised the inceptive force of the suffix -iV/ceo
:

it is

only the obsoleteness of the simplex which allows it ever to borrow a durative action. E2fit in Attic is a notable

example
of

of a punctiliar root

indicative.

But though
tense
for

it is

used for a future in the present generally asserted that this use

present

future

momentary

action,

this

originates in the words with limitation does not appear in the


in
"

NT
"

examples, any more than

English,

We

can say,
"

am

going to London to-morrow

just as well as

"

go

a.nd htepyoixai in 1

Co 16^

ylveTat in

Mt 26^ and other

futural

presents that may be paralleled from the vernacular of the In this stage papyri, have no lack of durativity about them. of Creek, as in our own language, we may define the futural

present as differing from the future tense mainly in the tone of assurance which is imparted. That the Present is not
primarily a
tense,

in

and past time


well
is
-

shown not only by the


;

the usual acceptation of the term, is fact that it can


p

stand
as

for

future
past.

time,

but

n
its

by

known

use

The

"

Historic

"

equaliy

present

by Brugmann (Gj\ Gram.^ 484 f.) into the " " " and the " registering dramatic The latter present. occurs in historical documents with words like 'yl'yveTai, TevvaTai in Mt 2* is the Tekevra, etc., registering a date. nearest NT example I can think of, and it is not really The former, common in all vernaculars we have parallel.
divided

Compare the

close connexion
is

the future, which

indeed in

its

between aorist (not present) subjunctive and history mainly a specialising of the former.

THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.


only to overhear a servant girl's desiderate proof that the usage
"

121

if we home among us is From that mine of abundantly represented in the NT. statistical wealth, Hawkins's Horce Sijnopticcc, we find that Mk uses the historic present 151 times, Mt 93 times, Lk 8 also that it is rare in the LXX, times, with 13 in Ac except

so

she says to me,"

is

at

NT, except in Jn. It does that it was " by no means common in Hellenistic Greek." Sir John Hawkins himself observes that it is common in Josephus, and of course it was abundant in Attic. The fact that Luke invariably (except in altered Mark's favourite usage means probably that it 8*^) was too familiar for his liking. I have not catalogued the
not, however, follow

in Job,

and in the

rest of the

from

this

evidence of the papyri for this phenomenon, but it is common. OP 717 may be cited as a document contemporary with the NT, in which a whole string of presents does duty in narrative. It
cf

may

the

NT:
.

be seen alternating with past tenses, as in the curious document Par P 51 (ii/B.c), recording
trivial

some extremely
K\aiya>
. .

dreams.
. .

Thus avv^w
Kal ep-^ofiaL
. .

opw

eTropevofiTjv

eXeyov, etc.

It was indeed a permanent element in prose narrative, whether colloquial or literary ^ but it seems to have run much the same course as in English, where the historic
;

present
its

is

literature as a narrative form.

not normally used in educated conversation or in It carries a special effect of

own, which may be a favourite mannerism of a particular author, but entirely avoided by others. Applying this principle, we conceive that Josephus would use the tense as an
imitator of the classics, Mark as a man of the people who heard it in daily use around him while Luke would have
;

Greek education enough

to

know

that

it

was not common


to
recall

in

cultured speech of his time, but not enough encouragement of classical writers whom he probably never
read,

the

and would not have imitated


it
is

if

he had read them.


it

The
that

limits of the historic present are well seen in the fact

absent from Homer, not because

was foreign

to

peculiar use of the historic present


:

is

noticeable in

MGr, where

it fre-

quently takes up a past tense thus, oTo-o'X/cas e^ea-n-dduire, Kpdi'ei to. waWyiKapia, "drew his sword and calls" (Abbott 44 see also 22, 26, etc.). See p. 139 n.

122

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


its felt

the old Achaian dialect, but because of


epic style
:

incongruity in

it is

The Moods

absent from the Nibelungenlied in the same way. of the present stem will be treated under their

separate heads later.

But there are two uses which should

come

in here, as bearing

the tense-stem.
Present and
Prohibitions
is

on the kind of action belonging to The first concerns the two normal methods of expressing Prohibition in classical Greek, which survive in NT Greek, There though less predominant than before.
i^rj
;

a familiar rule that


aorist

or

subjunctive

is used with present imperative but the distinction between these,

expounded by Gottfried Hermann long ago, seems to have been mostly unnoticed till it was rediscovered by Dr Walter Headlam in OR xvii. 295, who credits Dr Henry Dr Jackson himself conJackson with supplying the hint.
suggestive note in xviii. 262 f. (June and Dr Headlam then writes in full upon the subject 1904), in xix. 30-36, citing the dicta of Hermann from which the doctrine started, and rebutting some objections raised by Mr H. D. Naylor.'* Dr Jackson's words may be cited as linking the beginning and end of the language-history, and proving incidentally that the alleged distinction must hold for the NT " Davidson told me that, when language, which lies midway. he was learning modern Greek, he had been
tributes a brief but

puzzled about the distinction, until he heard a Greek friend use the present imperative to He This gave him the clue. a dog which was Imrking. turned to Plato's AiJology, and immediately stumbled upon

Greek-

20e fir) Oopv^ijarjTe, before clamour and 21a /xt) Oopv^elre, when it has begun." The begins, " latter means in fact desist from interrupting," the former " Headlam shows how the do not interrupt (in future)." " But I am not often calls out the retort, present imperative which the aorist locution never does it would doing so,"
the excellent instances
:

"

require

No,

I will not."

where

fxr)

ypd^rj'i is
rypdylrrj<;
_ '

writing,
.

firj
.

certainly the case in MGr, addressed to a person who is already The has not begun. to one who

This

is

of

OP

we

and for present-day Greek be supplemented from the four volumes may need not labour the proof of a canon which
facts for classical

could hardly be invalid for a period lying between periods


"See
p.

247.

THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.


in

123
have
be

which
in

it

is

known
cases
in

to
of

liavo
/z?;

been
c.

in

force.

noted

OP
made
to

six

aor.

subj.

referring to

requests

letter,

which
arrives.
. .

of

course

cannot
etc.

attended
fjurj

till

the

letter

Thus
is

firj

uixe\i]a-r)^,

dXXco^

7roit'](T'r]<i,

opa

firjSevl

7rpocrKpovarj<;,

(all

ii/A.D.).

One

other

(OP 744,

i/B.c.)

worth quoting as a
: . . .

sample of such requests followed by a reply etprjKa^ On the ITco? Buva/xai ere eirCkadelv ; oTt Ml] fie iTTiXdOrj'i. other hand, we have four cases of firi c. pres. imper., all clearly Tovto fxrj Xeje (what he had said)- /xt) referable to the rule.
"

dycovLa

(bis)

"
ivTTrjvai, (sic !)

last case

(295 i/A.D.) young, and we can only guess her meaning, but
well be
"

aKXvWe eari^v don't go on worrying fxr) " in the don't bother to give information (??) the writer had apparently left school
:

"

it

may

As we shall see, the crux is the stop troubling." differentia of the present imperative, which is not easy to illustrate decisively from the papyri. Only one case seems
112, from I/a.d.), and a gap there makes the meaning very obscure nor are we more fortunate in Tb P, the prevalence of reports and accounts in this volume giving In the royal edict, little opportunity for the construction.
to occur in
(no.
;

FP

Tb P

6 (ii/B.c),

we

find

Kal

ixi-jOevl

iirLTpeTreTe

Ka6' ovtlvovv

t(ov TrpoSeSujXwfjiivcov, the conformity of rpoTTOv irpdaaeLV which with the rule is suggested by the words "as we have

commanded," with which the sentence apparently opens a hiatus again causes difficulty. The frequency of these prohibitions in NT presents a very marked contrast and in NT.
before
:

to the papyri, but the hortatory character of

The following table gives the the writing accounts for this. with the 2nd person statistics for fit]
:

124

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


have included the cases where /u.77 But sometimes this is not
is

We

preceded by opa or
in the

the like.

(as

Gospels) a
. .

" mere compound prohibition, like our take care not to In Gal 5^5 "take heed lest" can hardly be classed
;

."

as

while in 1^*, opa /xTjBevl etTTT??, there prohibition at all is virtual parataxis, opa being only a sort of particle adding The analysis of the list raises several suggestive emphasis. note that except V^ and 3^ all the sayings of Christ, 39 in all, while in examples Lk 32 are thus described (36 if we include a citation of
points.

Mk

In

Mt we

are from

Since Mt has 12 pres. four precepts from the Decalogue). to 27 aor., but Lk 21 to 11, we see that there was no sort of

There is no uniformity in translating from the Aramaic. case where Mt and Lk have varied the tense while using ^ but we find the same word in reporting the same logion
;

Mt

manifestly for the better, if the In the balance is heavily inclined to canon is true. the pres., for 5 out of 9 aor. examples are in the recitation In Jn there is only one aor., 3^, of the commandments. an exception the more curious in that desine mirari seems
altering

Mk

in

24^^,

Mk

Paul uses the aor. but see below. than he appears to do, for Eom 10*^ is a quotation, and Col 2^1 ter virtually such this leaves only 2 Th 3^^, Heb 1 Tim 5\ 2 Tim l^ with Gal 5^^ on which see above. the latter with ^XeVere), has only two aorists (10^^ 12^5
clearly

the meaning;

even

less

ajDart

from a

predominance except in Mt,


the

The very 4^. triple quotation 3^of the fir] irolet type is accordingly unbroken In and in Eev and 1 Pet so far as they go.
p.c.

^^

marked

NT as a whole the proportion is 61 does not greatly differ from the 56 to Attic Orators by Miller {AJP xiii. 423).
Before
Passages

to

44 noted

39, which in the

we proceed

to

draw our deduc-

^.^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^j^^^ applied to the it will be well to present a few of

NT,
the

In the following holds. passages in which it obviously the reply to the (x^ Troiet must clearly be either places " " " " 5^^ I will stop doing it or I am not doing so
:

Mk

uses Kw\v(rT]T in

in Lk,

have the

Lk 18'", where Mt and Mk, much more appropriate present.

as well as the other

MSS

THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.


9=59

125
:)

a^ti

parallels,
20

Lk
2i<5

7^3 51^

349

352

(cf

Mk

ri /cXa/ere

iO^c

117 1412 2328, Jn

1921

2017-27,

Ac

1420^ 1 Qo 727^ 1 Tim 523, In the following, the iiy] iroiyjar)^ with "I will avoid doing so": Mt Q^^ 10^ 179, Mk 8-'^ the two prohibitions) 148 218, 925, Lk 62!> 10^ (contrast

Ptom

1118-

Kev 5^

is" 20io, Jas 2\ 1 Pet 4^2, would be answered


1015

Ac

938

1628 2321, 1

(following ij/xeWov ypd(f3eiv


_,.
...
,

Dimculties.

5^, 2 Tim 18, Eev 6 7^ 10* he had not begun). It must however be admitted that rather

Tim

strong external pressure is needed to force the rule upon Paul. It is not merely that his usage is very So is that of Jn, and yet (with the doubtful one-sided.

exception of

10^^^

every present

he

uses

fits

the

canon

/xr] completely. " " believe that Timothy was neglecting

But does

ajxekei in 1

Tim

fxrjSevl eTTirlOei,

and fiT^he Kocvcovet in to stop what he was hitherto guilty


firj

522

4^* require us to " " his charism

that he was warned

of

May we

not rather

say that like, a

a/MeXet

is

equivalent to irdvroTe fieXera or the

marked If we Koivcovetl

durativc,

with

a similar account of
first

fir^he

jDaraphrase the

iterative

be deliberate in choosing your ^ force of the present


426,

clause in 522 "always office-bearers," we see the

coming
like

in

and
10^,

this

we
G^^,

recognise again in

Eph
are

Heb

typical passages 13^, 2 Jn^^, 1 Jn 4.\

Lk
in 1

Kom

Then

Co 1439

j^ow

" imagine Paul bidding the Corinthians desist from " the exercise of their darling charism ? His forbidding

we

to

do not discourage glossolaly, as after In other words you might be incUned to do." my previous words, we have the conative^ which is clearly needed also in such passages as Gal 5^. M?) irolei, accordingly needs " It is various mental supplements, and not one only. Stop
/JLT)

KcoXvere

means

"

doing,"
(as

or

"

Do

not (from

time

to
"

time),"

or

"

Do

not

We

Do not attempt to do." of doing)," or are not justified in excluding, for the purposes of the present imperative in prohibitions, the various kinds of
you are in danger

action which

we

find attached to the present

stem elsewhere.

meaning
Findlav.

In 1 Co I.e. we might also trace the iterative, if the See below, p. 128. whenever it breaks out." So Dr is "Do not repress glossolaly,

126

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


linear action
is

But since the simple


in the present stem,
it

by far the commonest


/xr/

naturally follows that

Tro/et

usually

stop doing," though (as Headlam To xix. 31) it does not always mean this. such difficulties on the other side as Ju 3'^,

means

"

admits,

CB
for

account

we may

well

pursue the quotation from the scholar


this

who
I

started

us

on

discussion.

"

M^

Bpaay^;

always,

believe,

means I
;

against doing this, I beseech you will not though sometimes used when the thing is being done notably in certain cases which may be called colloquial or idiomatic, with an effect of impatience, fii] (^povrlcrr]'; Oh, never mind ! Never fear ! fir) dav/xday'i You nuistn't he surprised" fit] Seia-y'i

warn you

this is

wny
^

Perhaps
Jr'aui
^j^-^

my

main motive
has

in to

pursuing
solve
for to

j^

discussion

been
are

DrBiors
^o^gi,

question

that
History.

has
his

consequences

our
infer

Church

What

we

when we
(Eph
5^^),

find
fir]

Paul
5^^-

bidding

converts

firj

[xedvaiceaOe

logion of

Mt

y^ev^eade (Col 3^), or James changing the ^^ into the suggestive j)resent (5^^) ?

What
were
tilting

has been said will

make

very

practical

indeed,

it

clear that such

commands
not

that

the apostles were

sins

at windmills, but uttering urgent warnings against which were sure to reappear in the Christian com-

who make
first

The critics munity, or were as yet only imperfectly expelled. so much of lapses among Christian converts of the
generation in modern missions might have damned Paul's Time has shown time will show.^

results with equal reason.

Participle

The second point in which we shall anticipate later discussion concerns the uses Like the rest of the verb, of the Participle.
:

outside the indicative, it has properly no sense of time attaching to it the linear action in a participle, connected with a finite verb in past or present time, partakes in the time But when the participle is isolated by the of its principal.

addition of

come

the article, its proper timelessness is free to This can hardly happen with the aorist, where point action in such a connexion cannot well exist without the suggestion of past time 17 reKouaa must be rendered
out.
:

"

she

who

bore

a child,"
1

not

because

reKovoa

is

past

in

See p. 238.

THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.


time like
eVe/ce,

127

but because the action

is

not in progress
is

and therefore must be past. But i) rUrovaa in tragedy (cf Gal 4-'') as a practical synonym
the
title of

common
t)

of

fj-yjTrjp,

a continuous relationship.
:

Winer
"

(p.

444) gives
contracting

a good selection of classical exx.


as

add from the papyri such


yafj,ovcn,

CPE 24
who
28
"

etc.

(ii/A.D.)
ot

T049

the

parties,"

are called
(ii/A.D.).

ryeya/mijKore';

in a similar docu4^8, is

ment,
stole
"

CPE
or
6

So

6 Kki-mcov,

Eph
"

not

"

he who

he who
"

steals,"

but simply
"

the stealer," differing

from

KXeirrr]^

the

thief

only in being
is G^^- 2^),

more

closely

associated with the verb KXeTTTera) which

Baptist

is

called

^airrl^cov

(Mk

"

If the coming. the baptiser," the


is

phrase wise synonymous therewith.


sarily connotes linear action
like
"

is less

of a technical

term than the noun, but

other-

agent-noun almost necesthere are only a few exceptions,


the
title
is

An

murderer,"

"

bankrupt," where

generally

Hence given in respect of an act committed in the past. it coincides closely with the action of the present participle,
i.

which with the article (rarely without see Kiihner-Gerth We return to the aorist 266) becomes virtually a noun. and need not say more on the minute part participle later, of its field which might be connected with the subject of But it must be remarked that the principle this paragraph.
of a timeless present participle needs

very careful application, since alternative explanations are often possible, and grammar In my speaks to exegesis here with no decisive voice.
Introduction'^ (p.

199)

Mt
"

27*^

KaTaXvoav rov vaov, "the

destroyer of
"

the temple," was given as an ex. of a participle turned noun. But the conative force is not to be missed here

gives the meaning more exactly. Another ambiguous case may be quoted from Heb 10^"^: is " the objects of sanctification," or T0U9 dy(.a^o/xi/ov<; timeless,

you would-be destroyer

"

iterative,

those

are in process of sanctification"? The last, involving a suggestive contrast with the eVre aecwa^evoi telling (like the unique perfect TerekeicoKev of Eph 2^- s) of a work which is finished on its Author's or purely durative,

who from time " those who

to

time receive sanctification,"

but progressively realised by its objects, brings the tense into relation with the recurrent ol aq)^6/xevoi and
side,
01

cnroWv/xevoi,

in

which

durative

action

is

conspicuous.

128
The

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


examples
will
suffice

to

teach

the

importance

oi

caution.

turn to the Imperfect, with which we enter the sphere of Tense proper, the idea of past time being definitely brought in by the presence of the This particle perhaps a demonstrative base in augment.

We

its

origin,

meaning

"

then

"

is

the only decisive

mark

of

past or present time that the Indo-Germanic verb possesses, unless the final -i in primary tenses is rightly conjectured to have denoted present action in its prehistoric origin. Applied
to

the

present
;

stem,

the

augment

throws

linear

action

into the past applied to the aorist, it does the same for The resultant meaning is naturally various. action. punctiliar have pictorial narrative, as contrasted with the may

We

summary given by the aorist. times sign his work o Belva

Thus the sculptor will somethe eiroiei, sometimes eVotT/cre


:

former lays the stress on the labour of production, the latter When the difference is a matter of on the artist's name.
emphasis,

we

naturally find
is

it

sometimes evanescent.
meaning, because
differs
little

"E^iq,

imperfect
punctiliar
elirev

in form,
root.

aorist in

0a

is

very rubbed off by time, In words and in MGr the two forms are mere equivalents. The less worn the distinction can hardly ever be ignored. to which we were alluding just now, in discussing categories

But eXe^ev often

from

its

pictorial character is largely

the participle, are everywhere conspicuous in the imperfect indicative. Thus we have frequently the iterative, its graph
(

instead of

),

describing

past action

that

was

repeated. Especially important, because more liable to be is the conative imperfect, for which we might give the missed,

o graph

of its failure to

Action going on implies the contingency ). our linear graph may either reach an end
:

be produced beyond our vision, or reach a definite terminus in view {Karrjadiov, perfective, see above, p. Ill), or stop How important this is for the NT may abruptly in vacuo.
be seen from some of the passages, in which the Eevisers have

earned our gratitude by their careful treatment of the Tenses, Ac 26^^ is a notable a specially strong point of their work.

example

the

AV

commits Paul

to the statement that

he had

actually forced

weak

Christians to

renounce their Master.

THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.

129

repeatedly ]jut the imperfect just sudden abandonment of the aorist, used up to this point, gives a strong grammatical argument for the nlternative " I tried to
forced," the iterative

Now

in

itself

i^vajKa^ov"^

might

of

course be

"

referred

to.

force,"

which

is

in his retrospect success so calmly


:

made certain by the whole tone of the Apostle we cannot imagine him telling of such a Other typical exx. are Mt 3^*, Lk 1^^,
!

Ac

being right in all in Ac I.e. the curiously blundered into the right meaning by mistranslating a wrong " " text. (Their avvi^Xaaev would naturally mean that he drove Did the translators (Tyndale and them to shake hands
7^*^,

the

EV

AV

his

successors) mistake

this

for

crvvifSXaacrev,

or

did

they

consciously

emend

The Vulgate

reconcilidbat

In 9^^ the Eevisers unfortunately corrected the text without altering the translation it seems clear that the imperfect is conative, the man refusing to be

encouraged them.)

Mk

may have
:

So also in Heb 11^'^ irpoa-e^epev stopped in his good work. appears to be a conative imperfect, as the RV takes it the
:

contrast between the ideally accomplished sacrifice, as permanently recorded in Scripture {nrpoaevipo-^ev), and the
historic fact

that

the

deed

was not

finished,

makes an

I extremely strong case for this treatment of the word. cannot therefore here agree with Thumb, who says that we expect an aorist, and suggests that ecpepov had already begun

to be felt as

an

aorist as in

MGr

e(j)pa,

the aorist of ^epvco

(TIiLZ
all

xxviii.

NT

He cites no ancient parallel; and of 423). author of Heb is the least likely to start writers the
of this kind.''
.

an innovation
, . Tlie Aorist
:

(See p. 238.) In the Aorist indicative, as in the Imperfeet, wo have past time brought in by the
.

use of the augment.

aorist action, therefore,

To appreciate the essential character of we must start with the other moods.
tlie

The contrast
stem
Kad'
iravrl
is

of its point action with well seen in 809 ai^fiepov in

Mt

linear of the present 6^\ against hihov to

rj/j,epav

in

Lk 11^:
in

cf

also
6^''

Mt
;

5*^ t&> aiTovvrt 809,

but
6^^

airovvn SlSov

Lk

and (with respective parts

reversed)

Mt

5^-

x^lpeTe, without note of time, but


Trj

Lk

Xapr^re iv eKecvj) trast so well that

vfiepa.

The Imperative shows the con:''

us present g

we may add another example Eom 6^^ gives TrapiaTdvere (see pp. 122 ff.) and TrapaaTijaare to":Seep. 247.

130

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

the daily struggle, always ending gether in marked antithesis in surrender, and the once-for-all surrender to God which Note further the delicate nuance in Ac brings deliverance.
2537f.
.

Barnabas, with easy forgetfulness of

refuses avvTrapaXaii^aveiv, to have irapaXa^etv with them day by day one who had shown himself unreliable. Examples are very numerous, and there are few of the finer

Mark

Paul

risk,

wishes cvv-

shades of meaning which are more important to grasp, just because they usually defy translation. The three kinds of
point action, Ingressive, Effective, and Constative,^ are not Two or even always easy to distinguish.
.

as
"

three of them may be combined in one verb, we saw above with /SaXelv (p. 109) for of course this may " be the summary of ^dWetv " throw," as well as " let fly and
;

hit

".

In usage however nearly


;

all

verbs

keep to one end

though the marked growth of the constative enlarges the number of cases in which the whole action is comprised in one view. Thus from ^acnXeveiv we
or other of the action

have the ingressive aorist in ^aaL\eva-a<i dvairarjo-erai, " having come to his throne he shall rest" (Agraphon, OP 654 and Clem. Al.), and the constative in Eev 20* "they reigned a thousand years." The ingressive especially belongs to
verbs
of

state
aorist,

or

effective

we may compare
(2

For the condition (Goodwin 16). " durative reXeiv fulfil,

MT

bring
2^^

to

perfection"

Co 12^
is

"my

power
"

is

being per"

fected in
etc.). p.

weakness

")

with the aorist TeXeaat

finish

(Lk
5^^

The constative
118).

used apparently in

Gal

(above,

Aonst

The aorist participle raises various quesParticiple ^:^q^^ ^^ j^g ^ which must be considered
so far as they concern the nature oi The connotation of past time aorist action.
liQre
,

of Coincident

Action

m
.

^i

i.i

use in which
its action.

has largely fastened on this participle, through the idiomatic it stands before an aorist indicative to qualify

As

in the

ingressive,

point action is always completed action, except the participle naturally came to involve

to B.

We may express them by the graph A A will be Ingressive, B Effective,

B, denoting motion from > and the Constative would be the

line

reduced to a point by perspective.

THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.


past time relative to that of the

131

main verb. Presumabl}' would happen less completely when the participle stood The assumption of past time must not however be second. In regarded as a necessary or an accomplished process. cases, especially in the NT, the participle and the many main verb denote coincident or idenfAcal action. So ottothis
Kpi6e\<i
eltrev

Mt

22^ etc./

Ka\co<;

eiTo[riaa<;

7rapa<yev6fii'o<;

Ac

10^^.

The

latter puts into the past a

formula constantly
ev TrotJ^Vet?

recurring in the papyri: thus


8ov<i "

FP 121
"

will oblige me by giving si dederis in Latin. In Jn 11^^ we have elirovaa first for past action and then the changed form is suggestive, etiraa-a (BC*) for coincident

you

(i/ii a.d.)

One probable perhaps without conscious significance. example of coincident action may be brought in here because
but
of
is

its inherent difficulty, though it belongs rather to lexicon The participle ein^akoov (Mk 14'^-) than to grammar. which may well have been obscure even to Mt and Lk, who

both dropped

it

has

now presented

itself

in the Ptolemaic

50, iirt^aXoov avveywcrev ra iv rrji eavrov <yrjL papyrus " he set Tov arj/jLacvo/xefou vSpaywyov, which I translate, fiepr] It is true that in Tb P 13 eTn^okyj to and dammed up." means " embankment," as Dr Swete has pointed out to me.^

Tb P

But Dr F. G. Kenyon has since observed that if e7rc/3dW(o were here used of casting up earth, it would add nothing to
(xvve^waev alone.
explained in word in the
either

Moreover, since Mark's phrase has to be

any case, there is good reason for taking the same sense in both places. Many versions take this view of iirt^aXayv (cf Euthymius' gloss

or translate the paraphrase rjp^aro found in D. If this substitute the ingressive aorist eKkavaev. account is right, iirt^aXdov is the aorist coincident with the
ap^dfj,evo<i),

Mt and Lk
first

point of the linear eKkacev, and the compound phrase expresses with peculiar vividness both the initial paroxysm

This phrase, except for Ac 19^^ 25^, occurs in the Semitic atmosphere alone we should look at the Hebrew icN-i fj;-], whieli suggested it through the medium of the LXX. (It is not Aramaic, Dalman thinks, ^orcJs 24 f.) The form of the Hebrew prompts Dr Findlay to suggest that dTroKpiOeis is ingressive, That dTroKpidrjvaL is generally constative, does not d-rrev consecutive upon it.
1
;

so that

make
*

this account any less possible. See notes in Expos, vi. vii. 113 and

viii.

430.

132
and

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT

C4REEIv.

its long continuance, which the easier but tamer word of the other evangeHsts fails to do. There are even cases where the participle

Thus in 189 we have, "when the flower of his sailor-folk came down to lolcos, mustered and thanked them all (Xe^aro eTTai,vrjcrai<i). Jason
'^^ "^^^f i^^-^ auent Action.

^^

seems

to involve subsequent action.

I'i^clar

Pyth.

iv.

This
of

is

really coineident action, as

Gildersleeve notes

but

had the poet felt bound to chronicle the exact order of proceedings, he would have put the muster first. I am strongly disposed to have recourse to this for the
course,

much

discussed
"

daTraad/xevot

in
"

Ac

25^^,

though
It

Hort's

suspicions of

seem more
"

prior corruption serious still that

induce timidity.
Blass
(p.
.

might 197) pronounces


not Greek," revenant as any
.

for
"

the reading of the majority of the MSS Blass comes as near to an Athenian

But when he says that the modern could hope to be. cannot yet be regarded accompanying circumstance
.

as concluded,"
eiraLvn^aai'^

may we not

reply that in that case Pindar's

The effective aorist equally needs emending ? different from a durative like eiropevovTO, very which could only have been followed by a word describing
KaTi]VT7}(rav is

the purpose before

them on

their journey.
"

arrived on a complimentary visit

But in they submit that the case is

"

The text gives the meaning really one of identical action. There are a good many adequately.passages in which

KV

NT

between antecedent and coincident in places where the participle stands second Heb 9^^ action, It would take too much space will serve as an example.
exegesis has to decide
:

Blass here slurs over the fact that not one uncial reads the future.

The

paraphrastic rendei'ing of tlie Vulgate cannot count, and a reading su}i}>orted by nothing better than the cursive 61 had better be called a conjecture outright.
(Blass's misquotation
KarrjXdov,
I

by the way,

is

not corrected in his second

edition.)

As

little
(p.

interpolation"
quotes,

"who -We may

as

I'f^

share his confidence that Jn 11- "is certainly an What difficulty is there in the explanation he 198 n.). " well known did (or, has done) this ? (See p. 238.)

can

quote an example from the vernacular:

OP

530

5tl)creis

'SapairiiiM'L

ry

<pi\u}

'KvTpuxxacTd fiov to. i/j-aria op. cKarov,

you

will give 'my uncle' Sarapion 100 draclunce and redeem my should add that Dr Findlay would regard da-Tr. in Ac I.e. as denoting the See further p. 238. initial act of KaTT^vrrjaav,

Zv " of which " AVe clothes.


(ii/A.D.) i^

THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.


to

13:3

discuss

adequately the

alleged

examples

of

suhsequenl

action participles for which

p.

but a few comments must


the

pleads {Paul, p. 212), be ventured. In Ac 1 G'' (WH)

Eamsay

first of a series of passages which Rackham {Ads, we really have nothing to 184) regards as "decisive" show when the Divine monition was given. Assuming Ramsay's itinerary correct, and supposing that the travellers realised the prohibition as far on as Pisidian Antioch, the aorist

remains coincident, or even antecedent, for they had not yet In 23^^ (and 22^*) it is entirely crossed the Asian frontier. arbitrary to make assumptions as to the order of the items. The former is " he said meanwhile ordering him ., .,"
. . . .

which may perfectly mean that Felix first told his soldiers where they were to take Paul, and then assured the prisoner of an early hearing, just before the guards led him away. In 22^^ Lysias presumably said in one sentence, " In 1 7^^ the opiaa^ is not Bring him in and examine him." " " than the iirotijaev in time the determination of later
well
:

man's

home

|-?rcce(^6c?

his
"

creation,

in

the

Divine

plan.

exx. are 24^^ in which etVa? Rackham's other " decisive and 8caTa^dfM6vo<i are items in the action described by dveand 7^*", where the constative i^y]ya<y6v describes (SdXeTo Rackham's object is to justify the Exodus as a whole.
;

reading returned to

the

of
J.

nBHLP
and

al

in

them John."

Now

fulfilled "

by translating they their ministry and took with

1 2^^,

"

returned

...

in

fulfilment

." is

good coincident aorist

and quite admissible. But to take in this way involves an unblushing aorist (Tvv7rapa\a^6vTe<i of suhseqaent action, and this I must maintain has not yet been paralleled either in the NT or outside. ITort's conjecture

Tr}v

el<i

'I.

iT\7]pu>cravTe<i
is

SiaKovLuv

mends

this

passage

best.

The alternative

so flatly out of

agreement with the

normal use
could
"

of the aorist participle that the possibility of it only introduce serious confusion into the language. Prof. Ramsay's appeal to Blass will not lie, I think, for any

subsequent action

"

use

we have

already referred to the

great grammarian's non possunnis for Ac 25^^, which entirely bars his assent to any interpretation involving more than All that he says on 23^^ is that KeXevaa^ coincident action. cKeXcvaev re, which is not warrant for Ramsay's inference.

134

A GKAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


the whole case,
of

we may safely accept the vigorous stateAc 16 {EB ii. 1599): "It has to be maintained that the participle must contain, if not
ment
Schmiedel on

On

something antecedent to they went (Su^Xdov), at least something synchronous with it, in no case a thing subsequent
'

'

to

it, if

all

the rules of

grammar and
^

all

sure understanding

of language are not to be given up."

Aorists
already.

^^^^

The careful study of the aorist participle show surviving uses of its original time.
.
.

Lk

less character, besides those we have noted 10^^ idecopovp (durative) top Saravdv e'/c rov

ovpavov Treaovra,

which
284,
ye

is

exactly like Aesch.

FV 9561,

ovK iK
or

T(ovB' iyo) [sc. Trepydficov^

Bi(raov<; Tvpdvvov<i K7rea6vra<; rjaOojJL'qv^

Homer

//. vi.

el Ketvov

FISoi/xl

KareXOovT "yltSo? ecaw

belongs

to

Goodwin

MT
:

a category of which many exx. are given by 148, in which the sense of past time does

" not appear cf Monro I watched him fall" 212, 401. will be the meaning, the aorist being constative irLinovTa
:

HG

"

"

falling

(cf

suggesting

Vulg. cadentem) would have been much weaker, the possibility of recovery. The triumphant

Eev 18^ (cf next page) is the same action. need not stay to show the timelessness of the aorist in the imperative, subjunctive and infinitive there never was any time connotation except when in reported speech an
eireaev eireaev of

We

optative or infinitive aorist took the place of an indicative. Cases where an aorist indicative denotes present time, or even future, demand some attention. 'E^Xrjdr] in Jn 15*^ is
paralleled by the well-known classical idiom seen in Euripides " Ale. 386, dTTcoXofirjv 0 fie Xei-v|rei9, I am undone if you leave me." ^^ Similarly in i^iaTr), 3^^, English again demands the

Mk

perfect, "he has gone out

of his

mind."

notes that this idiom

survives in

MGr.

Jannaris ITG 1855 In Eom 14^3 an

analogous use of the perfect


aorist of

may

be seen.
"

The

difficult

Mk
Ac

1^^

and

parallels, iv crol ev86Ki]a-a,is

probably "on
"

thee I have set the seal of


^ 3

my

approval

literally
.

I set,""

" we 21^^ may be leiidered ceased, with the words Suggested by my friend Mr H. Bisseker. See Giles, ManuaP 499.

."

See

p. 247.

THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.


at a time
really in

135

which

is

not defined.

None

of

these exx. are

present time, for they only seem to be so through a difference in idiom between Greek and We have
English.

probably to do here with one of the most ancient uses of the aorist the ordinary use in Sanskrit expressing what has 16^ Lk 7^^ I420 15^2 24^^ Jn 11*2 just happened:'' ci 1219 131 13^^ 2P,Eev 148 132, etc., and see p. 140.^ " In two other uses we employ the present, the "

Mk

(^xM
6^2),

gnomic (3IT 155) observes that the gnomic " give a more vivid statement of general
(as

Eph

and the

so-called

"

"
aorist.

epistolary

Goodwin

and perfect truths, by employaorist

ing a distinct case or several distinct cases in the past to represent (as it were) all possible cases, and implying that what has occurred is likely to occur again under similar

The present is much commoner than the which generally (Goodwin 157) refers to "a single or a sudden occurrence, while the present (as usual) The gnomic aorist survives in MGr implies duration." (Jannaris HG 1852), and need not have been denied by Winer for Jas 1^^ and 1 Pet l^*: see Hort's note on the latter. Jas 1^* combines aor. and perf. in a simile, reminding us of the closely allied Homeric aorist in similes. ^ have seen that the aorist descriptive English of what has just happened has to be rendered Rendering of Aorist Iq English by what we call our Perfect Tense. Indicative. j^ ^^^^ ^^ admitted that this is not the only usage in which the English and the Greek past tenses do not
circumstances."
aorist,

coincide.

Our English Past

mostly built on the Perfect

historically a syncretic tense,

is

essentially

a definite tense,

connoting always some point or period of time at which the action occurred. But in Greek this is not necessarily involved
at
all. Idiomatically we use the past in pure narrative, where the framework of the story implies the continuous dating of the events and though the Greek aorist has not this implica;

tion,

we may regard

the tenses

as

equivalent in practice.
as an

But outside narrative we use the periphrastic have tense

In classical Greek

we may

wliich

would naturally suggest a foregoing


oofj.ui' [xi) fxoi Ti /ji.e/j.<pT](Td'.

find an aorist of this kind used with a sequence perfect, as Eurijiides, Medea 213 f.
:

i^TjKdov

See Verrall's note.

["See

p.

247.

136

A GEAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


;

indefinite past

and it thus becomes the inevitable representa Greek aorist when no time is clearly designed e.g 1 Co 15*^ Tivh iKoifM/]di]a-av, "fell asleep (at various times)," This has two unfortunate and so "have fallen asleep." We have to decide for ourselves whether a Greek results. often no easy aorist refers to definite or indefinite time And we have to recognise that our own perfect is task.
tive of the
:

ambiguous

it is

not only the genuine Perfect, describing action

in the past with continuance into present time, but also the As Dr J. A. Eobinson says {Gospels, simple indefinite Past.

render,

in Mt 11^^: "If we our Thou didst reveal,' minds are set to search for some specially appropriate moment to which reference may be made. The familiar Thou hast revealed,' expresses rendering, Thou hast hid the sense of the Greek far more closely, though we are using what we call a perfect.' The fact needs to be recognised
p.

107), on
'

eKpv\\ra'i

and

uTreKciXvyjra'i
. .

Thou

didst hide

'

'

that our simple past and our perfect tense do not exactly coincide in meaning with the Greek aorist and perfect The translation of the aorist into English respectively.

must be determined partly by the context and partly by ^ The use of the English perfect considerations of euphony."
to render the aorist evidently needs careful guarding, lest the Take for example impression of a true perfect be produced. " " we have received decidedly rings as a Eom 1^ The

AV

perfect

it

means
the

"

received originally and

still

possess."

emphasis on the wrong element, for Paul clearly means that when he did receive a gift of grace and a commission from God, it was through Christ he received it. If a man says to his This is not an indefinite aorist at all. " friend, Through you I got a chance in life," we should
This
lays

never

question

the

idiom

"
:

have

"

got

would

convey a

distinct meaning.

Among

the paraphrasers of

Eom, Mofiatt

This thesis was elaborately worked out by Dr R. F. Weymouth in a On the B,endcring into English of the Greek Aorist and Perfect (1890 in Modern Speech was intended to give His posthumous since in 2nd ed.).
^

pamphlet,
effect to

NT

the thesis of the pamphlet.

Weymouth's argument

is

damaged by

some not very wise language about the

but in this one point it may were sometimes applied in fairly be admitted tliat the Revisers' principles See however pp. 137 ff. rather too rigid a manner.
;

RV

THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.


and the Tiventieth Century
here

13V

NT

with the

EV

rightly give the pcast tense

Eutherford,

Way

and Weymouth

less

The limitations of our idiom accurately give the perfect. are evident in the contrasted tenses of 16*^ and 1 Co

Mk

15*.

'Hyepdr)

states

simply the past complete

see above on astounding news of what had just happened this use of the aorist. 'EyrjjepTat sets forth with the utmost possible emphasis the abiding results of the event, which supply the main thought of the whole passage. But " He is risen " is the only possible translation for the former while in the latter, since a definite time is named, our usage rather rebels
;

fact,

the

against the perfect which the sense so strongly demands. must either sacrifice this central thouoht with the AV

We
to
"

and the
the

free translators,
literal

translation

who had a chance that was denied versions, or we must frankly venture on " English with the EV to fit our idiom we might
:

detach the note of time and say " that he hath been raised raised on the third day, according to the scriptures."
A AT
,

a,Tid.

El

in

Mt

The subject of the rendering^ of the Grreek aorist is so important that no apology
is

needed for an extended enquiry. We will of AV and EV in Mt, which will serve as a typical book. If my count is right, there are 65 indicative aorists in Mt which are rendered by both AV and EV alike with the English perfect,^ or in a few cases the

examine the usage

AV is deserted by the EV for the These figures alone are enough to dispose simple past.^ of any wholesale criticism. In 11 of the 41 Weymouth
present
;

while in 41 the

himself uses the past in his free translation. therefore touches between a quarter and a

His criticism
third
of

the

Including 6'-, where the AV would certainly have translated dcpi'iKafxev as has done. In a private memorial wliich was sent to the Revisers by an unnamed colleague, before their final revision, it is stated that out of nearly 200 places in the Gospels where the aorist was rendered by the English perfect, the Revisers had only followed the AV iu 66. The figures above for Mt show
1

the

RV

that the appeal took effect but in Ju 17, wliich is specially named, the 21 exx. remain in the published text. That the majority were right there, I cannot
;

doubt: the English perfect in that chaitter obscures a special feature of the gi'eat prayer, the tone of detachment with which the Lord contemplates His
earthly
-

life

as a period lying in the past.


is

One

passage, 18'^,

only in

EVmg.

138

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

From which passages which come under our notice in Mt. infer that the Eevisers' English was, after fairly In examining the all, not quite as black as it was painted.
we may
material,
is

we

will

assume in the
and

first

instance that the aorist


all

rightly rendered by our perfect (or present) in

the
for

places where

agree. (This the sake of argument, as will be seen below.) then is with the 41 passages in which there

AV

EV

is

only assumed

Our
is

first

task

a difference.
2^^

Of these Weymouth's own translation


definite aor.

justifies

see

by

its

wrong
103.

11^) translation of

Hos

531.

33. as. 43

^j^g^.^

T6t<i

dp^aLOL<;

^y
it

(a very ^g^g misled

is

vv.21-27)

25^0
in

his^

We may
and

v,*2,

three) as justified by the 25^^-^^ as on all fours with the past "I sowed."

(AV

ca77ie

in

one of

the

right in 17^^ 2142

further deduct

2V^

AV

It remains to discuss the legitimacy of the English past in Our test shall be sought in idiomatic the rest of the exx. constructed so as to carry the same grammatical sentences,

conditions

they are purposely assimilated to the colloquial

idiom, and are therefore generally made

parallel in grammar to the passages they illustrate. In each case the preonly terite tacitly implies a definite occasion ; and the parallel
will

show that

this implication is at least a natural under-

Greek is indeterminate. Taking them " as they come, 2^ etSofiev seems to me clearly definite I saw the news in the paper and came off at once." 3'^ vireBei^ev " " " " has warned may be justified, but Who told you that ?
: :

standing of the Greek. we may infer that the

Where

the perfect

is

equally idiomatic,

may put together S^'' 10^^^152* (aTreaTaXrjv). As we have seen, the and (^XOov) use the past in one of these passages, and they Weymouth " I came for business, not are all on the same footing.
is

presumably EngKsh.

We

AV

for pleasure
is

"

likewise

good enough English, even if correct and not very different.


is

"

have come

"

Or compare
"

Shakspere's
"

Why

came

hither but for that intent

In 7^^ (eTrpo^riTevaaixev, e^e/SaXo/xev, i7rot7]aa/xev) the perfect would be unobjectionable, but the past is quite idiomatic
cf
all

such a sentence as
over the country
?

"

Now

then

didn't

make speeches

Didn't

subscribe liberally to the

THE YEEB
party funds?"

TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.

139

You
etc.)
:

paid
cf
"

10^ (eXa/Sere): cf "What do you expect' IV' (rjvXicrafJLev, nothing: you get nothing." There's no pleasing you. I made small talk, and
:

gave you a lecture, and you went to see above): cf a'ireKakv>\ra'i very glad you kept me in the dark, and told my friend." 13^'' {eTrediifiijcrav, elSov, rjKovaav): here no better justification is needed than Watts's
I

you were bored


11^^

sleep." " I am

(dTTeKpvyjra'i,

"

How

blessed are our ears


tliis

That hear

joyful sound,
for,

Which kings and prophets waited

And
13** (eVpf i/re)
it
:

sought, but never found."


is

the aorist

almost gnomic, like Jas

1-*,

but

would be wrong to obliterate the difference between the aorist and the present (historic) which follows.^ 15^^ i^v" cf movement which you didn't start is revaev) Every cf "I brought no money away 16'^ {eXa^ofiev) wrong."
: :

with me."

19^^ (evvov'^io-av)

is to

my mind

the only decided

Unless Origen's exegesis was right, the third exception. verb does not refer to a single event like the other two,
except so far as concerns the moment of renunciation in the the perfect therefore would perhaps be less misleading, past
:

despite apparent inconsistency. " on earth did that happen ?


-jrapa^pT^fia.)

21-*^

(e^rjpdvdt])

cf

"How

ambiguous

for iyevero see above) is the aorist of an event just completed, 28^^ is right, but this may well be pure narrative. the " " here the added words [and continueth] (8c6(f)r]fXiadT])
(ijevrjOr]
:

21^^
is

(AV

wrongly joins ttw? and

if

it

AV

leave the verb to be a narrative aorist.


Xdfirjv)
is
:

Finally 28^ (iverei" Mind you attend to cf obviously idiomatic In all these passages then, with one everything I told you." possible exception, the simple past is proved to be entirely
idiomatic
perfect
;

and

if

this is allowed,

we may
cases,

freely concede the

as

permissible

in

several

and occasionally
lists

perhaps preferable. Let us go back for a

moment

to

our

for

Mt,

to

makes

For this idiom see it an Aramaism.


it

with the proviso that

121 n. above. Wellhausen, on Mk T^ {Einl. 16), In view of the MGr usage, we can only accept this he counted good vernacular Greek as well.
p.

140

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

draw some inferences as to the meaning of the aorist where simple narrative, and the reference to a specific time, are
Parenthetically, we might strike out a few and the passages in which agree on the English " You did that " is quite as 13^^ is not indefinite perfect.

mostly excluded.

of

AV

RV

You have done it," and seems to me more suitable where the emphasis is to lie on the subject. In 19^ avve!^v^ev carries the thought immediately and obviously to the wedding " " is on this view those whom God joined together day Similarly dcp/jKa/jLev {-Kev) in 19-^-^^ calls up preferable. In 20^ we cannot unmistakably the day of the sacrifice.
correct as
:

"

has hired "; but it may be observed object to rendering " " is not exactly a Grtecism. And that nobody asked you
surely rjiJbapTov '7rapaBov<i (27*)
is

"

definite

We may end this section by putting betrayed ? Under the together the exx. of two important categories.
when
I

"

enough

"I

sinned

come 9^^ ijekevrr^aev (with things just happened dpri): 5^^ e/jiOL-^evaev and 14^^ irapifkOev and 17^^ rfkde (with ^*' rjhri); 6^^ d(f))]Ka/jiv, 12^^ e(f)0aaV, 14^ T^yepOr), 16^^ direhead of
KaXv^Ire,
18-^^

"

"

eKephriaa<i,

20^^

iiroiTjaav

-a?,

26^''

26^^

iTTOiTjae, 26*^^ i^Xa(T(f)ri/j,i]aev, rjKOvaare, 26^^-*^* etTra?,

r/pydaaro 27^^

e7ra0ov, 21^^ eyKareXcTre^,


forbids),

28^

elirov,

and perhaps 21*^

eyevrjOr}.

28^^ iSoOv (unless ll^' Some of these may of

If they rightly belong to this course be otherwise explained. Equally heading, the English perfect is the correct rendering.

tied to the have tense are the aorists of indefinite time-refer-

ence
as
all

but

we

we must be ready to substitute our preterite as soon see reason to believe that the time of occurrence is at
Clear examples of
^^'^
^^'^'

prominently before the writer's mind.

rjKovaare, 8^*^ evpov, 10^^ eireKuXeo-av, 12^ dviyvcore (ovSeTroTe in 21^^ brings in the note of time: cf " dost thou wrong her that did ne'er wrong Shakspere,
this are 5-^

Why

thee?),
wpLOLOiOrj

13^^ iiraxvvdr]

etc.,

15 riKvpayaare, 13^^ IS^s


tlie

22^^

(probably because the working out of

comparison

included action partially past: Zahn compares Jn 3^^), 21^*^ ^^ eKepSijaa, KaTrjpriaa), 23^^ d(f)i]KaTe, 24*^ KaTeaTtjaep, 25'^27^^ eiroiriae.
tlie English periphrastic us for taking up the most perfect prepares important, exegetically, of all the Greek Tenses. In Greek, as in

f.

Our study

of

'

THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.

141

English, the line between aorist and perfect is not always easy to draw. The aorist of the event just passed has inherently
is

that note of close connexion between past and present which the differentia of the Greek perfect while the perfect was
;

increasingly used, as the language grew older, as a substitute for what would formerly have been a narrative aorist.

shows us how much more the vernacular tends to use this tense and the inference be drawn that the old distinction of aorist and perfect might was already obsolete. This would however be entirely unwarrantable. There are extremely few passages in the papyri of the earlier centuries a.d. in which an aoristic perfect is demanded, or even It is simply suggested, by the context.
cursory reading of the papyri soon
;

that a preference grows in popular speech for the expression which links the past act with present consequences." casual from the prince of Attic writers example

show that this is not only a feature of late Near the beginning of Plato's Crito, Socrates explains his reason for believing that he would not
of Aorist
^^^^

Greek.

" This I infer," he says in Jowett's the third day. " from a vision which I had last night, or rather only English,

die

till

just

now."

The Greek, however,

is

reK/jLatpofiat

rivo'?

iaypaKa oXvyov irporepov ravrrj'i t?}? vvkt6<;, where point of time in the past would have made elSov as inevitable as the aorist is in English, had not Socrates meant to emevvTTViov, o

It is for exactly phasise the present vividness of the vision. the same reason that iy/jjepraL is used with the point of time in 1 Co IS'* (see above). So long as the close connexion of

the past and the present is maintained, there is no difficulty whatever in adding the note of time. So in Eom 1 6^ we have
to say either
"

"

who were

in Christ before me," or

(much

better)

in Christ longer than I." typical parallel 477 (ii/A.D.) rcbv to ire^iTnov from the papyri may be seen in " " who came of age in and a fusion of ero? i^r/^evKOTQjv
.
.

who have been


.

OP

"

who have been

of

age since the

fifth

year."

Now,

if

the

tendency just described grew beyond a certain limit, the But it must fusion of aorist and perfect would be complete. be observed that it was not the perfect which survived in the
the old perfect forms only In struggle for existence. survive in the passive participle (with reduplication syllable
Sec pp.

MGr

247

1".

142
lost),

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


and
in

the

-Ka which was tacked on to the aorist


:

passive {ehedrjKa for iSeOrjv)


or ^prjKa

there

is

also the isolated evprjKa

It does (Thumb, Handb. 94), aoristic in meaning. not appear that the perfect had at all superseded the aorist at the epoch when it was though in a fair way to do so itself attacked by the weakening of reduplication which

destroyed

all

chance of

of the Perfect

its survival as a distinct form, in competition with the simpler formation of ^^^ aorist. But these processes do not fairly

set in for at least two centuries after the was complete. It is true that the LXX and inscriptions show a few examples of a semi-aoristic perfect in the pre-Eoman age, which, as Thumb remarks {Rellenismus, p. 153), disposes of the idea that Latin influence was workBut it is easy to overstate their ing; cf Jannaris, 1872. number.'* Thus in Ex 32^ Ke^poviKe is not really aoristic (as Thumb and Jannaris), for it would be wholly irregular to put an aorist in oratio oUiqua to represent the original " " " " Moses is tarrying or has tarried present or perfect

NT

its

analogue

is

rather the

;^poi/i^et of

Mt

24^^.
"

Nor

will

it

do to

cite the perfects in

Heb

11^'^ al (see

pp. 129,

143

ff.),

where the use


in Scripture

of this tense to describe

what

stands written

"

is a marked feature of the author's style :^ cf Plato, Apol. 28c, ocrot iv Tpola rerekevWjKacriv, as written in " Bible." In factMt 13*^ TreTrpaKev kuI rjyopathe Athenians' a-ev is the only example cited by Jannaris which makes any

NT

impression.
^&)/3i9
oi)v

(I

may quote in illustration of

this

OP 482

(ii/A.D.)

The distinction is very clearly seen in papyri for some centuries. Thus t?;? yevoiu,evT]<; Kot aTTOTreTre/xfievT]'; yvvaiKo'i NP 19 (ii/A.D.), "who was my " o\ov top -^oXkov [8eSa]7rdpr]Ka et9 wife and is noio divorced avT(o BIT 814 (iii/A.D.), where an erased e- shows that the scribe meant to write the aorist and then substituted the more appropriate perfect. As may be expected, illiterate documents show confusion most: e.g. OP 528 (ii/A.D.) ovk iXovaTreypayp-dfiTjv koX ireirpaKa.)
;

Perfect and
toffether

a-dixi-jv

ovk

i)\Ljx (

= }]\LfxiJ,at) y".e'^(oet i/3 'A6vp.

^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^ combinations of aorist

and perfect

naturally look first for the weakening of the distinction, but even there it often appears clearly drawn. At the same time, we may find a writer like Justin

that

we

"i

See p. 248.

THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF

xiCTIOX.

143
.

Martyr guilty of confusion, as in Apol. i. 22 TreTroajKevaL dveyelpai, 32 eKd6i,cre Kal elcrek-i'fKvOev, 44 vorjaai, SeSvp7)UTat kul Other aoristic perfects may be seen in 60 i^tjXOov i^7]y7]aavTO. koX Koi yeyovaat, 62 uKi'jKoe eXa/3e, ii. 2 TreTroi'rjKe
.
. .

from the LXX such eKoXdaaro, a mixture as Is 53^ irpavfj^aTiaOT) /nefiaXuKiarai, (aor. in A). The NT is not entirely free from such cases: cf Mt 13^^ (above).
Kal
.

etc.

We may compare
. . .

In Jn

o'^-

ecopafcev

and
to
(JOL

rficovaev

contrast 1
stress

Jn
laid

1^

is

explained
seeing.

by Blass

as

due
.
. .

the

Mk

5^^

oaa

greater ire'iTO it] Kev Kal rfKerjaev ae

on the

shows

the

In Lk 4^^ it seems best, with proper force of both tenses. Nestle and Wellhausen, to put a stop after expia-e fie, so that
uTrea-TaXKe
is

the governing verb of

all

the infinitives, and

is

not parallel with e')(^pi<Te. To needs no explaining.


later.

Ac 2P^, elarjyayev Kal kko[v(okv, Eev 3^ 5'' and 8^ we must return

There are other places where aorist and perfect are

used in the same context, but they do not belong to this category of aorist and perfect joined with Kal and with
identical subject.
fairly

When

the nexus

is

so

close,

we might
by

suppose

it

possible for the tenses to be contaminated

the association, even where a perfect would not have been But there are evidently no used aoristically by itself. exx. to place by the side of those from Justin, except Mt 13*^

NT

and the passages from Eev.

Perfects in

NT

">

(See further p. 238.) to the general question of ^^^ existence of aoristic perfects in the NT.

We

come then

merits,

It is a question which must be settled on its without any appeal to the a priori, for aoristic

certainly be found in and even before the epoch are entirely at Hberty to recognise writings. such perfects in one writer and deny Lhem to anotlier, or to
perfects of the

may

NT

We

allow
whole.

them

for certain

Among

the

authorities

admitting them for Eev Even less concession is made by W. F. Moulton Burton (MT 44) allows rather more, but says,
confined to narrow limits in the NT."
of

verbs and negative the class as a we find Blass (p. 200) and most sparingly in other places.

(WM
"

340 n.). The idiom is

The extremely small even possible exx. will naturally prevent us proportion We from accepting any except under very clear necessity. out the alleged exx. from Heb (7^^ 9^^ 11^^ begin by ruling

L-44

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

they are obviously covered by the author''s usm described above (p. 142). Some isolated cases may loquendi Lk 9^*^ ecopuKav seems to also be cleared out of the way.
11^^), since

a ewpaKajxev takes this form be virtually reported speech in orat. ohl., which the form of this sentence suggests. regularly In Jas 1^^, KarevoTjaev kol aireXijXvOev Kal evOeca eireKadero,
:

the aorist expresses two


into narrative form,

momentary acts, which are thrown and the perfect accurately describes the
In
is

one action with continuance.


the forest of aorists
to
all

Ac

7^^,

airearaKKev, with

them, and

it

more plausibly conformed round, that this word is alleged to have happens

aoristic force elsewhere.

But, after all, the abiding results of Moses' mission formed a thought never absent from a Jew's mind. Then there is an important category in which we are
to be misled by an unreal parallelism in English. Burton rightly objects to our deciding the case of vv)^d/]/u,epov ev TM ^v6u> ireiToirjKa (2 Co 11^^) by the easy comment that " " it But it does goes quite naturally into English (Simcox). not follow that we have here a mere equivalent for eVoiT^o-a. That would only place the experience on a level with the others this recalls it as a memory specially vivid now. There is in fact a perfect of broken as well as of unbroken " ...>... ?," which leads from a continuity: in the graph
:

liable

'^

past

moment

to

the

moment

of

speech,

the

tolerate the
initial

company

of adjuncts that fasten attention

perfect will on the

point (as in Rom 16'^, above) or on some indeterminate in its course (as here), or on several points in its course. point Plato Thccet. Cf Lucian Pise. 6 irov yap eyed vfjia<; v^piKa;

144b

MT

jxaXkov (ii/A.D.) cfiacrl (?" often") TovTo TreiroiTjKevai, Kal yap aXkot q)<; ir\r]yevTe<i viro avTov dva^optov BeScoKaai. To this category belong with TrcoiroTe, as Jn 1^^ 5^'^ 8^^, and such cases as [)erfects
2

46) BU 163

cLKrjKoa

fi6v

Tovvofia,

p,vrj/j,ovvco

8'

ov

(see

Goodwin

ol 7rap6vTe<i eKeivov

Co

2^'',

time) I

wv direaraXKa, " of those whom (from time to have sent." That the aorist is very much com;

in this delineation of repeated action is obvious but that does not prevent the use of the perfect when the additional thought is presented of a close nexus with the

moner

present time. turn finally to the residuum

We

of

genuinely aoristic

THE VEEB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.


perfects, or those
First,
T

145

which have a

we may frankly
Rev
^^^*^^

claim to be thus regarded. yield those alleged for Eev, viz. 5^


fair

^^ et\7](f)ev (and

33

1117

and

227),

71*

by consequence probably and 19^ eiprjKa (-ap).


:

Since these are without apparent reduplication, they may well have been actual aorists in the writer's view Bousset

remarks how
^'
'

little

Eev

uses

eXa/Sov.

eaxnKa in 2 Co 2^^ V 7^ Eom 52'^ outside Paul only in Mk 5^^. We must, I think,
though Blass believes the

Secondly,

we have

treat all the Pauline passages alike,

It seems clear that an perfect justifiable except in 2 Co 2^^ aorist would suit all four passages, and in the first of them it

seems hopeless to squeeze a natural perfect force into the Greek ^ an aorist would suit Mk I.e. perfectly, but that
:

matters
see

less.

Now,

if

we may take them

altogether,

we can

an excellent reason why ea-^^rjKa should have been used There is no Greek for possessed, the constative as an aorist. aorist, since ea-'^^ov is almost (if not quite) exclusively used
the ingressive got, received. "Ea'^ov occurs only 20 times in the NT, which is about 3 per cent, of the whole There is not one place where ea)^ov must be record of e;^u. Jn 4^^ may be rendered " thou hast espoused " constative
for
:

on

as in

Mk

12^2, the

forming
"

of the tie is the point.


(p.

The

NT

does not contravene


Plato's

Dr Adam's dictum

49

of his notes

Apology)

that

the aorist means

got,

acquired, not

similarity of ea'^rjKa to the aorists e6r]Ka and a^rJKa gave a clear opening for its apj)ropriation to this " " will suit the case possessed purpose, and the translation

had."

The

throughout.
in

We
in

thus get in the required aoristic perfects

Paul without sacrificing a princijile. Passing over ireirpaKa (Mt 13*^), where the absence of an aorist from the same root may have something to do with the usage, we

Eev and

come
eirpaKa.

to the perplexing case of yeyova.

Its

do the work of
1

would naturally be with the present, and there seems small reason tor lettmg it Yet even Josephus the common eyevofirjv.
affinities

Plummer {CG2' in loc.) says, "As in 1", the perfect shows how vividly he " This means a^iplying so Findlay. : recalls the feelings of that trying time what is said above on Triroir]Ka in 2 Co 11"^. But is this natural, when the
coming of Titus with good news had produced Seep. 248. TO
avecris so conijilete
?

(See p. 2SS.)

146
(c.

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


4.

Apion.

21)

has

oXt'yo)

irporepov
"

the papyri we may cite two exx. (both from has reached 478, "I declare that my son ii/A.D.). (irpoa-^e^rjKevac) the age of 13 in the past 16th year of Hadrian and that his father was (yeyovevai) an inhabitant and is now dead {TeTeXevrriKevaL)." BU 136

TvpavvlSoi; before P."

avOpooirov

'yeyovoTO'i,

who

t?}? TIeitnaTpdrov. flourished a little

From

OP
.

yeyovevai tov irajepa tTj^ there are not a few passages in which it is far from easy to trace the distinct perfect force of yeyopa, and exx. like those above make it seem useless to
8iaj3el3acov/j,evov
II.
fir)

tov

iK8iKovfjbV7]<i 6vr]\dr7]v.

Now

NT

try.

But

aoristic sense is not really

proved for any of the

passages in which yey ova (indie.) occurs, and in the Lk 10^^ and great majority it has obviously present time. Jn 6-^ are unpromising for our thesis. But the first has the
vivid present of story-telling

45

NT

when inevitably translated " earnest thou hither ? is only another instance of the perfect with point of time, dealt with already it is the combination
neighbour."

The

second

"

seems to have shown himself


"

of

"

when did you come


"
?

here

The

aoristic use of
:

general in
is

Mt

have you been yeyova is said by Burton to be Blass only admits it in 25*^. Even this last
?

"

and

"

how long

a historic present. The remaining passages mostly belong to the formula which tells us that the abiding significance of an event lies in its having been anticipated in In general, it would appear that we can only prophecy.
like

more

admit a case
Buresch, in
pp.

of

the

kind with the


article

utmost caution.

K.

his

valuable

"Feyovav"

{BUM

1891,

193

ff.),

Alcih. 124a,^ observes that this is


is

noting an example of aoristic yeyovaai, in Plato (?) never found in Greek that

at all respectable. In later Greek, he proceeds, the use of " It has present force always where yeyova greatly increases. it denotes a state of rest, preterite force where it denotes Hence in innumerable cases it is quite an becoming.

equivalent
veni,
etc."

of
(p.

elfxi,

as
n.).

with
It

exstiti,

/actus

or

natiis

sum,

231

may

be

doubted

however

whether this canon will adequately account for the exx. from Josephus and the papyri with which we began.
Since the earliest period of Greek, certain perfects pos1

But

see below, p. 238.

THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.

147

sessed a present meaning, depending upon the mode of action belonging to the root, and on tliat exhibited in the Tims the markedly conative present present. ^ ^ ^ .-, Perfects with ^a u '^^'^^' ^^PPv persuasion, with its new perPresent Force.
^

.,.

fect nreTreiKa
its

and

ancient perfect ireiTOLOa, which

early perfects

aorist eireiaa to match, kept is intransitive (like most

Monro's

account of

see below, p. 154), with the I'erfect in its


"
:

meaning / trust. Homeric stage of

If we compare the development may be quoted meaning of any Perfect with that of the corresponding Aorist or

Present,

we

shall
state,

permanent
oXcoXe
. . .

usually find that the Perfect denotes a the Aor. or Pres. an action which brings
state.

about or constitutes that


is

Thus,

cokero

was

lust,

undone.
. .

Thus the

so-called Perfecta proiseyitia,


eoiKa,
KkKTr^iiai,
. ,

eaTTjKa,

ixefJuvqiMai,

ireiroiOa, olha,

are merely the commonest instances of the rule. Verbs expressing sustained sounds are usually in the
etc.,
. .
. .

Perfect"

{HG

31).
F.

This last remark explains KeKpa'ya, which

has survived in Hellenistic, as the


decisively. hath cried

LXX seems to show Moulton (WM 342 n.) says, "In Jn V" seems the more probable meaning," observing that
W.
is

the pres. Kpd^o)


in

rare in classical writers.

It is

common

a fact which probably weighed with But the LXX, K6Kpa<y6v a normal perfect.

NT,

him in making when exx. are

so

evidence for the vernacular here

must certainly count as and when we find KeKpaja 14 times, sometimes indisputably present, and never I think even probably perfect cf esp. Ps 141(140)^ Trpo^ ae KKpa^a
numerous and well
distributed,
;

irpoayeii rfj

cjjcovy rrj^ Seijcreco'i


;

/ulov

ev

rw KeKpajevai

fxe

7rpb<i

ak (Heb.
VHt/'i^

''^?"!P3)
,

and Job

the iinpf.

it is

as a true perfect in

NT.

30", where KeKpaja translates difficult to suppose the word used " It has not however been borrowed
"

from the literary language in place of the Hellenistic Kpd^ei (Blass 19S). Kpd^Q) has its own distinction as a durative cf Ps 32(31)^ diro Tov Kpd^etv fie oXrjv t7]v r/fxepav; and KeKpaya, with KCKpd^ofiac and eKeKpa^a, may well have been In any case we differentiated as expressing a single cry.

cannot treat the


of the

LXX

survival.

One may doubt


into

as evidence for the literary character the necessity of putting


this

nXTTLKa

and

ireireia [xai

category

but

rkdurjKa

148

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


;

and rjyijfiat in Ac 26^ (contr. Phil 3'') uaturally belongs to it is one of the literary touches characteristic of the speech
before Agrippa
:

see Blass in
.

loc.

(See further p, 2 3 8.)


,

The Pluperfect, which throws the Perfect The Pluperfect. ^ ^ J . into past time, was never very robust m It must not be regarded as a mere convenience Greek,
for expressing relative time, like the corresponding tense in The conception of relative time never troubled English.

the Greeks

and the
is

aorist,

which simply

states

that

the

event happened,

we main

generally quite enough to describe what like to define more exactly as preceding the time of the
verb.
is

A
8^^,

stood

Lk

typical case of a pluperfect easily misunderwhich we referred to on p. 75 in connexion

with the concurrent ambiguity of iroWoh ')(^povoL<i, and again (p. 113) in connexion with the perfectivisiug force of avv.

former
render

Since vernacular usage so clearly warrants our rendering the " for a long time," we are free to observe that to
"

had seized him (EV text) involves a It would have to be classed as the decided abnormality. " " which we discussed perfect of broken continuity past of the But it must be admitted that above (p. 144) on 2 Co 11^^ the extension of this to the pluperfect is complex, and if there
oftentimes
it
is

"

tially right,

a simple alternative we should take it EVmg " " though held fast would be better than
;

is

essenseized."

"

We
may

need not examine further the use

of this

tense,

which

be interpreted easily from what has been said of Perfect It should be noted that it appears sometimes in action. conditional sentences where an aorist would have been pos-

The pluperfect expresses e.g. 1 Jn 2^^ fiefiev^Keicrav av. the continuance of the contingent result to the time of speakIn Mt 12'^ iyvcoKeire is virtually an imperfect to a ing.
sible
:

which the perfect form has the same and in Jn 19^^ iSoOij^ would have only pictured the original gift and not the presence of it with Pilate at the moment. Last comes the Future. The nature of e u ure
present eyvcoKa, in rationale as in olSa;
.

-^^

action

may

be looked at

first.

This

may
Its

be examined in the history of


^

its

form.

On

tlie

periphrastic pluperfect, ^v oedofi^vov, see pp. 225

ff.

THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.

140

close connexion with the sigmatic norist act. and mid., and the two aorists pass., is obvious. Except in the passive, in fact, the future was mainly a specialised form of the aorist

cannot however decisively rule out the that another formation may have contributed to possibility the Greek future, a formation which would be originally
linear in action.

subjunctive.^ of the aorist.

As such

it will

We

naturally share the point action

The Aryan (Indo-Iranian) and Letto-Slavonic branches of the Indo-Germanic family have a future in -syo,

which however was very moderately developed in these conGreek, geographically tiguous groups before they separated. contiguous with Aryan on the other side in prehistoric times, may have possessed this future but the existing Greek future can be very well explained without it, though it might be safest to allow its probable presence. In any case there is no question that the action of the Future is in usage mixed.
;

"A^w
is

is

either

"

I shall lead

"

or

durative, the latter effective.

I shall bring the former Thus in 14^^ irpod^M v^a<i

"

"

Mk

probably "I shall go before you," while a^wv (Ac 22^) "to

bring,"

and a^ei

(1

Th

4^*)

"he

will bring," refer to the

end of

An ingressive future may the action and not its progress. probably be seen in vTrorayrjaerai, 1 Co 1 5^^ the rore seems
:

thought of as initiating a new kind of subordination of the Son to the Father, and not the perto

show that the Parousia

is

petuation of that which had been conspicuous in the whole of The exposition of this mystery must the mediatorial ?eon. be taken up by the theologians. pass on to note

We

the ingressive future, to be found in another example Jn 8^2. ^EXevOepovv appears to be always punctiliar in
of

NT, but
et9

it is

not necessarily so: cf Sophocles


" "

OT

706

to 7'

kavTov irav iXevdepoi aro/xa,

lips

wholly pure

(Jebb).

(It is

as for himself, he keeps his " true Sir E. Jebb uses set

free" in his note, but the durative force of his translation seems more suitable.) It is therefore noteworthy that in v.^^

we have

the paraphrase iXevOepoi ^evrjcreade, to bring out the Some(ingressive) point action of the future that precedes.

times the possession of two future forms enabled the language Thus e^co was associated to differentiate these meanings.
1

See Giles,

" Manual 446-8.

150
with

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


ep^ft),

and
in

so

and meant " I meant " I shall


in
1

shall
^

"

possess

a'^ijaco
is

get."

There

with ea')(pv, one possible ex.

NT

Attic

note the durative o-ci^erai preceding it in the same clause; while (^aw^crerat (Mt 24^*^) has obviously point action. See the classical evidence marshalled in Kiihner-Gerth i. 1 14 ff.,

Pet 4^^ ^aveirat

may

well be durative as in

170
istic

ff.

add the note

in Giles,

Manual^ 483

generally got rid of alternative forms this distinction will not entirely obsolete,

even

n.

Since Hellena'^^rjaw
is

play any real part in NT Greek. which by their formation were most intimately connected with the aorist, such as (fio/BojO/^aonai, (for which Attic could use a
durative
cfyo/Sr^aofxai),

be expected to Indeed even those futures

exercised

the

double mode of action

which was attached to the tense as a whole: cf Heb 13^ " where " be afraid (durative) seems to be the meaning, rather " than become afraid." This question settled, we next have ^^ decide between shall and will as the Qh II A wii The volitive future appropriate translation. involves action depending on the will of the speaker or of the
subject of the verb
in will
is
:

in
is

will go,

you

shall go, it is the

former

you go
the

it

the latter.
futuristic

Side by side with this

there

purely

It is impossible

Greek future
rules
for

to lay

down
is

the case
of

we shall go, they will go. rules for the rendering of the almost as complicated as are the

the use

sliall

and

Not only

are the volitive and

loill in standard English. the futuristic often hard to

distinguish, but we have to reckon with an archaic use of the auxiliaries which is traditional in Bible translation. For
in such a passage as Mk 1 324-27 ^^ have shall seven times where in modern English we should undeniably But in v.^^ (" the same shall be saved ") the use ^vill.

instance,

substitution of

loill

is

not at
(a

all certain, for

the words

may
is

be

read as a promise

volitive
it

use),

in

which

shall

correct.^

Speaking generally,

may

fairly

be claimed that

and
"

AcaXtDs e|ei

See Brngmann, Kurze vcrgl. Gramm. 568, for this as seen in koKCos also his GV. Gravi.^ 480.
:

ffxv<^et

The

use of shall wlien prophecy


I

ticularly unfortunate.

perplexity for could not therefore be Peter's fault,

is dealing with fxiture time is often parhave heard of an intelligent child who struggled under years because of the words "Thou shalf, deny nic thrice:" it

if

Jesus

commanded him

The

child's

THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.


unless volilive force
it

151

would be better
of a

is distinctly traceable from tlie context, to translate by the futuristic form. The

modernising of our English


the sacrifice

NT

in this respect

would involve

very large number of shalls in the ord person, for our idiom has changed in many dc])endent clauses, in which neither shall nor will is any longer correct. In Mk 14^*, for example, we should certainly say, "Follow ." It is one of the points him, and wherever he goes in. in which modernising is possible without
. .

sacrificing dignity a sacrifice only too palpable in the various attempts to render the NT into twentieth century English. are still waiting for our English Lasserre.

We

Future
Prohibitions,

What remains to be said about the Future will most appropriately come in when we discuss categories such as Commands and
Conditional Sentences, etc. It will suffice to of the Future have in Hellenistic
their original

remark here that the moods Greek receded mostly into


:

non-existence, as

The imperative and subexperiments that proved failures. a few lapsus calami like KavOrjacofun,, junctive never existed
or analogically formed aorist subjunctives like 6'^i](x66, Scoar} Ajyp 172), will not be counted as efforts to supply the The optative, which only performed the function of oral, gap.

(WH
obi.

The same way, except for the construction with fieWco,^ has shrunk very considerably, though not obsolete. With /xeWco it is only found in the word eaeaOai. The innumerable confusions in the papyri, where a future form often is a mere blunder for an aorist, show that the tense was already moribund for most practical purposes see Hatzidakis 190 ff. Finally the participle, the only modal form which may claim prehistoric antiquity, retains a limited The volitive force (here though genuine function of its own.
substitute for fut. indie, has disappeared entirely.
infinitive, originally limited in the
:

final or quasi-final) is tlie commonest, as Brugmann remarks,^ and the papyri keep up the classical use but futuristic forms are not wanting cf 1 Co 15^7, Heb 3^ Ac 2021
;

determinism
version of

times
1

"

probably more wiilely shared tlian we think and a modernised passages like Mk 14 e.g. "you will be renouncing me three would relieve not a few half-conscious difficulties.
is

many

Goodwin

MT 75.

'^

Gr. Gravi.^ 496.

CHAPTER
The phenomena

VII.

The Verb: Voice.


of Voice in Greek present us with conditions which are not very easy Active we know, and Passive for the modern mind to grasp. we know, nor can we easily conceive a language in which

Voice

either

is

absent.
of

But nothing

is

more certain than that the

our family possessed no Passive, but only parent language Active and Middle, the latter originally equal with the former in prominence, though unrepresented now in any all distinction of language save by forms which have lost
^

meaning.
^^^'
that

What
the

the

prehistoric distinction
It
is

^^M'^ddl

^ ^^" ^^^
in

gaess.

suggestive

primitive type which is seen in the Greek TiOrnxi jWe^iai, the principle of vowel-gradation (Ablaut) will account for -6e- as a weakening of -6r)-, and -fjbi as a weakening of -fiac, if we posit an accent on the

root

in one form and on the person-ending in the other. Such an assumption obviously does not help with riOe/xev

TiOiixeda,

nor with Xixa

\vofiai

but

if it

accounts for part

of the variation,

we have enough

pretation of the facts.

to suggest a tentative interIf such be the origin of the two forms,

we might assume a
point the agent.
:

in the active

difference of emphasis as the startingthe action was stressed, in the middle


illustrate this

We may
"

by the

different

emphasis

we hear
which
reader

in the reading of the sentence in the Anglican liturgy One reminds the penitent of the Divine forgiveness.

He pardoneth," wishing to lay all stress on " Hq pardoneth" the pardon the one Source of pardon, another could easily itself being the uppermost thought with him. the former represented by d^ieTat and the latter
says

We

suppose

by

d(f)ir]cn

in a language

in

which

stress accent is free to

alter the weight of syllables as it shifts


1

from one

to another.^

See below, p. 238.


152

THE VERB: VOICE.


. , ,, The Middle
,

15S

m
.

Sanskrit

^^

of these postulated conditions, which ^i , course the merest conjecture, we could readily derive the nuance which meets us in

,
.

Out

the earliest accessible developments of Indo-Germanic speech.

The Indian grammarians acutely named the active parasmai" " pada and the middle dtmane-pada, a word for another and " " " for oneself respectively. Thus ^('(jate would be he sacrifices
dtmane is present in " the context, is he sacrifices for another." The essence of the middle therefore lies in its calling attention to the agent as
for himself," while ydjati, unless the dat.

in

some way

closely concerned with the action. characteristic is ultimately found

The same
in other

languages. In Latin the middle has been somewhat obscured formally by the entrance of the r suffix, which it shares with its most intimate relative, the Keltic branch.

But

this

has not caused any confusion with the active

so that

the Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit middle voice may be put together, the differentia of Latin being that it has made no reserve like the Greek aorist and future middle, in lending its middle

forms
,

to

the

invading passive.

In our inquiry into the

only or

meaning conveyed by the middle, we naturally start with the verbs which are found in active middle only, to both of which classes the unsatisfactory
"
if

name

should be given, deponent Typical words not used in the middle,


eat,

"

retained for either.

in the parent language,

are the originals of our verbs


SiScofjui

come, am,

and the Greek

(simplex) and pew


eiro^ai
(

while no active can be traced for


fiaivofiai,,

veoybai,

sequor),

fnjrLOfxat
"

metior),

Kd9i]^ai, Kelixai}
"

The former

class

will be seen
;

to denote

as likewise do the an action, an occurrence, or a state " latter, but prevailingly such as take place in the sphere of their subject, the whole subject being concerned in the action."

Where
cases

the distinction
arise in

is

so fine,

it

is

easily seen that

many

which we can no longer detect it, and are in Our investigation must take of over-refining if we try. danger account of the rather extensive categories in which one part

must

of the

verb aflects the middle and another the active form.


from Brugmaun, Knrze

We

I qTiote

vergl.

Gramm.

% 799,

and mainly follow

his account throughout this paragraph.

154

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


of cases in

have a number
attaches
itself

which the
to

"

"

strong

perfect active

in

Intransitive

middle, either figuring meaning the parts of a verb which has no other among r^^^i^Q forms, or siding with the intransitive
of the active is transithis,

the

Perfects
in

middle where the rest tive. So conspicuous is

that the

grammars

which we learnt Greek thirty years ago actually gave " " rervrra the product, by the way, of an inventive imagination as the perfect middle of that highly irregular and defective verb which in those days was our model regular.^ As exx. of this attachment we may cite jejova from jLvofiai and iXijXvda from ep'^^o/xai," with ai^ewya, kardvat, uTroXcoXa, crean^ira, and iretroiOa as intransitive perfects from transitive verbs. Among the few remaining strong perfects occurring

aKrjKoa, KeKpa'ya^ ireTrovOa, reT{e)v^a, and from verbs with a future middle. We have the defectives otSa, eoiKa, and etwOa and the two isolated actives evy]vo^a and jeypa(f)a remain the only real exceptions to the rule wliich finds some link with the middle in each of the The relatively few survivors of the primitive perfect active. list might perhaps be slightly extended from other vernacular Greek thus djijo^^a (uyeio'^a, dye(o^a) is found freely in The conjecture papyri, and belongs to a purely active verb. that the perfect originally had no distinction of active and

in the

NT, we note
as

elX'r)(^a,

middle, its person-endings being peculiar throughout, affords the most probable explanation of the facts when the much
:

later -Ka perfect arose, the distinction

had become
p

-,

universal.

Future Middle
in Active sense
for

,,.

Parallel with this peculiarity, but


.

much more
n
ii.

the category or middle lutures attached to active verbs. As an abnormality


extensive,
is

^i

V.

suffer

which no reason could be detected, it naturally began to from levelling in Hellenistic, but is still prominent. We
in

have

NT

aKovcrco as well as uKovaofjuai,

Kpd^w beside KeKpdpevaw,


crTrovSdcro),

^ofiai,

yeXdaa), e/XTTTvaco,

d'7ravr7]crco, Slco^co,

In this the grammars followed ancient authority

"

thus Dionysius Thrax


olov wiwoida.^

says,

fxeaoTijs 8e

ij

TTOTS /xev ivepyeiav iroTe de irdOos rrapiffTuiaa,

Su(f>0opa, TTOir] a a /j,T]v, iypa'il/dfiriv.''

Tlie aorist fjXdov


this defective verb.
^

is

really

due to the influence of a third constituent root

in

KeKpa^ofiaL

is

only formally passive.

THE VERB: VOICE.


'^(opyjaco, efiirat^Q),

155

the selected

list of

all these from upirdao), Kkey^w, dfiapTi'](T(o such verbs in Rutherford's small raammar

which supplies only about as many exx. of the (Some of these active futures, indeed, have warrant in classical Greek of other dialects than Attic, even from the Homeric period but the
of Attic Greek,

preservation of the old future middle.

list will sufficiently illustrate

the weakening of this anomaly.)


find

In spite
'yvMcro/xat,,
\7']/u,ylro/jLai,

of

this,

we

still

in

NT

o-^ojxat,

-(Syjaofiai,

(f)d'yofxai,
Trio/jiai,,

aTrodavovfiai,
Treaovfiai,

KOfilao/jiac

and

Ko/xiovfiai,

re^Ofxai,

(j)v^o/xai.,

which are

enough
obsolete.

to

show that the phenomenon was anything but Eutherford classes most of them as " verbs which
"

denote the exercise of the bodily functions or " intellectual " and he would suggest that " the or emotional activity
;

notion of willing implied in the future tense" reason of the peculiarity. Brugmann connects

may
it

be the

with the

This tendency of the strong aorist to be intransitive. would naturally prompt the transitive use of the sigmatic
aorist

and consequently the


itself to

future, so that the middle future

attaches
tion
is

the active intransitive forms.


^yjao/jbac,

only invoked for cases like exclude Eutherford's suggestion.

The explanaand does not


take the

We

may

fairly

existence of this large class of futures as additional evidence of a close connexion between the middle flexion and the
stressing of the agent's interest in the action of the verb. What has been said of the history of Use of the how the Middle prepares us for the statement Middle
:

far is it

that this voice

reflexive.
flexive.

As

^j empiric matter of

quite inaccurately described grammarians as essentially reis

fact,

the

proportion of strictly

In reflexive middles is exceedingly small. as the clearest example, diTi'i'y^aTo (Mt 27^)

NT we may

cite

and a survival

from classical Greek. But even here one may question whether the English intransitive choke is not a truer parallel It is curious that in than the reflexive hang oneself. Winer's scanty list of exx. (WM 316), presumably selected as the most plausible, we have to discount all the rest. Aovoiiai accompanies its correlate vi'TTTOfiai and its one decisively middle form (5? Xovaafievrj, 2 Pet 2-"^) would raise diffi;

culties

if

it

occurred in a better Hellenist.

Certainly,

if

the

156

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


than passive, sundry

pig's ablutions are really reflexive rather

To our author at any rate current notions need revising. In citing did not suggest willing co-operation.^ XovarafxevT)
eKpv^r) is not KpvTTTOfMai, (Jn 8^^), bonus dormitat Homerus middle in form, nor does the verb show any distinct middle In irapacrKeudaeTat (1 Co 14^) the intransitive in NT. make preparations, gives a better sense than the prepare,
:

example as fih contemporary But though no doubt papyrus OP 295, fxr] tr/cXuXXe eaTtjv. a reflexive meaning ultimately accrued to the Middle, and in MGr almost drives other uses off the field, it would
reflexive.

We

might

bring

in

such

an

(TKvXKov

Lk 7^ compared with

the illiterate

active

If the be wrong to suppose that it was originally there. middle indicates that the action is transitive, the

goes

agent himself, a sense which the concentration on the agent naturally Thus vi'jrTOfiat is " I wash," characteristic of the middle. with or without object, but implying that the action stops

no

further

than

the

comes

out

of

with myself.
"

If

then there
is,

is

no

myself

if

there

vinnofiai

object, viVTo/j-ai " I ra? %et/3a'?

="

1 wash wash my

Bearinff of the

^^^^^^s."

use is a Germanic speech. Intransitive from the fundamental idea of the development middle and from intransitive to passive is but a step. The well-known classical use of airodv^a-Kei, viro tlvo'^, as
natural
;

Passive upon Theory of Miadle.

This characteristic produced a passive use of the middle, in Brugmann's opinion, before the dialectic differentiation of Indo-

correlative
It

to

a'KOKTelvei
to

rt?,

illustrates

the

development.

us strange that the same form should be used indifferently as active or passive in meaning that, for example, ivepyov/uuevr} in Jas 5^^ should be translated

may seem
"

"

working
to decide.
^

" ^ with only the context (EV) or inwrought," Our own coincident transitive and intransitive,

of the proverb suggests that it originated in from comedy. Was 2 Pet citing from memory a verse the If so, the original would of course metrical nature of which he did not realise ? not admit \ov(rafiivri it would run \e\ovfiivy} 5'6s ei's KvXia/j.bi' ^op^bpov, or \ovde1<r

The rhythmical conchision


line

an iambic

ixTrat. Cs,

or the like.

See

Mayor in

loc,

But see below, p. 238. and J. A. Robinson, Exih.

247.

W.

F.

Moulton strongly
it

favoured the second rendering. marginal place, is hard to divine

Why
:

it

the Revisers did not give was there in their first revision.

even a

THE VERB:
however,
or
is

VOICE.

157

would be if ambiguity which


"

almost equally capable of producing ambiguity, it were not for the studied avoidance of
is

language. exhibit the same form both as transitive and intransitive

He who

necessarily characteristic of an analytic " hides can find," He who hides is safe,"
;

and it would be easy to devise a context in which the second would become really ambiguous. From what has been said, it is clear that The Middle the most practical equivalent of the Middle paraphrased by Reflexive will generally be the active with the dative
^f ^|^g reflexive pronoun. This is in fact the nearest approach to a general statement which we can formulate, premising of course that it is rough in itself,

in Dative case,

In Trpoa-e'xeTe and an exaggeration of the differentia. eavToU (Lk 12^), "pay attention for yourselves," we have a " be on your phrase differing little from (pvXdaaeade (v.^^), Mk 14*'^ oTraa-dguard," being only rather more emphatic.
IJLevo<i Ti-jv

T.

/JL.

avTov
see

/xd'^atpav is paraphrased by Mt (26^^) direaTraoev here, as in Ac 14^^ where 8tapp)]^avT<; ra ifxaTia


:

eavTMv

replaces

the

more idiomatic

Ziapprj^dixevot,

ra

i,

we

expressing the same shade of Sometimes we find redundance, as when in Jn 1 9-* meaning. eavTOL<i stands against the unaccompanied Bie/xeplaavTo

the possessive gen.

Midges
myself,"
is

A few verb in the same quotation Mt 27^^ of the general principle typical illustrations " I call to may be added. IIpoaKdXov/LLai,
clear
"
:

its

opposite aTrcodov/xai,

thrust

away

from myself," is not really different, since would show a legitimate dativus commodi.
to

diroidoi

epLavTw

We

have in fact

vary the exact relation of the reflexive perpetually if we are to represent the middle in the form appropriate to the particular example. Hvve^ovXevaavro Mt 26* answers
.

'

o-vve/SovXevaav kavroh, they counselled " here we have the redi^rocal one another
to
:

"

they picked middle, as in pidyeaQai} 'E^eXeyovro Lk 14'^ " " cf the distinction chose out for themselves," and so
:

"

this

Cf the closeness of dWr/Xovs and middle in Indoc/. Forsch. v. 114.


comfort one another
"

eavrovs.

Brugnianu has some notes on


va
irapiTYopridov/j.,

Cf

MGr

"that we

may

(Abbott 228, distich

56).

158
of

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


and
alpov/juai.
it

alpa)

UeiOeiv

is

"

to

exercise

suasion

"
:

in the middle

keeps the action within the sphere of the " to admit suasion to oneself." agent, and consequently means " " I make XpMfiai, from the old noun %/3>7 necessity," is

hence the myself what is necessary with something Less instrumental, as with the similar middle utor in Latin.
for

"

"

easy to define are the cases of dynamic middle, where the middle endings only emphasised the part taken by the subject in the action of the verb, thus vij^fo and v^^o/xai (not NT) " to swim."
. '

"

The category
for the
stage.

will include a

number

of

verbs in which

it

is

useless to exercise our ingenuity on interpreting the middle,

development never progressed beyond the rudimentary We need not stay to detail here the cases where the

middle introduces a wholly new meaning. On the point of principle, it should however be noted that mental as opposed
TUT
1

physical applications of the idea of the verb will often be mtroduced this way,
^^

since mental action

is

especially confined within the sphere of


"

the agent. Thus KaTaXa/jb^dvo) seize, overtake" (Jn 1^ 12^''), " in the middle denotes mental comprehending," as Ac 4^^. " On the whole the conclusion arrived at
Hellenistic
ivElddle
^^^^^^

^^

^-^^^

^j^^

-^rj^ ^^^^^gj^g

^^g^g

perfectly

capable of preserving the distinction between the active and middle." Such is the authoriof Blass (p. 186),

which makes it superfluous Differences between Attic and for us to labour any proof. in details are naturally found, and the unHellenistic use classical substitutions of active for middle or middle for active are so numerous as to serve the Abbe Viteau for proof As Thumb remarks (Hellenof Hebraism on a large scale. an a mere glance into Hatzidakis's Einleitung ismus 127), the absence of which from Viteau's list indispensable classic, would have of works consulted accounts for a great deal him that in the Hellenistic period Greeks by birth shown were guilty of many innovations in the use of the voices The NT which could never have owed anything to Hebrew. exx. which Hatzidakis gives (pp. 195 ff.) are not at all inThe consistent with the dictum of Blass quoted above. of the middle was, as we have seen, not at all sharply sphere
tative

summary

THE VERB

VOICE,

159

delimited, and usage inevitably varied in different localities There are plenty of middles in Attic, and and authors. even in Homer, in which the rationale of the voice is very hard to define. Naturally such words may have dropped a no longer intelligible distinction, just as popular Latin did in such words as scqiLor and utor, while in other words the distinction may have been applied in a difWe can see why 'yaixelaOat, = nuhcre fell ferent manner. out of use in Hellenistic ^ even if a need was still felt for a separate word to suit the bride's part in a wedding, the appropriateness of the middle voice was not clear, and The accuracy with which the distinction was liable to lapse. the middle was used would naturally vary with the writers' Greek culture. Note for example how Mt and Lk correct
:

the

i<j)vXa^djj,i]v

In

Mk

2^^

oSoTToielv

10'^**. (legem ohservare) of their source in have removed another incorrect use, unless they for to be read there with B etc. (WHmg) is
;

Mk

68ov
69),
less

TToielv

means

"

construct a

road

"

and the middle should have been used

(Gildersleeve Synt. In the instead.

educated papyrographers we find blunders of this kind considerably earlier than the time when the more subtle

meanings

of

the middle disappeared.**

we

find iav alprjre

you like"

(GH

As early as 95 B.C. and eav alprjade used side by side for " if 36), and in the preceding century hiaXvwfjiev

These are of appears in the sense of ScaXvoofieOa in LPc. course sporadic, but some violations of classical usage have
almost become
fixed.

This especially applies to the idiom-

atic use of TTOLetadat

with a noun as substitute for a verb.

Here the middle sense was not clearly discernible to the plain man, and iroLeiv invades the province of the middle
very largely.

We

still

have

ixveiav Troteladat (as in

Eph

1^^)
B.C.),

BU BU
and
TT.

632 (ii/A.D.), Kara^vyrfv iroietadai, TP 5 970 (ii/A.D.), etc. But the recurrent phrase
(aov)
6^
iroiu)
tt.

(ii/i

to irpoaKv-

vrjfid

Mt

only once (Letronne 117) shows the middle; e\ei]pioavvT]v, Mk 15^ avfi^ovXtov it.," Lk 18''
serve as specimens of a fairly large

GKSiK'qaLv, etc., will

of marriage contracts Speaking generally it survives in the legal language [See p. 248. 496 (early ii/A.D.). Cf the modern jihrase av/x^ovXio yia va KapLovv "to consult," of physicians (Abbott 200). (On Troielf in such phrases, cf Robinson, Uj^h. 172.)
1
:

as

OP

160
class

A GEAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


of usages, in

which we cannot accuse the writers

of

ignorance, since the middle could only defend itself by prescription.

So when a new phrase was developed, there might be hesitation between the voices awapau Xoyov appears in
:

Mt

1823 25^^

BU

775

(ii/A.D.),
is

but the middle, as in


classical in spirit.

FP 109
In places

(i/A.D.),

OP 113

(ii/A.D.),

more

however where an educated Hellenist like Paul markedly diverges from the normal, we need not hesitate on occasion to regard his variation as purposed: thus rjpfMoadfxijv 2 Co 11^
itself by the profound personal interest the took in this spiritual irpo^vrjaTLKr']. apostle This is not the place for discussing, or _ ., even cataloguing, all the verbs which vary from classical norm in respect of the middle

fairly justifies

voice

but there
longer.

is

little

The

one special case on which we must tarry distinction between anoi and ahoOfxai,
622-25

claims attention

because of the juxtaposition of the two in


iq^s-ss
(

Jas

42'-,

Jn

5^ Mk

^ Mt

2020-22).

grammarian Ammonius

declares that alTco (iv/A.D.)

The means to

ask simpliciter, with no thought of returning, while alrovfiai involves only request for a loan. This remark serves as an

example

of

the indifferent success of late writers in their

an extinct subtlety. Blass (p. 186) says that was used in business transactions, atTco in requests of alTovfxat a son from a father, a man from God, and others on the same lines. He calls the interchange in Jas and 1 Jn ll.cc.
efforts to trace
"

"

arbitrary James could

but

it is

not easy to understand

how

a writer like

commit

so purposeless a freak as this

would

be.

Mayor
ask
" "

in his note cites


lKecrLa<;,

grammarians who made ahov/xat =

/xed'

or fiera TrapaKXijaeco';, which certainly suits

the idea of the middle better than

When
it

alTCT is thus opposed to alreicrde,"

Ammonius' unlucky guess. Mayor proceeds,

If
its

implies using the words, without the spirit, of prayer." the middle is really the stronger word, we can understand being brought in just where an effect of contrast can be

secured, while in ordinary passages the active would carry as much weight as was needed. For the alternation of active

and middle

in the Herodias story, Blass's ingenious remark " the daughter of Herodias, after the be recalled, that may king's declaration, stands in a kind of business relation to

THE VERB: VOICE.


him"
(p.

161
middle cited

186

n.),

so that the differentia of the

above will hold.

Passive Aorists.

The line ^^^ Passive

of
is

demarcation between Middle


generally

drawn by the help

a soimd
It

of the passive aorist, which is supposed to be criterion in verbs the voice of which is doubtful.

should

criterion has little or

however be pointed out no value. The

that
"

historically this " aorist passive strong

nothing but a special active formation, as its show, which became passive by virtue of its preendings
in
-7)v

is

ference for intransitive force.

The

-Ot^v aorist

was

originally

developed,

according Wackernagel's practically certain conjecture, out of the old aorist middle, which in nonthematic formations ran like eBoixijv eSoro when e86di]<;

to

the thematic -ao displaced the older

-61]^

(Skt.

-thds),

the

form

e8607]<i

was

set

free

analogy of the -rjv aorist, passive than the identic formation seen in Latin

form a new tense on the which was no more necessarily


to
Jic/hes,

hahct.

from %at/3(w (also )(alpoixai in MGr, by formal levelling),^ where the passive idea remained imperceptible even in NT times the formally passive eKpu/St], from Kpvirrco, in Jn 8^^ (cf Gen 3^*^) will serve as an ex. of a pure In Homer (cf intransitive aorist from a transitive verb.-

Compare

i^dpijv

Monro
in use

HG

45) the -drjv aorist from the aorist middle

is
;

and

very often indistinguishable it is unsafe to suppose

in -Otjv or

that in later periods of the language the presence of an aorist " " -rjv is proof of a passive meaning in a deponent

Of course the -6t]v forms, with their derivative future, verb. were in the very large majority of cases passive but it may be questioned whether there was markedly more passivity in " the " feel of them than there was in the present or perfect formations. For example, from airoKpivo/xai,, " answer," we have aTreKpLvdjjbrjv in Attic Greek and predominantly in the papyri, while aTreKpldrjv greatly outnumbers it in the NT but the evidence noted above (p. 39) shows that the two forms were used concurrently in the Koivrj, and without
; ;

So Ac 3^ D cf Tiygaeus in Arist. Pax 291 (Blass). To match these specimens of formal passives with mifldle meaning, we may cite middles in passive sense. Thus BU 1053, 1055 (i/j;.c. to ev 6(piXrj Orja-ofjievov, "the amount that shall be charged as due."
1
:

II

162

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

the slightest difference of sense. W. F. Moidton was inclined " " a faint passive force ... in most of the instances to see
of earddr^v in

NT, though observing that


"

it

"

is

in regular
n.).

use as an intransitive aorist


also

in

MGr (WM
^

315
in

He

4^* iKoifjLTjdrjv suggested possibility be a true passive, " was put to sleep," which gives a might A purely middle use of Koi/xrjdrivat, strikingly beautiful sense.
"fell

the

that

Th

asleep,"

is

patent in such phrases as


eypayfra eina-ToXia

Ch P

riviKa

yfjbeWov

KocfjbT]6r]vat

/? (iii/B.c).

The active
prose,'-^

Koifidv however,

though apparently dormant in

classical

revives in the
clear passive
"

LXX, as Gen 24^1. in FP 110 tm (I/a.D.)

We may also

compare the

may

he folded,"

as the edd. translate.

ra irpo^aTa eKel KoifxijOPji, It seems possible

therefore to conceive the passive force existing side by side with the simple intransitive, as apparently happened in eVraOijv (see

note

below)

but

we cannot speak with

confidence.

Ground

Perhaps the matter is best summed up ^^^^ ^^ remark that the two voices were not
differentiated with

anything like the same

sharpness as is inevitable in analytic formations such as we use in English. have seen how the bulk of the forms

We

were indifferently middle or passive, and how even those which were appropriated to one voice or the other are

Common ground between perpetually crossing the frontier. them is to be observed in the category for which we use the
translation

35

(ii/B.c.)
;

a middle

submit to," " let oneself be," etc. Thus in Tb P eavTov alrida-eTat, "will get himself accused," is but in 1 Co 6^ dZiKeiaOe and diroa-repelaOe are
"
'
'

described as passives by Blass, who says that " to let in the " sense of occasioning some result is expressed by the middle The dividing line is a fine one at best. 'Atto(p. 185).
rypd-yjraaOai

in

Lk

2^
^,

might seem

to

determine the voice of


v.^

the present in

vv.^-

but Blass finds a passive in


"stand," and

Is

'EcTTadriKa is used as aor. to ctt^kw


92).

iaT-qd-rjKo.

to arrivw

"place"
:

(Thumb Handh.
^

Cf iropeveiv and (po^eTv, which have entirely given up their active we should hardly care to call TropevOiivai and <po[ii)Orivai passive. In MGr we have some exx. of the opposite tendency, as Sat/xoJ'/j'w "drive mad" (Abbott 224,
no. 47)
:

in older
f.

Greek this verb

is

purely middle.

See other exx, in Hatzi-

dakis 198

THE VERB: VOICE.


there adequate
aTToKoylrovrat,

163
them ? Formally and so are ^diTTLaa;

evidence for separating


5^^

Gal

(Dt 23^),

is

middle,'

and a-TToXovaai, Ac 22^^ (cf 1 Co e^i lO^); but if the tense were present or perfect, could we decide ? The verb inrordaaw
furnishes

us

with a rather
is

important
"

question. Is it passive

What

the voice of

application of this virora'-p'](TeTai in 1 Co 15^^?


"

"

be subjected

hy as well as

subject all

things to

him"?
"

Or

is it

middle

"be

to

him that did


subject"?

Findlay
pass, in

{EGT in loc.) calls it middle in force, like the 2nd aor. Rom 10^, in consistency with the initiative ascribed to

I incline to this, but without accepting Christ throughout." " the reflexive subject himself," which accentuates the difference between the identical viroTwyrj and vTrorayi'jaeTac the
;

be subject explains both, and the context must In Eom 10^ the RV renders "did decide the interpretation.
neutral
is

"

"

not subject themselves," despite the passive; and the reflexive an accurate interpretation, as in vTrordaaeade Col 3^^.
itself whether we are at liberty to press the passive force of the aorist and future and perfect of eyelpci), when applied to the Resurrection of Christ.

The question next presents

glance at the concordance will show how often rj'yepdr^v etc. are merely intransitive and we can hardly doubt that 'ijyepdrj,
;

in

But if np (cf Delitzsch). the context (as in 1 Co 15) strongly emphasises the action of It is in fact God, the passive becomes the right translation.
16^ and the
like, translated

Mk

more

for

the exegete

between

rose

and was
:

raised,

than for the grammarian to decide even if the tense is apparently

unambiguous

one

may

speaker of Greek really


^

confess to a grave doubt whether the felt the distinction.^

similarly treated with reference to its voice, whether we The various arguments in favour of margin of RV. the margin, to which the citation of Dt I.e. commits us above, are now reinforced by Ramsay's advocacy, Exjws. for Nov. 1905, pp. 358 ff. He takes the wish

The verb must be

translate with text or

rather more seriously than I have done {infr. 201) r but I should be quite ready See also Findlay in loc. to go with Mr G. Jackson, in the same Expos., p. 373.
{Ex2).
^

328

f.).

how

made to Wellh. 25 f., for exx. showing was largely replaced by other locutions in Aramaic (osjipcia'ly the impersonal plural, p. 58 f. above), and consequently in Synoptic translations.
the Passive, reference should be
this voice

On

CHAPTER

VIII.

The Vekb: The Moods.


The Moods which wc have
in general
^^^

to discuss will be

Imperative, Subjunctive, and Optative, and those uses of the Indicative which make it

modus irrcalis." In this preliminary chapter we shall aim at evaluating the primary meanings of the Moods,
a

"

leaving
fication

to
of

the systematic
their
in
uses,

grammar the exhaustive


especially in dependent are characterised by a

classi-

clauses.

The moods

question

common
mind on

subjective element, representing the part of the speaker. It

an

attitude

of

is not possible for us to determine with any certainty the primitive root-idea of each mood. The Imperative is tolerably clear it represented

prohibition was not originally associated with it, and in Greek only partially elbowed its way in, to be elbowed

command

out again in the latest developments of the language. The Subjunctive cannot be thus simply summarised, for the only certain predication we can make of its uses is that they all

concern future time.

We

shall see that its force can mostly

be represented by shall or will, in one of their various senses. Whether the Subjunctive can be morphologically traced to a
single origin is very problematic. possible unification, on the basis of a common mood-sign -a-, was conjectured by the

writer some years ago


Giles,

{AJP

x.

285

f.

see the

summary

in

Manual^ 460

n.).

It is at least a curious coincidence

that the mood-sign thus obtained for the Subjunctive should functionally resemble the -yc- under which the Optative can

confessedly

be unified.

We

are

dealing

with

prehistoric

developments, and it is therefore futile to speculate whether it would be more than a coincidence, should these two closely allied moods prove to have been formed by suffixes which
164

THE VERB: THE MOODS.


make noims

165

of nearly identical function. However clearly the Optative may be rednced to a single formation, it gives us nevertheless no hope of assigning its meanings to a

root-idea

Optative and

Potential,

may and might

in

single their

various uses, defy all efforts to reduce them to a In unity. this book the discussion of the Potential might almost be
lines of the famous chapter on snakes in Iceland, but for literary survivals in the Lucan writings. (See pp. 1 9 7 K) No language but Greek has preserved both Subjunctive and

drawn on the

Optative
fairly

as

Hellenistic

separate and living elements in speech, and Greek took care to abolish this singularity in a
It

ought to be added, before we pass that in a historical account of the Moods a fourth, the Injunctive, has to be interpolated, to explain certain phenomena which disturb the development
drastic way.

from

this general introduction,

of the others,

and perhaps was simply an Injunctive


<xp^;e?

of the

Indicative as well.
or
aorist

The

imperfect

indicative

without the augment.

Xvaare and

how

\ii6rjT6, \vere, will suffice as specimens, enough to illustrate largely it contributed to the formation of the Imperative.

Avov, Xveade, 'kvaaaOe,

Syntactically it represented the bare combination of verbal idea with the ending which supplies the subject and its prevailing use was for prohibitions, if we may judge from
;

Sanskrit,

where

it still

remains to some extent

alive.

The

fact that this primitive mood thus occupies ground appropriate to the Subjunctive, while it supplies the Imperative ulti-

mately with nearly all nearness of the moods.


prohibition, even in the

its

forms, illustrates the syntactical Since the Optative also can express

NT (Mk
^

11^^),

we

see

how much

common ground
Particles affect'

is

shared by all the subjective moods. Before taking the Moods in detail, we
^^^^^
ll^-^^jg

^^^^^^

^^.gj,

^^le

consideration
vitally

ij^^

of

two

affect

which their constructions, av and firj.


important
particles
:

The

a very marked peculiarity of Greek. It is a kind of leaven in a Greek sentence itself untranslatable,

former of these
it

is

transform the meaning of a clause in which it is inserted. In Homer we find it side by side with another

may

/cei/ or Ke (probably be somewhat weaker in force

particle,

Aeolic), which appears to the later dialects generally

166
select
"

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


one
or
of

the
its

other for
is

exchisive

use.

The general

meaning very easily laid down. Under the circumstances," " in that case," " anyhow," may The idiomatic use of " just," common express it pretty well.^ in Scotland, approximates to av (Kev) very fairly when used
definition

not

in apodosis

iyoo Be Kev avTO'i

"

eXw^ai,

I'll jist

tak her mysel'."

had become stereotyped by the time we (See p. 239.) reach Hellenistic Greek, and we need not therefore trace its
It
earlier

development.

Two

originally connected

usages are

now

In one, av stands with optative sharply distinguished. or indicative, and imparts to the verb a contingent meaning, depending on an if clause, expressed or understood, in the
context.

In the other, the av

see pp. 42 f., 56) has formed a close contact with a conjunction or a relative, to which it generally imparts the meaning -soever of course this exaggerates the differentia in

written edv

(in the

NT

period more often

most

cases.

Here the subjunctive, invariable

in Attic, does

not always appear in the less cultured Hellenistic writers. How greatly this use preponderates in the NT will best be shown by a table ^
:

"Av (idv) with subj. (or indie.)

"Av conditional, with verb.

THE VERB: THE MOODS.

167

would The disproportion between these totals 172 and 51 We be immensely increased if idv (if) and otuv were added. shall see later (pp. 198 and 200) that the conditional av is The other use, though extremely abundant rapidly decaying.
in our period, falls

away rapidly long

before the papyri

fail

and even within the NT we notice some writers who This prepares us for never show it, or only very seldom.
us
;

the ultimate disappearance of the particle except in composi^ a-dv as or ^ahen, from ta? tion (MGr civ if, from the old 3,v

av

see below

and kuv

even,

used like the

NT kciv kuI,

not

affecting construction). proceed to mention a

the

We NT use

of av.

etc.

ItSratilVS

few miscellaneous points in There are three places in which the old Ac 2*^ and iterative force seems to survive .^ ^ and 1 r^ 11uo i^9 4-^^ KauoTi av Tt<? 'x^peiav et')(ev,
:
,

ji

-\

-\

led (from day to day) translates the last by an English iterative construction which Goodwin coincides with the conditional, as in Greek
ft)9

av

"

rjiyeaOe.^

As you would be

"

MT

249

dv.

pleads for a historical connexion of these two uses of The aorist no longer appears in this construction as in

Then we should note the classical Greek. appearance of cIj? av in constructions which Eom 15^* is foreshadow the MGr idiom just mentioned.^ an interesting case, because of the present subjunctive that " " follows when I am on my way (durative) transfers into In the subjunctive the familiar use of present for future.
:

Co 11^* it has the easier aorist, "whenever I shall have In 2 Co 10^, however, it arrived," and so in Phil 2^^. " ^ MGr adv has gone further, and takes means as it were." The weakening the indicative as an ordinary word for when. of the connexion between compounds of dv and the sub1

junctive
^

is

seen in

the appearance of

the indicative with

see above, p. 43 n. {if) in di> 384) would make all these iiarallel with the use of 6irov I deal with the question below. d^'' and the like. indie, in 3 For vernacular evidence see Par P 26 (ii/B.c with gen. abs.), 46 (ii/B.c
'dv

On

and idv
(p.

NT

Winer

c.

Mk

BM 20 (ii/B.c.) crwera^as ws cLu ds with aor. subj.) the Rosetta Stone) ws Av (xvveaTijKvias, etc. (ii/B.c.

M^fM(piv

OGIS
:

90-^

12*.

Both the exx. of &v c. partic. quoted by Winer (p. 378) are ws S.v add 2 Mac I have noted one ex. of genuine Hv c. pte. in a Koij'?; inscr., IMA iii. 174
B.V

(A.D. 5) 8iKai6Tepov

aiodevra.

168

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


(if),

orav and edv


infrequently in
,,

and other words

of

the kind.

So not

Mk,
^^

as 3'^ otuv idewpovv, 11-^ orav aT7]K6Te, 11^^ orav eyevero add Rev 4^ otuv Bcoaouaiv,
:

"

indie

7]-\lravTo,

Rev

oTav ypot^ev. Parallel with these are OTTOV av elaeTTopeveTO and oaoi civ 6^*^ 14^ oirov av vrrdyei (where however we are

Mk

to spell vTrdyy if we like). Since these are in the least cultured of writers, and include presents and

entirely free

NT

futures as well as past tenses, we should hardly class them with the cases of iterative dv just given from well-educated
writers such as
kinship.
If

Luke and

dv added

-ever to

Paul, though there is an obvious the force of a relative or con-

junction, there seemed no reason to forbid its use with a past The papyri yield tense where that meaning was wanted.

only a small number of parallels, showing that in general Thus BU 607 (ii/A.D.) the grammatical tradition held.
oirorav

dvatpovvrai,
(ii/B.C.)

PP 126
orav

(iv/A.D.)

oV
dp'^d<i

dv
et?

Trda-^^ere,

Par
(

P 26

e^iiixev

Kar

to

lepov

= merely ivheri), BU 424 (ii/iii A.D.) = when), BM 331 (ii/A.D.) oaa idv

eirdv i7rvd6/j.r]v
7rap6Xa/36/M7)v.

(also

The

tendency to drop the distinction of lohc^i and whenever"' may be connected with the fact that oiroTe is freely used for ^ohe7i 'Edv with indicaso the later uncials in Lk 6^. in papyri

tive is

found in

Th

3^ ar/jKere, 1

Jn

5^^ othafiev, to

mention

only two cases in which indie, and subj. are not formally Winer quotes even edv yada, from Job identical in sound.

22^ (y<iA.), and similar atrocities (as the Atticist would count We may add a selection them) from the Byzantine writers. 62 Par P 1 8 idv fia-)(^ovaiv fjuer eaov. from papyri (ii/B.c.) Tb P 58 (ii/B.C.) edv Bet BU 546 edvirep eKirXypooaovaLv. OP 237 (ii/A.D.) idv 8' daiv. AP 93 (Byz.) idv olBev. There are several exx. of idv rjv, but in idv (^aiverai. (ii/A.D.)
:

some cases
I

it

phenomenon

for this curious recurrent certainly stands for r] xv. 38, 436, and above, p. 49 see notes in CB
:

cannot therefore quote with certainty.

(See further

p.

239.)

The same lesson


't

ounds

which

still

taught by conjunctions take the subjunctive, though dv has


fall out.

is

been allowed to

It does

not seem to
written, and
(Ptol.)

make any difference whether eiw? or ew? dv is Thus PP 13 so with many other compounds.
"Seep. 21S.

oaa

THE VERB: THE MOODS


6(f)ei\o)(Ttv Tiue9,

169

ov fj ^povov, 237 (ii/A.D.) e</>' Tb P 6 (ii/B.C.) eo)? fievcoai, GH 38 7rpoaTeKi]Tai, e&)9 KUTa/Sfj'i, OP 34 SiSorw (i/B.C.) irplu avToj (ii/A.D.) /i?;Te The prevalence of this omission in iTria-TeWTjrai, etc., etc.

CPE

24, 25

oaa avTcZ

the papyri with


fiexpi ov, eco?,
cf

conjunctions

irpiv, irpo

rod, etc.),

Mk

1432, 2
TTplv
(?/),

Pet

V\ Lk

{axp^, H-^XP^' paralleled in the 371. 138, etc. see the list in
is

meaning

imtil

NT

WM

With
226)
^,

where
,

it is

however, the av occurs in the only place (Lk used with subjunctive.^

Co 7^ fjih aTroarepeiTe a\X?jXoi;?, * r -A av [om. B, probably to ease a difficulty] Sk avfi^aivov irpo'i Kaipbv, we have a curious combination which seems to be matched in the papyri.2 So BU 326 el Ti eav avQponTivov 'na\6ri\ and et Tt eav piera Tavra (ii/A.D.)
In
'

El

M.11TI

av.

>

/j,i]Tc

if I should leave a codicil the 'ye^papbpeva KaTokiTro), latter phrase is repeated subsequently without edv in this
:

"

"

rather illiterate

will.

OP 105
el
Tii/09

(ii/A.D.)

et tl

dWo

alav (e>%w,

PP 130
(Iv/a.d.)

(iii/A.D.)
el

i]hv xP^O'

^oi earip.

BM

233

Tc

civ

dira^aTrXo)';

dva\war)(;.
:

These documents

are too illiterate for illustrating Paul some early scribe is more likely to be responsible than the apostle. Note that Origen quotes edv p^Tjri. This explanation (Deissmann's) seems

on the whole preferable to the alternative cited from Buttmann 380 n. Winer's editor himself compared the dv to that in kciv and w? av which does not affect construction cf Tb P 28 el kuv Svvarat. (ii/B.C.) More important still in its influence on
in

WM

the moods
distinction

is

the subjective negative

/x?},

the

between which and the objective ne (replaced in Greek by ov) goes back to the period of Indo-Geraianic unity, and survives into the Greek of the present day. The history of p,r] has been one of continuous aggression. It started in
principal clauses, to express prohibition.

As

early as

Homer

^ Lnke once uses it with sul>j. and once with opt., both times correctly with a negative clause preceding (Lk I.e., Ac 25^"). The papjyrus writers are not so Elsewhere in the infin. construction is found. particular.

NT

See Deissmann

BS

201 n.

He

quotes

BU

326, but will not allow that

tl

H-rjTL &i> is

a kind of analysis of euu

ix-fjTL,

though
added

this gives the


if I

meaning
it

coiTectly.

Blass", p. 321,

has not summarised

him
S.v is

quite adequately,
to
el /jltitl

mann correctly.
or
fire,

The point
in

is

that

as

understand Deissmight be to 6irov


p. 239.

meaning unless

a given

case, unless 2)erhaps.

See further

170
firi

A GRAMMAE OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


iu a large to appeal

had established itself uses, to which we have


the true nature of the

and complex variety

of

when we seek to know modal constructions as we come to

Since every Greek grammar gives the ordinary rules distinguishing the uses of ov and /iry, we need not examine

them.

them here in will come up


this

their historical relationship what must be said best as we deal with the moods seriatim. But
:

the broad differences between Hellenistic and earlier Greek in


respect raise questions affecting the
infinite.

and especially the verb


the subject briefly here.
,

We
NT

moods as a whole, must therefore sketch

The
KoLvrj
if

difference

of

the

between ov and jjut) in the becomes a very simple

accept the rule which Blass lays down (p. 253). " All instances," he says, " may practically be brought under the single rule, that ov negatives the indicative, fit] the other

matter

we

moods, including the infinitive and participle."

In review-

the important addition that in ing Blass, MGr hev (from ovBev, which stepped into the place of ov, as we can easily understand from many of its adverbial
uses in

Thumb makes

NT)

junctive.

The
of his

belongs to the indicative and /J't]{v) to the subclassical paper of Gildersleeve in the first

number

AJF

(1880), on encroachments of
Lucian, makes

fi7]

upon ov

in the later Greek, especially in

very clear standard was irrecoverable in Lucian's day even by the most scrupulous of Atticists cf the parallel case of the optative (below, p. 197). It is of course obvious
it

that the Attic

that the ultimate goal has not been completely reached in times. Mt] has not been driven away from the indicative.

NT

Its use in questions is very distinct

from that

of

ov,^

and

is

254 n.) thinks that /x^rt in Jn 21^ " hardly lends itself to the " Bnt the tone of this word, introducing a certainly not I sni^pose.' We often hear "I hesitant question (as Jn 4^"), is not really inappropriate. suppose you haven't got ... on you, have you?" Moreover, the papyri show us that 7rpo(X(pa.yiov is not so broad a word as "something to eat." See my note, Expos. VI. viii. 437, to which I can now add OP 736 and 738 (cir. a.d. 1). Tlie they might well have apostles had left even iLpTOL behind them once (Mk 8")
^

Blass
'

(p.

meaning

It would normally be fish; cf Mk 6^^. "relish" on this occadon. (While speaking of Jn I.e., I should like to add that the address Waioia, "Lads!", may be paralleled in MGr, e.g. in the Kluiiht ballad, Abbott 42 iraiUa fxov and iraidia, to soldiers.) See further p. 239.
left

the

THE VERB: THE MOODS.


maintained in mains after et

171
Mr;
re^

NT
c.

Greek without
iu

real weakening.

indie,

unfulfilled

conditions,

Mk 1 421 (and Mt). But in simple conditions et ov is common. Luke has 6, Jn 3, Paul 16, Jas 2, and Mt, Heb, 2 Pet, and Eev one each. Against this total of 31, we have 4 exx. of
in simple conditions with verb expressed, and three of firj these (1 Co 15^, 2 Co 13^, Gal 1^) are anything but normal ^ 1 Tim 6^ is more ordinary, according to classical standards. Blass adds el Se fir] olSwi from the agraphon in 1) at Lk 6^.
el
:

except in

El

firj

is

three times as
it is

common

in

NT

as el

ov,

but

we
;

soon see that

restricted to three uses: (1) iu protasis of unreal conditions (2) meaning except, much like ifKi^v
;

Lk (3) with he, meaning otherivise, without verb expressed. 9^^ with a deliberative subjunctive following, is exceptional.
Such being the facts, it is difficult to combat the assertion that el ov came to be the norm ^ though doubtless several of its exx. were correct according to classical standards, as in Eom 8^, where a single word is negatived rather than a A few survivals of fii] in relative sentences presentence.
;

serve literary construction so Ac 15^^ D, 1 Jn 4^ (unless we desert the extant MSS for patristic evidence and read \vei, and Blass) Tit l^^, 2 Pet 1^. with genuine
;

WHmg

example

of the old distinction is

traceable in the otherwise

identic phrases of

Jn

3^^

and

Jn

5^*^

the former states

the charge, q\iod non crediderit, the latter the simple fact, quod But it must be allowed that this is an isolated non credidit.
case.^

We will leave to the next chapter the only other excep.^

tion to Blass's canon, the limited use of ov with the participle. First among the Moods we take up the
It is the simplest possible form "Aye the imperative of dyco, and aye the vocative of dyof, are both of them interjections formed the thematic vowel by isolating the root and adding no suffix e is now generally regarded as a part of the root rather than In our own language, where nouns and verbs have a suffix.
T
.

Imperative. of the verb.

in hosts of cases reunited through the disappearance of suffixes, we can represent this identity easily. " Murder ", in Eussia or

Armenia, might be either verb or noun


1

a general order to

"

See below,

p. 239.

See p. 240.

172

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK,


scream
of

soldiers charging a crowd, or the

one of the victims

The
for

interjection, as

we might

expect, was iuditTerently used

2nd and 3rd


(

Skt. ajatCit,

= age + tod,

person, as is still shown by the Latin agito, the ablative of a demonstrative pro-

from this (moment)," added to make the command more How close is the kinship of the interjection peremptory). and the imperative, is well shown by the demonstrative
noun,

"

adverb Sevpo,

"

hither,"
it

mark

to

make

mean

"

come here

which only needs the exclamation " it even forms a plural


:

shall recall this principle describe the use of the infinitive in commands.

Sevre in this sense.

We

when we

There
one Imperative.
his action, it

variety
''

of

being in Greek a considerable forms in which one man may


.

express to another a wish that is to control will be necessary to examine the tone of that

....

As we might is appropriated to this purpose. from our own language, the imperative has a very expect The context will determine how much decided tone about it. stress it is carrying this may vary from mere permission, as
mood which
:

in
1

Mt

8^^ (cf eTrerpeyjrev in

the presumed source

Mk

5^^) or

to the strongest command. imperative in the Attic Orators, by

Co 7^^

careful study of the Prof. C. W. E. Miller

{AJF
mood

xiii. 399 ff.), brings out the essential qualities of the The grammarian Heras used in hortatory literature. asserted harshness to be a feature of the imperative;^ mogenes

and the sophist Protagoras even blamed Homer for addressing the Muse at the beginning of the Iliad with an imperative.^ By a discriminating analysis of the conditions under which the orators use the imperative. Miller shows that it was most avoided in the proem, the part of the speech where conciliation of the audience's favour was most carefully studied and the criticism of Protagoras, which the ancients took more seriously than many moderns have done, is seen to be simply due to the rhetorician's applying to poetry a rule If a cursory and limited that was unchallenged in rhetoric.
;

observation

may

be

trusted,

the

ethos

of

the

imperative

had not changed in the age


^

of the

papyri.

Imperatives

Zx7';^taTa de rpax^a, yudXtcrra

/.u'^

tu TTpoaraKTiKa,.

A2J. Aristotle Poetics ch. 19.

THE VERB: THE MOODS.

173

are normal in royal edicts, in letters to inferiors, and among equals when the tone is urgent, or the writer indisposed to multiply words they are conspicuously few in petitions.
:

When we come
of

to the NT, we find a very different state The prophet is not accustomed to conciliate his hearers with carefully softened commands and in the imperial edicts of Him who "taught with authority," and the ethical exhortations of men who spoke in His name, we find naturally a large proportion of imperatives. More-

things.

over, even in the language of prayer the imperative is at Gilderhome, and that in its more urgent form, the aorist.

sleeve observes (on Justin Martyr, p. 137), " As in the Lord's Prayer, so in the ancient Greek liturgies the aor. imper.
is

almost exclusively used.

It is the true tense for

'

instant

'

prayer."

The language

of

petition to

human

superiors

is

irocr/aeiii, and various other periphrases the request may be made palatable. To God we whereby are bidden by our Lord's precept and example to present the claim of faith in the simplest, directest, most urgent form with which language supplies us. The distinction between present and enses aorist imperative has been drawn already, ^ , Imperative. to some extent, the discussion of pro-

full of Zeojxai, Ka\w<i

m
.

hibitions
aorist, it

for
is

though the subjunctive has to


to

lie

used in the

question that for this purpose the two moods hardly differ the reason for the ban on /xrj TTohjaov lies buried in the prehistoric stage of the language.
difficult

And whatever

the distinction may be, we must apply the same essential principles to commands and prohibitions, which were felt by the Greeks to be logically identical The only difference categories: see Miller op. cit. 416. will be that the meaning of firj 7roi7]crr]<; (above, pp. 122 ff.) comes from the future sense inherent in the subjunctive,

while in estimating the force of but the aorist idea to consider.

iroirjcrov

Tliis,

as

we have nothing we have often

In the repeated, lies in the "point action" involved. imperative therefore the conciseness of the aorist makes it a decidedly more sharp and urgent form than the present. The
latter

may

of course
is

show any

of the characteristics of linear

action.

There

the iterative, as in

Lk IP,

the eonative.

174
as in

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

Mk

9^^ ("

Phil 2^^

(" set

to

do not try to stop him, as you are doing "). working out ") and of course the simple
;

durative passim. Writers differ in their preferences between the tenses. Thus 1 Pet shows a marked liking for the aorist,

which he has 22 times in commands (2nd pers.), against 6 presents on the other hand Paul has 9 presents to 1 aorist (apart from LXX citations) in Gal, and 20 to 2 in In Mt 5-7 the presents (still 2nd pers.) are 19 to Phil. and in corresponding parts of Lk 21 to 16. In seven 24, do the two evangelists use different tenses, and passages only
;

in all of

them the accompanying

variation of phraseology

way which shows how delicately Mt 5^^ = Lk 6^", and the distinction of tenses was observed. Mt 6^^ = Lk 11^, we have dealt with. Mt 5^^ has continuous in Lk 6-^ a little more presents, following oTav c. aor. subj. stress on the ingressive element in these aorists makes the addition iv eKelvrj rfj rj/xepa suitable, and this carries with it In Lk 12^^ S09 is natural with iv rfj oSm: the aor. imper. Mt 5^^ has ta0i evvooiv, which is curious in view of Ta')(y. But since et/it has no aorist, it is not surprising that its cf Mk 5^^ Lk imperative is sometimes quasi-ingressive The punctiliar and the phrase yvcoa-rov earw (Ac ter). 19^'^,
accounts for the difference in a
: :

(npey\rov, turn, in

Mt

5^^

answers well to the linear Trdpexe,

The vivid phrase dycovi^ea-Oe hold out, offer, in Lk 6^^. elaeXdetv of Lk 13^* may well preserve more of the original In all these cases than the constative elaeXOaTe of Mt 7^^.

we may reasonably
from Aramaic
detail; but

we

varying translation not wholly fixed in perhaps original, see no trace of indifference to the force of
see
effects

the

of

itself

the tenses.

Ps

6, in

The remaining example is in a quotation from which Mt 7'^^ preserves the LXX except in the verb
while
it is

air 0^(1) peiTe,


d8iKla<;
:

Lk

13^'^

modifies the address to epydrai


to say that the

here

enough

meaning

of diro-

'Xwpelre imposes a quasi-ingressive sense even on the present. "We have so far discussed only commands

'im^trltivr
3rd.

^^^ prohibitions in the 2nd person. Not much need be added as to the use of the

Here the veto on the aorist in prohibition is withwe need not stay to ask why. Thus in Mt 6^ firj ^^ , Kara/Sdrco firj yvdiTw, 24P' eTnaTpey^aTw, which fir]
drawn
:

THE VERB: THE MOODS.


all

175

come under ordinary aorist categories. As in classical Greek, the 3rd person is naturally much less common than the 2nd. Though the 1st person is not
"^for Fi^rsr
^0^'"^^^^^
^^

brought in under the Imperative,


it

Person.
it is

^^^^ ^^ '^^^ ^o treat

here

a passage

logically

14*^ iyeipeade aycofiev shows that fair to speak of three persons in the imperative
like

Mk

iyeipeaOe in that the included with the objects of the command. That speaker this should affect the tone of the command is of course inevitable but indeed all three persons necessarily differ
is
;

mood, since arywixev only differs from

considerably in the
of

etJios they The closeness severally show. connexion between this volitive subjunctive 1st person

and the regular imperative

is well seen in Sanskrit, where the Vedic subjunctive is obsolete in the epic period except for the 1st person, which stands in the grammars as an

ordinary part of the imperative


like
(pepco/juev, <^epere,

^epovrwv

(Att.).

hhardvia, hharata, hharantu, In Hellenistic Greek

the imperative 1st person is beginning to be differentiated from other subjunctives by the addition of a^e?, a<^ere, a use which has recently appeared in a papyrus of the Koman period (OP 41.3, a^e? e7&) ainrjv dprjvija-Q)), and has become normal in MGr (a<? with 1st and 3rd subj. making
imperative).

This
27^^

is

why
see.

not in

= Mk

always recognised in Mt 7* = Lk 6*^ 15^^ one has never been able to

To force on Mt a gratuitous deviation from seems a rather purposeless proceeding. Translating both passages " simply Let us see," the only difference we have left is in
the speakers, which
is

Mk

(Hawkins
iva

US

56

ff.).

paralleled by several similar variations It is possible that Jn 12'^, a^e? avr^v

rrip-qarj,^

has the same construction in the 3rd person, to

be literally rendered like the rest by our auxiliary, " Let her keep it." The alternative is (So practically EV text.)
let her keep it," which is favoured by Mk 14^. compared with the e^ca seen in OP 413, disWe shall courages our treating a^e? as a mere auxiliary.^
"

Let her alone

The

ace. aimqv,

TerriprjKev (a-text) IS a self-evident correction.


;

If we suppose the ri Kdwovs irapexere (diirative) to indicate tliat Judas and the rest were trying to stop Maiy, the " let her keep it" (rTjprjcrTj constative)

176

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

be seeing shortly that 'iva c. subj. is an imperative (tW = MGr va ''rrfj<;^ say !). The word had not yet by any et7r79 means developed as far as our let, or its own MGr derivative

much more frequently takes the infiu. other parts of the verb take infin. 7 times NT) Our own word helps us and ha c. subj. once (Mk ll^*^). the coexistence of auxiliary and independent in estimating
a?.

Note that

it

(8 times in

allow in our rendering of Mt 7* " " " " for let allow is the meaning, but to substitute me in a phrase like "let us go" would be impossible. M0e<f " " " a9 is the simple do let me go," while let as in is

verb in the same word


"

"

MGr

auxiliary.

The scanty
Perfect
^-^^
rLQQ(\
it

relics of

detain us

the Perfect ImperaIn the very briefly.

active

never existed, except in verbs whose


'^

in

we find KeKpayeToyaav In the passive it was but no ex. in NT. (Is 14^1), common in 3rd person (periphrastic form in plural), fairly done or about expressing "a command that something just " We have to be done shall be decisive and final (Goodwin).
perfect liad the force
of a

present

LXX

this in
little

Lk

1 2^^.

The rare 2nd person

is,

Goodwin
aorist
"
:

adds,
it

"

more emphatic than the present or


the
characteristic just

shares,

in

fact,

noted for the


V^.

3rd person.

Cf

Tre^/'yixcoo-o

Mk

4^^

with

(pifMwOijrt

The epistolary

in papyri), does not eppwa-o in Ac 23^ (a-text), 15-^ (passim come in here, as the perfect has present meaning. are ready now to look at the other Substitutes for Command we use the word as ^ Imperative , which supplement the Prohibition includmg
:

We ^

We shall find that mood appropriated to this purpose. forms of command can be suppHed by all six moods of the verb acquiescing for the moment in a convenient misuse

of the
(1)

term
is

"

mood," to cover
,.
.

all

the subjects

Future

Indicative;

^^ ^^^^ chapter _ _. .^ ^.

and the next.


.

The Future
this sense.
,,.

Indicative

exceedingly

common m

may

7]fxpa

Mk
is
1

That the be taken as forbidding interference with an act already begun. Tov ivracjuaa-p-ov was already come, is stated as much by tlie Trpoc'Xa^ei' of The action of v.^ is narrated completely (as it 14^ as liy tlie jilirasc in Jn.

by Mk),

Thumb Randb.

before the interruption is described. 100.

'^

Goodwin

MT

108.

THE VERB: THE MOODS.


It

177

seems

to

come

to

it

by two roads, as

the study of its negatives. command like ov cf^ovevaei^;, which can be seen in earlier Greek and becomes abundant in
futuristic form. indifference, as
that,"

may

be seen by

'

the Hellenistic vernacular, is proved by its ov to be a purely Such a future may have the tone of absolute " in the colloquial (tv 6-^\rr], you will see to

Mt

21 \

tone of one

who
"

Or it may show that the speaker takes the does not contemplate the bare possibility of
Thus
you
in
ivill

ylrav(Tei<i TroTe,

Euripides Med. 1320 X'^^'P'' ^' ^^ never be able to touch me," shades " into you shall never touch me." Against Winer's remark (p. 397) that this form "was considered milder than the
disobedience.

A emphatic denial. prediction may imply resistless power or cold indifference, We have also a compulsion or concession" {Sy7it. 116). rare form in which the negative firj proclaims a volitive future, in its origin identical with the ixtj Troojarj'i type already disimperative,"

we may

set Gildersleeve's

"

cussed.

e^earat
its

BU

Demosthenes has 197 (i/A.D.), (jltj

i^r]

^ovX/jcreade

elSevai,

a(/)7)o-69

BU

814

and ixtj show (iii/A.D.),

Blass adds sporadic existence in the vernacular Koivi']. from Clem. Horn. iii. 69.^* These passages fiTjSeva jxtarjaeTe

help to demonstrate the reality of this rare form against Yet another volitive Gildersleeve's suspicions {Synt. 117).^
future
is

a question

seen in the imperatival use of the future with ov in Ac 13^*^ ov iravar] Siaarpe(j)(ov Prediction and
:

Command approximate in the NT use of pp. 187 ff.), which in Mt 15^, Lk l^^, Jn
possibly elsewhere,
'

ov
13^,

firj

(see below,
43o,

Gal

and

is

most naturally classed


of

as imperatival.

Next among these forms


So we
firj

command comes

the subjunctive, already largely dealt with. have had the 1st person, as Jn 14^^ d^wpucv, Gal 5^*^

rycvco/jieda.

The

future

and

the

imperative

between

carried off the old jussive use of the subjunctive in The old rule positive commands of 2nd and 3rd person. which in (" Anglicistic ") Latin made sileas ! an entirely grammatical retort discourteous to the Public Orator's sileam ?
^ To this class I should assign the use of Sttws c. fut. =imper., as in Plato 337b Sttcos /j.01 p.!) ipeh, don't tell me: Sttws is merely a conjunction, "in which case." Though common in colloquial Attic, it is ousted in Hellenistic by IVa note however BU 625 (ii/iii a.d.) 5ib oirus ivToKrjs. (Sec p. 240.)
:

them

12

"See

p. 24S.

178

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


iu

it

which
as

the

dialect

of

Elis
"

produced such phrases as

let Nicodromus attend to Tn/xe\etav irofqajai NcKoSpofjuop, " ^ has no place iu classical or later Greek, unless we admit

an ex. one line of Sophocles, much beloved of examiners.^ have dealt already with /xrj iroL^a-rj'i, the historical equiIn the 3rd person the subvalent of the Latin ne feccris.

We

junctive is little used: 1 Co 1Q^\ 2 Co ll^^, 2 Th 2^ are The tone of these clauses is less peremptory than that exx.
of the imperative, as

may Heb

be seen from their closeness to the


fi^

clauses

3^^), which presumably makes the somewhat more instant are often reinforced by opa, warning It must not be supposed that the fiij ySXeVe, or the like. " " this introductory word, so clause historically depends on Even where that there is an ellipsis when it stands alone. the apparent governing verb is a real independent word and

of warning. future (as in Col 2^,

Such

clauses,

with

subj.

rarely

not a mere auxiliary


eXdrjre
et?

Treipaafiov real as it is in a phrase like


is

e.g.

in

Mk

14^^, Trpoaev'x^eade

I'va

/xr)

the parataxis was probably once as


12^^ opdre koI ^vXaaaeade. standing alone after opa: cf our
difference

Lk

In Eev

Don't colloquial hibition and warning


!

IQ^** "

22^ we find
"

firj

One important

between proeither
of the
ex.

that in the latter

we may have
is

present
present.

or

aorist

subjunctive:
is

Heb
c.

12^^

an

But we must return

to these sentences later.


subj. in

An

innovation iu Hellenistic

Xva

commands, which

takes the place of the classical


it

oTTfo? c. fut. indie.

Whether
in as

was independently developed, or merely came

an

obvious equivalent,
it

we need not

stop to enquire.

In any case

fell

into line with other tendencies which


;

telic force of Xva

vernacular of

weakened the and from a very restricted activity in the the NT period it advanced to a prominent

In the papyri we position in MGr syntax (see above, p. 176). have a moderate number of exx., the earliest of which is FP 112 (I/a.D.) eVe^oy { = -cav) ZwtXoii koI eiva aurbv fir) " attend to Z. and don't look askance at him." Zvacd'in]crrj<;, An earlier ex. appears in a letter of Cicero {Att. vi. 5-) ravra
Cauer 264 (iv/iii B.C.). It must however be noted that Brugmanu {Gram."^ 500) calls the connexion of this with the prehistoric jussive 3rd sing, "sehr " he does not give his reasons, zweifelhaft
^
:

Philoct. 300

see Jebb.

THE VERB: THE MOODS.

179

TOKcov

ovv, irpoorov fiev, iva irdvTa a-(p^i]Taf Sevrepov 8e, iva /jbrjSe tcHv Winer oXcyaipy'jarj'i. 39G) would fiud it "in the

(WM

W. F. poets," citing however only Soph. 00 155. in setting this aside as solitary and dubious, Moulton, observes that the scholiast took the passage this way in
Greek

his

day

of course the usage

person
iva
7)

may

be added
^evco/bieOa.
'Iva

BU

was common.* An ex. for the Ist 48 (ii/iii A.d.) eav ava^y^ ttj eopTfj,

opuoae

In the

NT

the best ex.

is

Eph
;

5^^

(f)o^7]raL rbv dvSpa, which is correlated with So 2 Co 8^, 5^3 Gal 2^^ uyaTTciTOi in the first clause. may be regarded as the same construction put indirectly.

8e yvvr]

Mk
:

Mk

1 0^^

and

parallels have really the

nearly coalesce in
OeXco ivaj'
use,

Mk

6"-^

10^^,

Jn

17^*.

same deXw iva more The combination

which

of course is not* confined to quasi-imperative

gave birth ultimately to the


+

cw n

foi'iiii^ig

MGr auxiliary 6d {devd, etc.), the future tense. The Optative can
The
ll^"*:

express
constructions,
limits

but

its

commands through either of its main evanescence in the Koivi] naturally

NT

illustrations.

however, does occur in


tial

Mk

Optative proper (neg. firj), note that Mt (21^^) subpij]

stitutes the familiar construction ou

c.

subj.

The Potenis

with av (neg. ov), as Xe^oi? found in NT at


_ '

"

dv,
all.^

pray speak,"

not

The

imperatival
to.

Infinitive

has been needlessly objected

and highly proLk 9^ which is merely The epistolary a case of mixed direct and indirect speech. Ac 15^^ 23^", Jas 1^, is the same in origin. We no 'X^aipeiv,
It is unquestionable in Phil 3^^, bable in Tit 2^"^*^ we must not add
:

Eom

12^^,

longer need Winer's reminder (p. 397) that the verbs in 1 Th 3^\ 2 Th 217 3^ are optatives but it is well to note that our assurance rests on something better than the
;

accentuation, which any one of us may emend, if he sees fit, The infin. for without any that counts saying him nay. was familiar in Greek, especially in laws and in imper.

MS

maxims. on AP 86

It

survives

in

the Koivtj, as the papyri show

(I/a.d.), i^elvai

and fiiaOwaai,
it

cf

Eadermacher
use.*^

in

RhMWii. 147, who


^

notes

as

a popular

Hatzidakia

An

ex.

perhaps occurs in Par

42

(ii/i!.o.),

x-p''-^^

{1=-olo)
[a

5' cLv
6 c

Kal tov
^i.

auifiaTos eTn/xeXo/xeuos IV vytaivijs.

g^g

248.

180
shows
of

A GEAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


(p.

192) that in the Pontic dialect, the only form which the infinitive form survives, the infin. is still used as an imperative for all numbers and persons. We have therefore every reason to expect it in the NT, and its

MGr

in

rarity there
-s

is

the only matter for surprise.^ Last among these substitutes for the imperative comes the Participle, the admission of which, despite

Winer's objections (p. 441), is established beyond question by the papyri. The proof of this will be given when we deal with the Participle in its place. Here it is sufficient to point out
that a passage like 1 Pet
alike
3^*-,

where adjectives and participles

obviously demand the unexpressed eVre, gives us the rationale of the usage clearly enough. It is a curious fact that while ta-0i occurs 5 times in NT, eaTO) (^tw) 14, and

earwaav twice, eVre, which we should have expected to be common, does not appear at all. TivecrOe occurs and eaeade, but it seems more idiomatic to drop the copula compare
:

the

normal

absence

of

the

verb

with

predicates

like

/j.aKupto'^,

Kardparo<i, evXoyrjTot;, oval, which sometimes raises doubts whether an indicative or an imperative (optative) is

understood. are accordingly absolved from inventing an anacoluthon, or some other grammatical device when we come to such a passage as Eom 12^^^^, where adjectives and participles, positive

We

rupted by imperatives in

and negative, in imperative sense are inter^^- ^^ vv.^*and infinitives in v.^^


:

The

well seen in

this is participles are obviously durative in their action " do not v.^^, where KS(,Kovvre<;, meaning either
"

avenge yourselves (whenever wronged) or "do not (as your tendency is)" (sitp7\ contrasted with the decisive aorist Sore,

p. "

iterative

sense

125), is strongly once and for all

make room
wrong)."

for the

Wrath ^ (which
are

The
of
v.^^.

infinitives

appropriate

alone can do justice on in the concise


of

maxim
^

Assuming the cogency BS


:

the vernacular
any
real ellipsis

See Deissinann

344.

do not however think


203.

tliere is

of a verb of
ellipsis

command

see below, p.

even in the epistolary xa^peiv. See Thumb, Hellen. 130 claims this also as a Hebraism
!

Historically there is probably no It should be stated that Viteau i. 146


f.
;

also Meisteihans*

244-6, for its use in decrees. ^ in the First Revision, and the American Eevi.sers, beyond all So the It is one more example of the baneful etlects of the two(piestion rightly.

RV

thirds rule upon the

KV.

THE VERB: THE MOODS.

181

evidence given on p. 223 below, we may select the following as probable exx. of imperatival participle from the list of passages in which the absence of such evidence compelled

Winer
4^^:

I.e.

in this

to adopt other interpretations^: last passage e')(ovre<i might of

Pet 3^-^

2^^

course be con-

structed with vrjy^are, and at first sight it seems possible in this way to avoid an asyndeton. But irpo nrcivrcov only intro-

duces a series of asyndetic precepts, in which ^Cko^evoi and


8LaKovovvTe<i

must have the same

construction.

To supply

the imperative idea (as in 4^^) seems simplest, though of course vv.^~^^ are all still dependent on the imperatives of v.^. Since Peter is evidently given to this construction, we

may take 2^^ in the same way, though it would pass as an easy constr. ad scnsum with v.^^ one would be inclined to add These are all the 1^^, but Hort's alternative must be noted.^
:

passages we can accept from Winer's list of exx. proposed a glance at the unrecorded remainder will vividly show what astounding fatuities, current in his day, the great grammarian
;

But we may extend the to waste his space in refuting. Paul was not so fond of this construction as list somewhat.
had
his brother apostle
:

note
is

how

in

Pet
the

3^,

echoing

Eph

5-^,

the

vTTOTaaao/xevat

slipped

into

place

where Paul

(according to B and Jerome) left an ellipsis, having used the verb just before in a regular sequence. But the exx. we have Add Col 3^*^ already had are conclusive for Paul's usage.
(note 2 Co

the imperative
91113

to
42s

KvvfMevoi

is

and Eph read by

be supplied after irdvra in v.^'^), In 2 Co 8^1 ivhei(cf 1 Pet 2i2).


it to

the reason

why

WH

(and the S-text uncials,

presumably
:

relegate

the margin)

it

is

how-

ever obvious that the ivhel^aaOe of xC and the later uncials is not likely to be original as against the participle, which The imper. in Versions counts would challenge correction.
for

but little, if we are right in our account of the idiom the participle iistaiknyanclans in Wulfila is a noteworthy piece
;

We follow Winer's order, tacitly agreeing with his explanation when we The exx. in which the ptc. would be indicatival will pass over a passage cited. be dealt with below. (An important ex. is added on p. 240.) " the participle there goes I must withdraw 5^, cited in Expos, vi. x. 4.'>0
^
:

closely with TaireivtbOriTe. as Cicero says.

Probably

3^

was meant

" sed

ixv-qfioviKov a/xdprrifia,"

182

A GEAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


ou the other side. 2 Co 9^^ is more simply exthan by the assumption of a long parenthesis. way
this (do) with knowledge," the parti-

of evidence

plained this

Eom

13^^

means "and

ciple being rather the complement of an understood imperative Heb 13^ gives us an ex. outside than imperative itself.

Peter and Paul.

With

great

hesitation,
:

incline to

add

" 24*^, punctuating with Begin ye from Jerusalem as witnesses of these things." The emphatic v^eh, in v.*^ thus marks the contrast between the Twelve, repeated

Lk

WHmg

for

whom Jerusalem would always be the centre, and one to be raised up soon who would make the world his parish the hint is a preparation for Luke's Book II. There are but they seem less than the astonishing breach of difficulties,
:

concord which the other punctuation forces on so correct a


240.) On this usage in general W. F. Moulton sided with Winer, especially against T. S. Green's n.) but he ends with suggestion that it was an Aramaism
writer.

(See

p.

(WM

732

saying "In Heb 13^, Rom 12^'*-, it must not be forgotten that by the side of the participles stand adjectives, with which the imperative of elvat is confessedly to be supplied."
is, as we have seen, the most probable reason of a use which new evidence allows us to accept without the misIt is not givings that held back both Winer and his editor. however really inconsistent with Lightfoot's suggestive note on Col 3^*^, in which he says, " The absolute participle, being

This

(so far as

regards mood) neutral in

itself,

takes

its

colour

from the general complexion of the sentence. Thus it is sometimes indicative {e.g. 2 Co 7^, and frequently), sometimes imperative (as in the passages quoted [Eom 12^^- ^^^, Eph 42f-, Heb 135, i Pet 2i2(?) 31.7.9.15.16])^ sometimes opta The fact is, when tive (as [Col] 22, 2 Co ^^\ cf Eph 3^7) we speak of a part of elvai, being " understood," we are really using inexact language, as even English will show. I take the

index to

my hymn-book
:

three of Charles Wesley's hymns Happy the souls that " " soul that free from harms," first believed," Happy Happy In the first, on this grammatical soul, thy days are ended."
principle,

and note the


"

first line

of

we should supply
!

were, in the second is {the), while

we

But the third a vocative, that is, an interjection. " the very "-mark which concludes the stanza in each case
call

THE VERB: THE MOODS.


shows that
all

183
"
:

the general the sentence," as Lightfoot says, determines complexion in what sense we are to take a grammatical form which is
of

three are on the

same footing

indeterminate in

itself.

A
Some
Elliptical ^j^^

few more words are called

for

upon
into ^u

commands, prayers, imprecations, etc., by the Clauses. exclamatory form in which they are cast, or by the nature of their context. In Kom 13^^ and Col 3^'^ we have already met with imperatives needing to be supplied from the context: Mt 27^9.25^ q^i 46^ q^I is (gee Lightfoot) and Jn 20^*^ are interjectional clauses, and there is nothing conclusive to show whether imperative or optative, or in some like clauses (e.g. Lk 1^^) indicative, of ehat would be inserted if the sentence were expressed in full logical form. Other exx, may be seen in 732 ff. But there is one case of heaped-up ellipses on which we must tarry a little,

Imperative

subject of defective clauses

made
.

WM

that of

Eom
of

12''"^.

There

is

much
in

to attract, despite all the

weight

the punctuation which contrary authority, what comes to nearly a comma at end of v.^, or places only the treatment of e;^ovTe<? as virtually equithe same thing

But we have grace-gifts which differ e^ofiev to the grace that was given us, whether that of according prophecy (difl'ering) according to the measure of our faith, or
valent
to
:

"

that of service (differing) in the sphere of the service, or he


his gift) in his teaching, or that teaches (exercising ex^^v he that exhorts in his exhorting, he who gives (exercising this charism) in singleness of purpose, he who holds office in a

deep sense
7rpo(f)7jTeiav

of

cheerfulness."

responsibility, he who shows compassion in In this way we have Bidcpopov supplied with

is

and StaKovlav, and then the xovTe<; xaplafxara taken up in each successive clause, in nearly the same the durative sense of e^a), hold and so sense throughout But as by advancexercise, must be once more remembered.
:

ing this view we shall certainly fall under the condemnation " for hardihood," pronounced by such paramount authorities as SH, we had better state the alternative, which is the justi-

The fication for dealing with this well-known crux here. imperatival idea, which on the usual view is understood in the several clauses, must be derived from the fact that the

184

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


phrases are successively thrown out as interwe put into words the sense thus created,

prepositional
jections.
If

perhaps eaTm will express as much as we have the right to we may have to change it to Mfiev with iv rf} express BiaKovia (" let us be wrapped up in," like iv rouroi? taOi
:

In this way we arrive at the meaning given in paraphrase by the KV. We take next the most live of the , The ^oods, the only one which has actually Subiunctive
1

Ti

4^^).

increased its activities during the thirty-two centuries of the history of the Greek language.^ According to the classification adopted by Brugmann,^ there are three main
divisions of the subjunctive, the volitive, the deliberative,

and

the futuristic. Brugmann separates the last two, against W. G. Hale, because the former has firj as its negative, while the
latter

originally

had

ov.

asked whether the


berative
"
is

first

But the question may well be Prof. two are radically separable.
xvi.

Sonnenschein well points out {OR


"

166) that the "deli:

A command
we not
some
?
?

only a question as to what is or was to be done." may easily be put in to the interrogative tone
;

witness ola& ovv o Spaaov

answering

to

quin redeamus ? ( = wJnj shoidd " redeamus = let us), and our own Have

The objection to the term " deliberative," and to the separation of the first two classes, appears to be well grounded.
It should further be observed that the future indicative has

"

carried off not only the futuristic but also the volitive and deliberative subjunctives cf such a sentence as ecTrcofxev rj aLiywfiev; tI Spacro/juev -j^ With the caveat already suggested, we may i]
; '

The Volitive has outline the triple division. been treated largely under the substitutes for

the imperative.

We

must add the use with


cf

yu,i;

which

lies

near that in prohibition;

Mt

25^.

in ivarning, Intro-

ductory words like (^o^ovixai,

crKoTreL, etc.,

did not historically

So

if

we

start from the

ment

of 1275 B.C.

'Akauvasa='AxaiFQs,

mention of the Achaians on an Egyptian monuSee the prehistoric form of 'Axaiol.

Hess and Streitberg in Indog, Forsch. vi. 123 ff. 2 Gram.^ 490 if. ' On tliu subjunctive element in the Greek future see Eurip. Ion 771. Lat. ero, faxo, Greek irio/xat, (pdyo/xai. (Hellenistic mixture of above, p. 149.
^Sofiat

and

tff'a.yoi'),

x^w, are clear subjunctive forms, to

name only

a few.

THE VERB: THE MOODS.


determine the construction
fear! haply one
of
:

185

thus
. .

Heb

you may

was really " Let us .!" Out of the Volitivc


4^

arose the great class of dependent clauses of Purpose, also The closeness of relation between paratactic in origin. future and subjunctive is seen in the fact that final clauses
oTTco? c. fut. were negatived with the future did not fxi] by any means restrict itself to the futuristic use of the mood which it pillaged. On the so-called Deliberative we have
:

with

(2)

Deliberative
BMfxev;

'

''^^^'^''^^y

^^^^ nearly

enough

for our purpose.

It is seen in questions, as
fit]

Mt

23^3

^^^
is

cpvyriTe;

Eom
as

12^^ Sw/xev y 10^* ttw? eTrLKakeacovraL;

Mk

The question may be dependent,

Lk

O^^

OeXei^

etrrcofiei^

(MGr 6a
see
it

ecTTovfie

both

with

simple future, shall %vc say and without Xva in Lk 18*^.

f)

We
In the
el

form

of the future

we meet
;

it

in sentences like

Lk

22^^

The present subjunctive is probably irara^o^ev ev /xa-^aiprj to be recognised in Mt 11 ^ erepov irpoahoKwp.ev; Finally, the
(3)

Futuristic

^^^^^^^^^^^

is

seen

still

separate

from
irore

the
xi?
;

future
FecTrrjcn,

tense in the
relics in

Homeric koI

Attic Greek, like tI Trddw Its primitive use reappears in the Koivij, where in the later papyri the subjunctive may be seen for the simple future. Blass (p. 208) quotes it occurring as early as the LXX, Is
SS''^*

and in isolated

acfiedfj

yap

avTol<i

7)

cifxaprla}

It is

from the

futuristic

subjunctive that the dependent clauses with idv and orau sprang: the negative /i?;, originally excluded from this
division of the subjunctive, has trespassed here from tlie earliest times. There is one passage where the old use of

the subjunctive in comparisons seems to outcrop, 4"'^ to? koX KaOevSy (etc., all prcs. /SdXr) rov airopov av6pwiTo<i subj.).^^ It is hard to say to which of the three divisions
.

Mk

this

belongs

Brugmann

remarks on the impossibility of

in

determining the classification of dependent clauses in general, but perhaps the futuristic is best, like our " as a man vjill

The survival of this out-of-the-way subjunctive sow," etc. the artless Greek of is not very easy to explain

Mk
(p.

See some exx. beloAV, p. 240. It must be noted that Blass"

["

See p. 248.

Sec

p.

249.

321) calls this impossible, and inserts tav.


:

But nBDLA and the best cursives agree on this reading why should they agree on the lectio ardita ? 'iis edv (AC) has all the signs of an obvious correction.

186
it is

A GEAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

indeed hardly likely, in the absence of evidence from the intermediate period, that there is any real continuity of
usage.

But the

remarkably from the Gospels

little in
;

of the subjunctive changed the millennium or so separating Homer and the mood which was more and more

root-ideas

winning back its old domain from the future tense may well have come to be used again as a " gnomic future" without Other any knowledge of the antiquity of such a usage. of this encroachment will occur as we go on. examples The kind of action found in the present, m aorist, and perfect subjunctive hardly needs further comment, the less as we shall have to return to them when we deal with the dependent clauses. One result
of the aorist action has important exegetical consequences, which have been very insufficiently observed. It affects rela-

temporal or conditional clauses introduced by pronoun or The verbs conjunction with av (often edv in NT, see pp. 42f).
tive,

and the av ties them up to particular occurThe present accordingly is conative or continuous or " iterative: Mt 6^ orav Trotfj-i iXei-Jixoavvi^v whenever thou art alms," 6^*^ otuv vrjarevrjTe "whenever ye are fasting" for doing Jn 2^ oTi av \eyrj " whatever he says (from time to time)." The aorist, being future by virtue of its mood, punctiliar by its tense, and consequently describing complete action, gets a and it will be future-perfect sense in this class of sentence found most important to note this before we admit the less Thus Mt 5-^ 09 av cpoveva-rj "the man who rigid translation. has committed murder," 5'^'^ iav daTvaarjade " if you have only
are all futuristic,
rences.
;

saluted,"

Mk
"
:

9^^ ottov edv

seized

him

avrov KardXd^r} " wherever it has the cast of the sentence allows us to abbreviate

the future-perfect in these cases. Mt 5^^ at first sight raises some difficulty, but aTroXvarj denotes not so much the carrying
into
effect as the determination.

We
rou?

may

quote a passage

from the Meidias


the difference of
Se

Demosthenes (p. 525) which exhibits present and aorist in this connexion very
of
fiev ridPjade
vofiov<i oTrotoi rt,v6<i elcnv
'^ftrjaOat,

neatly

p(;pj)

orav

aKovetv, eTreiSdv Se drjade, (^vkdrreiv Kal


applies to
hills,

Ti,drjade

Orjade to acts.

The part which the Subjunctive plays in the scheme of the Conditional Sentences demands a few lines here, though

THE VERB: THE MOODS.


any systematic treatment
for

187
must be
el

of this large subject

left

our second
Conditional
Sentences, Simple,

volume.
^'"'^

The

difference

between

and

istic

^^^ heen considerably lessened in Hellenas compared with earlier Greek.

We

have seen that edv can even take the indicative


>

General and Future


latter occurs

(,

while (as rarely in classical Greek) can be found with the subjunctive. The
;

accounts

for

only in 1 Co 14^, where the peculiar phrase it cf the inscription cited by Deissmann
:
.

{BS 118), iKTo^ el fir} eav'^ care to build much on Eev 1

Oekt'^arj.

We
9^^

should hardly
3^"-

1^.

In

Lk
"

and Phil

wc

probably have deliberative subjunctive,

unless

we

are to go

and buy," " if after all I am to attain ... to apprehend." The subjunctive with el is rare in early papyri: cf OP 496
(ii/A.D.)
el he r)v (

= 17)

6 <yafiu)V

ktX.

The

differentiation
:

irporepo'i reTe\evT7)K(o<;, e%e'Tft) of construction remains at present

stereotyped el goes with indicative, is used exclusively when past tenses come in (e.g. 3^^), and uses gv as its negative

Mk

while edv, retaining /nj exclusively, takes the subjunctive almost invariably, unless the practically synonymous future
indicative

^Edv and el are both used, liowever, to is used. future conditions. This is not only the case with el express " c. fut. in which the NT does not preserve the minatory or
"

monitory
classical

connotation

Greek

which

Gildersleeve
el c. pres.

discovered

for

but even with


p.

in such

documents

as

BU

326, quoted above,


in

59.

The immense majority


belong to these heads.

of conditional sentences

the

NT

deal with the unfulfilled condition below, pp. with the relics of el c. opt., p. 196.

We

200

f.,

and

Some Uses
Ou
uri

Leaving the Dependent Clauses


01

for subto

the Negatives

sequent treatment,
.

let
,-

us turn
>

now

some

t i 4-u v. aspects or the negative /*??, mainly though not exclusively concerning the Subjunctive.

..

Into the
struction

vexed question of the origin of the ov

iMrj

con-

we must not enter with any detail. The classical discussion of it in Goodwin MT 389 ff. leaves some very
advanced our knowledge. and prohibition must be
ei /xi^tl av.

serious difficulties, though it has Goodwin's insistence that denial

Cf what

is

said above (p. 1G9) about

188

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


together touches a

dealt with

weak spot

in Prof.

Sonnen-

schein's otherwise very attractive account of the proliibitory Sonnenuse, in a paper ah-eady quoted {CB xvi 165 ff.).

schein would

make

ov

fxrj

iroL^jarj';

the interrogative of the

won't you abstain from doing ? prohibition " in Latin quin noli faccre ? is why not refuse to Similarly
/mt)

"

"

iroirjarj'^,

The theory is greatly weakened by its having no Gildersleeve {AJP iii. 202 ff.) obvious application to denial. ov' /ir/ aKO)-\lrrj<; = no ! that the ov may be separate suggests
do
?
:

"

don't jeer, ov-

fir)

yevrjTat

= no !

let

it

never he!"'

Brugmann

{Gram.^ 502) practically follows Goodwin, whom he does not We start from /mt] in cautious assertion, to which we name.

must return presently


/Mt]

/mt]

r^evqTai

= it may
\xr\

perchance hap2^en,

a-Kcoylrrj<;

= yon

vAll 'perha'ps jeer,

epet? tovto

= you

will

lierliain

Then the ov negatives the whole, so that say this. " Non becomes, as Brugmann says, certainly not." nostrum est tantas comjjonere lites : these questions go back upon origins, and we are dealing with the language in a late
ov
fir)

development, in which

it is antecedently possible enough that the rationale of the usage may have been totally obscured. The use of ov fxij in the Greek Bible calls for special com-

ment, and we may take for our text some remarks of Gilder" This emphatic sleeve's from the brief article just cited.

form
the

NT

and of negative (ov fir)) is far more common in the This tendency to than it is in the classic Greek.

LXX

exaggeration in the use of an adopted language is natural." And again, " The combination has evidently worked its way So it occurs in the mouth of up from familiar language.

Thcsmoph. 1108 ovkI fir) \aXr)at av Our previous inquiries have prepared us for some " " The NT is not a phrase modifications of this statement.
the Scythian archer, Ar.
"
;

we can allow

nor will

"

"

adopted language

In without qualification. ventured on a preliminary note suggested by NP 51, a Christian letter about coeval with N and B, in which Mt 10*^ or Mk 9"*^ is loosely cited from memory and ovk airoXkl
xiv.
n.
(sic)

Exp T

429

pass muster the writer

There are, if memory fir) airoXeo-r]. than half-a-dozen cases of ov fir) in serves, scarcely more On the other hand, we find it the non-literary papyri.
substituted for ov

13

times in

OT

citations

in

NT, and abundantly

in

the

" See p. 249.

THE VERB: THE MOODS.


Gospels, almost exclusively in Logia. certain or probable Semitic originals.

189

the special case of Eev, it It will be seen therefore that once in 2 Pet.
"

these we have from these, and Apart occurs only four times in Paul and

In

all of

if

"

translation

Greek is put aside, we have no difference between papyri and NT. Paul's few exx. are eminently capable of bearing The frequency of ov firj in emphasis in the classical manner.

Kev may

partly be accounted for by recalling the extent to which Semitic material probably underlies the Book but the unlettered character of most of the papyrus quotations, coupled with Gildersleeve's remark on Aristophanes' Scythian, suggests that elementary Greek culture may be partially responsible here, as in the rough translations on which Mt and Lk had The to work for their reproduction of the words of Jesus. question then arises whether in places outside the free Greek
;

of

Paul we are to regard

ov

firj

emphasis.

The
i6
is

analysis

of

W.

as bearing any special G. Ballantine (AJF xviii.

453
the

ff.),

seems to show that

LXX,

In it is impossible to assert this. translated ov or ov firj indifferently within a


it emphatic had an ordinary places unaltered, and

The Eevisers have single verse, as in Is B-*^. in a good many passages in which the
;

made

AV

negative but they have left over fifty do not seem to have discovered any general principle to Prof. Ballantine seems to be justified in guide their decision.

claiming (1) that it is not natural for a form of special emphasis to be used in the majority of places where a negative

and questions an emphatic negative is Mt wholly out of place: he instances Mk 13^ and Jn 18^^ 25^ is decidedly more striking. In commenting on this article,
prediction occurs,

and (2) that

in relative clauses,

which amount

to

positive assertions,

. :

" other examples of the blunting " he of pointed idioms in the transfer from classic Greek mentions the disproportionate use of "the more pungent

Gildersleeve

cites

aorist"

the "quieter present imperative" " " the conoverdo the participle of Josephus to tendency " the articular infinitive, spicuous appearance in narrative of
as

against the

which belongs
of ov
fi-)']

So here, he says, the stress to argument." " One is inclined has been lost by over-familiarity."

"

"

to call in the survival

English double negatives

among uneducated people


"

of the older

He

didn't say nothing to nobody,"

190

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

and the

which resemble ov fiy in so far as they are old like forms preserved by the unlearned, mainly perhaps because they give the emphasis that is beloved, in season and out of
season, by people

whose

style lacks restraint.

But

this parallel

does not take us very far, and in particular does not illustrate the fact that ov firj was capable of being used by a cultured writer like Paul with its full classical emphasis.^ In Let us now tabulate NT statistics. text, ov fi^

WH

occurs in all 9 6 times.


in 2, the verb
in -et?
{-(,)

is

Of these 7 1 exx. are with aor. subj. ambiguous, ending in -co and 1 5 more, ending
; ;

ate, as far as the

might be regarded as equally indeterminevidence of the MSS readings is concerned. Mt 1 6^^ earat, with There remain 8 futures. Four of these
or
-??9 (-rj),

the are unambiguous 18^* (see below) rest only involve the change of o to co, or at worst that of ov Mt 2 G^^ The passages are to 0), to make them aor. subj.
9*^
: :

Lk

21^^ and

Eev

(-aofiai,

14^^ {-a-ofiuL ABCD, against N and the Mt is a strong confirmation of the mob). future for the Petrine tradition in its earliest Greek form.)

sBCD) = Mk

(The attestation in

Lk

21^^ {-(TovTat hBDIj) answers to the Marcan ov irapeXevthe insertion of /a?; by S'ACL etc. means a mere assimilation to Lk), while Mt has ov fir) irapeKOuxriv
(jovTai (13^^

BD

(24^^): it is at least possible that our Lucan text is only In Jn 10^ al. support and Mt. a fusion of In Heb 10^^ (from LXX) we have the aKo\ov6r)covaLv.

Mk

ABD

fivrja-dijaofiat

of xACD 17 and the Oxyrhynchus papyrus emended to fivrjado) (following the LXX) in correctors of N There remains evpijaovatv and D and all the later MSS. We need in Rev 9^ (AP evpcoaiv, against nB^) 18^*.

not hesitate to accept the future as a possible, though moribund, construction the later MSS in trying to get rid There is no of it bear witness to the levelling tendency. We may pass on to note difference in meaning. apparent
:

Winer

" no time (and later), that ov fir] nroiyjaris originates in an ellipsis fear that he It is advisable therefore to note that this view has been abandoned will do it."

(p.

634) refers to

" " the prevailing opinion of philologers in his own

may

To give full reasons would detain us too long. But it be observed that the drop[)ing out of the vital word for fearing needs explanation, which has not been forthcoming while the theory, suiting denials well enough, gives no natural account of prohihitimis.
by modern philology.
;

THE VERB: THE MOODS.


the distribution
citations. "

191

NT. It occurs IP. times in jjn] in from these, there are no exx. in Ac, Apart Eev has it Heb, or the General Epp ", except 2 Pet 1^". 1 6 times. Paul's use is limited to 1 Th 4^^^ {v. infr.) 5^ 1 Co 8^^, Gal 5^^. Only 21 exx. in all come from these sources, 64 for the Gospels. Of the latter 57 are from actual leaving words of Christ (Mt 17, Mk 8 [Mk] 1, Lk 17, Jn 14) of
of

ov

LXX

the remaining 7, Mt 16^2 and 26^5 ( 20^^ have most obvious emphasis, and so

= Mk

143i),
1^^

j^ 138

may Lk

(from the

That the locution was special nativity-source^) and Jn IP*^. very much at home in translations, and unfamiliar in original Greek, is by this time abundantly clear. But we may attempt
a further analysis, by the Synoptic problem.

way
If

of contribution to the minutiae of

we go through

the exx. of ov

firj

in

Mk, we
all.

find that

Lk
firj.

has faithfully taken over every one, 8 in has 5 of these logia, once (Mk 13^ = Lk 21*^) dropping

Mt

and

into Mk 7^^ and Lk into Mk 4^^ fit] and Lk into Mk 1 S^i (see above).^ Turning " to Q ", so far as we can deduce it from logia common to Mt and Lk, we find only two places (Mt 526 = Lk 12s^ Mt 23^^ = Lk 13^^) in which the evangelists agree in using ov fir],

the

Mt

introduces ov

0"^ both

Mt

Mt

uses
is

it

in

5^^

(Lk

21-^^

has a certain resemblance, but

in 6^'^ &zs (contrast Mt 7^). parallel), in the logia peculiar to Mt or Lk, the presence of Finally, " which in " is therefore a matter of speculation, we find ov When the testimony of Jn 4 times in Mt and 7 in Lk. [irj
16^'^

the

and Lk

added, we see that this negative is impartially distributed over all our sources for the words of Christ, without special prominence in any one evangelist or any one of the documents
is

which they seem

to

have used.

Going outside the Gospels,


;

we find ov yJ) in the fragment of Aristion (?) ^ ([Mk] 16^^) in 1 Th 4^^ (regarded by Ropes, BB v. 345, as an Agraphon) and
in the

Oxyrhynchus

"

"

Sayings

no. 2 of the first series,

and

1 It comes from the changed to the aor. subj.

LXX
But

of 1

Sam 1", if A is right there, with wieTat of course may show a reading conformed to

the

NT. As to
The

Mk
/J.7J

4=2,
:

" note that in the doublet from

(12=) has ou
^

the

new Oxyrhynchus " Saying,"

"

neither

Mt

(lO^")

nor
01).

Lk

no. 4, has also simple

criticisms of B.

W.

Bacon, in Expos, for Dec. 1905,

may

dispose us to

double the query.

r92

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

the preface of the second. The coincidence of all these separate Moreover in Eev, the only witnesses certainly is suggestive. NT Book outside the Gospels which has ov firj with any fre-

quency, 4 exx. are from the Epp. to the Churches, where


Christ
is

speaker; and

all

of

the rest, except 18^* (which

is

very emphatic), are strongly reminiscent of the OT, though It not according to the except in I822 ( = Ezek 261^).

LXX

as it is in the quite as rare in the aside (a) passages coming from the papyri, OT, and (&) sayings of Christ, these two classes accounting Since these are just for nearly 90 per cent, of the whole.

follows that ov

fxrj

is

NT

when we have put

the two elements which


of Christianity, cause in both

made up

"

"

Scripture

one

is

tempted

to

put

it

down

in the first age to the same

rendered by words
elsewhere.
Mti

feeling that inspired language was fitly of a decisive tone not needed generally

lous Assertions.
in

uau

this use of negatives, ^^^i pursue here the later develop / , n , ments or that construction 01 (mt] Irom which

In connexion with

^^ ^

,.

the use of ov

fi7] originally sprang, according to the theory that for the present holds the field. It is obvious, whatever be its antecedent history, that fi^ is often equivalent to our

"

well-known sentence from Plato's Apology anything: Socrates says (p. 39a) dXKa fir) ov tovt' y '^oXeTrou, Odvarov eKipvyetv, " perhaps it is not this which is hard, to escape death." This is exactly like Mt 25^ as it stands in nALZ the ov fxi'i which replaces
perhaps."
will illustrate it as well as
:

ov in

BCD

does not affect the principle.


sense,
it

has

its

futuristic

would

The subjunctive and starts most seem,


:

naturally in Greek from the use of fjur} in questions how this developed from the original use of ^nq in prohibition (whence comes the final sentence), and how far we are to
call

in

the

sentences
it

widely separable,
in this treatise.

of fearing, which are certainly not would not be relevant for us to discuss
if

Mr] tovt y x^Xeirov,


?

meant

"

will this possibly be difficult

"

originally a question, So in the indicative,

as Plato Protag.

312a aXX' dpa

firj

ou;^ viro'kaiJbfidveL^,

"but

We have perhaps then you do not suppose" (Eiddell 140). thus both these forms abundantly before us in the NT " Look perhaps Lk 11^^ aKoirei /Ltr; to ^co? 0-/COT09 eVrtV,
:

THE VERB: THE MOODS.


the light
'

193
jju-q

...
"

is

darkness
!

"
;

Col 2^ /SXeVere

rt?

earac o

avXaycoydw,
. . .

(cf

Take heed perhaps there will be someone who Heb 3^^) Gal 4^^ (f)o^ov/jcac vfid^ fii] ttw? et/c?}
;

"

KeKOTriaKa,
vain."

am

afraid about

you

perhaps I have toiled in


(ii/B.C.)

So in the papyri, as Par

P 49

dycovLM
.

ixrjiroTe
. ,

appwarel to TraiSdpiop, NP 17 (iii/A.D.) ucfjcopov/xe /Lt?) In all these cases the prohibidpa ivOpdoa-Kwv eXaOev vSart.
or less latent, producing a strong /jby is more deprecatory tone, just as in a direct question fiy'j either demands the answer No (as Mt 7^ etc.), or puts a suggestion
tive force of

in

fineness

most tentative and hesitating way (Jn 4^^). The of the distinction between this category and the clause may be illustrated by 2 Co 2'^, where the purpose " paratactic original might equally well be Perhaps he will " " be overwhelmed or Let him not be overwhelmed." In
the

Gal 2^ the purpose clause


former type vain ? "1 Cf
start

am running, or ran, in 1 Th 3^ The warning of Ac 5^^ might similarly from either " Perhaps you will be found," or " Do not
Can
it

(if

such
I

it be),

goes back to the

"

be

that

be found

"

the former suits the ttotc better.

It will

be

seen that the uses in question have mostly become hypotactic, but that no real change in the tone of the sentence is

introduced by the governing word. The case is the same as with prohibitions introduced by opa, /SXeVere, Trpoa-e^ere,
etc.:

see above, p. 124.

One very

difficult case

under

this

head should be mentioned here,


already
8(07},

tliat of

Tim

2^^.

We

have

55) expressed the conviction that Booij is really Not only would the optative clash with subjunctive.
(p.

dvavrjylrmaiv, but it

cannot be justified in

itself

The difficulty felt by (Aj^p 168), that syntactic rule. " its use for two different moods in the same Epistle would
be strange," really comes to very little and the survival of the epic Scotj is better supported than they suggest. There is an apparent case of yvcarj subj. in Clement Paed. iii. 1,
;

WH

by any clear

eavTov yap riq idv


of quotations for
^

yfcorj,
hoirj

deov elaerai.

respectable

number

is

given from early Christian litera-

perhaps subjunctive, since the sentence as it stands is felt as This interpretation as a whole has to reckon with the alternative renderThere is much to be ing, "Am I running (said I), or have I run, in vain T' said for this see Findlay in Exp B p. 104.
T^pix'^ ^^ tiest
final.
:

13

194

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


90
f.

ture in Eeinliold

Phrynichus (Paitherford
as

456) may

fairly be

called

evidence

not

429, only for the

NP

Hellenistic hwr} and hihwr) (which he and his editor regard " as utterly ridiculous ") but for the feeling that there is But a subjunctive Swt;, though he only quotes Homer.

we must not
statement
Goi'g.

press this, only citing from Eutherford the " " for Sw in Plato that some MSS read hotr]

481a, where the optative would be most obviously


If

out of place.

we
the

read the opt. in


writer

only assume

that

misused

Tim I.e., we can an obsolete idiom,

Against this correctly used in Lk 3^^ in past sequence. stands the absence of evidence that Paul (or the auctor ad

Timothcum,

if

the

critics

demur) concerned

himself

with

literary archaisms, like his friends the authors of Lk, Ac,

and Heb.
the
"
ixrjiTore

Taking

Soorj

and

avavr]y\rwaiv together,
"

we make

haply God
to see
if,"

introduce a hesitating question, to try whether " cf the well-known idiom with el, may give
:

as in

Ac

271^,
Bcoij

favour of the subj.


(p.

Eoni V^, Lk U^s, Phil 3^". the careful note in 120.

See in
Blass

WS

50) agrees.^

We
The Optative : ^^
Proper

take next the Optative, which makes


-^^

p^^^, ^ ^^^^.^

^1^^ j^rj. ^^^^^

^^

^^.^

tempted
-

hurry on.

In

MGr

its

only

relic

is

the

phrase /u.?; yevono, which appears in Lk 20^ and 14 times in Eom (10), 1 Co (1) and Gal (3). This is
of course the

of av
cites

Optative proper, distinguished by the absence and the presence (if negative) of firi. Burton {MT 79) 35 proper optatives from the NT, which come down to
:

exx. of

Unfortunately \vc cannot call the LXX in aid Tts oi^r) ... 5(^77, but they all seem optative.
18^^,

there are a good many in 11-'', Judg 9^^,

Num

Sam

Job

31^^,

Ca

8^,

Jer

9",

miglit ^ve^ seem deliberative subj., but


;

Ps 120(119)^
arabiguit}'.

tI doOeirj croi Kal ri irpoa-Tedeir] aoi

is

unfortunately

q^uite free

from

We may regard these as real wishes thrown into the interrogative form. The LXX use of the optative looks a promising subject for Mr Thackeray's much-needed Grammar. We will only observe here that in Num I.e. the Hebrew has the simple imperf. also that A has a tendency to change opt. into subj. (as Kuth V S(^ evp-qn), which accords witli the faint
.

distinction between them.

we have opt. and fut. indie, alternating, with no variation in the Hjbrew. A more surprising fusion still worse than 2 Tim I.e. with Syi? is seen in 2 Mac 9-^ idv n Trapddo^ov diro^ali} Kai
In
28"***

Dt

vpoffawiXdri,
^

But

see p. 240.

THE
20 when we drop

VERI5:

THE MOODS.
Of these
P^-is,
1

195

/x?;

yevoiTo.
^o^

(Eom
1

155-

1=^,

Philein

Tim

and 2 Th), while Mk, Lk, Ac, Heb,

ra,ul claims 14 and the rest in Pet and 2 Pet have

one apiece.
in the

NT

'Oval/juTjv in Pliilem-" is the only proper optative which is not ord person.^ It will be noticed that
:

though the use is rare it is well distributed even Mk has it, and Lk 1^ and Ac 8-*' come from the Palestinian stratum of Luke's writing. We may bring in here a comparison from our own language, which will help us for the Hellenistic

The optative be still keeps a real optative as a whole.^ .though diminishing place in our educated colloquial: "be it " " or so so be it," is preserved as a formula, like fxr) yevoiro, " " but Be it my only wisdom here is felt as a poetical archaism. So in the application of the optative to hypothesis, we should
not generally copy " be not fair to me
is

"
:

Be

never so humble," or " If she on the other hand, " If I ivere you "
it

the only correct form.


"

"

God

bless

you

" "

Come what
style
is

may,"

wish I were at home," are further examples of


still

optatives

surviving.

But a somewhat archaic

recognisable in

"Were

the whole realm That were a present

of nature mine,
far too small."

We

shall see later that a Hellenist

would equally avoid

in

colloquial speech a construction like


ei

Koi

TO.

TTavT
fioi

i'fi

eirj,

TO.

TTavra
r]

e\arT(Tov

ye volt uv coare Sovvcu.

The Hellenist used the optative

in wishes
It is at
fiot

and prayers very

much

as

we

use our subjunctive.

home

in formulse,

as in oaths passim

evavrla

(OP 240
. .
.

evopKovvri
i/A.D.),
r]

fjbefi

ev

eirj,

i(f)topKovvTi 8e to.

tool evo'^ot etrj/mev

ii/A.D.),

301

TrapaSwao)

...))
is

ii/A.D.),

etc.

But

it

also

(OP 715 tm opKW (BM evaj^eOeirjv in free use, as OP 526


opKcoL
aoL,

(ii/A.D.)
(ii/iii

LP& (ii/p-.C.) o? SiSoLrj j(aLpoL<;, KakoKatpe, kol A.D.), /jb7}SeL<; fie KaTajBidaano and elaeK6oi<i

LPw

7roi7]aai<;,

for the persistence of tliis optative in the Koivri may be found appearance in a curse of iii/i5.c., coming from the Tauric Chersonese, and showing two Ionic forms (Audollent 144, no. 92). * Cf Sweet, New English Grammar : li:>ynlax 107 ff.

Some support

in its

196

A GRAMMAR OF
741
(ii/A.D.)

NEW TESTAMENT

GREEK.
aol Se yevoiTc

BU

fjbt)

yeiPOLTO,

BM

21

(ii/B.C.)

evr]fiepetv,

1902, p. 217, Ke^oXcofjuevov y(^ono Mrjua KUTaxdoviov, HI P 6 (iii/iv A.D.) ippco/Mevov ae rj 6ia irpovoca In hypotaxis the optative of wish appears in (pvXd^ai.
.

BCH

in Hypothesis,

^,

clauses with
,

el,

as is

shown by the
.-,
.

negative's
.

add

el,

si,

if,

^ f being fjtr), as well as by the tact that we can to a wish, or express a hypothesis without a
.-,

Ei conjunction, by a clause of jussive or optative character. occurs in 11 passages, of which with the optative in the

NT

4 must be put aside as indirect questions and accordingly The three exx. in Ac are all in falling under the next head. or. ok: 20i ("I want if I can to "), and 27^9 ("We will beach her if we can"), are future conditions; and 24^^ " puts into the past (unfulfilled) form the assertion They " ought to bring their accusation, if they have any (e-^ovat). The remainder include el tu')(ol in 1 Co 14^^ 15^'', the only exx. in Paul, and two in 1 Pet, el koI irdcr'X^oiTe S^'^ and el Oekoi 3^^. The examination of these we may defer till
.

we

take up Conditional Sentences together.

We

only note

give no more than 12 exx. from LXX of el c. from 4 Mac and two passages I cannot trace) opt. (aj)art about 2 of these are wishes, and 4 are cases of (oaiirep) et Tt9, while 2 seem to be direct or indirect questions. Neither in LXX nor in NT is there an ex. of el c. opt. answered with opt. c. av, nor has one been quoted from the To the optative proper belongs also that after final papyri.^ as we infer from the negative /u,?; and from its being particles, an alternative for the (jussive) subjunctive. It does not how-

here that

HE

m . clauses. ever call for any treatment in a NT grammar. Final crx We have seen already (p. 55) that iva hot
.

"

.i

''

s^

and
(ib.

'iva <yvo2

and pp. 193

are unmistakably subjunctives if iva SojT] be read loish f.) in Eph 1^'^ it will have to be a virtual
: ;

merely to link it to the previous verb but This banishment of the final optative only means that the NT writers were averse to bringing in a
clause, tva serving
Scot] is

preferable.

Meanwhile we
is

nia_y oliserve tliat Blas.s's

form

used "if

dictum (p. 213) that tlie ei c. ojit. wish to represent anything as generally possible, without

regard to the general or actual situation at the moment," suits tlio NT exx. well and it seems to fit the general facts better than Goodwin's doctrine of a
;

"less vivid future" condition (Goodwin, Greek Gram. 301).

THE VERB: THE MOODS.


construction which was

197

The obsolescence
time of the

of

LXX,
of

artificial, though not quite obsolete. the optative had progressed since the and we will only compare the writers

and papyri

i/A.D.

and

ii/A.D.

Diel in

his

program De

enuntiatis finalibus, pp. 20 f., gives Josephus (i/A.D.) 32 per cent, of optatives after iW, oVft)? and &)9, I'lutarch

Lives

(i/A.D.) 49, Arrian (ii/A.D.) 82, and Appian (ii/A.D.) 87, while Herodian has 75. It is very clear that the (iii/A.D.) final optative was the hall-mark of a The pretty Attic style.

Atticisers were not particular however to restrict the optative to past sequence, as any random dip into Lucian himself will

show.

We may
falls

contrast the

more natural Polybius


Diodorus
(i/A.D.)

(ii/B.c),
(i/p-.c),

whose percentage

who

to

5.

of optatives is only 1 } or The writer of 4 Mac

outdoes

all

71, so that we can see the cacoethes Atticissandi affecting Jew as well as Gentile. The papyri of our period only give a single optative, so far as I have
his predecessors with

observed:
little

OP 237

(late

ii/A.D.)

tW
a.d.)

8vvr]6eLT]v.

evoSov clpn [loi (ii/iii and before long, in the Byzantine c7]t, in primary sequence age, there is a riot of optatives, after edv or anything else. The deadness of the construction even in the Ptolemaic
tv
;

later

we have LTw

period

may

be well shown from

-Xprj/xaTcaOrjaoLTo and citations will

TP

(ii/B.c.)

rj^Lwa-a

ha

future
suffice

Perhaps, these facts to show why the NT does not


optative!

attempt
elegance.

to rival the litterateurs in the use of this resuscitated

We

turn to the other main division of

Ontative

^^ Optative, that of which ov and av are With av the Potential frequent attendants.

/ should, you or he would, generally a condition. It was used to express a future in following a milder form, and to express a request in deferential style. But it is unnecessary to dwell upon this here, for the table
answers to our own
given above
as
(p.

living form in

NT

166) shows that times. It was


It
is

it

was no longer a
but not
in

really

literary,

artificial,

Luke's use

proves.

figures

30 times
its

LXX,

or

19 times when 4 Mac


^

excluded, and

occurrences are

See Kiilkei's observations, Quasi. 288

f.

198

A GRAMMAE OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


and not abnormal in form. We of av, which was previously 194 n.)} We shall see that av tends
;

tolerably well distributed


cited in one phrase (p.

should note however the omission

the general weakening of to be dropped with the indicative the particle is probably responsible for its omission with the Tt? av Sort], Job 31^^ al, does not differ optative as well.

from Tt9 Bwr) elsewhere and no distinction of meaning is conveyed l)y such an omission as appears in 4 Mac 5^^
;

even if there is (earl) [a God], he would In other ways we become aware how little differforgive." Thus in Par ence dv makes in this age of its senescence. P 35 (ii/B.C.) i^)]veyK6v oiroa av pevv[u)\To^ the dropping
avy'yv(ofiou7](Tiev,

"

of

force

dv would affect 'the meaning hardly at all, the contingent So when Luke says in 1^being practically nil.
. .
.

how he would like," cf 9*6, there is a minimum of difference as compared with Ac 21'^^ eirwOdveTo Ti<i eXri "who Not that dv he might be," or Lk 18^6 j<AB t/ eit] tovto.
ivivevov

to tl av

deXot "

Ac 10l^ Lk

1526

1836 (D)

c.

an indirect question is always as near as in this case Thus in unaccompanied optative which we treat next. ri avru) a-rj/xacvei i) the inscr. Magn. 215 (i/A.D.) iirepwra TL av iroirjaa'^ aSeco? SLareXoir] represents the conditional sen" " " If I were to do what, should I be secure ? i.e. what tence, ?" So in Lk 6^^ rt av ironjaaiev must I do that I may
opt. in

to the

is

the hesitating substitute for the direct rl 7roii]ao/jbev; Ac 5-* " Tt dv yevoLTo tovto answers to What tvill this come to ? "

Cf Esth 13^

irvdofjuevov

might be brought to pass have Ac 17^*^ rt dv 6e\oi


.

"

ttw? dv d-^deLij In direct (KV).


. .

"how

this

question

we
c.

\e<yeiv\

The idiomatic
c.

opt.

dv in a softened assertion meets us in

Ac

26^^ XAB, ev^aifxrjv


opt. in

dv

"

I could pray."
is

Among

all

the exx. of dv
protasis,
;

Luke
dv

there

only one which has a


edv
/m7]

Svvalfjiijv,

Ti<i

oSrjy/jaet

/x,e

Ac

8^^ ttw?

7a|c

a familiar case of future

Par P 63 (ii/s.c.) has a dropped &v in a place where it is needed dWd. /J.h oxidiva iirelTrai/xi ttXtjc 6'rt ^XKeadai jSe/Soi/Xei/xat. But I badly should prefer to read ovdh a<^v^ if one may conjecture without seeing the papyrus. It is unfortunate that this crucial y is missing, for epewaro (an nnaug^
:

mented form) is quite possible, though less likely. optative, in indirect question, eirjcrai' dairopivadfxevoL.

The

papj'rus has another

THE VERB: THE MOODS.


condition

199

with the

less

vivid
;

form in the apodosis.^


nor need we add

No

more need be

said of this use

much about

the other use of the Potential, that seen in indirect questions. The tendency of Greek has been exactly opposite to that of Latin, which by the classical period had made the optative
("

subjunctive ") de rigueur in indirect questions, whatever Greek never admitted t/? el7}v the tense of the main verb.

sim into primary sequence, and even after past tenses the optative was a refinement which Hellenistic vernacular made no effort to preserve. On Luke's occasional use of it we need not tarry, unless it be to repeat Winer's remark

= quis

375) on Ac 21^^, where the opt. is appropriate in asking " about the unknown, while the accompanying indicative, what he has done," suits the conviction that the prisoner had comThe tone of remoteness and uncertainty mitted S07ne crime.
(p.

in such a reported question given by the optative is well seen as Lk 3^^ /xjJTTore avro? etrj 6 Xpicrro?, or 22-^ to Tt<? dpa e'lrj ... 6 ravra fieWcav irpdaaeiv. It will be noted that Luke

observes the rule of sequence, as he does in the use of irplu


(p.

169).2
T

Indicative.

J-

i-

The Indicative apart from its Future, which we have seen was originally a sub.

junctive

m
.

the

mam
.

is

suited by its whole

-^

-,

-^

-,

character only to positive and negative statements, and not to the expression of contingencies, wishes, commands, or other are not concerned here with the subjective conceptions. " " unreal use of the forces which produced what is called the

We

indicative, since Hellenistic

Greek received

it

from the

earlier

which it proceeded to age as a fully grown and normal usage, Its most prominent use is in the limit in sundry directions.

two parts
1

of the unfulfilled conditional statement.

We

must

It is sentences of this
:

kind to which Goodwin's "less vivid form" does


I

the rule for the whole class apply his extension of this to be see above, p. 196 n. ture to dissent from

should ven-

On

be
is

made

alleged

the general question of the obsolescence of the optative, reference may to F. G. Allinson's paper in Gildersleeve Studies 353 IF. where itacism Kal Cf OP 60 (iv/A.D.) iV odv e'xoire to be a contributory cause.
,

KaTaaTrjffTiTa.1.

= -e),

where exvre
^'

similarly a misspelt subj. (or ' '' equivalent of v, V, '> a"'l

meant; OP 71 (ib) where ei aol BokoI is When oi had become the complete indie).
is

phonetic distinctness.

Prof.

Thumb

the optative forms could no longer preserve dissents see p, 240.


:

200
take
vol.

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


this
ii.,

up among

tlie

other

Conditional

Sentences,

in

only dealing here with that which affects the study of the indicative as a modus irrealis. This includes the cases of

omitted av, and those of ov instead of fi-q. It happens that the only NT example of the latter has the former characteristic

as

well:

Mk

14-^

= Mt

26-^)

Kokov

avrai

el

ovk

eyevv)]6r]^^lt improves the Greek by adding rjv. " the ultimate sense which makes this " unreal at
as

It is only
all
:

as far

form goes, the protasis is like Heb 12-'' et eKelvoc ovk " " " if they failed to There, it e^ecpvyop, escape (as they did). " was a warning to us might have formed the apodosis, and so that sentence and this would have been grammatically similar.

We

might speak thus


if

of

some

villain of tragedy,

"
e.g.

thing

= that) (nearly

there never was such a man."

good Trans-

ferred as it is to a man who is actually present, the saying gains in poignancy by the absence of the contingent form. El ov occurs fairly often with the indicative, but elsewhere

always in simple conditions see above, p. 171. The dropping of av in the apodosis of unfulfilled conditions was classical with
:

phrases like eZei, ixPW> Kokov rjv. did it, it was the right thing,"

Such sentences as

"

If

he
the

may

be regarded as

starting-point of the use of the indicative in unfulfilled " but condition, since usage can easily supply tlie connotation he did not do it." The addition of av to an indicative

apodosis produced

much
"

the same effect as


"
if

we can

express in

if lie had anything, he gave " if he had it," or anything, in that case {av) he gave it," alike suggest by their emphasis that the condition was not

writing by italicising

"

realised.^

We

need not enlarge further on this form

of

sentence, except to note the familiar fact that the imper" " fect in all unreal indicatives generally denotes present

time:

cf

tlie

use with ocfieXov in

Eev

3^^

and 2 Co

11^.

(These are the sole NT examples of this kind of unreal indicative. The sentences of unrealised wish resemble
those of
(1
^

unfulfilled
4^)
in

condition
to

further

in

usino-

the
this

aorist

Co

reference

past

time;

but

could

Two papyrus
526
(ii/A.D.
)

exx.
Kal

OP

may
fiyj

el

(ii/A.D.) ii Tr\eiov bi fxoc

dvi^eve, e7tb tov \oyov /^lov ov irapifievov. irapeKUTO, ttoXlv croi aTreardX/cet;'.

be cited to illustrate this tendency of av to drop. OP 530

THE VERB: THE MOODS.


hardly have

201
of

been

otlierwise.^)

The

difference

time in

the real and nnreal imperfect will be seen when the aV in the stock sentence ei rt dxov, eScSovv

we drop
"
civ,

if

had anything {noiv), I should give it," which by elin)inating the av becomes " if {i.e. whenever) I had anything, I used to

Goodwin {MT 399, 410 ff.) shows that this use give it." of the imperf. for present time is post-Homeric, and that it is not invariable in Attic see his exx. For the we

NT

cite

Mt

2330 24*3

= Lk (^'ge^)
all

may

12^'^

Jn

410 1121.32^ 1

j^

2^^

as

places condition

where
;

el

with imperf. decidedly denotes a past


these exx. contain either
I'uxrjv

but since

or yheiv,

which have no
of the classical

aorist,

they prove nothing as to the survival

ambiguity

we have

to decide

here, as in all cases in the older

literature,

by the context as to whether

The distribution of tenses in present or past time is meant. the apodosis (when civ is present) may be seen in the table on The solitary pluperf. is in 1 Jn 2^^. It need only p. 166. be added that these sentences of unfulfilled condition state
nothing necessarily unreal in their apodosis it is of course usually the case that the statement is untrue, Ijut the sen:

tence itself only makes it untrue " under the circumstances " The time of the {av), since the condition is unsatisfied.
apodosis generally determines itself, the imperfect regidarly denoting present action, except in Mt 23^0 (?;/xe^a). Unrealised purpose makes a minute addition to the tale of

unreal indicatives in the NT.

Gal

2'^,

with which stands

parallels (see Goodwin 333), but no further exx. are found in writers, and (as we saw above, p. 193 n.) the former ex. is far from certain. Such sentences often depend

MT

The afterthought Th 3'', has plenty

eBpa/xov in
of classical

NT

on unfulfilled conditions with


carries

av,

with

it

that of a

still

and the decadence more subtle and less

of these

practical

form of language.
^

There

is

one
it

ex. of o<pe\ov

c.

fut.

Gal

5'",

and there

also the associations of

the particle (as

now

is)

help to

mark an

The dropping of augment seriously. in Herodotus ; its application to '2nd or 3rd pers. is probably due to its being felt to mean "1 would" instead of "thou shouldst," etc. Note among the
late exx. in

expression never meant to be taken in cJ(pe\oi> may be Ionic, as it is found

ment.

LS (p. 1099) that with Grimm -Thayer gives LXX

fie

oXiadai, a

lirst

step in

tliis

develop-

parallels.

See also Schwyzer

Percj. 173.

CHAPTEE

IX.

THE INFINITIVE AND PAKTICIPLE.

The mention
Nominal Verbs and Verbal Nouns
j,-^

of

"

The Verb

"

has been omitted


i

^j^g

heading

of this chapter, in deference to

grammarians who wax warm when Xveiv or Xvaa^ is attached to the But having thus done homage Verb instead of the Noun. to orthodoxy, we proceed to treat these two categories ahnost exclusively as if they were mere verbal moods, as for most
practical purposes in origin and in

,.

.i -i-^e susceptibilities oi

they

are.

Every schoolboy knows that


their

noun

use they belong to the part but on this side they have been sufficiently treated
of

in chapters iv. verbal.

and

v.,

and nearly

all

that

is

distinctive is

The Infinitive
Its Oriein

The Greek Infinitive ^ locative or a


,

is

historically either

,.

>

'

(as Xueiv)

dative (as Xvaai,

^-

%-

elvai, etc.) from a noun base closely connected We can see this fact best from a glance at with a verb.^ Latin, where regcre is obviously the locative of a noun like
f/enns, regi

the dative of a noun much like rex except in and rectum, -tul, -tu the accusative, dative, and locaquantity, In tive, respectively, of an action-noun of the 4th declension. Plautus we even find the abstract noun tactio in the nominative governing its case just as if it were tangcre. Classical Greek has a few well-known exx. of a noun or adjective governing the case appropriate to the verb with which it is Thus Plato Apol. 18b to. /jLerecopa (fypovTtclosely connected. Ant. 789 o-e ^u^t/^o? see Jebb's note. Vedic arri<i, Sophocles
:

^ On the morpliology of the lufinitive see Giles Manual- 468 fF. It should be noted that no syntactical difference survives in Greek between forms oi'igiually dative and those which started in the locative.

202

THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE.

203

infinitive is

Sanskrit would sliow us yet more clearly that the so-called of a noun which nothing but a case any case

had enough verbal consciousness in it The isolation and stereotyping of a few


seen in our

govern an object. of these forms produces


to

"

"

the infinitive of Greek, Latin, or English, It will be easily own language that what we call the infinitive is

at.

only the dative of a noun Middle English had a locative with " In such a sentence as He went out to toil again," how
:

shall
it
:

parse substitute

we

toil ?

Make
from

it

"

hard

toil,"

"

toil

hard," and the


all this
is

One

clear inference

and the Noun claims Verb comes to its own. that there was originally
Avvaro<i davfxd-

no
distinction.

voice for the

infinitive.

"^''

"capable
"

for

wondering,"

and

" able to noun way but one means and the other " deserving to be wondered at." The wonder," middle and passive infinitives in Greek and Latin are merely adaptations of certain forms, out of a mass of units which had lost their individuality, to express a relation made

verbal

davfidaai, in the same

worthy
;

for wondering," use

a^io^ the

prominent
the verb.

by

the

closer

connexion of

such

nouns

with

5e

force

Grreek

There are comparatively few uses of the Infinitive in which we cannot still

by restoring the dative Indeed the very from whence it started. fact that when the form had become petrified the genius of the language took it up afresh and declined it by prefixing the The article, shows us how persistent was the noun idea. the survival of which we have noticed above imperative use,
trace the construction
or locative case
in interpreting it in (pp. 179 f.), is instructive if we are right dative close connexion with the origins of the infinitive. used as an exclamation conveys at once the of

purpose

The frequent identity of noim and verb imperatival idea. forms in Eno-lish enables us to cite in illustration two lines of
a popular

hymn

" So

now

And

to watch, to work, to war, " then to rest for ever


!

schoolmaster entering his classroom might say either

"

then, to

work

"
!

or

"

at

work

"
!

Now

dative or locative, express-

204
ing

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


imperative

2nd
the

person. rest the

Among

NT

2nd person.

person, as the hymn lines express 1st exx., Phil 3^^ has the 1st/ and the The noun-case is equally traceable in

many

other uses of the infinitive.

Thus the

infinitive of

purpose, as in
the extent

Jn
,

for worshiiJjnng

2P

aXceveiv a-jishing, or Mt 2^ irpoaKwrjo-ai of consequence, as Heb 6^*^ i-rrcXaOeaOai, to

and other complementary infiniof forgetting, as Heb 11^^ Kaipov avaKajjiy^aL opportunity for returning, tives, 2 Tim 1^- 8vuaTo<i ^ukd^at competent for guarding. The force
of such infinitives is

"

"

always best reached by thus going back

to the original dative or locative noun. From the account

just given of the of the infinitive it follows that it genesis In was originally destitute of tense as much as of voice. classical Sanskrit the infinitive is formed without reference
Tenses.
to the conjugation or conjugations in

which a verb forms


pres.

present stem

thus

f^"^ {kXvco), inf. p-otiim,

V ^^^'^ (4'^'^' f'^^'^> ^^)' ^haviyohtum, yunajmi hhavdmi. We can see this almost as clearly in Latin, tum, where action-nouns like sonitum, positum, tactum and tactio, etc., have no formal connexion with the present stem seen

V yW

(i^'^ngo),

grnomi

its

The cr in XvaaL lias only accidental in sonat, ptonit, tangit. But when once to link it with that in eXvaa. similarity
these

noun forms had established

their close contact with the

verb, accidental resemblances and other more or less capricious causes encouraged an association that rapidly grew, till all the tenses, as well as the three voices, were equipped with
infinitives appropriated to their exclusive service.

Greek had

been supplied with the complete system from early times, and we need say nothing further on the subject here, since the infinitive presents no features which are not shared with
other moods belonging to the several tenses.^
^ Brugmann, Gram.^ 517 n., regards ws ^iros e'nre'iv as being for etirwixei', and coming therefore under this head. It is a literary phrase, found only in Heb On this and other exx. cf the would-be literary papyrus, OP 67 (iv/a.d.). 7" of the "limitative infin." see Grliueuwald in Schanz Beitriige ir. iii. 22 ff., where it is shown to be generally used to qualify ttSs or oi)5ets, and not as here. ^ The Hellenistic weakening of the Future infinitive, which in the pajiyri is very frequently used for aorist or even present, would claim attention here See Kalker 281, Hatzidakis if we were dealing with the Koiv-q as a whole. The NT does not show this form whether any MS variants 190 f., 142 f.
:

THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE.


.

20o

Some important
^^^^

questions arise from the


^'^^

Purpose etc

^^ "^

^^

infinitive

whicli

is

In ThLZ, 1903, equivalent to iva c. subj. 421, Prof. Thimib has some suggestive remarks on this p. He shows that this infinitive is decidedly more subject.

prominent in the Koivr]

tlian

in

Attic,

and

is

perhaps an

Ionic element, as also may be the infin. with tov, of wliich the In the Pontic dialect of MGr as mentioned same is true.

the old infin. survives, while it vanished above, pp. 40 f. in favour of vd c. subj. in European MGr, where the infin.

was

less

prominent in ancient times."


Pontic
is

Now

the use of the

infin. in

restricted to certain

syntactical sequences.

To these belong verbs of movement, like come, go wp (cf Lk 18^*^, Par P 49 (ii/B.C.) kav uva^o) Ka^co 'irpoaKVv?]craC), turn,
It is found that, speaking go over, run, rise wp, incline, etc. and we find a similar generally, the NT use agrees with this
;

correspondence with Pontic in the NT use of the infinitive after such verbs as jBovkoixai, eTndvfjbw, airovSa^u). ireipd^o),
eiri'^eipw, ala'^upofiat,, (po^ovfxai, d^tw, Trapaivcv, KeKevo), Tdcraco, With other verbs, as ew, eTTLTpeiray, Svva/Mac, X^> dp'^o/xai. the Iva construction prevails. This correspondence TTapaKoXSi,

between ancient and modern vernacular in Asia Minor, Thumb suggests, is best explained by assuming two tendencies within
the KoLvri, one towards the universalising of ha, the other towards the establishment of the old infinitive in a definite province the former prevailed throughout the larger, western
:

portion of Hellenism,
Hellas, where the

and issued

in

infinitive is obsolete

the language of modern while the latter held


;

sway

in the eastern territory, exemplifying itself as we should dialect expect in the NT, and showing its characteristic in the
Prof. Thumb does not spoken to-day in the same country. to urge more than the provisional acceptance of this pretend or rejected theory, which indeed can only be decisively accepted when we have ransacked all the available inscriptions of Asia

Minor
do so
later
I

for their evidence

on the use

of the infinitive.

But

it

cannot say.
;

Jn

MSS

biit

the future

2125 has x^PVi^^^" (<BC), replacerl hy xwp^Jfrai in the The aorist may be due to the is wanted here.

loss of future

The

late scribes wrote. meaning in xcop^crec by the time when the and papyri has been remarked obsoleteness of fut. infin. with /^eXXw in [" See p. 249. already (p. 114 n.).

NT

206
is

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

fruitful research

certainly very plausible, and opens out liints of exceedingly on lines as yet unworked.
,

,,

"Ecbatic"

^.

I'm.

The long debated question


'

of
^-fi

"ha
^ k

eV.1,

paTLKov may be regarded as settled by the new light which has come in since H. A. W. Meyer waged heroic warfare against the idea that tva could ever denote anything
but purpose. All motive for straining the obvious meaning of words is taken away when we see that in the latest stage

"

V.

A A

Greek language-history the infinitive has yielded all its functions to the locution thus jealously kept apart from it. " " is beyond quesThat iva normally meant in order that
of
tion.

It is perpetually used

in

the full final sense in the


ottci)?.

papyri, having gained greatly on the Attic

But

it

has come to be the ordinary construction in many phrases where a simple infinitive was used in earlier Greek, just as in Latin ut clauses, or in English those with that, usurp the

And this is life eternal, prerogative of the verbal noun. " that they should know thee (Jn 1 7^), in English as in the Greek, exhibits a form which under other circumstances would

"

make

final

clause.

Are we

to

insist

on

recognising the ghost of a purpose clause here ?*^ Westcott " says that iva here expresses an aim, an end, and not only

compared with (to) yLvcoat acquiring knowledge of effoo^t I will not deny it, having indeed committed myself God. to the assumption as sufficiently established to be set down in an elementary grammar.^ But I have to confess myself troubled with unsettling doubts and I should be sorry now
a fact."
(TKeiv,

The

tva

clause then, as
of

adds the idea

or

aim

to

commend

that

ha

as strong
!

enough

to carry one of the

heads of an expository sermon Let us examine the grounds of this scepticism a little more closely. In Kiilker's often quoted monograph on the language of Polybius, pp. 290 ff., we have a careful presentation of iva as
it

who came much nearer to the dialect of common We see at once the Atticists who followed him. has made great strides since the Attic golden age.
invaded the territory of
ottco?,

appears in the earliest of the Koivrj writers, life than


that "va
It

has

as with

(ppovri^eLv

and
Sec

airov-

Introd."^ 217.

[''

]>.

-249.

THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE.

207

The Bd^etv, to mention only two verbs found in the NT. And former occurs only in Tit 3^ the latter eleven times. instead of Attic ottco?, or Polybian tva, behold the infinitive Under Kiilker's next head in every occurrence of the two
; !

Polybius is brought into an equally significant agreement He shows how the historian favours iva after with the NT.
.

words
quoted
Iva

of

commanding,

etc.,

such

as

Siaaacbelv,

aneiaOai,

ypiicfieiv,
:

One ex. should be TrapayyeWetv, and the like. re Tavplcova TrapaaKevd^eiv tTTTret? avveTd^aro irpo';
Kol
7re^ov<;

TrevrrjKOVTa
Tov<i

irevraKoa-lov^;,
(TTTret?

Koi

7rpo<;

Meaarjvlov;,

i(Tov<;

T0VT0t<i

koX

ire^ov';

i^airoarebXwcn.

of infin. and "iva c. subj. here is very plain. In the later Koivrj of the NT, which is less affected by literary standards than Polybius is, we are not surprised to and the resultant idiom in find 'Iva used more freely still

The equivalence

MGr
Eom

takes

away the

conclusions.

There is 11 ^\ in which the laxer use of Xva is defended by the demands of exegesis, without reference to the linguistic The editors also (p. 143) cite Chrysostom on evidence.
5^*^
:

excuse for doubting our natural an eminently sensible note in SH on


last

i(TTiv.

ro he Xva ivravOa ovk alrioXoyta^ irdXiv dXX' eKl3acre(D<i It will be seen that what is said of the weakening

of final force in iva applies also to other final constructions, And on the other side we note that such as Tov c. infin.

wcrre in passages like

Mt

27^ has

lost its

consecutive force

and expresses a purpose." It is indeed a repetition after many centuries of a development which took place in the In simple infinitive before our contemporary records begin. the time when the dative So/xevat and the locative Sofiev were still distinct living cases of a verbal noun, we may assume that the former was much in use to express designed result the disappearance of distinction between the two
:

cases,

and the extension


various
uses,

of the

new

"

infinitive

mood

"

over

many

the involved a process essentially in the normally final vanishing of the exclusively final force The burden of constructions of Greek, Latin, and English. these cases thrown on the making purpose clear is in all
like

context; and

cannot be said that any difficulty results, And even in these the diffiexcept in a minimum of places. due only to the fact that we necessarily culty is probably
it

See p. 249.

208

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


:

read an ancient language as foreigners no ditiiculty ever arises in analogous phrases in our own tongue.

The suggestion
;

of Latin influence in this

development has not unnaturally been made some very good authorities ^ but the usage was deeply by rooted in the vernacular, in fields which Latin cannot have touched to the extent which so far-reaching a change
involves.
(I/b.C.)
'iva

few exx. from papyri

may

be cited

OP

744

epwTOi ae
'iva

ha

fir]

ufycovidarj^.

NP

7 (I/a.D.) eypayjra

(joi

cf)v\axO(!5(To

(cf

BU

19

(ii/A.D.)).

BU

531

(ii/A.D.)

irapaKoXo) ae
ryLvq)

KaTda'xrj<i.

625
oVft)?

(ii/iii A.D.)

eS/]\(i)ara

Aoyinfin.
.
.

eiva ervfxdar}.

OP 121
ae

(iii/A.D.)

etTrd crot eXva Bcoawaiv.


:

BM

21

(ii/B.C.)

ri^icoad

ctTToBoOf}

d^to)

c.

Par P 51 (ii/B.c.) Xe7&) occurs in the same papyrus. In such clauses, which remind us 'iva irpoaKvvtiar)'? avTov. 5i 3 etc., the naturalness immediately of Mt 4^ 16^'^
.

Mk

of

the development purpose clause with

is

obvious from the simple fact that the ha is merely a use of the jussive sub-

its appearance after junctive (above, pp. 177 f.), which makes The a verb of commanding or wishing entirely reasonable. cf AP 135 (ii/A.D.) infinitive construction was not superseded
:

need add nothing to Winer's /ir; d/iie\etv fiov. 1 Co 14^ remarks (WM 422 f.) on Oekw and irotw c. ha. ex. under this head, in that Oekw is a good
iproTM ae
particularly

We

has both constructions:


in

that with
in

sentences,

ha, which

as

we may trace a greater urgency From such the meaning demands. the object clause, from the nature of

the governing verb, had a jussive sense in it which made the subjunctive natural, there was an easy transition to The idea was absent. object clauses in which the jussive
careful study of typical sentences like Mt 10"^ 8^ (contrast 18, Jn 127 (contr. Lk 15i) 4^* 15S- 1^ Lk 1*3 (for which
311)

Winer quotes anyone who is


last

a close parallel from


free

Epictetus), will

show

from predisposition that

ha

can lose the

If the recognition of a shred of purposive meaning.^ will suit the context better than the denial purpose conception

So Gbtzeler Dc Folyhi elocMtionc 17 iT. for irpoffixeiv 'i-va and irapaKoKetv 'iva Kalker op. cit., and Viereck SG 67. Against these see Radcrmacher " See further pp. 240 f. RhM Ivi. 203 and Thumb Hcllcn. 159.
^
(XT)
:

also

THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE.


of
it,

209

but the day is entirely free to assume it such strictness as great commentators like Meyer and Westcott were driven to by the supposed demands of grammar. The grammarian is left to investigate the extent to which the Iva construction ousted the infinitive after
;

we remain

past for

particular expressions, to observe the relative frequency of these usages in diflerent authors, and to test the reality of
distribution
difference.

Thumb's proposed test (above, of what may be


Consequence.

p.

to

205) for the geographical some extent a dialectic

The consecutive infin. with wcrre has been already alluded to as admittmg someThe total thing very much like a purely final meaning. occurrences of ooare in the NT amount to 88, in 51 of which
,

-,

i-,

it

takes

the

infin.

considerable

number
:

of

the

rest,

however, are not by any means exx. of what we should call Mare consecutive with the indicative the conjunction be" comes (as in classical Greek) little more than " and so or
"

and is accordingly found with subj. or imper. Of the strict consecutive wo-re c. indie, there are very few exx. Gal 2^^ and Jn 3^*^ are about the clearest, but the line is not easy to draw. The indicative puts the
therefore,"

several times.

result merely as a

new

fact,

co-ordinate with that of the

main verb

the infinitive subordinates the result clause so

much
upon

its cause.

as to lay all the stress on the dependence of the result Blass's summary treatment of this construc-

tion (p. 224) is characteristic of a method of textual criticism which too often robs us of any confidence in our documents

and any certain basis for our grammar. we find any rate a v.l. with the infin."
vai
"

"

In Gal
"

2^^ there is at

in Ti

a^*^*"

a-uwira'^dr)-

"
,

while in Jn 3^^ the correct reading in place of ware

is oTt, which is doubly attested by Chrys. (in many passages) and Nonnus."* Those of us who are not impressed by such

evidence might plead that the text as it stands in both places " the importance It is just entirely fits the classical usage. " to quote one of Blass's criteria to the result attaching

which he says would have demanded the indie, a classical writer which accounts for the use
tive: in
so

Jn 3^^

much

as to give

"had been

in

Ac

15^'' in

the other construction


used,

of the indica-

wo-re Sovvat,

some

stress

would have been

14

See p. 249.

210

GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

taken off the fact of the gift and laid on the connexion between tlie love and the gift." ^ Even if the indicative construction was obsolete in the vernacular which the
evidence hardly suffices to prove indicative for a special purpose, as the independent oi(jTe = and so.
uKTTe in consecutive sense

it

to bring in the it differed so little from

was easy

The

infinitives

were explained
(ii/A.D.),

upon Heb

6^.

So in

OP 526

without above (p. 204), ovk Tjfirjv a'iradr]<i

" so unfeeling as to leave you," etc. aK6y(o<i ae airoXeimv, Sometimes we meet with rather strained examples, as those in
154-72 especially. The substitution of iva for the infin. occasionally makes iva consecutive, just subj. as we saw that coo-re could be final so 1 Jn 1^, Ecv 9-'',

the

Lucan hymns,

c.

Jn

9^

where
than

earlier

Blass's "better reading" otc lias no authority his own, unless Ti needs to be supplemented.

Blass quotes a good ex. from Arrian, ovtw /u,(opo<i rjv Xva fir) shoiild not however follow him in making iva conISrj.

We

Lk 9*^ for the thought of a purpose of Providence seems demanded hj TrapaKeKoXv/M/xevov. 1 Th 5* we can but 2 Co l^^^ is better treated as final: Paul is concede,
secutive in

disclaiming

the

mundane

virtue

of

unsettled

convictions,

See p. 249. which aims at saying yes and no in one breath. The infinitive when used as subject or as object of a verb has travelled somewhat innmtiye further away from its original syntax. We obiect

may
humanitm
erring."
est

see
into

the
"

errarc

original idea if there is something


to

But the

locative

had ceased

we resolve human in be felt when the

construction acquired its commanding prevalence, and the indeclinable verbal noun could become nom. or ace. without
difficulty.

The iva alternative appears here as it does in the purpose and consequence clauses, and (though this perhaps was mere coincidence) in the imperative use (pp. 176 and
Thus we have

178 f.). Jn 18^'^


e/jbbv

Mt

5"^ al av/xcfiepei,
4"^

Mt

10^^ ^pKerSv,
iariv,

avvr]deia iariv, 1

Co

ei? eXd-^irrrov

Jn

4'^*

See Blass's ^pcofid ia-Tiv, all with iva in a subject clause. full list, p. 228, and note his citation from "Barnabas" 5^^,
eSei iva TrdOj]
^
:

still

more marked are such

exx. (p.

229) as

I quote from luy Introduction 218, written before Blass's book.

THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE.

211

Lk 1^^ 1 Jn 53, Jn IS^^, etc. The prevalence of tlie 'iva in Jn has its bearing on Prof. Thumb's criteria described above
(pp. 40 f. and 205); for if the fondness of Jn for e'/xo? is a characteristic of Asia Minor, that for iva goes the other way.
It

would be worth while

for

some patient scholar

to take

up

examining the vernacular documents among the papyri and inscriptions and in the NT, with careful discrimination of date and locality where ascertainable.
this point exhaustively,

Even the
"
"

Atticists will yield unwilling testimony here for a Iva, if normal in the writer's daily speech, could hardly be kept out of his literary style there was a
;

wrong

use of

very manifest dearth of trained composition lecturers to correct the prose of these painful litterateurs of the olden time
!

" Schmid, Atticisuncs iy. 81, shows how this Infinitivsurrogat made its way from Aristotle onwards. Only by such an inquiry
"

could

we make

sure that the dialectic distriljution of these

alternative constructions

was a

real fact in

NT.

Tentatively I should suggest

the

ao-e of

the

for

time for such an


horizon

investigation lies wholly below

my own

that the

preference was not yet decisively fixed on geographical lines, so that individuals had still their choice open. The strong flavour which clung to tva would perhaps commend volitive but one it as a mannerism to a writer of John's temperament would be sorry to indulge in exegetical subtleties when he substitutes it for the infinitive which other writers prefer.
;

We

might
c.

dwell

on

the

relation

of

(after verbs of saying, ^^d "l^fi^v*^^^ and the like) to the periphrasis and substitutes, believing, with on which has superseded it in nearly

the accus.

infin.

all

the

NT

writers.
arises

But no
;

of

meaning

here
ff.)

and

it

real question as to difference will suffice to cite Blass's

and refer to him for details. He shows that " the use of the infinitive with words of believing is, with some doubtful exceptions, limited to Luke and Paul remnant of the literary language (Hebrews), being a So with other verbs akin to these: Luke (Viteau [i.] 52)." " is indeed the only writer who uses [the ace. and infinitive]

summary

(pp.

230

'

'

at

any length, direct form."

and even he very quickly passes over into the The use of &)? instead of on is limited, and

tends to be encroached upon by ttw?: cf Hatzidakis 19,

who

212

A GRAMMAR OP NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


Ac
5^^

ought not however to have cited The combination w? on in 2 Co

4-^

iu 2

this

connexion.
is

1V\

Th 2^
w?
c.

taken

by Blass (Gr} 321 the Vulgate quasi


:

f.)

as equivalent to Attic

gen. abs.,

It must be representing it correctly. noted that in the vernacular at a rather later stage it meant " " that thus CPR 1 9 (Iv/a.D.) vrpcorjv I3i/3\ia i-rrtmerely
fxov dirohoadai,

on e^ovKi^Oriv riva virdp'^ovrd " notes there, w? on seem to be Wessely combined where the single word would be adequate." He
SeBcoKa
rfj

off

eirLfJieKeia

&)<?

'lavs';.

quotes another papyrus, co? on '^peoarelrac ef ainov o Kvpa Two Attic inscriptions of I/b.c. show co? on c. superl.
sense of w? or otl alone: see Eoberts-Gardner
(p.

in the

179.
eltrmv

Winer
ft)?

oTt

oKvoiT],

771) Xenophon, and Lightfoot (on


;

cites

Hellcn. in.
2

ii.

14,

Th

2^)

and Plummer

but the editors have agreed to eject repeat the reference oTt from the text at that place. Its isolation in earlier

Greek seems adequate reason for Winer's citation from the Argument
Kari]'yopovv

flouting

the

MSS

here.

to tlie Jyusiris of Isocrates,


elac^epei, will

avTou

co?

on

Kaiva SaLfxovia
"

hardly

dispose of Blass's

"

unclassical

(as

Plummer

the argument is obviously late.^ and Blass without much hesitation.


.

We may
^^i

supposes), since follow Lightfoot

Nominative

for

Accusative
to the infinitive

In classical Greek, as any fifth-form boy ^ ^ -i ^\ loi'gets at his peril, the nominative is used

regularly instead of the accusative as subject when the subject of the main verb is the

same
is

This rule e^rj ovk awro? aXXa KXewva arpaTTjyetv. by no means obsolete in NT Greek, as passages like 2 Co 10^ Eom 9^, Jn 7* (WH text), serve to show; but the ten:

dency towards uniformity has produced a number of violations of it. Heb 7^'^ has a superfluous avrov, and so has Lk 2* Mt 26^^ inserts ixe, Phil 3^^ e/xavTov, and so on. Blass, instances, and remarks that translations p. 238 f., gives from Latin (Viereck, SG 68) exhibit this feature." Kalker (p. 280) anticipates Viereck in regarding this as a case of
:

jrroptcr

hoc

as well as 2^ost hoc.

But the development

of

^ Dr J. E. Sandys {Aristotle's Constitution of Athens, p. xxviii) makes the author of the virbOecns to the Arco/icgiticus "a Christian writer of perliaps the sixth century." He kindly informs me that we may assume the same age for that to the Busiris. [* See p. 249.

THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE.


Greek
in regions

213

influence

untouched by Latin shows that no outside was needed to account for this levelling, which

was perfectly natural. The accus. c. inf. and the on construction ^^^^ been mixed in Ac 27^^ by an inadvertConstruction ence to which the best Attic writers were See the parallels quoted by Winer (p. 426), and add liable. from humbler Greek OP 237 (ii/A.D.) BtjXcov otl el ra d\7]di}
(fiaveLi] /xrjSe

Kplcrew^ heladai to Trpdyfxa.

Also see Wellh. 23.

We
Infinitive

will

proceed to speak of the most

characteristic feature of the


in

Greek
"

infinitive

post-Homeric language.

By

the

sub-

stantial loss of its dative force," says Gildersleeve (AJP iii. " 195), tlie infinitive became verbalised by the assumption of
;

the article
of its

was substantivised again with a decided increment Goodwin, who cites this dictum {MT 315), power."
it

the description of the articular infinitive, with "its wonderful capacity for carrying dependent clauses and " adjuncts of every kind," as a new power in the language, of

develops

which the older simple infinitive gave hardly an intimation." The steady growth of the articular infinitive throughout the period of classical prose was not much reduced in the
Hellenistic vernacular.

This

is

well seen by comparing the

NT statistics with
sleeve

those for classical authors cited from Gilder-

The highest on the same page of Goodwin's 3IT. is found in Demosthenes, who shows an average of frequency 1-25 per Teubner page, while he and his fellow orators
developed the powers of the construction for taking dependent In the clauses to an extent unknown in the earlier period.

NT,

if

my

calculation

Teubner page
for Plato.

is right,

not

much

less

there is an average of '68 per than that which Birklein gives


of

The fragmentary and miscellaneous character

the papyri make it impossible to apply this kind of test, but no reader can fail to observe how perpetual the construction
is.

have noted 41 exx. in

vol.

of

BU

(361 papyri), which

will serve
of inquiry,

to illustrate the statement.

An

interesting line
far,

which we may not at present concerns the appearance of the articular Since it is manifestly developed dialects. in the Attic orators, we should natu)'ally

pursue very
infinitive

in

the

to a high degree

attribute its fre-

214
quency
against
test

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


in
;

the Hellenistic vernaculur to

Attic elements in

the Koiv7]

and

this will be

Kretschmer's view

rather a strong point to make (p. 33), that Attic contributed


to

no more than other dialects


this

adequately,
of

we ought

the resultant language. To to go through the whole


I

Sammhing

Greek

dialect -inscriptions.

have had

to

content myself with a search through Cauer's representative Delectus, which contains 557 inscriptions of all dialects except It will be worth while to set down the scanty Attic.
results.

First

comes a Laconian
. . ,

inscr. of

ii/B.c,

182) tVl TO /caA-w?

Bie^ayvrjKevac.

32 ( = Michel Then the Messenian

G94), dated 91 B.C., which has tt/jo tov c. inf. twice, the second time with a subject in accusative. Four Cretan exx.
(

47

= M.

follow, all

from

ii/B.c,

and

all in

the same formula, irepl

tw
55,

(once tov) yevia-dat with accus. subject (Nos. 1225


56, 54, 60).
ex., for all its

= M.

The Gortyn Code (Michel 1333, v/b.c.) has no Then 148 ( = M. 1001, the Will of length. dated cir. 200 B.C., in which we find ttjoo tov tclv Epikteta), avvohov rjfieu. No. 157 (M. 417), from Calymnus, dated
end
one exception the oldest ex. we have at rraaav airov^av erroLy^cravTO tov {touJ- 8ia\v6ivTrapajevofxevoL
of

Iv/b.c, is with

Ta<i Tov<i

TToXtVa? ra ttot avTov<i TroXtTeveadai,

//.er'

ofiovoM^;.
:

No. 171, from Carpathus, Michel (436) assigns to ii/B.c. it has Trpo tov fiiaOcoOijfieiv. No. 179 (not in M.), from Priene, has [rrrepi t'Iov irapopt^eaOai, Ta<y ^(opav. apparently iii/B.c,

The Delphian

inscr, no.
ex., no.

contributes one

the middle of Iv/b.c, to aTToaToXafxev Finally Lesbos gives yjrdcfjLafjia. us (no. 431 = M. 357), from ii/B.c, eVt Twt irpay/xaTevdyvai. I have looked through Larfeld's special collection of Boeotian
: . .
.

220 has irpo tov Trapa/meivai. Elis 264 ( = M. 197), dated by Michel in and so the oldest quoted irepl Se tw
. .

Unless the inscriptions, and find not a single example. selections examined are curiously unrepresentative in this

one point, it would seem clear that the articular infinitive only invaded the Greek dialects when the KoLvrj was already arising, and that its invasion was extremely limited in extent.

To judge from the silence of Meisterhans, the Attic popular It would seem to have been speech was little affected by it. mainly a literary use, starting in Pindar, Herodotus, and the The statistics of tragedians, and matured by Attic rhetoric.

THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE.

215

Birklein (in Schanz Bcitr., Heft 7) show bow it extends during the lives of the great writers, thougli evidently a matter of Thus Sophocles has "94 examples per 100 personal taste.
lines,

has "42

Aeschylus "63, and Euripides only 37. Aristoplianes but if we left out bis lyrics, the frequency would be
;

This is eloquent testimony about the same as in Euripides. for the narrowness of its use in colloquial speech of the Attic golden age and the fact is significant that it does not appear in the early Acharnians at all, but as many as 17 times in
;

the Plutus, the last product of the poet's genius.


prose,

Turning to Herodotus showing only "0 7 examples per Teubner page, and only one-fifth of his occurrences have a preposition. Thucydides extends the use greatly, his total amounting to 298, or more than "5 a page in the speeches be has twice as many The figures for the orators have already been alluded as this. conclusion of the whole matter The to. subject to correction the more thorough investigation which is needed for from

we

find

safety

seems

to

be that the articular infinitive

is

almost

entirely a development of Attic literature, especially oratory, from which it passed into the daily speech of the least

cultured people in the later Hellenist world.


it is

If this is true,

enough by

itself to

show how commanding was the part

taken by Attic, and that the literary Attic, in the evolution


of the Kotvr].

The application

of the articular infin. in

NT

Greek does

We

not in principle go beyond what is found in Attic writers. have already dealt with the imputation of Hebraism which
c. inf.

the frequency of iv tcS

has raised.

It is used 6 times
;

in Thucydides, 26 times in Plato, and the fact that it exactly translates the

16 in Xeuophon

and

Hebrew

infin.

with 3

does not
creases

any worse Greek, though this naturally inOnly one classical development failed frequency. to maintain itself, viz. the rare employment of the infin. as a thus in Demosfull noun, capable of a dependent genitive
it

make

its

" or in Plato, their good sense thenes, TO 7' ev ^poveiv avrSiv, Heb 2^^ hia ttuvto^ tov ^>> is an exact Sia Trarro? tov elvai.
;

"

alone in Greek, though parallel to this last, but it stands as Gildersleeve notes, has ro uSiaKptTov ri/xa)v ^?>. Ignatius,

NT

The

fact

that

^P/v

was

by

this

time an entirely isolated


its

infinitive

form

may

account for

peculiar treatment.

216

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


may possibly contribute to the common vernaNT) phrase ek irelv,^ which we compared above
c.

similar cause

cular (not
(p.

81) to the Herodotean uvtI


(p.

anarthrous
notes
as

infin.

The

prepositions which Birklein

104)

never used

with the infin. retain this disqualification in the NT: they are, as he notes, either purely poetical or used in personal
constructions.
It

may

be worth while to give a table of

relative frequency for the occurrences of the articular infinitive in

NT

books.

Jas has

(7=)

1'08

Heb (23 =
89 (in

1-09; Lk (71=) nearly ) Ac (49 = ) Pastorals not at all)


;

-99;
'7

per page; Paul (106 = )

WH
)

(-73 in cc. 1-12,

68incc. 13-28);

(13=) -32; Jn
has
1

(4

Pet (4 = ) '59; Mt (24 Eev (1=) -027. ) '076;

'35; Mk [Mk] le^^"

one
:

ex.,

which

makes

this

writer's

-43

the other

NT
,
.

books have none.

It

figure will

stand

at

be found

that

Mt and Mk
.

are about level with the Kosetta Stone.^

which were once appropriated tor purpose, That has infected two varieties of the articular infinitive. with Tov started as a pure adnominal genitive, and still
remains
of
its

Tou

c.

mf.

The general blurring


,

of the expressions

J.

such

jropeveadat.

in many places, as 1 Co 16*, u^lov tov But though the rov may be forced into one

the ordinary genitive categories in a fair proportion of occurrences, the correspondence seems generally to be
:

accidental

makes
TOV

in later

the extension which began in the classical period Greek a locution retaining its genitive force the genitive absolute.

almost as

little as

c. inf. is telic.

With

this force it

by Thucydides, and in the


use.

NT

The normal use of was specially developed this remains its principal

will analyse the exx. given in the concordance, those in which rov is governed by a preposition, omitting has 6 exx. : and those which are due to the LXX.

We

Mt

in one of them, 21^^ tov TrtaTeva-ac gives rather the content

than the purpose of


of the total for the

fiere/xeXyjOrjTe.

Luke

supplies two-thirds
exx., of

NT.

In

Lk we have 23

which

may
1

be due to dependence on a noun, and about one-half

Winer (413) cites two exx. But not to els fta^ai, OP 736 (cir. A.D. 1). from Theodoret. See Kiihner^ 479. 2. Add an ex. with axpL from Plutarch An inscription of iii/B.c. {OGIS 41, Michel 370) has diroaToXeis p. 256 D. " See p. 241. ^TTt ras TrapajSoXas rQf SikQv 'Ka.jj.^dveiv Dittenberger emends.
. . .
:

THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE.

217

seem clearly final; in Ac there are 21, with 2 adnominal, and less than half final. Paul shows l.". (only in liom, Gal, 1 and 2 Co, Phil), but there is not one in which purpose is In Heb there is one adnominal, one unmistakable.
(11*^)

Jas 5^^ (object clause), 1 Pet 4^^ quasi- final. and the peculiar ^ Eev 12^ supply the remainder. (adnominal), Before turning to grammatical detail, let us parenthetically commend the statistics just given to the ingenious analysts who reject the unity of the Lucan books. The uniformity of use is very marked throughout Lk and Ac: cf Ac 27^
final
("

or

We "-document) with I520 20^, Lk 21^2 with Ac Q^\ Ac We "-document) with 14^^. Note also the uniform ("
TOV

2 0^7

proportion of final Tov, and tlie equality of total occurrences. When we observe that only Paul makes any marked use of

Lk and Ac (the two writers together c. inf., outside accounting for five-sixths of the NT total), and that his use differs notably in the absence of the tehc force, we can
hardly deny force to the facts as a contribution to the evidence on the Lucan question. In classifying the uses of
this TOV,

we note how

closely it runs parallel with im.


.
. .

Lk

17^ avevSeKTov eaTiv rod

/i?)

e\6elv,

Thus and Ac 10^^

e^evero tov elaeXOelv (cf 3^-), where the tov clause represents a pure noun sentence, in which to would have been more
correct,

may

find the simple infin. used side by side with It is not worth while to (purpose) and 1'^^. labour any proof that purpose is not to be pressed into any example of tov where the context does not demand
it

eXdy; in Lk TOV or iva.


in

1*^.

be paralleled at once by irodev ixot tovto Xva After verbs of commanding we may have

We

Lk

l'^''^-

it

not meant that there

but we must justify our assertion about Paul. It is are no possible or even plausible

cases of final tov, but only that

when Paul wishes

to express

purpose he uses other means.


c.

inf. is

epexegetic

(Eom
16^

1-^

In the majority of cases tov 7^ 8'^, 1 Co 10^^), adnominal


S^i),
1^).

(Ptoni

1523, 1

Co

910

ablative construction (Ptom

Co 8^\ Phil 15'"^, 2 Co

or in a regular

The rendering

make this a quotation from Dan Michael, who in the latter says eVioTp^/'w rod See below.
^

WH

lO'''--":

the former verse names kt\ (Theodotion).

TroXefj-ijaai /xera

218
"

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAIilENT GREEK.


"

so as to

force are

Eom

will generally express 6^ and Phil ?^'^

it.

The nearest
but in both

to pure final
it

the main natural to recognise result as purpose quite purpose is expressed by a clause with I'va in each case, and the rov c. iufin. comes in to expound what is involved in
as
is

would be

the purpose stated. that in Eev 12'^,

An

explained by rov The construction 7ro\efi7]aai with subject in the nominative. is loose even for the author of Eev, but the meaning is clear
is
:

extreme case where 7roXe/Ao<?

of

explanatory

infin.

we might

et certaby Vergil's " or more closely men erat, Corydon cum Thyrside, magnum if we may pursue our former plan of selecting English still sentences of similar grammar and widely different sense " There will be a cricket match, by such a construction as

illustrate

the

"

apposition

the champions
ripos TO

to 'play

the rest."

Two
and
j^rj^yg

been, to a

other modes of expressing purpose more limited extent, infected

c.

infin.

occurs 5 times in

final force,

same general tendency. JTpo? to Mt and once in Mk, with clearly except perhaps in Mt 5-^, where it might rather
by the

Lk 18^ seem to explain ^Xiiroiv than to state purpose. and Ac 3^^ stand alone in Luke, and the former is hardly final we go back to a more neutral force of Trpo? " with " Paul has it 4 times, reference to the duty (Winer).
:

and always

to

express

the

"

"

subjective

purpose

in
n.,

the
after

agent's mind, as

W.

F.

Moulton observes

(WM
Ek

414

Meyer and
final
is

This then is a locution in which the Alford). to c. infin. sense has been very little invaded.
It

almost exclusively Pauline.


;

very similar phrases, all final Mk, each, with final force fairly certain.

occurs thrice in Mt, in Lk and Ac have it once

Jas and 1 Pet have

two exx. each, also said of the 8 exx. in


distributed in

final

Heb.

Paul, esp. Philem and the Pastorals.

and the same may probably be The remaining 44 exx. are evenly Eom, Th, and Co none in Col,

between 'tva and et? to, " iW close connexion in a considerable number of passages to mark in each case the direct and immediate appears end, while et? to indicates the more remote result aimed at or reached." This seems to be true of both rov and
:

Westcott on Heb 5^ distinguishes which he notes as occurring in

THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE.


ek
its

219

TO.

Since
TO

we have
to

seen that
force,
it

'lua

itself

has lar^rely lost

appropriation
el<i

telic

it

that

would
is

lose

more

would naturally follow on tlie whole, easily


:

11^, Moulton and Westcott, independently, insist on the perseverance of the final meaning, in view of the writer's usage elsewhere. The eh to r-^eyovevat (mark the perfect) will in this case depend on KaTijpTicrOac, and describe a contemplated effect of

however, this

hardly the case.

On Heb

the/^

difficult

Rom

Gen 1. Paul's usage is not so uniform. It is dispute Burton's assertion (MT | 411) that in 1 2^ 2 Co 8, Gal 3" (not, I think,i in 1 Th 2i) ek to
in
to

"expresses tendency, measure of


or actual."

Add
the
as

the content of
acting for

414 n.) exx. of eZ? to expressing (with a command or entreaty (as 1 Th 2^-), or
is

WM

effect,

or result, conceived

remote
to

here

epexegetic inf. (1 Th 4^). Purpose to be practically evanescent.

so

We

must

however agree with

SH

in

rejecting Burton's reasoning as

Eom

1-''

dealing with
results, final
differentia.

this belongs to the category of passages Divine action, in which contemplated and actual
for

and consecutive
It

clauses, necessarily lose their

paper by
Bible," in

Mr

been often asserted cf especially a " A. Carr on The Exclusion of Chance from the
has

that Hebrew teleology is Expos, v. viii. 181 ff. responsible for the blurring of the distinction between pur" subtle influence of Hebrew pose and consequence it is a
:

thought on the grammar of Hellenistic Greek."


be allowed

in thought, not language like that last mentioned, where the action of God passages " can But the idea that " Hebrew teleology is described.

This might

as

a Hebraism

of

have

much

to

do with these phenomena as a whole

is

put

out of court by the appearance of the same things in language which Semitic influences could not have touched.

We
tov

Evidence of the
Papyri, etc.

have already shown


^^
witnesses:
.f

this for

'iva.

A
'

few exx.
^
-

^-^^^1

^^^

^^^

^^^^^

vernacular
afieXecv

JjU

boo

rU

t.\ (i/A.D.)

Koi irpoaipetu, ypu(f)etv. (I/a.D.) )(^pr} ovv eroi/xdaeiv Xv TOV -n-wkelv: cf Mt 18^^ Jn 5^, for parallel construce;^t

BU

830

See Findlay

CGT

in loc, where strong reasons are given for accepting

EUicott's interjiretation, seeing here the purpose of God.

220

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


(ppovrjaop
iii/A.D.

BU 1031 (ii/A.D.) tions with e^&). JHS, 1902, 369 (Lycaonian inscr.,
Sc'^oToiJ,t]aavTi
(iii/A.D.)
fie

rod

nroirjaai.

or

earlier)

tu>

rod
tov

to
fir]

XoeTrov

^t]v
:

eh

(cause).
4*^,

NP
1^.

16

KwXvovTe'i rov
(ii/iii

aireipeiv

cf

Lk
:

Ac
Co

1 4^^, etc.

BU
164

36

A.d.)

^r]v

/xeTaaTrja-ai
. . .

cf

BU
595

(ii/iii A.d.)

TrapaKoXa)

ere

ireccrat

avrov tov eXdelu.

BM

23

(ii/B.C.)

irpoaheofxevov
fjui^i

/jlov

tov

TreptTroitjaai.

BU
"

(i/A.D.)

TOV ae

evpeOrjvai,

of your not being found," as if tw and naturally ejects the dative.

apparently meaning ^ the document is


:

because
eaTlv

illiterate

OP
,

86
.

(Iv/a.d.) e'^o?

OP 275 (I/a.D.) airoairaOrivai deaOai tov cf 156 i^ovalav tov evpelv cf BU 46 (ii/A.D.) evKai,pia<; 1 Co 9*^. irdv irolrja-ov tov ae aireveyKe Lk 22*^. BU 625 (ii/iii a.d.) The usage is not common in the papyri. so 845 (ii/A.D.).
TOV
TTapaa-'^edrjvai.

tov
.

eTTiTeLfiov.

CPIt

Winer's

plentiful testimony from LXX, Apocrypha, 411) illustrates what the Byzantine writers

and

(WM
it

NT

statistics

suggest, that

education in the main.

the higher stratum of belongs For et? to we may quote the reto
firjhevl fie/ju^dPjvai,

current formula
telic:

et?

to iv

which

is

decidedly

as

PFi 2

(iii/A.D.)

laneous exx.

may

Miscelquater, (iii/A.D.). 18 (ii/A.D.), 69 (ii/A.D.), in be seen

OP 82

OP

BU

195 (ii/A.D.), 243 (ii/A.D.), 321 (iii/A.D.), 457 (ii/A.D.), 651 Like the rather 731 (ii/A.D.), and 747 (ii/A.D.). (ii/A.D.), to carry the thought of a remoter commoner Trpo? to, it seems purpose, the tendency towards an end. This is well shown by the cases in which the main purpose is represented by iva or
and an ultimate object is tacked on with the articular Thus BU 226 (I/a.D.) otto)? elSfj irapeaeaTai. infinitive. = -6ai) avTov OTUV ktX Trpo? to tv')(Iv /xe tt}? utto ( OP 237 (ii/A.D.) otto)? (f)povTi(Tr]<i uKoXovda (TOV ^orjOei'm. to firj irepl twv avTwv nraXiv avTov 'irpo<i irpa^ai
OTTO)?,
.
. . . . .

evTVj^dvetv.
TT/JO?

ih.

\^(,va\

h'

ovv

8ia/xevrj

i]

^pT]aei<i

TO
is

force

This kind of final fir) irdXiv diroypa^ri'; herfOrjvaL. exx. what we have seen in nearly all the just

NT

nor do

those in

which the purpose


with
^

is

least evident

go beyond

what we
. .

see in these other illustrations.

Before
^

dealing

the

Participle
___
.

proper,
-

we may

Cf 2 Co

2^^

l^Vh (ii/B.O.) ^XXws ^k

tQ

fxi^Oiv

e'xetv Tr\i)v

rod JlroXefxaiov,

THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE.


briefly

221

touch on another category closely connected with it. Brugmann has shown {Idg. Forsch. v. 80 ff") that the

Greek
The Participle and the Verbal
Adjectives
_^^^
..^,

participle,
.

formed with the


-loos- (-^ls-),
,

sufiixes

-mcno-, and
^.
.

represents the

proethnic

participle,

connected
there are primitive verbal which in other languages

with

which was intimately the tense system while


;

,.

have become examples


verb.

adjectives,

notably that in -to-, Latin and English arc obvious

associated more intimately with the form in Greek has never come into the and its freedom from tense connexions may verb system " " amatus est and " he is be seen from the single fact that " " " and \o\ed represent different tenses, while scri])tv.m est " " Even in Latin, a word like iacitus it is writtc/i agree.^ illustrates the absence of both tense and voice from the

The

-ro'i

adjective

in

its

primary

use.
Italic

concerns Latin and the

dialects,

Brugmann's paper mainly and we shall only

pursue the subject just as far as the interpretation of the The absence of voice has just been Greek -to? calls us.

remarked
or
"

on.

This
8^:
is

is
it

well shown by the ambiguity of aSvva"incapable," as in Ac 14^ NT occurrences ? a

Tov in lioni

Eom 15\

impossible," as in the other


tell

cannot
absence
English
"

us

it

is

of

tense,

we may

purely note

lexical

Grammar As to problem.
in
of

that both

Greek and
time and of

this adjective is

Aktionsart."

Both

indifferently to This fact has some exegetical importance.

wholly independent and beloved may answer and ajair'qdel';. '^yaTTTjfMevo'?, a<ya'7rcofxevo<i,
dyair'nTO'i
"

the timeless adjective

cursed

"

Thus in Mt 25^^ would answer to the Greek

The perfect Kari^pa/jbivot has the full perfect and this force, "having become the subjects of a curse"; makes the predicate translation (RVmg "under a curse") That our -d (-n) participle has no decidedly more probable. tense force in itself, and that consequently we have no exact
KaTaparoL.
aorist or perfect participle representative of either present, in Greek, is a point that will often need to be borne passive
in

mind.

The very word

just used, ho7me,

translates

the

The

verbal adjective in -no- stands parallel with that in

-to-

from primitive

times.

222

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

while its punctiliar equivalent the aorist eve-^Oeiaav in 2 Pet 1^^ hrought represents (RVmg) and the similar taken aioay stands for rjpixevov in Jn 20^; " and yet all these are called " past participle in English
present alpofievov in
2^,

Mk

grammars.

of the verbals in

Having cleared the way for a lexical treatment -t6<;, by leaving usage in each case to decide whether an intransitive, an active, or a passive meaning is to be assigned to each word, we may give two or three examples which will lead to a new point. HvveT6<; is a good example " it is always active, of an ambiguous word intelligent," in
:

NT, but
Euripides the two.

in

earlier

writers

it

is

also

passive.

LS

cite

IT 1092

6v^vveT0<;

^vverolac

^od

as

''Ao-vveTO'; in

Eom

1^^ is also active,

combining but the next

combined with it by paronomasia, gets its from the middle o-vvOeaOai, " not covenanting." An meaning example of the passive, and at the same time of the free use " of these adjectives in composition, is OeoStSaKTo^; GodIntransitive verbs naturally cannot show passive tauglit." Thus ^6aT6<i fervidus, from ^e{a)ai " to boil." But meaning. when we examine 6vr]T6<i, we see it does not mean " dying " " " " " mortal but but iraOrjTO'i is probably not suffering of suffering," ^^aT^z'&ife So often with transitive "capable " " would be rendered o The invincible Armada verbs. invictus would be similarly used in o-ToXo? ariTrriTo<i Br] " " can be read in that sense in Latin, and unconquered

word

a(7vv06To<i,

'

'

considerable number of these adjectives answer English. thus to Latin words in -Mlis, as will be seen from the lexicon
:

we need

cite

no more here.

It will

be enough merely to

mention the gerundive in -reo?, as it is only found in Lk 5^^ It is not unknown in tlie papyri, /3\'t]Teov "one must put." but can hardly have belonged to the genuine popular speech.

A
Indicative
^^^^

considerable
^

proportion

of

what we

^^^ about the Participle has been

adumbrated

may

One Hellenistic use, already anticipated. in the discussion of the Imperative (pp. 180 ff.), be finished off at this point, before we go on to describe

That the participle can be subordinate participial clauses. used for indicative or imperative seems to be fairly established now by the papyri. Let us present our evidence
before applying
it

to

the

NT

exx.,

which we have already

THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE.


given so far as the imperative the following may be cited:
a-TjfiaLVOfjbevcoL

223

Tb

is

concerned.

For indicative
(ii/r..c.)

P 14

tw/-

ovv

'Hpan

"

iraprj'yyeXKOTe^:

evooircov,

gave notice

in

Tb P 42 (ih.) j^St/CT/z^eVo? (no person" (no verb follows). AP 78 (ii/A.D.) ^(.av irda'^cov e/facrroTe, etc. verb follows). Tb P 58 (ii/p..c.) 'ypd-\lra<i oTrft)? ei'S^?, kuI <tu (no verl)). 49 (iii/A.D.) ort ". dvaycovlaro'; taOet. e^ayp7]aavTe^ Kol ." On a(f>eTepiaavre<;, koX dirdvTrjKa avToi<;.
.

NP

GH

26

(ii/B.c),

<7Vve7nKe\vova7]<i t^9 tovtcov

fir}Tpo<i

0pf]pi<;

T/79 TIa(bTo<i "

crvuvSoKovvT<i

Twv

irpoyeypadix/jiivcov),
;

the edd.

The construction is hopeless one of the participles avvevS. must be emended to the indicative, and The writer of the papyrus the cases altered accordingly." uses his cases in a way which would have convicted him of
remark
:

crvveTTiK. or

Semitic birth before any jury of but if awevSoKovfjLev long ago


;

NT
is

grammarians not very meant by the crvvevwithout


emendation,

SoKovvre'i,

we may perhaps

translate

taking tmv it. as partitive gen. like Ac 21^^ {s2qn\, p. 73). In Par P 63 (ii/B.c.) evrev^iv rj/xlv irpocfiepo/uLevoi comes in so long a sentence that the absence of finite verb may be mere

anacoluthon.
Kol eKheihd^eiv,

OP 725
"

In and to teach," etc. CPE, 4 (I/a.d.), Kal fjirjheva KcoXvovTa, for KtoXveiv, seems to be the same thing in oo^at. ohl., but more clearly due to anacoPor the imperative there is the formula seen in luthon.

H. agrees

(ii/A.D.) to all this,

Be 'H. evSoKcov TouTOi<i irdai

35

(i/B.C.)

iavrcov 8e einp,e\6ixevoL "v

plural precedes): so
(all
p.

Par

63,

Ptolemaic),

etc.

FP 112

vyiaivrjTe (1st person 30, Path P 1, Tb P 12 translated above, (I/a.d.,

178) kirkypv {= -cov) Zw'ikwi Kal elva avrov /j-t] SucrwTTjjcri;?, Tb P 50 (I/b.C.) eV oh idv irpoaBajade fxov i'lmda-crovrh fioc (This is a letter from following a gen. al)S. irpoOvfiorepov

"

an official of some importance (G. & H.), who bears the Greek name Posidonius. We may observe that the participial

"

use
of

we

are discussing

is

in the papyri not at all a

mark
It

inferior education.)

It will be

seen that the use,

though

fairly certain,

was not

in the vernacular very

common.

may be recalled that in a prehistoric stage Latin used tlie the 2nd plur. middle for participle for an indicative, where some reason became unpopular and scquiminl = eiro/xevoi not
;

only established

itself

in

the

present,

but even

produced

224

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

analogy-formations in future and imperfect, and in the subjuncCf the constant ellipsis of est in perfect indie, passive. If tive.^
further analogies
ible

may

be permitted, we miglit refer to the plaus:

connexion claimed between the 3rd plural indicative and the participle in all languages of our family hheronti {fervid, ^epovai, Gothic hairand, etc.), and hheront- (fc^'cns, (fiepwv,
hairanch).

These analogies are only adduced

to

show that the

use of

tlie

participle always lay ready to hand, with or without

the auxiliary verb, and was a natural resource whenever the

ordinary indicative (or, less often, imperative) was for any In D we find this use apparently arising cause set aside.

from the

literal

translation

of

Aramaic:

see

Wellh.

21.

proceed to give some NT passages in which the those where participle appears to stand for an indicative the imperative is needed were given on pp. 180 ff. As before,
:

We may

we shall begin with those from Winer's list (p. 441 f.) in which we may now reject his alternative construction. Kom 5^^ is most naturally taken this way Winer's explanaKav)((jiJixevoi
:

seems forced. reading with their


tion

L and

the rest correctly glossed the true

Kav)((M[xe6a.

In

Heb

7"^

we might have

to

take refuge in explaining ipfirjvevo/jievo^ as an indicative, if we felt ourselves tied to 09 a-vvavTr]aa<i in v.^ which is read by XABC^DEK 17. But it seems clear that we may here

accept the conjecture of C*LP and the later MSS, the doubled sigma being a primitive error parallel with those in 1135 ryvvaiKa<i (i^AD and the new Oxyrhynchus papyrus) and

11^ auTov Tm 060) (where Hort's avTcp rov eov is now found in the papyrus, as well as in Clement) this is an excellent witness to the scrupulous accuracy of the /S-text in preserving
:

even errors in
is

its

ancient source.
if

In

Heb
of

8^^ 10^^ SiSoix;

parallel
:

to

eTnypd'xJrco,

the order
Si8ov<i

maintained

the

LXX

had

Scoaco,

thought is to be but AQ and Heb

omit

Sft)cro)

Hebrew ?), Winer (p. 717) would make


ciple, as in

(because there was only the simple Qal in the leaving BlSov<; to do the work of an indicative.
e7riypd\lfco
etc.

a substitute for partievp6vTe<; arrives

Col

l-*",

Co 7^^
of

In

Ac 24^

at the goal

by the way

anacoluthon

Luke

cruelly reports

Scquiminl imperative has a different history: ef the old infinitive


See p. 241.

eir^/Mevai,

Skt. sacamane.

THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE.


the orator verbatim.

225

taken in this way


the

main

verb.
26-*^

In 2 Co V' OXi/So/xevoi is most simply perhaps 7rapKX)'j67]Hv was in mind for 'ATrayyeXkwv in the a-text (HLP and cur:

sives) of

Ac

woukl be explained

thus,
:

of

iyevofji'tjv is still

consciously present

though the influence were this a marked

irregularity, the Syrian revisers would hardly have admitted 12*^ exovre^ is I think for In it. see above, e^ofiev In Eev 10^ ^X^^ is ^or el'^ev Winer allows that p. 183.

Eom

"

i(TTL [rather ^v]

may

be supplied."

class of participle altogether is that " of hanging non)inative," which our

So 21^^- ^^ A different coming under the head

own nominative

absolute

translates so exactly that we forget the genitive presumed in the Greek. Heb 10^ will be a case in point if the text is
acce])t hvvarai, which is strongly boh vg the the combination supported by (so W. F. Comvi. in loc.) follows the construction expressly Moulton, vouched for by Theophylact, reading ej^wy as an " absolute

sound

Westcott and Peake


In Phil
1^*^

DH

EV

clause."

e')(ovTe<i

similarly takes the place of a gen.

abs. (or dat. agreeing

with

viiiv)

the construction
in fact is

is

taken up

as
to

if

ekd^ere had preceded.^


:

The idiom

anacoluthon
500.

see other exx. in

WM
as

due merely

HG
here.

Answering Viteau,

who

usual sees

716 and Jannaris Hebraism

Thumb

found in classical

observes {Hdlenismus 131) that the usage is Greek, and in Hellenistic both in and
"

outside Biblical Greek,

and

is

which

ends

in

MGr

with

the

the precursor of the process disappearance of the old

participial

only an absolute form in -ovra^ This construction is identical, to be sure, with being the nom. 'pendens unaccompanied by the participle it is as
constructions,
left."
:

common

in English as in Greek, the one as in the other.

and just as
first

"

Hebraistic

"

in

We
'

saw when we

introduced

the

participial substitute for indicative or imperawith tive (p. 182), that its rationale was practically Our next subject the suppression of the substantive verb. will therefore naturally be the use of the participle in peri-

Liglitfoot rejects the alternative punctuation So Kennedy . . Trao-xe'" as a parenthesis. seems to me.
Tjrts
.

(WH) which wouhl treat {EOT in loc.) riglitly, it

15

226

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

Since the question of Semitism is rather phrastic tenses. Blass (pp. 202 ff.) acute here, we will deal with it first.
discovers the influence of Aramaic especially in the periphrastic imperfect: in the case of Mt, Mk, Lk and Ac 112 " this is no doubt due to their being direct translations from

Aramaic

based on direct translations," would be originals a better way to put it. Schmid (Attic, iii. 113 f.) has a valuable note, in which, after sketching the extent of this

"

"

periphrasis in classical Greek and literary Koivrj, he remarks that in Par P he can only find it in future-perfects, and twice in optative with aor. participle. Comparing this scanty
result witli
"

the extraordinary abundance of the participial

one cannot avoid separating the ., periphrasis in use from that of the Koivrj, and deriving it from the Heb. and can of course have no Syr. application of the participle."
.
.

NT

NT

We

In translated Greek, as we objection to this, within limits. have seen again and again, we expect to find over-literal
still more to find an overdoing of correct idioms which answer exactly to locutions characteristic of the The latter is the case here. No one language rendered.

renderings,

denies that periphrasis is thoroughly Greek and a half of classical exx. in Kiihner-Gerth

see
i.

the page
ff.

38

It is

only that where Aramaic sources underlie the Greek, there is inordinate frequency of a use whicli Hellenistic has not

Jn

Of Wellh. 25. The exx. in conspicuously developed. (see Blass 203 n.) and Paul we may treat on purely

Greek lines. By way of further limiting the usage, we observe that the imperfect is the only tense in which correspondence with Aramaic is close enough to justify much of a
case for dependence. No less an authority than Wellhausen warns us not to carry the thesis into the imperative " "laOi
:

in

imperative

b^\ Lk not to be treated as an

(Mk

participle or adjective often le^O, and in consideration of Prov 3^

before

occurs

LXX

is

{Co7mn. on Mt 5^^). Then we note the papyrus usage. "E'x^cov earl and Seov eari (with other impersonal verbs) are both classical and vernacular.

Aramaism

"

The future eaofxaL c. perf. part, is well kept up in the papyri, and so is the periphrastic pluperfect: thus, OP 285 (I/a.d.) ov T^fiTjv evSSv/jLevo<{ 'y^LTWva, Par P 8 (ii/B.C.) wv rjiMrjv hi avTOJV There can be no thought of Aramaisms Trapafxe/uberprjKVLa.

THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE.


here.

227

But BIT 183 (I/a.d.), 6</)' ov xpovov ^waa y, is rather Imiited ilhistratiou for the present participle in this usage. Winer however cites Lucian, observing that its common appear" ance in the was but seldom the Hebrew."

LXX

Aa

to classical Greek, note

paper, OR So in Thuc. iv. 54 ?]aav Be xii/es imparts a special emphasis. Kal ryevo/xeuoL Ta> NcKia \6<yot, "some proposals were even
little

suggested by G. Kutherford's suggestive xvii. 249, in which he shows that the idiom

Dr W.

actually

made

to N."
"

Antiphon
puzzle

(Fr.

M.

3.

G7)

r)v o

ryp2(}io<i

evTavda
"

peirayv,

the

did

indeed
el

mean

as

much."
;

Aristoph. Acli.
afraid to go
"
1"^-,
. !

484

earrjKaq;

ouk

Karainwv EvpiTriBrjp
!

we
Gal

not effectually saturated with Euripides " not apply this in the originally Greek parts of NT
I

May
e.g.

was

entirely

unknown

only they had been

." ? Paul has only one other ex, in imperfect, hearing Phil 2-^, where eiTLirodwv and uBtj/jlovoiv seem decidedly adjec.

and not at all improved by reading them as imperfect. (No one would cite 2 Co 5^*^.) Blass well remarks that in Jn "in most passages ^v has a certain independence of its own"; and he further notes that in Ac 13-28, where Aramaic sources are almost entirely absent, the Semitisms
tival,
fail,

total nmiiber of
for

The except in 22^^, in a speech delivered in Aramaic. exx. of pres. partic. with imperf. of elvai is
3

Mt

(only
17,

1-^

possibly

Aramaising),

Mk

16,

Lk

Ac (1-12)

(13-28) 7, Jn 10, Paul 3, 1 Pet Large deductions would have to be made from these figures, on any
theory, to get the translation of an

30,

maximum

of exx. for the

supposed

literal

Aramaic periphrastic imperfect.

Even

in

Mk
Lk

and Luke the yv is generally very distinct from the and whatever was the Aramaic original, we may participle
;

be quite sure that such expressions as


4^^

we
See

find in
p.

Mk

10-'-

or

owe nothing The participle


usage
that
tenses

to

it

in this way.

2 4 'J.
little

as a whole has

diverged so

from
say.
;

earlier

we have not very much more

to

need no further discussion in this volume and for our present purpose little need bo added to what was An said about the articular participle on pp. 120 f.

The

'

count

eoTois as a present,

but omit

^^6;^

Tjv.

Jn

1" is ineliuleil,

but not

Lk

3--\

228

A GEAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


use
of
o &v may be noted in Ac 13^ Kara ri]i> "the local church," 14^^ D rov 6vro<; Aio^

idiomatic

ouaav

eKKKrja-lav,

Gf Ramsay's Upoirokeoi^ (or tt/oo iroXew^)} remark {Ch. in Rom. Emp. 52, quoting J. A. Particiule " Eobinson), that in Ac o &v introduces some technical phrase, or some term which it marks out as having a technical sense (cf 5^'' 13^ 28^'^), and is almost equivalent Dean Eobinson has not mentioned to ToO ovo/xa^o/xevov" this in his note on Eph 1^, though an ingenious person

might apply it there to the text with ev 'Ecfyeacp absent but the usual view needs no defence against such an alternative. With at ovaai in Rom 13^ we may compare Par P 5 (ii/fi.c.) On the crucial e(^ lepiojv Kal lepeiwv twv ovrav koX ovawv.
;

passage Rom 9^ see the argument that


to be
6

SH
"

p.

235

f.,

with

whom

I agree,

though

eVt

TT.

6.

God over all," would have might perhaps be met by applying the
is

He who

idiom noted above for Ac, with a different nuance, eo^i may still be subject, not predicate, without making wv
otiose
:

the consciousness

of

Ex

3^^

might

fairly

account

than grammar which makes the reference to Christ probable. One other Pauline passage claims a brief note, Gol 2^, where the natural o?
for its insertion.

It is exegesis rather

" directreplaced by o avXaycoyMv, to give " ness and individuality to the reference Rela(Lightfoot). a-vXajcoy/ja-ei is

tive clauses are frequently ousted

by the articular participle, which (as Blass observes) had become synonymous therewith. There is a marked diminution in the use of the participle with verbs like Tvy^dvco, dp'^o/xai, XavOdvw, ^a'lvopbat, etc. But this was, partly at any rate, mere n Participle as i t ^ 'Occident, for Tvyxav(o c. part, is exceedingly

'

i.

Complement.
a phrase

common

in

the papyri

"
:

happen

to

be

"

is

NT

7rot?;cret9 c. aor. part,


is

KaXw? writers would instinctively avoid. (once or twice infin., but the participle
'^,

overwhelmingly predominant) is the normal way of saying " and So 3 Jn in the papyri, and is classical. please I cannot agree in the past Ac 10^3, Phil 4^4 cf 2 Pet l^^.
"
:

with Blass's

"

incorrectly ev Trpdaa-ecv in

Ac
49

15'^^" (p.

245)

^ Cf such phrases as rod ovtos mouth."

/j.-qvos

xo'^f,

NP

(iii/A.D.),

"the current
':
I

THE INFINITIVK AND PARTICIPLE.


except in the query he attaches to the remark.
"

229
Surely this

If you keep yourselves is an ordinary conditional sentence, " Ev irom^aere, from ? free from these things, you will prosper " " will oblige us but vernacular usage, would suggest you With verbs like oTBa, o/xoXoyo), Blass can hardly mean this. it a])pears fxavOavo), the participle is being encroached upon
;
:

regularly

in

2
is

Co

12^,

Jn

4^ (not B),

Jn^ Lk
inf.

8^,

Ac
the

24^*^,

but

generally replaced by ace. and

or a

on
and

clause.

So Par

P 44

(ii/B.C.)
ere

recurrent

we can quote

in

6/A0X0709),

BU 151 (Christian period cctOl), TP 1 (ii/B.c. NP 1 (ii/A.D. el /judOoifii, the optative of which
fyLvooa-Ketv
: .

deXco

<yivwaKe fxe TreiropevaOai, 6tl for the participle

Of course Phil 4^^, efxaOov suggests culture). have learned how to be," is classically correct

elvai

"

Tim

S^^ is

any case no ex. of fiavOdvco c. part., for this could only mean "learn that they are going about." (The EV rendering is Winer with Plato Euthyd. 276b 01 dfia6el<i apa supported by
and the parallel phrase hihuaKeiv tlvcl from Chrysostom el mrpo? fxeWeL<; The construction /xavOcivo) liavOdveLv, with other parallels. is not unnatural in itself. as passive of hihaaKw Despite Weiss, the absolute fxavO. seems intolerable, and there is no
aocfiol

fxavdavovat,,

ao(ji6v

Field

adds

real alternative, unless with Blass

We
Participial
^^^^

one of the great resources of Greek, in which the poverty of Latin shows
This
is

participle in the sentence.

boldly insert elvai.) come then to the manifold uses of as forming an additional clause

we

markedly

Our own language comes much by contrast. cannot nearer, but even with the help of auxiliaries we we cannot by our participle match the wealth of Greek thus, The elasticity of Greek distinguish \e\vK(a^ and Xuo-a?.
:

however has
supplying in

and aWwufjh.
arises

its disadvantages, such as the possibility of translation particles as widely apart as hecanse But it seldom happens that serious ambiguity

from this absence of strict logical differentiation. W^e need spend little space in classifying participial We have already seen (pp. 170 f.) that one important usages. in Hellenistic, by the encroachments criterion has
In Conditional,

disappeared of fir) over the whole


^^^^^^
.^

field,

when

in classical

^^^ essentially

conditional.

We

230

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


The
participle in conditional It stands for idv c.

return to this point presently.


clauses
aor.
is

still

found
9^^

very

freely.

subj.
1

in

Lk
et
c.

indie, in

Co

11-^.

compared with Mt IG-*^; for et c. pres. There seem to be no exx. of its subirreal.
;

stitution for

opt., or el c. indie,

but this

is

an

accident, due to the relatively small number of sentences of Another class is called by Blass ^ .. the kind.
.

"Conjunctive,
(cf

^^

,.

'conjunctive

Ac 3")
.

is

his ex.
"
"
?

can by worrying," or
life
'

Who In Mt G^^ even if he does worry, add a span to his


:

l^** iim -i^^ ayvocov we have a choice


r,,-

>

'

Giroirjaa "

Concessive clauses are often expressed " with the participle alone Eom 1^^ though " " free big though they are," 1 Co 9^0 they know," Jas 3* Where I am," Jude^ (not causal, as Winer), etc. though ambiguity is possible, we sometimes find the meaning fixed by Heb ter once by KauTot, Kalirep, as Thil 3-*, 2 Pet 1^^ and
;

Heb 4^

Kal
'

ravra Heb

Causal

note 11^^ or Kai 76 Ac 17^^ the ov there surviving, with characteristic

emphasis.
ceedingly
2^,

The opposite causal sense

is

ex-

common

Mt

l^**,

6^ (unless temporal), Jas 42\ is less often expressed by the partietc. Purpose ^ we have ciple, as the future was decaying
:

so

Ac

Heb

however Mt 27^^, and two or three in Luke. The present sometimes fulfils this function, as in Ac 15^^. which describe Finally come the temjwral clauses, or those ^^^^ attendant circumstances of an action e.g. Temijoral and Mt 13^ ware avrov eh ttXoIov e/jL^dvra KadAttendant Circumstances fjadai, " when he had entered, he sat down." ^
' :

Clauses.

-^^ few
is

should

not
it

usually

put

temporal
:

clause to represent these, as


in comparatively
cases,

would overdo the emphasis like Ac 17^ and similar narra-

Our replace with iiret or ore. the best representative, unless generally Enghsh participle we change it to the indicative witli and Latin, unless the
tive

passages,

we might

ablative

absolute can be used,


subj.,
its

necessarily

has recourse to

cum

c.

circumstances.

normal method of expressing attendant The pleonastic participles Xa^cov, dvaard^,


the string of tinal fut. jiartiSee p. 241
"'

It

was not however by any means dead

ci'

ciplfs in

OP

727 (ii/A.D.)

;"

BU

98 (iii/A.D.)

etc.

THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE.


iropev6e'i<;,

231

aveXdcov, largely occurring in translated passages,

have been already referred to (p. 14). One interesting Aramaism may be noted here from Wellhausen (p. 22). He asserts that in Mk 2'^ \aXel l3Xaa^7]fiel (without stop) literally translates two Aramaic participles, the second of wiiich should in Greek appear as a participle. In Lk 22''^ we find
^\aa-(f)r]fiovvTe<;

eXeyov correctly.

But

it

must be noted that

punctuation Mk I.e. is perfectly good Greek, so that we have no breach of principle if we do allow this account of the passage.

with the

EV

large use of participles in narrative, both in grammaconnexion with the sentence and in the gen. abs. construction (p. 74), is more a matter of style than of grammar,
tical

The

and

calls for

no special examination

here.

We
.

may

close our discussion with

some

notes on the places in which the ordinary rule, that /x.^ goes with the participle, is set

The number of passages is not large, and they may Mt (2 2^1) and Jn (lO^^^ have one well be brought together.^ Luke (Lk 6^^^ Ac 7^ 262^ 28^'^-'^) five; and there are each;
aside.

two each in Heb (ll^-^s) and Paul has eight passages (Horn 1 Co y26, 2 Co 4s- 9 qnatcr, Gal
Before discussing them,
for
ov.

9^^
4^,

Pet (1^ 2^^ and Gal


Phil
3^,

a quotation).

4:'^'^

his

quoted
Th

Col

2^^, 1

2^).

let

OP 471

(ii/A.D.)

us put down some papyrus exx. rov qvk eV XeuKai^ iaOPjaiv iv

Oearpcp Kadicravra: cf
ovSeTTO) ireTrXr^pwKorcov
(ii/A.D.)

Mt

I.e.

OP 491

(ii/A.D.)

iav TeXevTi]a(o
25).

(when they are not yet


7nSi8cofj.t
:

AP
Th

78
3^.

ov

Svvafjievo'i

ijKaprepeiv
Si'

contrast 1

OP 726
fjbevo'i
(

(ii/A.D.)

ov hvvdixevo<i
(ii/A.D.).
e')(op.ev

aadeveiav irXevaat since he


(ii/B.C.)

ov ajo'^aaaa long gen. abs. succession): so Par P 40 ovre rod lepov aroj(aadp.evoi ovre Par P l.'> (ii/B.C.) Kparovaiv ovk dva-nkpi,rov Kokcos ^oi>ro<;.

cannot): so

727

Tb P 41
.

-ov)

cdv

Trlarecov (in

\lravT6<i rrjv ^epvrjv.


vtt'

ovSepu^.

BU
1

fxevo^ TL
(i/A.D.),

eKelvo<;

Tb P 34 (ii/B.C.) fxr] TrapapoxXeida) (sic) 361 (ii/A.D.) X^P^^ ^^'^ ^'X^^' ^^'^ etriordSee also Par P 14, OP 286 dTre/cpeLvaro.
3 and 8 (ii/B.c).

TP

(ii/B.c),

In

many

of

these

omit

ouic i^bv,

used for iudic, and the

common

veruaeiikr phrase

ol'-x

Tl'Xti"'.

232
exx.

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


we can
distinctly recognise,
it seems, the lingering conproper negative for a statement of a The same feeling may have made ov

sciousness

that
is

the
oi).

downright fact
rise to the lips

the illiterate

when an emphatic phrase was wanted, as in Tb P 34 above. The closeness of the participle
of ov natural.

to the indicative in the kinds of sentence found in this list

makes the survival

Much

the same principles

may be applied to the NT, though in Luke, Paul and Heb we have also to reckon with the literary consciousness of an
some of the old idioms even where In two passages we had generally swept them away. [x-)] Mt 22^^ (see parallel have ov and fm] in close contact.
educated man, which
left

above)
oihe
(xrj

is

6-^(ov

followed in the king's question by ttw? elarfkOe^i the The distinction is very natural
.
.

first is

a plain fact, the second an application

of

it.

The

In emphasis would have been lost by substituting fiy^. the two phrases are alike Pallis's MGr version of the Gospels translated with hev and indie. (The completeness of MGr
levelling is well illustrated

by his version
.

of

Lk and Jn
;

ll.cc.

The former becomes

koL

hev

c.

indie.

the

latter

is

Koi ^oaKo<i /jbi]v ovra-i, followed by ttov 8ev elvat ra irpojBara " Outside the SiKa Tov, whose own the sheep are not."
indicative
"
Sez/

is

not found.)

Pet 1^

is

best left to
is

Hort

not capricious. The change of negative participles the second of historical fact The first is a direct statement
;

...

is

introduced as

it

were hypothetically, merely

the full force of iriaTevovTe';."


ficial to distinguish, it is

Though

bring out Blass thinks it artito

hard to believe that any but a slovenly writer would have brought in so rapid a change without any The principles already sketched may be applied to reason. the remaining passages without difficulty, in so far as they In the quotations from the LXX we are original Greek.
have, as Blass notes, merely the fact that i6 c. partic. was The passages in question regularly translated with ov. would also come very obviously under the rule which admits

ov

when negativing

a single word and not a sentence.

ADDITIONAL NOTES.
p. 2. Tl.imil) points out [Ildlen. 125) tliat Josephus liiis only been convicted of one Hebraism, the use of irpoaTideaOai c. inf. = " to <'o on to do"
{) n^pn, i.e.

Jos. 514-7,

" to do (For this, cf Wellh. 28.) He refers to Selnnidt again "). and Deissmann BS 67 n. That the solitary Hebraism in the Palesis

tinian writer should be a lexieal one, not a grammatical, P- 7. In the Expositor for September 1905, Prof.
earlier

suggestive.

Ramsay

says that

tlie

tombs
This

at Lystra

normal.

may
:

inscriptions, while at Iconium Greek is involve our substituting Latin as the language of Paul's

show Latin

preaching at Lystra such a conclusion would not in itself be at all surprising. P. 8. "Even a Palestinian like Justin knew no Hebrew," says Dalinan

44) in arguing against Resch's theory of a primitive Hebrew Gospel. 14'^'' as (on Gal 4) prefers to regard 'A/3j3d 6 iraTi^p in spoken l)y our Lord in this form. He cites from Schottgeu the ad-lrcss n'3 no, in which the second clement {Kvpie) emphasises the first by repetition ; and he compares Rev 9" 12^ 20". Thus understood, the phrase would be a most emphatic

{Words
P.

10. Lightfoot

Mk

''testimony to that fusion of Jew and Greek which prepared the way for the preaching of the Gospel to the heathen." Rut Lightfoot's first alternative (practically that of the text) seems on the whole more probable.

In Ac 2^ D, Blass pi;ts a full stop at the end of the verse. P. 16. But we might translate without the stop: "It came to pass during those days of fulfilment of the day of Pentecost, while they were all gathered together, that

." This is the {h) form, with /cat loov, so that it comes This punctuation helps us to give adequate force to the durative in fin. On this view D gives us one ex. of the (a) form, and one of av/j.ir\T]povadai. the (b), to reinforce the more or less doubtful ex. of {b) in the ordinary text of Ac 5''. Tliose who accept Blass's theory of Luke's two editions might say that the author had not quite given up the () and (b) constructions when he wrote
lo
!

there M'as
{a).

near

his first draft of

Ac

corrected

what remained
;

before sending the revised edition to Thcophilus, he of these (like a modern writer going over his jiroofs to

expunge "split infinitives"), but overlooked 5''. I am not commending that view here but I may suggest a systematic study of the r/rammar of the D text in Luke as a })robably fruitful field for those who would contribute to the
greatest of all textual problems in tlic NT. P. 23. might have expected to find a specimen of Cretan in Tit 1^^ but if Ejiimenides the Cretan was really the autlior of this unflattering description of his countrymen, he waited till he came to Athens, where (among other

We

aei and disyllabic dpyal. Plato makes him reach Athens just before the Persian "War. P. 30. It may be worth Avhile to add a note illustrating the early date at which some characteristic MGr elements began to ajipear in the vernacular.

advantages for this composition) he could write

234

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

On a Galatian tombstone of \i/A.-D.{BC'II 1903, 335) the word di'dTraiwts is written av<^dTr'^a^is, showing the fully developed result of the pronunciation of an as av of MGr iiraxpa from 7rai;w. liamsay (C. and B. ii. 537) notes Karea:

He also (TKi^aaa (BCH 1888, 202), which is an ex. of the same phenomenon. gives a Christian inscription of iii/A.D. from Phrygia, containing the 3 pi. eiriT-qSevaovv, and "an anticijiation of the modern periphrastic future" in
^ov\-i]6rj dvol^i,

as

OP

528.

noted by Mordtmann. "We may add the gen. eaov from ii/A.D., But Thumb (in BZ ix. 234) cites a yet earlier ex., exoi'ires for noni.

or ace. pi. fem., from an inscription of I/a.d. P. 43. S. Langdon (^ JP xxiv. 447 ff.) examines the history of Mv for dv, and agrees with Winei', who thinks it a peculiarity of the popular language

elTort to emphasise the abstract This would of course occur nuich more frequently with relatives without antecedent than when they were defmed This popular idiom met the necessity which the LXX by an antecedent.

(\VM

390).

Mr Langdon

attributes

it

to

"the

conditional aspect of the relative clause.

translators felt in their effort to distinguish between the complete and inIn the complete relative clauses when translating from Hebrew.

...

NT

the rule of using idu in sentences without antecedent is invariably followed, almost invariably in the OT and in Christian Greek writers." Mr Langdon's
trust in his one or

two exx. from

classical

MSS

before

translators themselves used this edv, and meant anything by the distinction, we should at least have examined the early papyri very carefully. Tlie earliest exx. quotable, so far as I know, are 220 his (133 B.C.) and G 18 (132 B.C.): Tb P 12 bis, 105, 107, are also from
feel

we can

sure that the

LXX

can hardly be sliared

and

BM

ii/B.c.

suggestive ex.

is

Tb P
edv.

with either interpretation of


in these relative sentences P. 44.

59 (99 B.C.), where the sentence is translatable It may be noted that the rarity of antecedent

makes it easy to misinterpret statistics. banned by as "Western," occurs frequently in See Schwyzer Ferg. 118 for exx. and an explanation inscriptions and pajiyri.

'EipiopKelv,

WH

(Thumb's).
P. 55.

more peculiar

jiroduct

is

[einKaJXeo/jLe

-ai)

189 (Rome), to wdiich Prof.

Thumb

calls

my

attention.

in Audollent no. So KoXeu ib. no. 15

That these are genuine survivals of uncontracted forms (e.y. (Syria, iii/A.D.). from Epic dialect) is very improbable. "Pindaric Construction," wIku the verb follows, is hardly anaP. 58. colnthic it is due to a mental grouping of the compound subject into one entity " " "flesh and blood = humanity," "heaven and earth "=" the universe." A papyrus ex. may be cited BU 225 (ii/A.D.) virdpxi- Si avry iv Ty kw/j.tj oIkLm So also 537. 8uo Kai kt\. Meisterhans^ 203 ( 84) cites a number of exx. from Attic inscripP. 60. tions of v/ and iv/i!.c., where in a continued enumeration there is a relapse Gildersleeve adds CIA i. 170-173 (v/b.c. = Robertsinto the nominative. Gardner no. 97) rdoe Trapeooaav arecpavos (pLaXai etc. To discuss this large ipiestiou for individual exx. would take us too P. 63. Blass in 39. 3 states the case fairly he notes that the luisuse of ets long. was still a provincialism, which in respect of the local signification of ets and ev is not present in the Epistles nor (strangely enough) in Rev, though found in Hatzidakis 210 f. illustrates both the use all the narrative writers of the NT. for the latter, add the early Par P 10 of ets for iv and that of iv for ets (He should not have cited 2 Tim 1'^, where ets is dvaKex^py)Kv iv 'AXe^avdpeia. We need not accept all Blass's exx. thus Jn 17^^ is perfectly normal.)

surely "perfected into one."

But

it

must be confessed that our evidence now

ADDITIONAL NOTES.
makes
it

235
.

" the combination impossible to see iu Jn l^^ (6 a-c ds to;/ kuXvov) and motion, of a continuous relation with a realisation of it " (Wcstcott). Without further remark wo will reserve discussion till the time comes for
.

of rest

treating

the prepositions systematically, suggestive substitutions of iv for els in Ac

only noting that in


7^- 8-^

D
Ac

there arc

(the latter

however probably
ll'-'^

involving an entirely different sense see


et's

p. 71),

and

eis

for eV in

(ecrric

Tdpo-oc).

On

this cf Wellh. 12.

P.

65. D

KaTT/jyopeTv,

P.

often, as Wellhausen notes (p. 13), shows ace. with aKovuf, and Kparelv, where the other texts have gen. 67. Both in Ac 16^4 and in 18, D alters the dat. to tVi (ets) c. ace.

but in the latter a clause is added containing iriixTeieiv tui de<^. P. 69. It should have been noted on p. 49 that Blass's objection

to recog-

nising the noun 'EXanbv, in Ac 1^^ and Josephus, rests upon the fact that assimilation of case is generally practised, and that in rb 6pos rCbv ekaiQiv the genitive is unmistakable. But the nom., though rare, has parallels: see Deissmann

BS

210.

Blass rightly,
fie

equivalent to (pwvelri

I think, regards Jn \Z^'^ as a vocative, and not as rbv diSciffKaXov but Winer's 1 Sam 9" is a clear ex. to
;

put by liev 9" and Blass's own Mk 3^" (as foimd iu A and the Latt.). It is noteworthy that both Luke and Josephus {Ant. xx. 8. 6 irpbs opos rb irpoa-ayopevofievov 'EXatw;/, Bell.

Jud. ii. 13. 5 ets rb 'EXotwc KaXoifxevov 6pos) not only use the unambiguous genitive -Qvos {Ant. vii. 9. 2 8ia rod 'EXaidvos opovs) but also put the anarthrous eXaiuv in combination with the word called. This seems to

show that the name was not yet fixed in the Greek speech of Jerusalem residents, and that the halfv/ay-house to the full proper name wanted some
apology.

To opos

tuiv iXaiQiv will

thus be a translation of

The new name


for olivcyard,

for the hill

would

si)ring

tlie native name. from two sources, the vernacular word

and the impulse to decline the stereotyped iXaiQv. An exact was quoted in Expos, vi. vii. 111. In the Ptolemaic papyri Tb P 62, 64, 82, 98 the noun i^loov is found, which the editors connect " for the with of the word treated
parallel for the latter
ibises," closely i^iwv {Tpo<prjs) feeding being as nom. sing, instead of gen. pi. : they observe tiiat "the declension of the village called 'JjSiwv ]irobably contributed to the use of this curious form."

In both words then we see


coincides with a
P. 70.

a gen. pi. made into a new nominative which slightly different meaning already existing. Prof. Thumb tells me that the construction (parenthetic nomina-

noun of

tive) survives in

MGr

thus

{dir')

Tagen."

E.

W. Hopkins (^J'P

tSw /cat TreVre /idpes [noni.]r= heute vor 5 "a year xxiv. 1) cites a rare use from Skt.
:

"

(nom.) almost, I have not gone out from the hermitage." Contra, Wellh. 29. it is the name given in one of lb. EiV-oj'es perhaps should be translated

the latest issued papyri in iv. to the personal descriptions which accompany an lOU, receipt, bill of sale, census paper, etc. Ih. The vocative t] ttols, as Dr Ecndel Harris reminds me, literally trans-

BU

Aramaic absolute an-b-q have remarked tliat the irsage


lates the

(as
is

Dalman gives it, Gramm. 118 n). I should commonest where there is translation from
citations,

Semitic.

Luke

in

The author of Heb does not use it except in OT Ac 13-28 (though we may note that in the three

nor does

citations involved

there is no article in the Hebrew). It is only another instance of over-use of an idiom through its coincidence with a native usage. P. 74.
adjective.

See

KtUmer-Gerth 401

n.-''-

",

for these genitives


al,

after a negative

Typical exx. are


irdaris <pdopa,s, irdcnis

awTToXoyov

aKivSwos iravrbs Ktvdvvov, and dvvirevOvvoL wavrbs eirirlfiov. Tb P 124 (ii/B.O.)


105
(ii/B.C.)

Tb P

doiardaTovs ovras

ahlas.

BU

970 (ii/A.D.)

Tr?s els

diravras evepyealas

236

A rfilAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


They
illustrate avofxos Oeou iu 1
is

dj3ori0riTos.

Co

9'-'

dvev vo/wu 6eov, which

differs

only in that the genitive

subjective, while the rest are cither objective

genitives or jtuve ablatives. lb. One or two parallels

may be added for the free use of the gen. abs. For the sulistitution of gen. for the case in construction, cf Tb P 41 (ii/B.c), BU 1040 (ii/A.D. ) xat'pw 6'ri ^oi iKavCiv Tj/j-Qv vwhtrTWi exovruv afa/ce%ajpT7^a/ie;' Other exx. will be seen in ravra eiroiriaas, ifjLov /j.eTa/j.e\o/j.^vov irepl fxrjoevbs. OR XV. 437. For gen. alis. without expressed subjects, cf BU 925 (iii/A.D. ?)
;

dvayvwo-OevTUV, 970 (ii/A.D.) orfKudevros di' fjs Trpoeidr] /xol da(pa\eias, etc. in Ac 4^", (paveporepov Elative comparatives may be seen in P. 78.

It cf p. 44, and 10^8 ^eXriov e<piffTacr6e {= ejr. ^^?i7. 144). On substitutes irXelaroL for irXeiovs in 19^", and adds an elative ribiara in 13*. As to 10^8 Blass compai'cs 24- 25^o in the ordinary text, and 2 Tim l^*, Jn 13"^.
iffTiv,

and

WH

(sic)

Xeipwv, we should add that xetpta-r?;!' is found in Tb P 72 (ii/B.c). P. 79. Before leaving the subject of comparison, we ought to remark on curious forms which have been brought into existence by the weakening of the

old formations, or their detachment from the categories of comparative and Beside the regular form eXdx'O'Tos, which is predominantly supersuiierlative.
lative in Mt,
Xi-<rT6rpos in

but elative in Lk {ter, and 12"^ doubtful) and Jas, Paul uses eXaEph 3^, whether as comparative or true superlative the sentence leaves uncertain. He uses eXaxttrros as superl. in 1 Co 15^, and as elative in 4^^ 6^. The double comparative /xei^'orepos occurs in 3 Jn * cf our les^icr, which is
:

equally due to the absence of clear comparative form iu a word whose meaning is clear. See Jannaris 147 for a list of these forms add /xei^orepos, Archiv

HG

iii.

173 (iv/A.D.)

al,

/.(.eyKXTOTaros

BM

130

(i/ii

A.D.), irpea^vrepuTepa

BM

177

(i/A.D.), Trpwrtcrra

BU

G65

(i/A.T).).

Exx. are found even in older Greek.

the Aramaising use of positive c. ij or irapa, for compar., see Wcllli. 28. AVellhauscn (p. 26) finds in the Synoptists some traces of insertion of the article through literal translation of Semitic idiom here again D is conP. 81.

On

spicuous.

Thus Mt
:

from the rule which


a definite noun
P. 82.
so

10-^ Tov da-a-apLov. Note also his exx. of Semitism arising drops the article with a noun in construct state preceding
12*-

in time of solemn translates iv avvaywyyj (Jn Q^^ IS^'') assembly." Our own use of "in church," "in or out of school," etc., is enough to illustrate this phrase, which nuist be explained on the lines described in the

Westcott
:

]\It

"the

(|)ueen of the

South."

"

text above

P. 84.

On the presence or absence of the overpressing a prepositional clause article when

Westcott seems to be somewhat

it.

has to be added as an epithet, cf J. A. Roliinson, E^ili.as. 149. For its presence may be cited such passages as Eph 1^^, for its omission, Eph 2^^ 4\ Phil 1*,
Col. l^8.

seldom that we find in Greek of tlic NT tjqies the complex arrangement by which the classical language will wrap up a wliolc series of adjuncts between the article and its noun. 1 Pet S'' will serve as an exceptionally
It is oidy very

good example.

The

simplicity of

NT

style naturally causes less involved forms

to be generally preferred.

In G. A. be brought in. there is a bilingual inscription, Palniyrene-Araniaic and Greek, containing within its compass a good parallel to the genealogy in Lk 3-'^"'"^ AatXa/j.et;' Alpdvov tov MoKifiov tov There are one or two other specimens in Aipdvou Tou MaOOd (Wadd. 2586).
Article

One more paralipomenon under the

may

Cooke's North Semitic Inscriptions, no.

110

(ii/A.D.),

113 the article


P. 85.

In Mt 6" note that D

is

dropped

for the last

steps, as iu the first step in 110. reads dXeifov, rejecting the middle in view of

two

ADDITIONAL NOTES.
D

237

In Ac 5- ^Bero and ^^ crvyKaXea-dnevoi, tlie presence of a-ov. makes the opposite change, which in the former case, at any rate, is no improvement. " I'Sios in Mt and Lk is sometimes 3rd pers. P. 88. Cf Wellh. 30:

Thumb notes how accent may dinVrentiate words capable of "God is," but " God is Abnir/My." attenuated meaning To the exx. cited from Blass (top of p. 95) add from Hawkins Jn 1-^ P. 94. (taken like Lk Z^*^ from the original source in Mk I''), Ac Vo^~ (LXX), Rev 3^
full or

possessive." Prof. P. 89.

12 72.9 138. The idiom is in 208, ajid 1 Pet 2-^ (Ti with n"" LP, against ABCK). one place translation Greek, and in the rest a sign of inferior Greek culture, which makes it the more striking that Lk and Jn (not Mt) faithfully coj^y their Since tlie Greek of 1 Pet is remarkably good, it does not seem likely source. that ov ry nutXajTri avrov is due to the autograph the LXX airov may well have been added by a glossator who did not notice that the ov made it needless.
:

This consideration may fairly be set against the a yriori argument of Ti in >Sce p. 249. favour of the reading of N. Of Josephus Ant. i. 1. 1, ai/rvj fikv o.v e'ir] Trpwri] rifj-ipa, Mwvarj's 5' P. 96.

avTTiv filav elwe


TTpdiTov, fiia

(quoted by Schmidt).
/j.rjvds,

Tou

Hebrew. Prof. week in ZcitscliTift fur deulscha Wortforschund i. 1G3-173 (1901). P. 102. The importance of Heb 13-^ in critical questions justifies our adding In Thcol. Hundscliaw v. 64 Deissmann writes two one more note on airo. " " marginalia i;pon Harnack's famous article in ZNTIV i. 16 ff. He notes the
of the

Note in Gen 8^^ the variation /ii-qvbsTov which had adequate motive in the different words of the Thumb has traced the history of the Greek names for the days

masculine

Sirjyovfievop in ll-^-

not,

presume, as a difficulty likely to give

Harnack much trouble; and observes that ol dirb 'IraXi'as "can, according to the late Greek use of airo, describe very easily the greetings of the brethren He refers to the article by E. Brose in Theol. Stud, und to be found in Italy." Brose examines dirb, trapd, viro, Krit., 1898, pp. 351-360, on d7r6 in 1 Co 11-^. and iK, showing that in daily speech these prepositions were used without exactThe argument is designed to show that dirb tov Kvplov in ness of distinction. Deiss1 Co I.e. does not mean by tradition, but by revelation from the Lord. mann observes that Brose could have made his treatment of dirb still more he refers to a "stop-gap" of his illuminating, if he had gone outside the NT own in Hermes xxxiii. 344,- which touches on the passage from Heb.
:

P.
VTT^p

105 On vwip we may cite a good parallel for Rom 12^, TP 8 (ii/B.c.) tavrbv <ppovQv. A very good ex. in Greek is 2 Co 4^, where perfective e^ shows the P. 112.

dwopia in its final result of despair.

In the Dream of Nectonebus, the last Egyptian king of the old P. 116. dynasties (LPw, ii/B.c), there occurs the phrase dLaTerqpTjKa tt)v x'^P"-" dfiifjurrus, The perfective in the king's which gives a striking parallel to 2 Tim 47. words emphasises the fact that the country is safe, the watchful care has been " I successful ; the simplex in Paul lays the stress on the speaker's own action,

have guarded my trust." P, 118. Hawkins, US 142, gives the number of compound verbs for the His figures work out thus : Heb has 7*8 per several parts of the NT. Mt 3-6, Cath. Epp. and Rev 3-1, page, Ac 6-4, Lk 6-0, Mk 57, Paul 3-8,

WH

and Jn 2"1. The high figure of Mk in this table is rather surprising. That Heb and Luke (whose unity comes out by this, as by so many other tests) .should be at the top, is what we might expert. Since writing this, I have noticed Prof. Ram.say's suggestive P. 126.

238

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT


tj-pc in C.

CxREEK.
and B.
ii.

language on the early Christians of the average also his Paul 208 f.
Pp. 126 and 129.
F.

485

see

On

W. Mozley

in

JTS iv.

279

the biblical use of present ami aovist imperative, cf tf. Prof. Thumb notes that Mozley independently

confirms his judgement on the aoristic n-pocxi<f}epev in Heb 11^'', by the observaWere the author Mark or the tion that (pipe and 6.ye are aoristic in meaning.

John of Rev, and the context


yield. P.
Ih.

less

clamant
the
is

for

an imperfect,

should readily

In OGIS 219
aiirCoi
:

132. See now D. Smith, In


(iii/B.c.)
:

Days of His
an

Flesh, p. 208.

iXiadaL de Kal irpeajSevras maj^ be worth quoting auTov rrapa t[ov orjfiov irpwTOv fx^v KeKevaovaLv i']7taii'etf
.

there

ex. of coincident affwaaiixevoi


. .

which

[olVtces] aa-iraaajxevoi
.

'Kodtnv

tii]v

ri]ix'r]v.

The "salutation" seems

. . [eTretra S' airayyeto consist in the double

message
v.-", 6

it is difficult

P. 143.

In Mt

2.^-"*

anyhow to make it precede the wish for good health. we find 6 ei\ri(p<hs in a phrase otherwise parallel with

takes

\a^wv. The intervening space supplies an excuse for the change which Both tenses out of the category described in the paragraph above. were entirely justifiable, and the rather more emphatic perfect suits the situation
it

of v.-^ better.
P. 145.

is

it clear that in this tentative account of ^trxTj/v-a which propounded with great hesit;ition, and with a full appreciation of its diffithere is no suggestion that the aoristic meaning proposed was more culties than an idiosyncrasy of individual writers, or (better) of certain localities. The pure perfect force is found long after Paul's day thus in the formula of an

must make

aov dia x^'pos i^ oIkov -x^prjcnv '^vtokov (])U 1015 But in AP 30 (ii/B.c), early iii/A.D.), "to have received and still possess." tov M. Karecrxv^^'''^'- '''^v OLKiav irpb rod nokiixov, the aoristic TTpocre/xapTvpovi'

lOU,

dfj.o\oyu> iaxV'^^'"'-'- TajOot

in an early illiterate document. possessed seems to be recognisable, P. 146. Ol/xai dk kSlv Aa/uLTTiSu), tt]v AeurvxiSov fih dvyaripa, 'Apxi-ddfioii oe It is yvvaiKa, "AyLdos 8k /xrjTipa, ot Travres ^airiKecs yeyovaai, Oavfidaai &v kt\.

hard to see why this should be cited as aoristic Agis was on the throne at the supposed time of the dialogue. In connexion with this paragraph should be mentioned the birth P. 148. of the new present ottjkw (MGr ar^Kw) from the jierfect 'iarriKa., with the same
:

meaning.

On this view of the prehistoric relations of act. and mid., cf Hirt, P. 152. The theory had been restated in terms of the Tndog. Forsch. xvii. 70. new school of philology, in OsthofF and Brugmann's pioneer Morphologische UntersucMmgen iv. 282 n. (1881). There H. Osthoff conjectures that "Skt.
dv6s-ti

and dvis-te depend on one and the same proethnic basis-form [dueistai], which was difl'erentiated by the accent, according as one wished to say I had overlooked this passage, 'hdtes for himself or 'hates for himself.'" and am all the more confirmed by it in the theory which I had independently
developed as to the relationship of the voices in the element they severally
emphasise. On the late Greek developments of the voices the student should carefully observe the rich material in Hatzidakis 193 ff.

The proverb in 2 Pet 2^- is acutely treated by Dr Rendel Harris, ought to have remembered, in The Story of Ahikar, p. Ixvii. He cites as the probable original words appearing in some texts of Ahikar "My son, thou hast behaved like the swine which ^ven.t to the hath with people of quality, and when he came out, saw a stinking drain, and went and rolled himself in it."
P. 156.
as I
:

ADDITIONAL NOTES.
If,

239
irapotfila

as

seems extremely likely,

tliis

is

the source of the

to wliicli

2 Pet refers, of course Xovaa/x^vr] is used in its correct sense, and tlie possiliility of a Cireek iambic verse being the medium of its transmission is all that remains

my note on the passage. I leave it unaltered in view of the measure of uncertainty attaching in Dr Harris's judgement to the account he jiroposes. Mr P. Giles, in a letter endorsing and improving my Scotch transP. 166.
of

lation of

Homer

11.

i.

137, says,

"I

agree that dv

is

very like

jist,

and

if

you

had added
does for

like at the

end you would have got your sulyunctivc

also.

This like

many

dialects

what the subjunctive did

for Greek,

ment

in a polite, inoffensive

way

asserting only verisimilitude."

putting a stateIt is found

elsewhere.
P. 168. C.

Add to

ii.
. . .

this list the curious anti-Christian inscription in

Ramsay,

477 (uo. 343) oSros 6 ^ios /xol yeyovev (aoristic !) orai' t^wv eyd). Since writing the paragraph on el ix-qn dv, I have observed several P. 169. dv in illiterate Greek of a century or two later than the other exx. of ei

and B.

NT.
in

An

(The second subjunctive here is the itacistic equivalent of the optative which would have been used in earlier Greek: cf p. 199u.). In Ramsay's C. and B. vol. ii. I No. 210 (p. 380) ei de tls dv (pavelr) ^arai note the following ., where the optative shows the writer a bit of an Atticist, but not very successful.
:

JUS

inscription from Cyzicus, lately ]iublished by ^Ir F. XXV. 63, has t tls 5' av ToKix-qcn, /uiTtXdri avrov 6 Geds.

W.

Ilasluck

No. 377
Tivi

(p.

530) KareaKevaaev to

ijpi^ov eavrr)

Kal tu> dvopl avT?is iivrvxr) Kai

el

dv

j"w(ra cruyx^pi^eret' el 8e /xera ttjv TeXevTrjv /xou

idv ris

I dv ewLxeipTjlaei, drj]aei kt\. (p. 394) el dk [eVepos] search throughout, but I suspect there are many other exx. On /XT? in questions see J. E. Harry, Gildersleeve Studies, 430. P. 170. He shows it was absent from orators and historians, and from the later writers

273

No. have not had time to


eTnxi-pricrei

kt\.

Aristotle, Polybiiis,

rences in
centuries.

NT

and Diodorus. Plato uses it 24 times but the 69 occuroutnumber those in all the prose and poetry of ten previous The inference is that it was a feature of everyday language. In
;

nearly half the exx. the verb

is he,

can, or have
Co).

three-fourths of the total comes

from Jn and Paul (only


P. 171.

For ^ktos el firj see Deissmann, BS 118. Cf also Ramsay, 0. and B, 391 (no. 254) xwpis el firi tl TrdOrj. lb. On the encroachments of /xiy, especially as to oti /xri and /n-n c. inf. after Green verba dicendi et cogitandi, see E. L. Green in Gildersleeve Studies, 471 ff.
ii.

Rom

and

shows how

in the Kolvt) literature. Considering tlie ixri intrudes increasingly extent of this intrusion in the time of the NT, there are fewer exx. of hi) that fxr} holds almost undLsj^uted wrongly used than would be expected, except

saying sway over the participle. There are 6 exx. or denying [Lk 22^^ must however be struck otl (WH, following XBLT)] one case of causal &ti ix-q, Jn 3"* 2 with verbs of thinking (2 Co ll^ Ac 25"'^) 3 of 1X7) after relatives. (In excluding Col 2^* because an imper. precedes, Green more decisive reason that ixi] is indisputably spurious.) The a
ix-fj

of

c. inf.

after a verli of

ignores

yet

in causal, concessive, obi. occurs only in Ac 23-^ 28" participle with n-q in orat. and temporal clauses it abounds. The comparison of Plutarch with the NT shows a great advance in the use of 6Vi yttr?. The whole paper deserves study. A few papyrus passages may be cited in illustration of the subjects of Green's For ij.t] in relative clauses :BU 114 (ii/A.D.) irpooTKa i]v diroSidwKev paper. For d /j.t] avve<pil,vr]<Ta. CPR 19 (iv/A.D.) evTd^as 86vaTaL avTu,
;
.

/JL-fiTe

Xajie'iv,

verba

die.

et cor/.
(xt)

: MP

25

(iii/B.c.)

/xry

64>ei\eLv 6/x6ffas /xoi,


p.}]

BM

401

(ii/fi.c.)
ofi.

KaTeyvwKws

Swacr^ai,

OP

206

(i/A.D.) o/xoXoyel

cvKaXelv (classical, as

240

A GRAMMAE OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


OP
237
(ii/A.P.)

midcrtaJces),

S-nXovu (liU 5, 11, etc.).

For eVet

dTreKpeb'aTo cf /.L-i]

/j.^

inf.,

and several
fiit-Lcperai

cases with

BU

530 (i/A.D.)

ae fVt

^ii;

ex. in Jn /.c). dvTeypa^pai avrrj (the charge, like the On ei ov Blass notes {Hermes xxiv. 312) its identity with
illiterate

ci^l

fn)

in the

119 (see p. 28). A note may be added on /xt] '6ti for though the NT only uses ovx on, the to speak of mere affairs syntax is identical with that in f/.'fiTi-ye, 1 Co 6" ("not 42 (ii/B.c.) ixt) 6ti ye roaovrov xpovov ewiyeyoIt occurs in of daily life").
;

OP

BM

"not to speak of so much time having gone by." - e), which P. I77._ln Mt 6^" D reads /xtj eyjaavplaerai (= may just possibly But it is more likely to be a mere mistake. An earlier be added to the list. ex. oi ix7)C. fut. than those cited in the text is Par P 15 (ii/ii.c.) /ii; yovv /cai
vdros,
Kparrjo-eii

but this may be aor.

tXetos trot (Mt 16'--), are on [God be] merciful to thee." The iuterjectional adjective and participle In CE xv. 436 are the same footing, and must be explained in the same way. 2 Sam 20"-, 1 Chr IV^) quoted inscriptioual parallels for this phrase (Gen 4323, IlXdrwv Kal ivravda, and without subject Letronne 221 (iv/A.D.) I'Aews Letronne also cpiotes Kal 'EpaKXeios d8e\(p6s. 557 I'Xecij crot, 'Epp-eias

p. 181.

Essentially the same principle must be traced in

subj.

"

rj/j.'ii'

another inscription
Alypius," as
phrases
p.
I

read

we may 182. Dr

"[Sarapis] help thee, the development of a deprecatory force in such " " Mercy on us compare that in our vernacular expression, be only translation Greek. Rendel Harris thinks the vp.as may
(ii.

286)

i'Xews trot dXvirl {leg. 'AXvin),

it.

With

The suggested

allusion to Paul is in any case only propounded tentatively. Ac lO'^' is fairly It is curious that dp^afxevo? gives us trouble elsewhere in Luke. as it stands, and Blass thinks apt- dirb t. T. interpolated from Lk 23^.

hopeless It is conceivable that dp^d/xevos yap in vg may preserve the relics of a better d-rrb in which a new sentence beginning there was continued with 'Irjcrous 6 text, "^^'^ change needed to make the reading 0^^ (^)N., 6p (D) ^xP'o-f" now Wellli. 12.) grammatical is but small. (See The practically complete equivalence of subjunctive and future is P. 185. as in the Alexandrian Greek Bible or quite ns evident in Phrygian inscriptions Thus we have in JHS xxiii. 85 et 8^ tls dvv^as 'irepov late papyri.

AD

^d\ri

Egyptian and in Eamsay


;

(no. 445, iii/A.D.)

el'

tis

391, 395, 399 al (pp. The progressive disappearance of the Future prepares us for MGr, elsewhere. 303 (vi/A.D.) where the tense is a periphrastic one. For the papyri, cf AP 144 (v/a.d.) ^Xdu "I will come." Innumerable Trapdax^ "I will furnish," subexx. of verbs in -aei and the like, after 6s dv and other forms requiring could be cited from various sources ; but these being itacistic prove junctives,

and B. ii. 392 (no. 260) el' riva. dWov povX-ndrj, In nos. 317, 5^ erepos (Triaev^vKei (so nos. 448, 449). found 472, 535-8) we have ov TeOfi for the 01) Te^vjo-erat
C.

559

BU

less

see p.

35.

p, 194. Prof.

Thumb
(I

tells

me

that

MGr

/xi]

of learned origin.

notice that Pallis retains

it

yivoLTo seems to him a phrase See p. 249. in Lk 20i6.)

in itacism as P. 199 n. 2. Prof. Thumb observes that he does not believe "since the coincidence of m contributory to the obsolescence of the optative, and V took place very late." It has been made clear in the text that the the very birth of the Koivv, while ot (and v) did not optative was doomed from

become simple
P.

i for several centuries.

208. By way

wemay notethatin 12"D


IVa i^iXOy^ for (^e\Oc?v,

of adding to our illustrations from the Bezan text of Ac, in le^*^ substitutes I'm o-t7[ ]<nv for 0-1751', and
.

both after words of commanding.

In

17==^

however the

ADDITIONAL NOTES.
omission of ev
fi

241

tendency to use
the use of
P. 216.

it>a

fieWei aJds to the tale of quasi-final infinitives. Were this more marked, it might help us to fix the 2)rovcnance of D, by

(p. 18) from the LXX. : gives on p. 19 the totals for the articular infin. in OT, Apocryplia, and there are 1161 occurrences with a preposition, and 1614 without. Tlie anarIn the statistics of the articular infiii. throus infin. occurs 6190 times in all.

Thumb's canon (p. 205). Some further exx. are noted by Votaw

He

XT

I
I

have checked my count (based on MG) by Votaw's they differ slightly where have omitted passages which enclose in double brackets, and also through my not counting twice the places where two infinitives stand under the government of a single article. Votaw's total for Heb has a slight error. To the footnote it should be added that Hirt and Sommer make P. 224.
:

WH

original form, supposing it simply transferred to the indicative at a later stage (Indog. Forscli. xvii. 64). The phrase in Mt 13^ is quoted here purely as it stands in Greek ; P. 230.

sequimmi imperative the

NT

exx. of this participle could be cited from almost any page of narrative in the It happens however, as Dr Rendel Harris tells or other Greek writing.

me, that my example is a translation of a phrase meaning simply "he went on board a boat." He observes, '"To go up and sit in a ship' is a pure Syriac Sometimes you get 'sit in the sea' for 'embark'" (Mk 4^, the expression. This superfluous Kadrjadai is rather like the pleonasms quoted original here). from Dalman on pp. 14 ff. Of course the recognition of this as translation Greek does not affect the grammatical category in which we place ^/x^dcra. have not given a chapter to Conjunctions, I may put at the end upon a use of a'XAd which has excited much discussion. " In Mt 20-^ some have translated dXXd except," as if=et /xri or TrX^y. Against this both Winer and his editor (p. 566) speak very decisively thus, the latter " Even in Mk 4"- a'XXct is simply Swi (but rather), not save, cxcejit." I have says, a draft letter of his to a I'ellow-Eeviser (dated 1S71), in which he argues at length " would be equivalent to supplying against the lax use of dWd, which in Mt I.e.
Since
I
:

of these addenda a note

efj.ov

iffTt.

Zovvai in the second clause."

Blass does not allude to the latter

" save that." et /xij I.e. (p. 269) he says dXX' It is certainly passage, but on here to separate the dWd from the iav fir) which stands in the parallel difficult I am very unwilling to challenge an opinion held so clause. sti'ongly after careful study; but the discovery of Tb P 104 (i/B.c.) makes me ready to

Mk

believe that the note in

WM

might have been

altered under stress of

new

evidence.

Kat

fxrj

e^^orw
allow,

^CKlffKui.

must

call for a sense of

dWd

yvvalKa dW-qv ivayayeaSai dXXd 'AwoWuviav very near to el firj. That supplements may be
;

contrived we

may

adequate motive for ov5e iy(h rJKovaa dXXd


I.e., it

though they are often far from simple but is there straining the natural meaning of the phrase ? In Gen 21-'^
<ji)iJ.pov,

the

dWd

actually translates 'n^3, except.

In

Mt

cannot feel and it seems moreover that the meaning need not be affected at all sure of this by reading dWd &s = d ixr). In Jn IS'*, Lk 4-'^^-, Ac 27", Eev 21", etc., we are familiar with the brachy logy which makes et fi-q and the likQ hut only: why not apply this to dWd ? This would mean that only the thought of Sovvai was

may

well be that the


;

AV or RV supplement is correct.

But

carried on,
position.)

and not that of

ip-bv as well.

(Cf

now Wellh. 24

in support of

my

The study of Wellhausen's illuminating forty pages increases my regret that can only refer to them generally in notes inserted at the last revision. My argument in chapter i. is not afiected by AVellhausen's exposition ; but had his
I

i6

24 2

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. #

book come into my Lands earlier, I should have taken care to emphasise more "translation Greek," and the tendency clearly what is said above concerning to over-use a correct vernacular idiom where it exactly or nearly translates an

Aramaic
because

Wellhauseu rightly warns us against denying Aramaism from holes and corners of scrape together one or two parallels Greek writing. That was the error of the old Purists, and we must be on our But if we neo-Hellenists need to be careful, Wellhausen's criticisms of guard. Dalman show that the neo-Semitists want watching as well. It is necessary in Wellhauseu to remember that he only professes to speak from the
original.

we can

studying

Semitist's
illustrate

sside

his ^payye\ovv {bis) on p. 10

his

limitation

ncii

and eavros and oWtjXoc on p. 30 omnia possumus oinncs ! Space forbids oui'

the great importance of mentioning more than one further feature of his work, his treatment of the Eezan text. 'He shows that D in a large number of places If stands distinctly nearer the Aramaic which underlies the Synoptic records. this is proved, we have manifestly taken a large step towards the solution of our Let me finally quote his dictum that Mk is tolerably <^reat textual question. LXX Mk is free from Hebraisms, i.e. pieces of translation Greek due to the however richest in Aramaisms, which Mt and Lk have largely pruned away Of course Wellhausen's argument has no bearing on free Greek in the NT.
:

ADDITIONAL NOTES TO THE SECOND EDITION.


p.
3.

To

anticipate a possible objection, I

may

say that the evidence for


:

see large Jewish settlements in Egypt from an eaily date is indisputable for example Mahatfy's and Th. Reinach's contributions to Melanges Nicole Mahaffy speaks of Aramaic trade documents in Upper (pp. 619 ff., 451 ff.). Egypt from the time of Xerxes down. So far, however, no "Hebraist" has tried to use this fact to discount the deductions of Deissmann from the papyri ; ixud I
76.

need not meet the argument before it arises. The Rev. J. Pulliblank sends me an interesting extract from his notes

its

of Bishop Lightfoofs lectures in 1863. Speaking of some NT word which had only classical authority in Herodotus, he said, "You are not to suppose that the word had fallen out of use in the interval, only that it had not been

used in the books which remain to us

probably it had been part of the common speech all along. I will go further, and say that if we could only recover letters that ordinary people wrote to each other without any thought of being literary, vre should have the greatest possible help for the understanding of the language
:

of the
P.

23

generally." A testimony may be cited from Cicero, Pro ArcJthi, Nam quis striking gloriae fructum putat ex Graecis versibus minorem
5,

NT

^-ery

si

percijii

quam

ex Latinis, vehementer errat, propterea quod Graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus, Latina suis finibus, exiguis sane, continentur. P. 14.- To the exx. of ei's airavrTjaip c. gen. may be added two (one of them

els

avvavT.) from the PeLigia stories {Leijcndcn cler hi. Pelagia, ed. Usener), The documents are written in excellent vernacular, which does not pp. 19, 22. seem open to the charge of being merely modelled on the biblical Greek.

ADDITIONAL NOTES TO THE SECOND EDITION.

243

P. in. Dr Marcus Dods finds a weak spot in my ])arallcl, in tliat Greek was generally "not the vernacular, but a second languaf^e acquired for commercial or social purposes. The real parallel would therefore be the English-

speaking Hindu, or semi- Americanised German or Pole, or the jiidgin-Englishspeaking Chinaman, or bilingual Highlander or Welshman." But I think my statement in the text will staud. The Hindu and the "Welshman, " [/ranted a tolerable 'primary education" in English, will not show much difference in their
written dialect.
P. 22.
criticises

(So far from "strongly I cannot go objecting," Mr Pallis prefers to be so styled, and not as Palli.) into detail, but I would make two or three notes. (1) The Reviewer expresses the "shock" which even a foreigner experiences in finding Christ's speeches

A reviewer in the Athenaeum, to whom my attitude towards the translation of Pallis.

am

greatly indebted,

" abounding in Turkish words." Mr Pallis gives me a list of all the foreign words in his version of Mt, some two dozen in all, and not a quarter of them Turkish. This accusation of bringing in foreign words has been freely made by many on mere hearsay. (2) A lover of Hellenism can feel nothing but sympathy But whether Greek for the modern Greeks' national pride in their language. artisans can repeat the NT Greek by heart or no, it is abundantly jiroved that they cannot understand it and that is sufficient justification for a pojiular
;

of the Purist movement tempts discussion has only one side which is relevant for this book. If the movement onh' concerned the abolition oi foreign ivords, the grammarian could quote Purist as readily as pojnilar Greek. But the Kadapevovaa is an artificial language in its
version.
it

(3)

The general question

but

NT

it is therefore obviously useless when we are seeking scientific The strongest sympathiser with vidence bearing on ancient Hellenistic. Purism as a national movement would have to admit that for such purjjoses as ours the faintest suspicion of artificiality makes MGr valueless nothing Imt

grammar, and

the unschooled speech of the people can help us here. P. 23. On the use of the term Kotv-rj Prof. Thumb observes that the grammarians were far from consistent with themselves. A definition like kolvt) oidXeKTos y irdvTes xpwyite^a is not far from our present use and even if the term be historically incorrect it is a pity to banish from science so wfeU-established and

pregnant a word {Ncue JahrbiicJier f. d. Mass. Altertum, 1906, p. 262). Dr W. H. D. Rouse, who has an exceptionally intimate first-hand P. 32.

knowledge of modern Greece, especially in the more out-of-the-way parts, tells me he thinks it too sweeping an assertion to say that the old dialects died out comthe Koivi}. He has heard the broad a pletely, except for vvliat they contributed to in Calynmos, and ^-ai woKa in Cos. In the lecture just quoted {Neuc Jahrh. 1906,

Thumb gives some interesting survivals of old dialectic forms in which he has noticed in the curse-tablets of Audollent. "We have in Cyprus, fact to remember that the dialects existing within the Koivr, were partly or even which the mainly characterised by the survivals from the old local dialect
p. 256), Prof.

A my point that dialectic "differences very largely remark that a [modern] Athenian, lay in pronunciation is found in Dr Rouse's a Lesbian and an Astypaliote all will wiite Kal, while they pronounce it respectively kye, ce, tsd." P. 36. The case of reaaapes ace. ought not to be left without remarking that this is isolated, as the only early cardinal wliieh ever had a separate ace. In the first 900 of Wilckeu's ostraka I find 42 exx. of the indeclinable, form.

levelling process failed to destroy. P. 34. good illustration of

and 29

of Tiaaapas,

which shows how

this

form predominated

in

business

244

A GRAMxMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


I

language before 200 a.d. in the same documents


(both ii/A.D.).
Ih.

find

might add here (with reference to p. 46) that recrcrepas and TeaaepaKovra only once each

" ostrakon in Melanges Nitole, p. 185 (E. J. probably Ptolemaic has (pCKavdpoTrla and Socrts to illustrate further the early confusion Goodspeed), Kara firivav (see p. 49) and ^TjSeci Sol's (p. 55 u.^) evidence the -^^Titer's of o and w

"

scanty culture.
P.

Earlier

still is

XoyevdovTiov

HbP

(249 B.C.).

38. The point about Kdpij needs perhaps to be stated Brugmann makes it probable that in early Attic, as in its sister

less concisely. dialect Ionic, a became ?? universally, but that in Attic iv and ptj {vyirj, irprjrTw) broadened into But this specially arise from a pre-Greek e. lE, pa, whenever the tj did not Attic power of p became obsolete while KdpFv was still j)ronounced with

digamma.
P. 41. Thumb {op. cit. 260) holds out hopes that we may get some not inconsiderable help in dating and localising textual types from such peculiarities as the confusion of tenuis, aspirata and media in Egypt and Further Asia, and that of c and i sounds in Asia Minor and Syria.

P.

'Ioi;5au-cDs

us

the irregular aspirations might have been given oiix Here the oi'xt of BD* al probably helps (Gal 2^^ N"ACP 17 37). a repetition of the t after oi'/c would lead to the correction ovx^- and this to

44. Among

ovx by the dropping of the same letter. explanation from the Hebrew initial "n\
P. 48.
xi/A.D.

This seems simpler than Lightfoot's

note, p. found in a Ptolemaic ostrakon in

Usener, Pelagia, p. 50, quotes t] 'lepoadXv/xa from two MSS of In the same book we find the vocative livpi twice (p. 14 see Usener's An additional early ex. of this shortening of-:o-nouns may be 34).

Melanges Nicole, p. 184, avvtf/iXeiv {i.e. -lov). (The document has the word Kpa^aros, so spelt.) p. 49. The NT forms avyyevis and ffvyyevevai (WH App 158) are both xxiv. 339). cited by Thumb from Asia Minor {JUS xxii. 358 and OP 4G6 ^vyyevea-L occurs Tb P 61 (ii/fi.C.) al. So we have double forms, eadricriv

BCH

and

iad-qaeffL (as

NT)

BU

16,

both

ii/A.D.

notes a probable ex. oi irX-qpiqs indecl. in Is 63^ B. P. 59. An apparent false concord in B, irepl irdvTwv wv eUev 8vvd/j.wv (Lk 19'^'), is corrected by Prof. Burkitt from the Old Syriac, which shows B accordingly shows the tirst stage of corrupthat dwd/xeuv is a mere
P.

50. Mr R. R. Ottley

tion,

while

D
:

{yeLvop.ivwv)

present a completely regularised text.


instructive
cf

what

is

that in
Ih.

For
"a

MGr

iracra

survived

shows an independent gloss, aud the other MSS (The textual phenomena here are most quoted from Wellhausen about B and D, p. 242.) Note " one." as Trdaa 'iva's
iras,

gloss.

every

indeclinable "

rt

Dr Rouse reminds me

of the

MGr

k&tl,

as kUti

riavxi-a,

little rest.

p,
resist

60. Mr Ottley calls my attention to Is 37^^ where it is very hard to the impression that an accusative stands for a genitive in apposition to
better account of
i]

an indeclinable.

/6. A

deb's

in

Ac

19^'

is

given by G. Thieme, Die

N'T (Gcittingen, 1905), pp. 10 f. Inschriftcn von Magnesia am Maeander und das He notes that the classical t] debs often appears in Magnesian inscriptions to describe the great goddess of the city, while other people's goddesses were deal,
the usual
term, as
p.
\\oiv-q

term.

The town

clerk

is

accordingly using the technical

we might

126.

We may

Plentiful quotations are given by Nachmauson, expect. therefore keep Blass's comment on Luke's accuracy, but

apply

it in

a ditfejent way.

ADDITIONAL NOTES TO THE SECOND EDITION.


P. 63.
els,

245

It

might be added
M'as for eV.
4),

tliat liefore iv

disappeared
stories
(i.

it

just as

els
(i.

Thus

in the

two Pelagia
ii>

was often used for we iind avrfKdoixev ev


^01/70;'

r<^ KeWiifj
(ii.

dwriXdafiev iv t^ fieydXri KK\r]aiqL

5),

eV toIs 6pe(Xi

1).

Some

further quotations for late uses of

will be found in Kuhring's


f.

useful

Program on the

prepositions in

tlie

papyii (Bonn, 1906), pp. 43

lb. On wpav (Jn 4'", Ac lO^^rtZ) see E. A. Abbott, Johaimim Grammar who suggests that the cliange from vernacular ace. to dat., Jn i-'-'-, is
in to denote exact time.

75,

brought

P.

64. For

xpSo-^at

c.

ace.

add Wis

T'""

(B-so

the Revisers).

The Purist

Athens, 1882, p. 420) complains of writers who used KaraxpaadaL (and even eireadaL !) with gen. As early as ii/A.i>. we find a chiliarcli of a Thracian cohort writing 'ilplo^vos {i.e. -i) xai'/>etv (Wilcken Osfr. ii. 927) so crvv M^]vo(pL\ov ib. 240 (same date). P. 66. On the construction of aKovij, ydiop-ai, and irpoaKwd, see Abbott,
{rXucTffiKai TlapaTtjpT^aeis,
:

Kontos

Joh.

Gal

"With Deissmann's translation of Mk we may compare the sphere of law." Dr Rouse compares with this nominative P. time-expressions Aeschines' Kal P. 71. On the threefold in Jn see Abbott, 96
P. 67.
3-' 1'"

Gram. 76-78.

ev vbixif,

B, "righteousness would
vvS,

lie in

70.

in

iv

fiicriji

9]\dev.

P. 72.

A full study of prepositions replacing the simple gen.


ipxo/J.ai aoi I

Tran'jp

17,

o^).

clt.

f.

may

be found

in Kuhring, Praepos. 11 ff., 20. Dr Rouse notes that diro is regularly used in partitive sense now : ScDtre p.ov dirb tovto, " give me some of that." P. 75.
lus

{PV 358),
P. 76.

For should have quoted the well-known line of AeschydXX' avrf dypvirvov Reference should have been made to Eph yivucrKovTes, where
9j\6v
Zijvos
/3e\of.
5^,
'iffre

Deau Robinson assumes Hebraism, comparing


(49)--, LffTe

Sam

(imper.) yLvwaKovres otl (Symmachus).

yivuaKuv oldev, Jer 42 So RV. If this be so, we


20''',

can only suppose Paul definitely citing OT language, just as a preacher using the archaic phrase "Know of a surety" would be immediately recognised as
be noted that if to-rf is indie, it is a purely literary word, not very likely to have used it would be less improbable in Heb 12". But in these places and Jas l^'-* the imper. seems better, somewliat in the sense of the common classical ev Lad' on, "you may be sure" see LS s.v.
quoting.
(It

may
is

such as Paul

however, at least as probable that we are to sejiarate the verbs and read "For you must be assured of this (the following), recognising for yourselves that ..." So E. Haupt, Salmond, and T. K. Al)bott.
olda
7.
)

It

is,

Dr E. A. Abbott {Joh. Gra.iii. 510) makes it seem probable that the P. 79. He would translate wpwrbs ij-ov "my Lej'den papyrus is quoting from Jn 1^. See pp. 11-14 for his exposition, which brings in several harmonics Chief." I am not yet disposed to give up the view defended beside the main note.
If Dr Abbott takes away one parallel, he gives me two new ones in the text. and his exegesis seems instead, in the quotations from scholiasts on Euripides open to the charge of over-subtlety. Jloreover, the Aelian passage, oi irpQroi
;

ixov TttOra

dvLxvevaavres {N.A.

viii. 12), is clo.-ely

parallel for

doubts as to the reading expressed by the Thesaurus editor


.

liere

Jn 15'^; and tlie and in Plutarch,

mean that

KaraJfos oiire vffrepos dvrfKde), only Cato Minor 18 {ovre TrpcJros tls dvifir) a modern scholar thought Trpcoros incorrect, which is undeniable. I am tempted to claim that Dr Abbott has proved my point for me. I must confess to a ratlier serious oversight in omitting to discuss P. 80. In OR the "Hebraistic" use of ttSs with negative in the sense of oi;5ets.
.
.

XV. 442, xviii.

155, I quote a

number

of exx.

of ttSs with prepositions

and

24G

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.


meaning
1 (cf
:

adjectives of negative

formula,
Tts

dvvTrevdwoi. Travrbs e'Trirt^ou

thus dvev or X'^P'^ Trdarjs virepdea-eus, a recurrent Tb P 105 (ii/i!.C.), St^a irdcrris t^ovaias
7').

Plutarch Cons, ad Uxor.

Heb

Closely allied to this


li-qSe

is

the Koivr] use of

with negative, as

/Mijdefiids

KpaTriaews

Kvpieias rivb^ eyyaiov Trepiyivofievris

auTuiL TP 1 (ii/B.c), which has analogues in MGr (Jannaris JIG 1449 c). This was accordingly claimed as "a very slight extension of a vernacular usage under the encouragement of a similar idiom in Hebrew." It is found

not only in presumed translation, as Mk 13-", but in Paul, as Eph 5^'. lb. ilr J. B. Shipley sends me an ingenious suggestion that eirrd arose from a gloss, l^Kevd = U2V = TrTd. lb. In Gal l*'^* Ramsay maintains against Lightfoot that erepos when

definitely contrasted with ctXXo? denotes specific difference against genetic, "another of the same kind," against "another of a different kind." Space

precludes examination of his classical exx. ; but it must not be too hastily assumed that Lightfoot is wrong. Karl Dick's " particularly good ex." of the plural for sing, appeals P. 86. less convincing on re-reading the plural seems to refer distinctly to the writer

and

his comrades.

P. 87.

The

P. 44 bpwvTes reciprocal e^s rbv '4va. (1

Hibeh

uiifirjv is

an early

ex.

Th

5^')

may

be noted, with the


!

MGr

(Dr Rouse tells me the Purists say ^(r<pa^e b f/.v rbv 8e !) lb. On "exhausted i'otos" .see now Kuhring, Pracp. 13. P. 89. Dr Marcus Dods criticises my treatment of iv ti^ iSlcfi vo't, remarking that the danger was of a man's being "assured by some other person's convictions." That is, of course, quite true, but I think my statement holds that the phrase simjily lays stress on the personal jjronoun "let each man be
6 eVas tov 6.\\ov.

fully assured /or himself." P. 96. Note that 8u}5eKa greatly predominates over SeKo. dvo in ostraka. P. 99. For evuTTLou now add Hibeh P. 30 (before 271 B.C.).

P. Kuhring's account of otto {Prae}). 35 evidence of the encroachments of this preposition.


ecrxov

102. In
dvb (not

ff.,

52

tf.)

The

there is striking regular conmiercial


1

ira.pd) croO

may

save us from over-refining in

Co

11-''.

The

note as to the perplexing rarity in the papyri of dirb with the agent after passive verbs will prevent us from assuming it too readily in the NT, though its occa-

may

sional presence is undoubted. For oval quote excellent parallels from Pelagia,
.

dirb
/St'a

tQu cKavodXwv (Mt 18'^) I dwb rod Xripov tovtov


.
. .

and w dwb tQv XpLartavQv (p. 28) the difference in the Usener (p. 44) notes w ^ia interjection shows that this was not imitation. "Murder!" as a vernacular phrase. 'Ek of material (as Mt 27"") Kuhring add Mtl. Nicole, p. 281, irepiTpaxv^iStov iK only finds once, AP 99 (ii/A.D.) As to the Kadopfj.iu}u XidivQv, "a necklace made of strings of stones" (iii/n.c).
(Usener, pp. 11
bis,

27),

survival of

e'/c

to-day authorities differ

the Athenaeum reviewer cites

others Psichari, who says of e/c tov, C'est bel et bien une forme vivante." P. 103. Tliere seem to be places where eij actually supplies for the possessive genitive, as Deissmanu BtS 117 f. shows it does for tlie dative TbP 16 ov

"

among

'

\-f]yovTi

TrjL

(for

ttJs

!)

[eis]

aiVoi)?

avdaSia,

"not

desisting fi'om

their violent

liehaviour" (ii/B.c); x'^P'' '''^ ^'^ avrrji/ oikov ( = oi') Par P 5, "her house" It is tempting to seek help here for 1 Pet 1^', but the illiteracy of the {lb.). documents must be remembered.
P. 106.

One more quotation should be made from Kuhring, whose jtamphlet


we study the NT prepositions. Hebraism I had left to fxtrd, that
tCv dpxovruv "
;

nuist be constantly in our hands as


to demolish even the solitary

He
in

seems
V'^.

Lk
l:)efell

AP

135 (ii/A.D.) has

tL

8e 7]inui> <xvv^(37] /xerd

What

us

ADDITIONAL NOTES TO THE SECOND EDITION.


So also in comiQxioji with the magistrates?" (G. and H.). Koutos (IIapaT?7p7)crets 409 ft'.) fiercely attacks troXe/jLuJ fxerd rivo^, " but he is at least eighteen centuries late. i.e. "against
lb.

247
).

BU
"

798 (Byz.

fight 2cith,"

One

p.

" " vorgeriickt" (our "advanced") by citing MGr TrapaTrdyw, " far "far in." Another force is
under," wapa/mecra,

249),

force of Trapd in composition is noted with reference to irapTjXdev in Mt 14^^.

by Tliumh

{JVeiie Jalirb. '06,

He

parallels

Wellhauscn's

far over," ira.paK6.Tui,

exemplilled in TrapawiirTu,

commercial word, giving MommHe compares Xen. sen's "ungiiltig werden, etwa wegen eines Formfehlers." Hell. i. 6. 4, where it is co-ordinated with dyvodv, and Polybius, xviii. 36. 6,

which AVilcken {Odraka,

i.

78

f. )

illustrates as a

irapaTriTTTtiv rrji dXrideias.

P. 110.

Prof.

To the weighty authorities for ^x^Mf iii Rom 5' H. A. A. Kennedy see ExpT for July 1906, p. 451. Usener (Pclagia, 49) remarks on dire pxopiaL that in P. 112.
:

is

now added
Greek
it

later

is

transferred

cKK\7](rla

the thought of the goal. " we arrived at the great church."


to

Thus

dwrjXda/jieu

iv Trj /xe^dXij

'AcpiKvovfjiai

was much

earlier in

showing

this result of perfective d7r6.

P. 115. In JVcue Jahrb. 1906, pp. 254 ff.. Prof. Thumb justifies his view that Miss Purdie's general position is right, though pure Koivri texts like the NT and the papyri would have served better than a writer like Polyln'us, this belonging to a transition period of the language. He points out that by development of the prepositions Hellenistic gains the means of expressing

Tlius "dTrexoucrt (Mt 6'-aoristic Akttonsart in present time. '") is in AktioHsart identical with IXajSov or ^axov, that is, it is an aorist-present, which denotes the present answering to Xa^elv or crxeti'." The recognition of punctiliar
""

its

force in this

commercial word (see Deissmann BS 229) makes it very vivid in the hypocrites have as it were their money down, as soon as their trumpet has sounded. Mr H. D. Naylor sends me some additional notes as to the ^^7 P. 122.

Mt

I.e.

Some of his classical exx. against Dr Headlam are very good : note Aristoph. Av. 1534, where the conative present seems clear, and Ban. " venture to hold the view that the distinction I 618-622. Mr Naylor remarks, It was beginning in classical times ; it was nearly crystallised in is a growth. NT Greek and it is completely so in the modern language." In other words,
TTot'et

canon.

forces of Troi'et in this locution, usage progressively restricted the various possible MuUach treated the matter well (pp. 345 f.), as the till onlyjono was left.

Athenaeum reviewer notes. P. 129. The present of this conative rivdyKaiOv With reference to Thumb's argument on Trpoa4>epoj, him Heb 11^^ as I can give him a good ex. in a less
TO 8upov in

is

well seen in Gal


find it easier to
:

6'-.

deny

literary writer

wpdadtepe

Mt

Jb. The

very probably aorist in action, differentia of the aorist may be effectively


5-* is

brought in to decide

If Paul meant "go on in your slavery,'' he the famous difficulty in 1 Co 7-'. must have said xf"^ the aorist XPV<^<^'- can only be "seize the opportunity." Epictetus iv. 1. 39, p. 134. For Jn 15*^ we might add a Hellenistic parallel 1 Co 7'-'^ and Gal y-* may be av ixh c7TpaTev(Tu/jLai, d-n-qXXdyvf irdvTwv twv KaKuiv,
:

noted.
P.

135. An idiomatic

traveller in Cos

" had a pleasant shock, on calling

a old aorist belonging to this category still survives for a cup of coffee, to hear
:

the waiter cry "E<pda(Ta." x. 102 f.), P. 141. In a discussion of aorist and perfect {Am. Journ. Thcol. in which Latinism is regarded as contributory to the fusion, E. J. Goodspeed

248

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

remarks on the curious development in the formulae with the verb 5ia.ypd(poj, "pay," in recei[its. The Ptolemaic documents have diayeypa^ev, the early Eoinan 8iayeypd<pTjKev. Then in twelve years, towards the end of i/A.D., the
aorist suddenly

and completely ousts the perfect, having previously only appeared once, cir. 40 a.d., and the change occurs simultaneously in Elephantine and Thebes. It affects no other words fj./j.Tp7]-/xai and -Kev continue
:

unchanged.

Mr Ottley has noted no case of aoristic perfect in Isaiah except in P. 142. the category of aorist and perfect standing together, joined by /cat. Pauline exx, of the perfect for what "stands written" may be seen lb.

in Gal S^* i-\ P. 145.

Second thoughts as to ea-xVK^f^^" in Rom 5- make me very doubtful


;

my view of the perfect Avill stand for that passage. "Eaxo/J-ei', "we " "^^'e have but there seems to be received," will suit received," or ecrxv'^c-P-^'', no point in the constative "we possessed." If therefore my suggestion is to
whether
hold, it becomes a mannerism which Paul dropped between the writing of " 3 Corinthians " and Romans. On the other hand, another papyi'us can be quoted where "possessed" suits the sense well, and the perfect stands in
close connexion with the aorist
e(TX''?'C(5<ri
:

BU

297 (end of
rrj vofxrj

ii/A.D.), toIs biKaiav airiav

Kol dvev tlvos dfKpicrpTjTriffeus ev


irapx<^

yevofieuovs

(=

-ots).

i. 107) that even in RL (iii/B.c.) the word occurs often both in act. and in mid. apparently without distinction. These sporadic exx. of irregular middles occur in the earliest period of the Koivq, but they do not invalidate the general rule. The papyrus exx. of oTav = ivhen make it an open question whether P. 168.

P.

159. On the verb

= Y>^y, Wilcken

observes {Ostraka,

in

Mk

11^^

we
irpuit

are not to translate

"when

evening

fell,"
is

that

is

the evening

before the

of v."".

In such a writer as

Mk

this

at least possible,

and

The impf. i^ewopevovTo the other rendering produces an awkward sequence. may be pictorial quite as well as iterative. (Note iav 9ja6a HbP 78.) Prof. W. Rhys Roberts suggests to me another ex. of firi c. fut. in P. 177.

Eurip. 3led. 822, Xe'^ets 5e jxr^Uv . that order) has always seemed to
similar cases in which the
P. 179.

.,

him

where the change to Xe^^s (especially in " arbitrary. Probably there are other

Add
fii]

MS

reading should be carefully weighed."

iv. 1. 41, tVa

for imperatival tva c. subj. (or fut.) 1 Co 7"^, and Epictetus " let him not be a fool, but learn. ..." /j-upos rj, d\X tVa pLddy,

0. F. Murray suggests to me that this IVa Since the jussive Ilequiescant falls from Divine

Dr

J.

may be
lips, it

recognised in Rev 14'^. has no bearing on con-

troverted questions. verse is undeniable.


side

Its superior fitness in tlie

In

Co

14''

we have a good

ex. of

grammatical structure of the 6e\w tva and di\ii3 e. inf.

by

Burkitt {Erang. da-Mepharr. ii. 252 f.) reads in Mt 23-^ ravra the Lewis, supposing the MSS readings to fj-r] atpelvai, after be corrections. In 2 Co 12^ he would follow n in reading Kavxdadai ov av/xcpepov " Now to boast it is not exeXevaofj.ai de k.t.X., which is presumably fj.v
lb.

Prof.

side with no real dilference.

oe

TTotTjo-at

KdKe'iva.

pedient, but I shall be coming," etc.


infin. for imper. here,

reading be accepted
allowable.

There seems no special difficulty about and Aramaism is entirely out of court. If Prof. Burkitt's " translation Greek " no but it is in Mt
I.e.,

doubt,

perfectly

The use of a"? in warning retains still the consciousness of its P. 185. Dr Rouse quotes <pofioviJ.ai /utittcos diriOave (cf Gal 4^', 2 Co paratactic origin. 11^) with the independent ^^ttws in questions expressing surprise or indignation "do you suppose I'm a millionaire ? ") (MuUach, pp. 395 f.). (yUTJTTws elixai \6p8os
;

ADDITIONAL NOTES TO THE SECOND EDITION.


lb.

249

read coy Kaipou ^x^Mf (<B*17). As we have seen on can hardly perhaps be regarded as decisive between o and w but the subj. is justifiable with the sense " as long as we have opportunity, let us continue to work." (Qs in MGr takes the meaning of ?ws as well as its own.)
6^"

In

Gal

WH

Kom

5\ the

MSS

In classical Greek this futuristic subj. would demand

Av,

but words meaning

until constantly drop it in Hellenistic. Dr Giles tells me that Gildersleeve's suggestion of an independent P. 188. ov in ov ix-q was anticipated in the Middle Ages in one if not both of the best

MSS

of Aristophanes it is regularly punctuated oii- firi. . . Dr Rouse has noticed the old intin. in Cos, as P. 205.

^x'"' 'Se'iv,

"I have

seen."

Prof.
is

Thumb

purpose

commoner

{JVeue Jahrb. '06, p. 259) observes that the infin. of in Homer than in Attic the preference accordingly has
:

lingered in Asiatic and island Greek for three thousand years. P. 206. Dr E. A. Abbott reinforces the depleted ranks of scholars

who

"We might cite such passages as If we had no 15'* as affording scope for exegetical ingenuity on these lines. evidence from Hellenistic and MGr as to the loss of this force in 'iva, we might accept such subtleties of interpretation as at least not out of character with so allusive a writer. But with our present knowledge we should need much .stronger evidence than is offered to prove that Jn differed so greatly from
press the telle force of IVa in Jn.

would

his contemporaries. P. 207. Prof. Burkitt notes {Ev. da-ilejjJi. " so that as consecutive in Lk 4-^, they cast him

ii.

183) tliat Tatian took diare

down." P. 209. ^The consecutive on which Blass would read in Jn 3' does appear in later Greek, e.g. Pclagia, 20, tL didoLs rots d/xvots crov, on ^utjv aluvwv exovdiv;

See E. A. Abbott, Joh. Gr.


P. 210.
:

The consecutive use of was recognised by Lightfoot Th in his notes, and cf what he says on eh to Th 5* where nom. would and exx. of P. 212. For
iVa see
c.

p. 534.

in

Gal

5^'',

inf.

2'^.

classical

ace.

infin.

have been
;

regular, cf Aeschylus

PV 268

f.

and the note of Sikes and Wynne- Willson

also

Adam's note on Plato Apol. 36 B. The periphrastic imperf. occurs P. 227.

fifi-qv

dTrepxofievos

18,

9jv

aKoixraaa

note also

p. 26,

several times in Pelagia, as p. 14, ^ao yivdxxKOJU, like icrdt. evvowv

in

Mt 5-3. Cf Usener's note p. 50. That this is pure vernacular, untainted by Dr Rouse observes that it is used now in Hebraism, is beyond question. = Zaconian, as (popovvrep ?fjLe = <popoviJ.i>, opovfievep ^fii 6puifj.aL. P. 237. A further addition to the list on p. 95 is given by Prof, Burkitt in

Mt

lO'i

and

28,

i]

w6\ls

ets riv

av elcre\dT]Te

ets

avTyif {Ev.

da-Mcj)h.

ii.

75).

This goes naturally witli the passages supporting Wellhausen's thesis (above,
p. 242).

p.

240. If

/J.V

yefoiTo

is

"a

phrase of learned origin,"

it is

presumably

some other survivals in idiomatic phrases, for which Dr Rouse Dr Rouse instances /J-erci x^ipSs, ciTro ^poxv^, reXos wAvtwv, tw ovtl, wavTa-jracrt. himself has never heard fiv yivoLTo, for which the people say 6 deos va. (pvXdiv.
parallel with

I.

IISTDEX

TO QUOTATIONS.
New
Testament.

{a)

Matthew

INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.
Matthew eontinved
PAGE
20. 22 20. 23 20. 28
21. 16 21. 19

251
Mark continui'd
PAOR

Matthew continued
PAGE
27. 44, 27. 46 27.
j '

20 210 21. 32 21. 42 59, 138, 139, 140


21.
.

45 241 . 105 138, 140 179 139 .


.
.

38

8,

.
. . . ,

49

140 175, 230


. .

8. 8. 8. 8.

14 19

27. 62 28. I 28. 7 28. 15 28. 18

91
72, 73

24 26

52 170 50 94 125

.
.

22.

22. 2 22. 5 22. II 23- 21 23- 23 23- 30 -> -> 23- jj 23- 39 24. 17, i8 24. 23 24. 30 24. 35 24. 43 24. 45
24. 48

131 140

28.

20

140 139 140 139

8 36 9 18

9 25 9 38 9- 39
9. 41 o. 7 o. o.

88,90
231, 232
.

Mark
r-

186 125 129 125, 174 100, 188


.
.
.

91

104

7
II

140, 185, 248 201 116, 185


.

I.
II. I. I. 1.

15 17

. . .

191

. .

.
.
.

2525- 9

14,

184, 189,
. .

25. 16 25- 19 25- 20 25. 20, 24


25. 22
.

.
.

. .
. . . .

25. 24, 25 25. 24, 20


25-

40

25. 41 26. 2
26.

4 26. 10
26. 13 26. 24 26. 25 26. 32 26. 35 26. 50 26. 51 26. 53 26.

116,
.

.
.
.

190,
.
.

64

86,
.
.

26. 65 27. 27. 4 27. 5 27- II

140,
.

27. 27. 27. 27. 27. 2727. 27.

19
19,

25

21

77,
.

23 24 32 35

.
.

40

174 124 150 190 201 140 142 146 192 116 160 140 238 140 238 138 138 221 120 157 140 140 200 140 212 191 93 157 50 140 140 207 177 155 86 140 183 102 140 90 14 157 127

25 36

44
I

2.
2.

3 7

2. 5
I

2.

^' 15 ^" 23

9
I

II

3
3.

16 21

3. 26 4. I

4-5-8 4.8
4. 4.
4.

22 26 28
32

444.
5. 5I

39
41 10
13 15

555-

19 23

55-

34 36

6. 14, 24 6. 17 f. .
6.
6.

22-25
25 26

95, 237 134 67, 245 45 176 116 124 82 222 119 . 231 16,17 16, 17, 159 208 168 69, 235 106, 134 187 241 79 103 191, 241 185 46, 50 53 176 58 20s . 172 145 143 179 174, 226 124 . 127 . 94 . 160 . . 179
. .
.
.

13

20 29 32
38

o.
o.

o. 35. o- 35 o.
0.
1. I.
I. I.

45
51
II

14 16 19

1.

25
14

2. II 2.
2. 2.

23

40
I

6
II
3-

59 159 191 227 160 179 105 179 72 165, 179 176 168, 248 168 . . 59 185 145 50 . 74 189, 191 175
.
.

.
. .

. .

. .

. .

91

13 19

.
.
.

150
95

3 3

24-27
31
3

150

190, 191

4 4
4.

6
10 18

4.8
4. 14
4.

19 4. 21
4.
4.

28
31

4- 3^5 4-

4- 2>2 4-

36

6. 6.
6.

.
.

51

4.38
4. 4-

6.
7.

38 39 56
12

f.

170 97, 107 167, 168


191 13, 94, 95 . 75
.

42 47 63
72
I

7.
7. 7.

25

26 28

2
15

. . .

8. 2

8.3

139 70 53

18

5-25

176 175 176 . 97 . 151 Ill 105 200 171, 149 151 190, 191 169 93, 233 178 175 . 157 38 131 159 86 20 . 71 12 .
55,
.
. .
.

. .

252
Make continued

INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.
PAGE

Luke- -contimied PAGE


8. 8. 8.

Luke continued
PAGE
15. 14 15- 17

175 51 135, 137, 163 216 [16.] 9-20 191 . [16.] 18


36 15. 42 16. 6
15.
. .
. . .

6-8
27

29 42 46
52

8.38
8.

8.43

79 75 113, 148 54 , 114 . 102 .


.

15- 19
15.

26

Luke
II-

8.

8.49
75, 103
8.

7 15

177, 191
.

8.

54
13

I.
I. I.

18

75

9- 3
999.

20 28

1.38 1-43
I.

54,

1.58
II. I.

59 62
76
f-

1.

79
I

92 183 195 208, 211, 217 210 106, 246 129 . 198 . 217 . 217
. .
.

25 28 36 45 46 54
I

229 121, 125 '125 70 179 171, 187 87, 230


. . .
.

15- 32 16. 17 16. 22

17.
1718.

17.8
23
I

18. 2
18. 7 18. 10

9- 31
99-

9.

9o.

o.

2.

47

2. I, 3 2. 4 2. 5 2. 26

162 91, 212 162 . 169


.

o. 7 o. 18

o. O. o.
0.
I-

20
21

2.
2.

2.

36 39 49

75
. .

36 42
3

130 103
15

1. I.
II. 1.

4
7

3.8
3-

IS 3. 16
33-

194, 199 95, 237

35 41

f.

4.

23 23 ft10
25

4. 18 44. 4-

227 236 116 143


60

46
I

2. 2.
2. 2. 2.
2.

4 8
12
15

26
33 42 19 23
I

f.

4.
55-

5-38
6.

241 227 220 73 119 222


17

70 53, 171 52, 144 210 198 185 97 125 91, 125 131 125 91 146 92 129, 17 3, 174 119 125 192 15 56 10 157 191 102 104 91 178
.

18. 16 18.

36 18. 41
19. 2

19- 13
19. 17

19.

29

20. 23 20. 16 20. 36 21. 6 21. 8 21. 22 21. 33 21. 37 22. 6 22. 23 22. 34
22.

44 49 22. 65 22. 70
22.

23- 3 23- 5 23. 28 24. 22 24- 34 24. 47, 49

2.

20
27

2. 24. 2. 26
2.

2.
2.
2.
2.

6.3 6.4
6.

II

6. 13 6. 23

6.
6.

29 30
37 41

129, 79, 125, 119, 129,

6.35
6.
6.

6.

42

175, 231,

7.6
7- 13
7.
7.

16
19
f.

7-

32

168 171 198 65 174 174 174 65 191 90 232 156 125 135 80 82

32 35 36 39 58 59
16

3. 3-

333-

24 27 34 35

4- 7

4.8
4.

4. 4. 4.

12 18

20 28

117 236 70 176 74 201 174 191 169 11 174 174 45 191 157 125 125 90 135 194

27. 49

60 114 208 198 135 191 16 217 93 59 218 65 159 205 124 198 185 86 35, 118 174, 226 69 . 117 194, 240 114 69, 191 125 217 190, 191 69 220 . 199 . 239 51 11, 185 231 86 86 45, 240 125 51 135 182 175
.

.
.

.
.

. . .

John
I.

I.

INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.
John continued

253

254
Acts
i6. i8 i6.
16. 16.
ty.

INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.

continued
PAGE
119, 240

ACTS- continued
I'AGE
25- 25 26. 2
26. 5 26. 7
,

EoMANS
239 148 78 70 128 225

continued
PAGE
183 225 182 180 ]80 16, 19. 180 179, 182 228 87 182, 183 89 125 134 221 115 195 217 217 167 2,141 144 75
. . . .

. .
.

28 34 36
I

17.

17. iS

17. 26 17. 27 17. 28


17- 31 18. 8

125 67, 235 52 230 20 198 . 133 230


.

6-8 6
9ff-

.
.

9-19
14, 15,

. .

26. II

. .

20 26. 22 26. 29
26. 27.
27. 27. 27. 27. 27. 28. 28. 28.
I

81
67,
.

27. 10

231, 232 198 69, 217 213


.

15 16
I

f.

9
II
5

18.

19. 14
19- 15 19. 16

240 235 125 80, 246 131 .


.

12

22 29 34 39
6
15 17

19.
19. 19. 19.

26 27 28
32

. .
.

80 73 60 50

194 241 36 106 117, 196 239 14 228


. . .
.

20
23
I

4
5>
I

22

28. 17, 19

231, 232

23 24
7

20. 3 20. 10 20. 16


20. 18 20. 22

17,

236 217 125 63, 196


. . .
.

25

Romans
S

20. 20. 20. 21.

27 28 29
14
16

56 151 217 90 26 134

9
10

20 24
31

21. 21. 21. 21. 21. 21. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22.

22 28
31

33

223 52 143 74 198, 199


73,
. . .

32
13
I

2
II

40
2
5
.

7 7

12

20
4 6
II

9
16
17 19

24
21

23-8
23. 23. 23. 23. 232324. 2424. 24.

26
27

29 30 35
2
5

10

19 24. 22

24. 23 24. 24
25- 9

25. 10

25- 13 25. 16

149 66 163 74 227 133 80 125 179 117 239 74, 176 133 106 224 229 196 133 236 90 88, 90 131 236 132, 133 169
. . . .

13

8-3 8.9
8.

. . .
.

12
15

8.
8. 8. 8.

18

20 28

136 68 194 11; 219 217 222 230 52 35, 110, 247, 249 145 224 107 207 S3 218 103 125. 129 217 221 171 217 10 114 105 65

1
1.

Corinthians
.

18

9- 3 9- 5 9.
9.

. . .

25 26

212 228 231


16

10. 3 10. 6
10. 14

163 124 185 207 125 219, 237 105, 183


. .

11. 4 II. II
11. 18, 12. 3

20

12. 5

JN])EX TO QUOTATIONS.
1

255

uopaxTHi^

256
1

INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.

INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.
JUDE

25*

Revelation
I. II.

4
5

i6

1.

20
3) 5

2. 2
2. 2.

4
i6

2. 5. 2. 7 2.

13

2.
2. 3-

26
27
2
6a, 143

3- 3 3- 5

3-8
3-

15

258

INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.
(c)

Insckiptions.

Archiv
Archivfiir Pcq^ymsforschung,
eel.

U. Wilcken.

PAGE
111.

PAGE

PAGE

129

14

Audollent
DcJJxionitiii Tabcllae, ed.

Audollent (Paris, 1904).


no. 92
.

no. 15

234

195

no. 1S9.

234

BCH
Bulletin de Corresjwndance ffellenique.
1888,
p.

202

234
I

1902, p. 217

196
I

1903, p. 335

234

Cauer
De/c'/.us
infii'riptionuw,

Graccarum, ipropUr dialedum memorabilium^,

ed.

P. Cauer (Leipzig, 1883).


no. 32
.

INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.
OGIS

259

OriciUis Graeci Inscvipiiones Selcdac, cd. Dittenberger (Leipzig, 1903-5).

PAGE
no. 17

PAGE
.

TAGK

64

56

41

54

216 105

260

INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.
ii.

BU contimied.
Vol.
no. 362.
nos.

362-696 (1898) 5E

366. 368. 371395424. 449.


Vol.
no. 731

iii.

iios.

G97-1012 (1903).

741. 747775814. 822.

INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.

261

MP
Papyri from Magdola, in 5C//1902
ff.,

ed. Lefebvre.

PAGE
no. i6
.
.

PAGE
no. 20
I

PAGB
1

105

105

no. 25

100, 239

Mithras Liturgy
Mtie Mithrasliturgie, by A. Dieterich (Leipzig, 1903). 54 . . 12 . p. 17
. .
I

p.

.40

NP
Geneva Papyri,
no.
I

ed. J. Nicole, 2 vols. (1896, 1900).

262

INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.

GH

INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.
(e)

263

Greek Literature.
i.

Classical.

Homer
Iliad
i.

(? x'/viii t..c.)

PAOE
i.

PAGE
Iliad
vi.
vi.

PAGB
Iliad
xxii.
i.

137

172 166, 239


.

284

459

134 185

Odyssey

349 337

98 55

Pindar
Pyth.

(v/b.c.)
iv.

189

132

Aeschylus (v/n.c.) Prom. Vinci. ^i^TU 76


Sophocles
(v/b.c.)
. .

Prom. Vind. %Gi.


Oedipus Tyranmis 236 533 706 1141
.

134

Persac 981

97

Antigone 114 542 789 Oedipus Colmieus


. .
.

74 93 202

155

179

73 74 149 93

Pliilodetes

Oedipus Tyrannus 1199300


fra>,'.
.'

84 178
97

->,

201 (Diii-

doii)

Euripides

(v/b.c.)
.
.

Alcestis 386 Baccliac 1065

Hecuba 1163 Aristophanes


Acharn. 484

134 115 113

Ion 771
Iphig.
I'll
.

184
Taur.

Iphig. in Taiir. 1359

Medea. 213

f.

1092

222

1320

58 135 177

(v/i!.c.)
.

Pax

291

227 161

Ranae. 521

70
^47

Thesmophor. iioS
^rt's 1534
.

618-622

188 247

Hippocrates
Epidein.

(v/b.c.)

vii.

51

101

Herodotus

(v/i;.c.)

81

vi.
I

46

101

Antiphon (v/i;.c.) Frag. M. 3. 67

227

Thucydides
iv.

(v/b.c.)
.
.

54

227

[Xenophon] (v/b.c.) De liepubl. Athen.


II. 3
.
.

31

Xenophon
Hellenica

(iv/B.c.)
i.

vi.

247

m.

ii.

14

212
142 192

Plato

(iv/B.c.)

Alclbiades 124A
Ai)ologia, i8b
.

146,

Apologia, 28c

.
.

238 202
12"J

39A

Crito e^2\

20E 21 A

122

44 A EiUhydeinus zjGb
.

Demosthenes

(iv/B.c.)

Aristoeratcs 659

177
76

Mcidias 525

186

[Demosthenes]

(?)

Aristoyciton 597

Aristotle (iv/B.c.)
Foctics 19
.
.

172

264

INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.
ii.

Hellenistic.

[For the main writers in this section see also Index III.]

Polybius
SO. 7.

(ii/B.c.)

PAGE
85
I

PAGE
516. 30

PACK
.

207

1004

247

Cicero (i/B.c.) Ad Atticum vi. 5 (a Greek sentence)


.

.178f.

Dionysius Halicarnassensis
X.

10.

.65
.

(i/B.c.)

Philo Judaeus

(i/A.c.)

De

Posteritate

Caini, 145

100
(i/A.D.)

Flavius Josephus Antiqu. i. I. I


.

vii. 9.

237 235
(i/A.D.)

A'lifiq. XX. S.

Bell.

ii.

13. 5

235 235

Contra Apionein
4.

21.

14fi

Dionysius Thrax
Plutarch (I/a.d.) p. 256D
.

154
245

216

p.

6o8b.

246

p.

767

[Barnabas]
ii.

(i/A.D.)
. .

28.
of

74

V.
I

13

210

Clement
ad

Rome
.

(I/a.d.)
2,9,
\

Cor. 17.

ad

Cor. 21

95

Justin

Martyr
i.

Apology

(ii/A.D.) 22, 32,


ii.

44, 60, 62,

143

Arrian

(ii/A.D.)
ii.

Epicteius

2.

16

210
144

Lucian

(ii/A.D.)

Dialogi Marini,
iv. 3
.

Piscator 6
7C, 87

Ascensio Isaiae
12
.

(ii/A.D.)

.59
13

Aquila
Gen.

(ii/A.D.)
i.

Clement of Alexandria Paedagogus iii. i 193


[Clement]
Homilies
(iii/A.i.. ?)
iii.

(ii/A.D.)

69

177

Homilies xv. 8
|

80

John Chrysostom
ix.

(iv/A.D.)

259B

229

Isocrates (Argument to
Busiris
.

.212

vi/A.D.)

INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.
Apocrypha
in I'leusclien's

265

Antilegomena
Ehionite
no.

(oil.

1)

PAGE
Gosp. ace. to
brews,
(p. 4)

PAf.R

I'AOR

He4

no.

2b

Gospel, (p. 9)
.

Gospel of Fe.ler 35
17
(p.

16)

97

17

in Tischendorf's Acta Apostolorum

Apocrypha

Acts of Philip 36
(p. 92)
.
.

97

iii.

Modern.

Abbott
Sonys of Modern Greece, by G. F. Abbott (Cambridge, 1900)
p. 22,

II.

INDEX OF GREEK WOEDS

AND FORMS.
a for an 47 d^j3d 10, 233
alre'iv

BdaX gender
fidWeiv 109

uses of act. and mid. 160 aKaraTraaTOS 47, 74 ace. and c. c. dKoy 14, 75 aKoveLf
:

of, 59 sim. diiferentiation of tense.s j3\'/]d7] as timeless aor. 134


et

gen. GO, 245

dXXd 241
disappearance of, 100 of more diJ.(p6Tef)os supplants d/j.<pu 57 tlian two 80 df for edv 43, 167, 240 history 165 f. statistics for NT and LXX 166 f. ws dv 167 weakeniterative 167 ing in conditions 167, 198, 200 orav etc. c. indie. 168 dropped from compounds 168 f. el (x-qTi. dv 169, 239 dropped with ^Sei et sim. 200 denoting unrealised condition 200 f. in impf. and perf. av in 2nd aor. 51 52 -civ in inf. 53 dvd 100, 105 dca fiiffov 99, 100 avdOep-a 46 dvTL 100 c. inf. 81 \vrlvas flexion of, 12 uireKareaTdd-qv double augm. 51 d.TreXTTtj'eic C. acc. 65 dirdyxeffda-i. reflexive use of raid. 155 awS c. nom. (6 up) 9, 12 in composition 65, 112 with adverbs 99 enlargement of use 102, 237, 246 dvoypd(peadai. mid. or pass. 162
df^(pl

yeveadai c. gen. and acc. 66, 245 yiveaOai: Hebraism 14, 16 f.^e^eVero with indicative 16 f. with /cai and indicative 16f. with inlinitive 16 f. orthography 47 part, yevd/xevos 51 with eis 71 original action of yiperaL with futural present 109 sense 120 7^70j'a aoristic ? 145 f., "

238, 259iJ.r]yPOLTo 194, 240, 249 action ol yLPwcTKeip orthograjiliy 47 tenses 113, 148 ypoT 55, 196 ypurj
:

193
did in composition 112 f. forms after -co and -6co verbs 55 ^50155, 196 5w77 55, 193 f., 196 oi'/o 57, 96, 97
:

104-106

dLdopai

edp: for dp 42
c.

indie. 168

49, 166, 186, replaced hy


f.,

234
. . .

Greek 169, 239 relations with ei 187, 240 replaced by participial clause 229 f. eavTovs reciprocal 87, 246 eavrov and i5(.os 87-89 eavTc^ e. act. instead of mid. 157 ditt'erentiation of iyelpeip with ei's 71 f.
in illiterate

ei

dp

diroKpLveadaL

aorist 39,161

coincident or etire etc. Hebraic 14 antecedent partic. 131 dwoarepelffdai. mid. or pass. 162 113 dpTrdi'eiv perfective of, -dpxv^ and -apxos nouns in, 48
dpxecrdai
14, 15
-atrai in 2 sg. pres. dcTTracrd/xeyos

aTroKptOeh

perfect

and

aorist 137, 141

voices

163
^Siero 54
ei:

subj. with et /tT^ri dv 169, 239 relation to edp 187, 240 c. subj. c. 187, 239 ex}ir. a wish 196 oi)t, 196 et ov c. ind. 200, 240

suiierfluous,

from
f.

Aramaic

et IMTjP

46
f.,

etSo:'

111, 116

138

mid. 53
iKetvos
of,

See opdp

action of 132, 238

avTbs

replacing

86
91

with
-

ei/xi:

iiexion of, 55

f.

226 in
elfxi

ioov 11, loop 47. imperative 180,

periphrasis 225-227

article,

weakening
f.

- avTov

120

gen. of place 73

Hes

175

d(p(u)VTaL 38

relation to dcpievTai 119

eLP in pluperfect 53 eXirov 111 eiTTovcra and etVacra 131 with dTrdvT7](np 14 encroaches on et's

266

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND FORMS.


iv 62
els
f.,

2G'

66,

234 f.forminj^ predicate

71f. c.
:

inf.

81 etsT6e.
f.,

96
e\-

Kara and eh foi-ming perfective 237 99, 102, 237


f.

as ordinal 95

218-220 237 as indef.


inf.

fSios

irrational final 49 relation to eavrod

87-90, 237,

art.

6 its

97

ava.

10.")

" Hebraic" use of, 11 'lepocriXu/ia fern, and neut.


lSou
'I?;croCs

2466

iSios

90

f.

48, 244

'i\eos

eXaahv 49, 69, 235 GO

flexion of, 49 Uavos in Latinisms 20


'iva
:

iix6s for /iou 40, 211 iv : instrumental

witli

16

statistics 62 in anartlirous pre62, 60, 67, miscelpositional phrases 82, 236


23-1
f. f.

T(p

and

inf.

104 of time 14, 215 relations with ei's


12,

61,

c.

fut.

35

enlarged
41,
'

Western
subj.
c.

sphere in

for

opt. lations with infin 20 i>, 240 f. ecbatic use 206-209 after iroiQ auc
d^Xco 208,

205, imperative 176, in wish clause


'

Greek

211178
f.

196 re-

c.

laneous uses 103

248 consecutive

210 248

eveopeveiv c. ace. and dat. 64 voices 156 evepyetv : c. ace. 65

Ka

aoristic perfects in, 145, 238,

hoxos c. gen. 39 iirl: with three


adverbs 99
CTTL^oKibv 131
eirLyLVibaKeLV

perfective 113

cases 63,

107 -with

Kadap6s foil, by d7r6 102 Kai ill place of liypotaxis 12

Kard 44,
99

104 combinations in comi)ositioii 111


f.

with,

ff.

113

(mdu/xeip c. ace. and gen. 65 e^ov ace. abs. 74 ?^w contr. with <xxn'^^ 150

KaTokafj-^dveLv act. /cXeis acc. of, 49

and mid. 158

Kpareiv c. acc. and gen. 65, 235 KpaTidTos as a title 78

epavvdv 46
ipydi'ea-OaL and its perfective ,-es ace. in, 36, 37
-es in perf. and 1st aor. -etrat in fut. mid. 54

113

Xruxil/ofiai
\l/j.6s

52

eadieiv

why

defective

111 its

perfec-

56 doubtful gender CO XoLTTov gen. of time 73 XoiW^at 155 f., 238 Avarpa dec], of, 48
ixavddveiv
c. part, or inf. 229 flexion of, 49, 50

tive with Kara 111, 116


Tpos for aXXos 79 vooKe7v c. ace. 64
eiio8u)TaL

f.

24G
134

evdoKijcra

p.ei^ijiv

used

as

54
:

^X"'',
t'ws

'icTXni^"-

action of, 110, 145 future 150 aoristio? 145, 248 with oTov 91 c. subj. without av
o-xeiv

su])erlative 78
ij-urd

104-106 alleged Semitism with


:

in translation 106, 246


TroXe/xeTv

/xi)

use of ov

/x-q

35,

187-192

in pres.

106

168

f.

and

F23,

38, 44, 47, 111, 244

aor. prohibitions 122-126, 173, 188 el firiTt dv 169, 239 oii normal c. indie, ix-fj with the moods 170, -in uses with indie. 170 f. 239

TijJivpva

45

liKiKOS

93 ^Ka.ai 53
rifiets

for iydi 86,

246

fiijv

?IIJL-r)v

46 56
56

^{v) subj. 49, 163


7)voly7)v

^Tw 56
7IX0S

60
act.

davfidaai

and

pass,

signification

239 171, 187, 239 in relative sentences 171, 239 not used with 171, 239 173 but with imper. 2nd 3rd 174 with future 177, 240 in warning 178, 184 in command 178 partic. impera cautious assertion 192tival 180 19ifi7]yeyoiTo 194,240, 249 opt. 200 196 indie, in close connexion with ov 232 239 after verba 239 in
questions 170,
6rt
fi-q

eZ jxt)

f.

aor.

pers.

pers.

'Iva

firj

f.

c.

in

c.

c.

irrcal,

c.

partic.

c. iiiiin. c.

jiartic.

oj-at.

cog. et die. ^Trei oil.

203
diXeiv
Oeos
:

fi-q

foil,

by

subj. 185

-fj.1

240^jU7j OTL ye, /.n'jTLye 240 verbs in, invaded by w forms 55,

and ded

60, 244
in, 161 its perfective

56 112

-07]^ aor.

forms

dviQaKeiv

and

^sim-

plex obsolete except in perfect 114 action of present and aorist stem 114 6vydr7]p as voc. 71

-V

irrational final 49

added
48

to 3rd

decl. acc. sing. 49 i'oOs flexion in 3rd decl.

NlJfKpnv 48

268
oToa
:

INDEX OF GREEK WORnS AND FORMS.


flexion of,

eWop 109 c. partie. or inf. 229 -ow in iulin. 53 010? double use of, 93 oWvadai aor. and perf 147 with iv 104 with part, or 6/j.o\oyeif
:

55, '245

relation

to

TTpCiTos

c. gen. 79 as ordinal partlj replaced by eh 95 f., 237

-pa

nouns

in, 38,

48

ace.

and

inf.

229.
of,

ovaifirjv 195 oTToros double

use

93

-aav 3rd pi. in, 33, 37 -aduaav in imper. 53 ffrd/xa in "Hebraic" locutions 99 avv relation to fxerd 106 perfective
:

oTTov

with av 168

dpav:

-oo-a;'

OS

in warnings 178 in imperf. and 2nd aor. 52 used for ocrns 92 attraction 93 replaced by 93 reinforced with demonstrative 94 f 237 ews otov oaris limited use 91, 92
117
:

why defective n Of action ofaor.

113, 148 crwepyeXv c. acc. 65 avveros 222


differentiation avvirapaKap.^dveiv tenses 130, 133 aoi^'ecrdai tenses 127
of

ris

auTTjp 84
reXetv tenses 130

of,

91
otTos

double use
:

of,

93

orac
Stl

c.

indie.

168,

239
c.

c.

aor.

and

Teaaapes 45 f.
rripelv

acc. 33, 36, 55


f.

orthogi'aphy
126

pres. subj. 186 : used for ri

94

finite

verb re-

TeaaapaKovTa 45

Oil

placing ace. and inf. 211 use of ov fjLT] 39, 187-192


:

and perfective 113

to
oil

fXT]

169-171

hibitions

with 177 partie.


c.

fut.

relation in pro231
f.

TiKTeiv differentiation offenses Ti's used as relative 93


TLs

el

and Av firj in illiterate Kotc^ 240 -ovdde and -ovre subj. 54


S^eXoj'

^i

200 f. with gen. 72, 73

supplanted by eh 97 f. 221 f. Tov c. inf. 216-220 rvyx^veiv c. partie. 228 abs. 74 -Twaav in imper. 53
-Tos verbal adj. in,

rvx^v
48

acc.

irapd 106, 247 anarthrous use 82 irarrip : as voc. 71 ireideiv : differentiation of tenses 147

f.

-via flexion of partie. in, 38,


virep 104 f., 237 vird c. dat. 63,

act.
Treiu

and mid. 158


f.

105 with
diro
f.

adverb

99

45 wepl 104

replaced
statistics

by
104

wurreveiv constructions with, 67 TrXetco {et Sim.) as iudecl. 50 TrX'/jpT]! indecl. 50, 244
ttXovtos 60
TTotas gen. of place iroielv with noun,
TTOIOS

f.,

235

106 after dirodv-QaKeiv 156 vTTOTdaaeffdai mid. or pass. 16f


(payeiv.

agent 102 compared with


for

Sid

See iadieiv

73
instead of middle,

(pipu:

159 KoKQs 95
:

TToieTc

with

aor. part

228 247

why defective 110 aoristic use of present stem ] 29, 238, 247 (pevyeiy differentiation of tenses 112,
115
f.

iroXffj.e'lp

cases

64 with ^uerd 106,


73

iroTairds

95

iroO gen. of place

n-pb 100, 109 7rp6 100, 101


irp6s statistics 63,

106

xdpis acc. of, 49 Xeip in "Hebraic" locutions 99 Xelpav et sim. 49 Xpo.<r6ai cases with, 64, 245
TrpSs

t6

c.

inf.
tD

218-220
dat. 157 dat. and ace. 64, 66, 245 irpoaKvvelv c. ace. and dat. 65 irpoa(pu3Viv irpoawTTOf in "Hebraic" locution 14,
irpoaix^'-'' cc.

use in classical and Hellenistic Greel 71

99

wpav for point of time 63, 24r> u)s with dv \Q7 with on 212 uiffTf change of signification 207 secutive 209 f.

con-

INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND FORMS.


Modern Greek.
PAGK
au if
(XTTo c.
.

2U9

167
10 2, 245
3!)

Kadeis, Ka9evas each


/cat,

ac(;.

Ki

dwoKpidriKa
ds

Kdfj.i'u

d<pS

17 5, 176

Kav
/ji,e

gen. dSos, nuuus iu avT6s, Pontic dros


-as,

38
47, 91

....
(aor. ^Kafia)
.

make

dx (Epirot) = e^
ftdOpaKos = vpriKa j3pnKa
yevafievos
.

102
38 142
51

/Jiipa

= fiTd = Tjfjiipa
yevoiro
.

IJ-^iv) c. .snbj.
fi7]

yid vd in order that

159
162

S4v

= ovo(u
ace.

devofTas indecl. jnes. par tic


Stct c,
.

17 0, 232 60

106
56 142 185 128 96 234
46

eftdara^a
eMftrfKa

^Xeye and
eVas
eTraipa

eiTTOufie 1. pi. siibj. etTre .

of

= els eiravcra
.

epevva
earddriKa, aTTj6r]Ka
ecru

= cnj

evprjKa
f (/)epa

(i)(piTO

aor. o( <f)tpvii}=<pcpij e<pi' tTOS

162 234 142 129 44 12

0d, devd auxil.

formiug future 179, 185

III.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

A see

see Sinaificvs
Alcxandrimis
:

Ablative case lost in prehistoric Greek 61 as a part of the genitive 72 alleged Latinisms 101 f. Ablaut 152 Absolute genitive 12, 74, 236 accusative 74

see Index I {e), p. 263 Agent a.-rr6 for litto expressing iU2, 246 Agent-nouns 127 Agrapha 130, 171, 191

Aeschylus 215
:

Ahikar, Story of 238

I't

ionsart

see A

f.

ctio

nform
^

Alkman 24
Alexander the Great 7, 30 Alexandrian Greek 40, 52
a-text 42, 53, 175, 176, 190, 225

Accent
152,

(stress)

differentiating voices

238 distinguishing words


:

237
f.,

Accusative

and iuhnitive 16 f., 211


-es

229 pi.
decl.

in

36 sg.

and mixed

49 terminal

in -v

49 3rd

61

with prepositions, compared with dat. and gen. 62 with ds, encroaching on ev c. dat. 62 f., 234 f. with other

for point preps, supplanting dat. 63 enof time 63 specification 63 croaching on other cases as object

Alexandrinus, Codex 36, 47, 54, 76, 191, 194, 240 al American RV 180 Ammonius 160 Anabasis, effect of the expedition on

case with verbs gen. 64 f., 235 intransitive 65


65, 93

on dat. 64, with verbs formerly


internal or adverbial

65 on

Greek dialects 31 Anacoluthon 58, 69,


225, 234

95, ISO, 223, 224,


37, 38, 44, 48, 49,

Analogy-formations
Anaplioric article 83

51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56

the old distinctions of cases still hold here 66 constr. of TrtcTTeiyw 67 f., 235 with et's reabsolute yilacing a predicate 71 f. 74 substituted for nominative c. mixed with otl construcinf. 212

how far

Anarthrous

infinitive with prepositions 81, 216 prepositional phrases 81 f., 236 nouns in "headings" 82 use of norms with qualitative force
:

82

f.

proper
83
f.,

names 83
236

clauses

adjective
statistics

infin.,

241

tion 213 Achaian-Dorian

Koivri 37

Aorist: subjunctive c. oi' /x?? 35, 190 endings 51 f. action-form 109-111,

Action-form, verbal 108-118, 221


see Aorist, Perfect, Present,

al
;

Future

Linear, Punctiliar, Perfective,

Con-

stative, Iterative, Ingressice, Effective.

Active Voice 152 if. see Middle Acts relations of hrst and second part 11, 216, 235 imity with Lk 14, 217 the " We "-document 217 see
:

113, 115-118, 129 f., 132, 238 subjunctive, closely connected with f'ut. iudic. 120, 149, 240 indicative, compared witli imperfect 128 f. timeless participle 130-134, 238 as past indefinite 134 f., uses 134

135-140^expressing immediate past


134
f.,

139,

Luke
Adjectives: pronominal 40, 79 f., 8791 indcclinahlcs 50 " Duality" 77 f. ])osition, comparison 78 f. with article and noun 84 intcrjectional 181 f., 240 verbal 221 f. Adverbs prepositions Kard and dva tised as 105 in composition 112 Aelian 25, 79 Aeolic 37, 38, 44, 2\ic{ Lesbian

gnomic 135 English rendering 135140 compared with perfect 141-146 passive and middle 161 f. subjunctive after compounds of ai^ 166, 18t) no longer used with av iterative

140 epistolary 135

imperative, tone of 173, 189 3rd person in proliibition 174 f contrasted with imperatival pres. partic. 180 in unrealised condition, wish, or purpose 200 f.
167-

ilO

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
Aoristic: presents 119, 247 i/jc'pw 129, 2;J8, 247 perfects 141-146, 238, 248 Apocalypse grammatical level 9 use
:

271

9,

Apocrypha, RV of 198 Apotheosis 84

bearing of gransmar here on 11 possible cism 9 use of and in 3rd in -av 49 person endings 52 69 prohibitions 124 nominative 145 ov 191, 192 rod 217, 218 does not sense 234 and ev in confuse small use of compound verbs 237
critif.

of cases

and neglect of concord


idov
-

60

213, citations from dialect inscriptions 214 essentially uso literary, specially Attic 214
f.

Greek 213, 215 for for Greek Hible 241

NT

216-

with dependent gen., as if a full noun 215 tov c. inf., without pre-

ace. pi.

-es

36,

sg.

decl.

aoristic pei'fects
c.

/jltj

inf.

position, its original adnoniinal use 216 telic force in Tliucydides and in 216 usage of the several writers in this respect 217 Paul's tendency to drop telic force 217

NT

NT

els

local

parallelism with 'Iva. 217 explanatory infin. 218 Tvpbs rb and ets t6,

how
197 264

far

remaining
for

telic

218
eis

f.

Appian

dative 63

Aipiila 13

see Index^optative
18,

papyrus citations TTpbs TO c. inf. 219 f.

belongs mainly

tov,

to,

I (e), p.

Aramaic: influences on Greek in


3, 13, 14, 15,

NT
104,

to higher educational stratum 220. Articular Nominative in address 70,

75,

95,

103,

235
Articular Participle 126f., 228 Asia Minor characteristics of Greek 38, 40 f., 205, 211
:

124, 235,

174, 189, 224, 226 f., 230 f., 236, 240, 242 periphrastic

speech of Paul imperfect 14, 226 f. of John 9 diction of Jesus 8 7 ordinals 96 tenses in Luke 14-18 139 periphrastic participle 182

imperative 226 f. ism and Over-use Arcadian 38 Archimedes 51


p.

see

Aspiration 44, 234, 236, 244 Assimilation of Cases alter verbs of naming 69, 235 omitted with gen.

under Hebra-

abs. 74, 236 Asyndeton 181 Attendant Circumstances,

participle of

see Index Aristophanes 215 268 Arrian, optative in 197 see Index
I
{c), p.

230
Attic:

(e),

its literary su}iremacy 24 earliest use in prose 25 grammar of inscriptions 29 Xenophon 31 lan-

264
use

guage of the lower

Article:

general

by

foreigners
relative

Greek 81

as

"correctness"
81

monstrative

and dropped between

21, 236 of as de-

31

the

NT

classes in Athens basis of literary Koivr} 32

preposition and infin. 81, 216 these three Ionic uses absent from 81alleged Hebraisms 81 f., anarthrous correlation 81 f. 236

NT

236 82, phrases prepositional dropi)ed in sentences having the nature of headings 82 words specially aflectiug anarthrous form 82 qualitative force of anarthrous

words 82 f. with proper names 83 used with the parent's name in gen. with names of slaves and 83, 236 animals 83 6 /cat IlaOXos 83 col-

loquial jective

drops art. adjuncts 83 f., placement of adjective 84


style

before ad236 mis-

how much did it contribute to the iiom. vernacular Koiv-q ? 33 f., 214 f. KeKTw/j.aL ami pi. used as accus. 37 revival of /j-efivuifiai 54 KttTe'xea 55 the dual 57 parenthetic nominative 70 use of vocative, divergent from historic present 121 Hellenistic 71 the Orators, forms of prohibition 124, use of imperative 172 alleged ex. of aoristic perfect 146, 238 futures 150 linear and punctiliar future middle active verbs with 154 f. a.TreKpivd/xTjv 161 optative in conditional sentences 196 f. imperfect in untulfilled condition 201 ws on 212 oTTws and iva 206 articular infin. mainly due to Orators

tov deoD

Kal ffuTTJpos 7]iJ.Q>v, papyrus parallels 84 complex adjectival clause between art. and noun 236

in long for ace. 213-215 nom. enumerations 234 see under the Attic writers' names and in Index I

(d

r- 2.^6

Articular Infinitive ev ti^ in translation 14, 215 bearing on history of the Kotj'T? 34, 213-215 rare anarthrous use with prei)Ositions 81, 21() appropriate to rhetoric 189, 213,
:

215

statistics for classical and later

Atticism 5, 22, 24 f., 26, 170, 197, 206, 211, 239 Attraction of Relative 92 f. .\ngmpnt 51, 128, 129 Authorised Version 93, 98, 112, 128 f,, 136-140, 189 Auxiliary a^es 175 f.

272
B see
Vaticanus 224

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

/3-text 42, 53,

see

mider Sinaiti-

cns and Valicaiius Bczae, Codex 16, 38, 42, 50, 55, 56, 58, 69, 73, 80, 94, 96, 107, 114, 124, 131, 161, 171, 228, 233, 235, 236, 240, 241, 242 a^ see under d-text Biblical Greek, 2-5, 18, 99 Bilingualism in Rome 5 illustrated
:

Conative action 125, 127, 128 f, 147, 173 f., 186, 247 Concessive Participle 230 Concord 9, 28, 59 f., 182, 244 Conditional Sentences pluperfect in 148 apodosis with dV 166 f., 196, 197-199, 200 L~idv c. indie. 168, 187 el fxrjTL dv 169 el /jlt) in unful:

from Wales
233

6f.,

lOf. in Egypt

in Lystra 7, 233

in

Palestine 7f.,

Brcotian 33, 34, 55, 214 Bohairic 225


Bracliylogy, witli dWd 241 Broken continuity, perfect of 144, 145,

148

Byzantine period 88, 96, 168, 197

Cappadocian see Pontic Cardinals encroachment on ordinals

futuristic subj.simple 171, with 240 future-perfect sense in edv lessened difference between and idv 187, 240 these almost exclusively confined to their proper moods 187 deliberative subj. 187 differentia of and idv in future conditions 187 use of optative 195, 196, 197f. unfulfilled conditions 199-201 participle in
200,

filled condition, ei oi in

185 186

its

aor.

el

el

c.

el

uses of 96 repetition for distributive 97 Cases in Rev 9 history 60-76, 234" teens
:

95

f.,

237 simplification
:

of

the

"

96

ets

f.

see underprepositions 100-107, 237 the several Cases. Catholic Epistles, use of compound verbs 237 see under First of
JS]).

236 with

Peter, James, Second JSj). of Peter Causal Participle 230 Cautious assertion 188, 192 f. Chance in the Bible 219

Christians, ethics of average early 126,

protasis 229 f. Conjugation-stems 109 f, 120 Conjunctions with df [edv) 166, 234 " d\\d except 241 Conjunctive participle 230 Consecutive clauses infinitive alone 204, 210 wo-re with indie. a,nd with infin. 209 f. expressed by 'Iva. 210 by Tov c. infin. 218 Constative action 109, 111, 113, 115118, 130, 133, 145, 174 Construct state (Semitic) 236 Contingent dv 166, 198, 200 Contract Verbs, 37, 52-54, 55, 234 Contraction of i sounds 45, 55
:
' ' :

238

Chrysostom, on ecbatic iVa 207 see Index I (e), p. 264 Clement of Rome 95 see Index I (c), p. 264 Colloquial see under Vernacular Common Greek: takes place of "He" braic in definition of NT Greek 1

Correlation of Article 81

f.

Cretan 214,
9f.,

233 see

Gortyn

Criticism, contributions of

grammar

to

40 f. Culture see Education

a universal language
terials for
(q.v.)

papyri, inscriptions, MGr unification of earlier Greek dialects 30 foreshadowings of this 21 completed in during v/iv time of Alexander 31 decay of the their relative conold dialects 32
lioivrj

study 22

f.

literary

5f.,

19

ma-

D see Bezae
Dative
lost in MGr 60, 63 obsolescent in Y^oivii 62 decays through a period of over-iise, esp. with ec 62 statistics with prepositions 62 f confusion of ets and ev 63, 66, 234 f. decay of dative uses with ijitb and with e-Ki, distinct meaning Trpos 63 lost 63, 107 accus. begins to express point of time 63 reaction, as in extension of dative (instrumental) of reference 63, 75, and in some transitive verbs taking dative 64 verbs beginning to take accus. or gen. instead of dat. 64 illiterate uses of gen. and ace, for dat. 64 some improbable citations from early in-

27-30

e.g.

f.

tributions to the resultant Koivi^ 3234, 36 f., 214 f. pronunciation 34 f.

how far was KoLvq homogeneous 19, 38-41 dialects in {q.v.)

Comparison of adjectives and adverbs 77-79, 236 Complementary Infinitive 204

Compound Prepositions 99 Compound Verbs cases with


:

fective action 111-118,

237

without
statistics

preposition

111,

repeated 115

65

per-

237

64 with some with irpoaKwetv 64, compound verbs 65 with 67 incominodi 75 syncretism with locative 104 with instrumental 75 extenscrijitions

66

KitjTeveiv

f.

75,

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
and point of time tlins both given by dative 75 sociativc instrumental 75 instrumental userl in translating Hebrew infin. abs. 75 this and use of participle comjiarcil with classical uses and with LXX 76 various uses of iv 103 f. dat. of person judging 104 common uses of dat. and loc. in Greek and Sanskrit 104 ei* added even to instrumental dative 104 o/xoXoyeTv iv 104 (xeTa, irepi, vvo no longer c. one or two exceptions with dat. 105 viro 105 irpos c. dat. common in
sion of time

27;
;

52 see

Apocalypse,

under lUUeracy also under Mark, Lvlcr, Paul,

IIcbrcvK, etc. Eflective action 109, 113, 130, 149

Egypt, bilingualism in, Elativc 78, 79, 236 Elis, dialect of 178, 214 Elision 45

6,

242

Ellipsis 178, 180, 181, 183, 190

Emphasis:

LXX,

rare in

NT 106 fV/

inditter-

ently with the three cases 107 dative of reflexive api<p' ifi 107 proximates to force of the Middle 157 xP^"'^^'- with instrumental 158 dat; or loc. of a verbal noun makes the Infinitive ;i02-204 articular

differentiating
19,

in pronouns 85 f. imperfect and aorist differing in 128 possible cause of original voicedifferentiation 152, 238 on subject, l>rought out by English preterite 140 degree of, in ov ht) construction 188-190 of 01'; c. partic. 232

words

of

full

or

attenuated meaning 237 English, Hellenistic illustrated from


39, 58, 71, 77, 79, 82,
85,

89,

infin.

(7.-!'.)

Days

of

week and month

De-aspiration see Psilosis Defective Verbs 110 f. Definite nouns, in Semitic 236 Definition, gen. of 73 f. Deliberative Subjunctive 171, 185, 187, 194
5-text 14, 44, 45, 53, 181, 233, see under Bczac

96, 101,

237

94, 96, 98, 99, 111, 112, 135140, 144, 150 f., 171 f., 182, 184, 185, 189, 195, 203, 206, 218, 221 f., 229, 236, 243 92,

234

Epexegetic infinitive 217, 218, 219 E[iimenides 233 forniulaj 28, 176, Epistolary aorist 135 180 Euripides 215 see Index I (c), p. 263

"Exhausted"
237
Final clauses
i'm 178,
:

cavrou and Bios 87-90,

Delphian, 36, 37, 52, 55, 214 Demonstrative article as 81


:

auros
p.
/xi]

weakened

telle force of

and ckeTi-'O'; 91 Demosthenes 213 see Index I (c), 263 Denial and Prohibition, with ou

187

f.

Deponents 153 f., 161 f. Dialects in ancient Hellas 23 f

36-38,

213f.

see

30-34,
Atfic,

under

Ionic, etc.

Dialects in Kolvi) 5f., 19, 28 f, 38-41, 47, 91, 94, 205, 209, 211, 241,243,249
23, 38, 44, 47, 111, 244 Diodorus, optative in 197 Di]ib thongs: pronunciation 33, 34 augment 51 Dissimilation 45 Distributive numerals 97 Doric 33, 45, 48, 51, 101, 214

Digamma

f.

205-210, 240 f., of rov c. infi)i. 207, 216-218, of eis roc. infin., in Paul 219 originated in volitive, with parataxis 185 final optative with 'iva 196 f wcrre c. infin. used for purpose 207 rov c. infin. 216218 Trpos TO and els to c. infin. 218-220 use of participle 230 Final i and v 49, 168, 187 First Epistle of Peter prohibitions 124 preference foraoiist imperative 174 for imperatival participles 181 o5 avTov improljable in such good Greek 237 Flucllen 10 f Fourth Book of Maccabees, Atticising in 166, 197

Double comparative 236 Dual 57 f., 77 f.

and

superlative

Fourth Gos])el and Apocalypse 9 French idioms in English 13


of

f.

Duality 77-80, 100 Durative action see Linear Dynamic Middle 158

Ecbatic ipa 206-209

Education, varieties of
8f.,

in

NT

writers
papyri,

28, 44, 50,


f.,

52,

60 in

etc. 4, 6

9, 28, 44, 47, 49, 50, 51,

Frequency, relative, prepositions 62 f., 98, 100, 102, 105, 106 f. 114 Frequentative verb, 190 c. IVa 35 c. ov firj 35, Future ill c. i(p' (f 107 Indo-Gerin:uiic verb 108 compared with futural present 120 history of its form 149 links with subjunctive 149, 184, action mixed 149 f. 187, 240 volitive English rendering 150 f.

18

274
and

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Future Conditions with idv 185 with d 187 "less vivid form" 196, 199 Futuristic: future 150, 177 subjunctive 204

its moods futuristic uses 150 f. 151 Middle in active verbs 154 f. Passive -with middle force 161 ditto used for imperative 176 f. with Sttws 177 rarely with fi-q in prohibition 177 in -warning with c. fji-q in cautious c. d 187 ^l^ 178 infiniassertion 193 optative 197

8,

233 NT

(Delitzsch) 104,
:

163
know

tenses 108

Hebrews, Aramaic?

Epistle to

did author

10 Greek

118, 129, 232, 237 grammatical points in 62, 129, 182, 211, 217, 218 f., 231, 237 see Index Hebrews, Gospel of 17

style of 18, 20,

f. participle 230

see Common Cfreck Hellenistic 2


1(e), p.

265

Heracleon 104

tive 184, 185, 186, 192, 240

Gender 59
Genitive
:

f.

absolute 12, 74,

Hebraism
adjective

with 65, 235 with dKoveiv and 761^(oOaL 66 syncretism with ablative 72 objective and subjective 72 l>artitive 72 f., 102 with 6\pi 72, 73 time and place 73 definition 73 f.

236verbs

Herculaneum, papyri from, 27, 43 Hermogenes 172 Herodian cases in 63 optative 197 Herodotus 51, 62, 81, 91, 101, 214, 215 see also Index I (e), p. 263
:

Heteroclisis 48, 60

Hiatus 92, 117


Historic Present, 120 f., 139 Homer the Achseans of 24 forms found in 55 syntax 121, 135, 147, 161 the Athenians' "Bible" 142 blamed by Protagoras for use of im:

here 74 after

74,

with

100-102, material 102

negative 235 f. prepositions of 104-107, 237

perative 172

Hypotaxis
94,

p. see under Parataxis 263


I (c),

see Index

German, illustrations from Gerundive in -reos 222

96
Ignatius 215
Illiteracv

Gnomic

aorist 135,

139 present 135

Gortyn Code 214 cf Cretan


Gothic 78, 181, 224

future 186

28, 36, 43, 49, 78, 87, 93, 142, l'69, 189, 220, 237, 238, 239 Imperative endings 53 of el/j-i 56,

Grammar and
205, 211

literary criticism 9, 40
lexical

f.,

compared with aor. tenses subj. in prohibition 122-126 compared generally 129 f., 173 f.,
174

present,
:

Grammatical and

Semitism 12
f.

176, 189,

238 prehistoric

use

Greece, physical conditions of 23

Headings, anarthrous 82

Hebraism

flisplacement of, in theory Greek 1-3 in Rev of use of iv 11 f., 61, 103 cf Gallicisms in
:

NT

English

17, predicate 72 articular gen. of noni. in address 235 definition 73 gen. abs. 74 dat. or partic. for abs. 75 f. use of redundance of pro81, 236 nouns 85 used reflexive relative with superfluous 87, 105 demonstrative 94 as ordinal 95 and as indef. 96 illustrated AV 98 tributives (vwTnov 97 compoundbypreposi99 active tions 99 dvoKpidels middle 158 for imper. 180 Hebrew teleology and clauses 219 nom. ^Kndcns partic. 225 ''reedom tenses 226 jieriphrastic of Mk from 242 cf under Over-use

in

I'd

iu
f.

t(2 c.

inf.

14,

215

94

Lk 14-18 tested by MGr


for 70,

ei's

infin.

article

i'l'xv

for

f.

els

f.

art.

f.

dis-

er7rei'131

for

infin.

final

formal history, 165, 171 f. tone of 172 f., 175 prominence of in NT 173 aorist appropriate in prayer 173 in 3rd person 174 f. expressions for 1st person 175 f. auxiliary substitutes d<pes 175 f. perfect 176 for 176-182, 203, 223, 241, 248 Imperfect 128 f. in unreal indie. 200 f. see replaced by periphrasis 226 f. Present stem 58 f. verbs 74, 226 Impersonal plural Improper Prepositions 99 Inceptive action of -IffKca suffix 120 Ineom.modi, Dativus 75 Indeclinable Greek proper name not to be taken as 12 7r\i)pT]s, ij/jucrv and .comparatives in -w 50 Indefinite Article 96 f. Indicative alone may have inherent time-connotation 126, 128, 129 aorist, used of imimperfect 128 f. mediate past 135, 140 rendering of

164

c.

f.

Hebraist school of 2 f., 12, 223, 242

NT

interpretation
in Palestine

Hebrew

how

far

known

English 135-140 yeyova not aoristic in NT 145 f. 238 pluperfuture 149-151 fect 148 as modus irrealislGA, 199-201 with dv 166 f., 200 f. with oral', oirov &i>, Scroi dv, idv 168, 239 negatived by ov 170 f.
aorist

in

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
170 f., 170 future used for coniniand 176 f., 240 future with ov fi-q 190 c. fi-q in cautious assertions 192 f. imperfect for present time in unfulfilled conand purpose 200 f. dition, wish,

275

but
f.

239

entirely expelled negatived questions


/HT?

not

Injunctive

mood 165
:

Koun) 6, 23, 28 f. classiInscriptions cal, 23, 214 see Index I (<), pp.

replaced by participle 222-224 periphrasis 225-227 Indirect Questions 196, 198 f. dual in Indo - Germanic 57 f. numerals 58 cases 61, 72, 75 verb system 1 08 f. Aktionsart 109 f. j lerfectivising by means of composition 111 f. augaorist-jnesent in 119 ment and the final -i in primary was there a future in ? tenses 128 149 future participle 151 voice, its

258 f. Instrumental case 61, 75, 104, 158 use of eV 12, 61 f., 75, 104
Interjectional

character of voc. and of infin. in imperatival imper. 171 f. sense 179, 203 of partic. or adj. used imperativaliy 180 f., 240 pre-

positional clauses 183 f. Internal accusative 65, 93

no separate 152, 238 passive 152 verbs with no middle 153 strong perfect without voice 154 distinction passive use of
rationale ni

confused with relative rts, woTairos 95 command 184 Intransitive verbs becoming transitive use of strong perfect 147, 65, 162 154 tendency of strong aorist 155 Ionic 33, 37 f., 43, 44, 48, 51, 55, 57, 81, 101, 195, 205
Interrogative

93

f.

TTOios

and

middle already developing in 156 Greek weak aorist passive develo])ed from niidille person-ending -ilil's 161

Ireland, bilingualism in 7 Irrational final i and v 49, 168, 187 Isolation of Biblical Greek 2, .3

Itacism 34
Iterative

f.,

47, 199, 239,

240
125,

of the imperative 164, 171 f. glottogonic theories of sub164 the optative junctive and injunctive 165 the two negatives 169 jussive subjunctive in positive commands 177 forigins of the

differentia

action

109,

114,

128, 129, 173, 180, 186, &v 166, 167, 168

248 u.se

127. of

James

infinitive

202

f.-

participles 221 f. closeness of 3 pi. act. in -ont(i) to the participle 224 forms in c. eV ry 14, 215 Infinitive future 151, 204 f. contract verbs 53
:

and adjectives and


voice
203,

deficiency in tense 204 verbal


its

ISov in 11 prohibitions 126 use of Middle 160 Jerome 181 Jewish Greek 2 f., 19 see Hebraism
:

and Aramaic John Greek of Gospel and Apocalypse


use of writing 40 f., 211 of historic present 121 prohibitions 124, 125, l2Qixri in questions 170, 239 periiJirastic tenses 226, 227 compound verbs 237 Josephus 2, 23, 25, 62, 89, 121. 146,
9

place
:

for imperative 172, 179 f., 203 articular (q.v.) 189, 213-220, 240 verb and noun 202 its origins 202204 comparisons with Sanskrit,

189, 197, 233,


p. 264 Jus.sive

235see Index
178,

(c),

Latin,

English 202-204,
traced

207,

210

subjunctive
8,

208

see
Index

development of voice 203, and of tense

Volitire

204case-uses
210

anarthrous

204, 205, 207, 210 i|uence 204, 204 limitative 204

c.

iVtt

subj.

with wore final Latinism 208 consecutive Avith ware relations with wore c. indie. 209 f. 209 f., and with consecutive iVa 210 accus. subject and object 210 f. and infin. compared with otl clause to replace regular 211 accus. tending nom. 212 not Latinism 212 f. mixture of ace. c. inf. and 8ti construction 213 statistics 241

complementary relations with 240 f. 205-209, 210 207, 210 alleged


f.,

203 f., 207, expressing purpose 240f. conse217,

Justin Martyr
I (e), p.

143, 233

see

264
30

Kadapevov(7a 26, Literary \\oivq


Koivfj 23

cf
Greek

Allicism,

Klepht ballads see Index

see Common Laconian see Sjjaria


:

I (e), p.

265

Late Greek 1 Latin Bible 5, 72, 106, 129, 132, 240 Paul speaking 21, 233 ca.scs 61 use of vc for / 87 jiarallds with Greek, etc. 112, 158 the Middle 153

subj.

and

indie,

in cause-clauses

171jussive
in
indirect

Ingressive action 109, 116, 117, 118, 130, 131, 145, 149, 174

subj. 178 quin redeamus?

177 prohibition 184 optative


199

(question

verbal

276

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
233 eXatwif.

ut clauses force 207 verbal adj. turned into participle 222 221 participle and adj. in parallels to use of participle for poverty 241 indie, or imper. 223
nouns 202 infinitive 204 206 their weakened linal
-hilis
f.,

LXX see

address 235 eXaxiffros 236 pound verbs 237' sec Ads

69,

235 artic. nom.

com-

of

Septuagint

Lycaonian 7f., 233 Lystra see Lycaonian

in participles 229 f. Latiuisms 18, 20 f., 71, 75, 100-102,

142, 208, 212

Lesbian

see Aeolic
,
:

f.

247

Lewis Syriac 53, 65, 72, 248

vavs els awavT7)(nv 14 Lexical notes crKvWeiv 25 f. d(pi^is 26 epwTCLV 66 89 epdoTTLOv 99 evKpavi-is, ewKpdveta 131 102 dTTOKbipovraL {TTC^aXwi' Traidla 163, 201 wpoacpdyiov 170
elKoves
:

235 170 irpoaTideaOaL 232 studies of Deissmann 4 Lexical


12, 46, Li^nitative infinitive 204

Magnesia 29, 38, 43 Manuscripts of NT, orthogi-aphy tested 42-56 Marcion 114 Mark uncultured Greek 50, 53, 71 dative 62 eis and ev 62 the Middle
:

159 oral', etc. c. indie. 168 comparisons 185 fut. c. ov

in 190, optative 195 compound verbs 191 237 rich in Aramaism 242
siibj.
f.i.rj
:

Matthew

improves Greek of his source

Hebraisms 11,

233

15, 124, 159, 200, 237, 2i2~Kalldov 17 historic present 121 prohi])i-

Linear action 109, 110, 111, 114, 117,


119, 120, 125, 126, 127, 128, 147, 149 f., 173, 174, 175, 180, 183, 186,

tionsl24

233
20, 25 f., 26, Literary element in 55, 106, 147 f., 204, 211 see under Hchreivs, Paid, Ltike Literary lioivr) 2f., 21, 22 f., 24-26, 62 f., 64, 88, 118, 194, 197, 211 its analogue in MGr 21, 26, 30 element see Atticism in inscriptions 29

NT

ov fiT) 190, 191 Toi; c. superlative eXdxio-Tos 236 verbs 237 Middle: of elfxi 36 f., 55 f.

yiyova imper. in Sermon on the

aorist in 137-140 146 preference for


inf.

aoristic
aor.

Mount 174

216 compound with and

without expressed personal pronoun


(gen. or dat.) 85, 157, 236f. iirimiin Sanskrit, tive differentia 152, 238

Lithuanian alleged Latinising gen. found in 101 future in -siu 149 Local cases 60 f. Localising of textual types 41 Locative 61, 75, 104, 202 f. Lorjia 15, 104, 124, 126, 189, 191 Lord's Prayer 10, 173 Lost cases 61 Lucian 25, 170, 197, 227 see Index I {e), p. 264 Luke did he know Aramaic ? 10, 15,
:

104 style 11,


in 13-18

unity of Lucan writings 14, 217 preserving words of source 15, 18, 106, 237, contra 159, 242 construction of eytvero for 'nn 16 f., " a 70, 233 was "Hebrew's Gospel
Co

18, 20,

232 Hebraism

source ? 26

misusing a literary word 26 recalling Homer? 26 use of 71 projected third treatise 79 use " of " diml words 79 f. oWts 91 f. historic present generalising 119 121 prohibitions 124 iterative dv
?

Latin, and Keltic 153 Deponents" 153 links with the strong perfect how far 154, and with future 154 f. reflexive 155 f., 238 evolution of a compared with English passive 156 verbs that are both transitive and intransitive 156 f. paraphrased by reflexive in dative case 157 typical exx. 157 reciprocal 157 dynamic 158 mental action 158 differences between Attic and Hellenistic 158 f. "incorrect" uses in and papyri 159 f. Paul not implicated 160 airelu and alreicrdai 160 f. middle and passive aorists 161 f. verbs in which active became obsolete, or was recoined out of a deponent 162 common ground between middle

"

NT

and passive 162 f. Misplacement of article 84


Misuse of old literary words 26

Mixed declension 49 Modern Greek Kal


taxis 12

167 f. optative 165, 195, 198 f. "correct" use of wp'iv 169, 199
preference
for

pres.

pared with Mt 174 dp^dfxevoL 182, 240 ov fx7] 190 f. hymns in, their use of infin. 210 ace. c. inf. 211 ToO c. inf. 216 f. literary survival of ov c. par tic. 232 his two editions

imper.

com-

in place of hypoas a criterion against Semitism 17, 94 the study comparatively recent 22, 29 dialects in 23 (see Pontic and Zaconian) the

used
:

written language (see Atticism and use of the modern KaOapevovaa) vernacular in NT study 29 f. versions of NT 30 (see Index I (e), Ionic forms in 38 p. 265) parti-

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
eiple

277
38, contracted 48 in
-lou
f.

now

indeclinable

gender c^banges 60

dative obso-vocative 71 article as lete 60, 63 a relative 81 redundant personal or demonstrative pronoun 85, 94 relative 94 interrogative 94, 95 indelinite cardinals as ordinals 96 distributives 97 article 96 supPurdie's thesis on the constaports tense for our tive 115 present perfect, with words of duration 119

60,

225

Nouns

in -pa

and

-via

48 hetero
-oiii
-is,

tlio

clisis 48,

60

))assing into 3id decl. 48

48 declension 49 accusatives with added number 57-59 gender 59 49 breach of concord 59 case 60-tos

from
-V

and

in mixeil
f.

-iv,

f.

76,

234-236
f.,
f.

Number:
77

historic

disappearance neuter plural, of dual 57 history and "Pindaric" consyntax of 57


f.

present alternating with

aorist 121, 139 pres. and aor. subj. in prohibition 122 imper. in prohibition 122, 164 iniperf. and aor.
f.

idiom of compared 128 134 gnomic aorist 135 the perfect obsolete 141 use of Middle 156, 157new active verbs 162 subj. of 167 negatives 169, 170, 232 auxiliaries forming imperative sole 175 178, and future 179, 185 survival of optative 194, of learned infinitive obsolete, exorigin 240 205 early date cept in Pontic of characteristics illustrated 233 periphrastic future 234, 240 parenthetic nominative 235
t^iarri
f.

struction 58,

58

f.,

234 impersonal plural 163 TjME's for 7(6 86 246


f.
,

Numerals:

as an ordinal 95 f., 237 ordinals in ]\lGr 96 simplified "teens" 96 eis as indefinite article 96 f. 6 eh 97 repeated to form distributives 97 07000J' NiDc in
efs

for

97

f.

AV

ejidofM-qKovTCLKis

ewTd 98

relics

<iv

f.,

{q-v.)

its

f.

tlie

see

Index

Modus

{e\ p. 265, and II, p. 269 irrealis 164, 199-201


I

Moeris 46, 55 Month, numerals for days of 96 Moods common subjective element 164 other common ground 165 ai' in connexion with 165-169 negasee under tives ((/.I'.) 169-171 al Optatirc, SubImperative, Iiijunctive,

Object clauses 210-213 Objective Genitive 72, 236 'OfxiXovixivq 26 Omission oi ixv 194, 198, 200 f. in Lucian 25 oi^rj 55, 0])tative future 151, 197 193 f. origin 164 f. with av 166, 198 after irplv in in command 179 169, 199 LXX 194 compared with subj., and with future 194 optative proper 194-197 compared with English 195 in hypothesis 196 survivals differentia of optative conditional sentences 196, 198, 199 in final

clauses 196

junctive, and Modus irrealis Mystical ev of Paul 68, 103

Narrative, tenses in 135

Nasal in word-endings 45, 49 Negative adjective c. gen. 74, 235 Negatives in Atticists 25 in NT and
:

Atticisers ignorant of f. sequence 197 misuses in Byzantine Greek 197 potential optative 197199 attended liy ov and dV 197 a literary use, but not yet artificial 197 omission of dV 198 in indirect Latin questions, contrasted with Luke observes sequence 199 198 f. itacisni in late period hastens decay 199, 239, 240

papyri 39, 169-171, 177, 184, 185, 187-194, 200, 229, 231 f., 239, 240 Neuter plurals 57 f. " Neutral " text see ^-text

Oratio olliqua 142, 144, 151, 196, 223,

239 Ordinals: use of


plified

els

95

f.,

237 suntest of

"teens" 96
:

New

Testament,
f.,
:

how
67
f.

far

its

diction

Origen 139, 169

peculiar 19

Orthography

Attic basis

Nominative
priated
69,

nominativuspendens parenthetic in time expres225 sions and eiK6ves 70, 235 articular 235 replaced as in address 70 71 perpredicate by sonal pronouns not always emphatic accus. as subject to 85
niilated 69, 235
f.,

as receiver of unapproname-case unassiuses 69

els

c.

ace.

f.

provenance of MSS 41 correspondence of NT and papyri 42-56 Over-use of vernacular locutions agreeing with Semitic 11, 14, 39, 61, 72, 74, 95, 99, 215, 226, 235, 242 Oxyrhynchus i/0(/ia 3, 51, 130, 191 f. of Heb 190, 224

34 a

MS
:

f.

for

inlin.

212

f.

Nonthematic present stems 38, 55 North- West Greek 33, 36 f., 55

Pagan phraseology 84, 102 Papyri non-literary, their importance brought out by Deissmann 3f. education of writers 4 al (see Edu-

278
cation

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

their
with
{d),

and Illiteracy) compareil with inscriptions 6, 28 reniarkaljle antieijiation by Brunot de Fiesle 6


character and use 27
39, 46,
i'.

Perfect

ex1'.

ceptions to their general agreement

NT

53 see

Index

pp. 252-255 Parataxis 12, 178, 185, 193 Parenthetic nom. in tiine-exyn'essions
69, 235, 245^in descriptions 69 Participle pleonastic by Seniitism 14, 230, 241 negatives with 25, 229,
:

towards in tendency 74 transabs. gen. abs. 76 present lating Hebrew 228 aorist of with article 126 coincident or identical action 130that of subsequent action 134, 238
231
f.,

239

in-

decl.

60

inf.

f.,

denied 132-134 with Hv

167 for

imperative 180-183, 223, 240 for optative 182 overdone by Josephus 189 for indie. 222-225, 241 in compleperiphrastic tenses 226 f. contrasted with mentary 228 f. par tic. in Latin and English 229 conditional 229 f. conjunctive, con-

238 genuinely aoristic uses possible in Rev 143, 145 broken continuity iriirpaKa 144, 145 145, 238 145 yeyopa 145 239 with present meaning 147, 176, 238 k^Kpaya 147 literary strong perfect normally in Ac 148 intransitive 154 oiiginally voiceless 154 periphrastic forms imperative 176
^crxv^o.
f.,
rjyy]ixai.

for event on permanent re: cord 129, 142, 143 f. vivid use for event yet future 134 comjiared with aorist 140 f. increasing use in vernacular 141 be used with may a point of time 141, 146 decayed in mediiEval Greek 141 f. obsolete inMGr 141 f. Latin not responsible 142 characteristic use in Heb 142, 143 f. combined with aorist 142 f.,

176, 226 Perfective verbs 111-118, 128, 237, 247

Pergamum
Periphrasis

29, 38

226

f.,

249

see

under

Participle,

and the

several tenses

attendant circumstances 230 alleged

cessive, causal, final, temi)oral,

and

Person-endings 51-54, 152, 154 Personal Pronouns alleged Semitism 84 f, 94 f. emphasis in nominative 85 f. rjtieh for 6701 86 f.

Aramaism 231
Partitive Genitive largely replaced by airo or (k c. abl. 72, 102 possibly with dxp^ 72 as subject of a sentence
:

Perspective, action in

see Constat
I (e), p.

ire

Philo
p.

2,

96 see

Index

Phrygian Greek
259

56 see

264
I
(c),

Index

73, 223

Passive no separate forms in Indo(Jermanic 108, 152, 156 invades middle in Greek, Latin and elsewhere 153 evolved from intransitive
:

only partially differentiated in aorist and future 161 common replaced ground with middle 162 largely in Aramaic by impersonal not definitely attached 163
156
f. f.

Phrynichus 39, 194 Pictorial imperfect 128 Pindar 214see Index I (e), p. 263 Pindaric construction 58, 234 Place, genitive of 73 Plato 62, 213, 215 see Index I (e),

p.

])lural

to the verbal adjective 221 f. Past time 108, 119, 128, 129 Paul: spoke Greek 7, 19, Latin? 21, limited literary 233, Aramaic 7, 10 phraseology 20 his iv Xpia-Tui 68, use of 103 use of we for I 86 f. between 99 prohibitions 124-126

Pleonasm 14-16, 85, 94f., 230, 237, 241 endings 53 action 113, Pluperfect 148 in conditional sentences, 201 Plural see Ntimher Plutarch optative 197 ort /at; 239

see

Index

I (c),

]>.

264

Polybins 14, 21, 23, 25, 30, 39, 62, 85, 92, 115-118, 197, 206 f., 247 see

Index

perfect 145, iterative dV 167, 168


ticiple ace.

prefers present imperatival parimperative 174 195 181 190 et 211 rodoptative 217 t6 and eh t6 218 ov periphrastic tenses 226, 227 iXaxicrros and ^Xa232 236 compound verbs Xicrrorepos in questions 239 237
oil
jjirj

238

middle

160

inf.

c.

inf.

Trpos

c.

inf.

f.

c.

jiartic.

Pontic dialect of MGr 40, 45, 47, 94, 180, 205 Point action see Punctiliar Popular etymology 96 Position of article 83 f. Potential 165, 197-199 the Lord's 10, 173 absence Prayer Jn 17, use of aorist in of cD in 71 137 aorist imper. appropriate to 173 optative in 195

I (e), p.

264.

fJ-T]

/jLrjTiye

240
Perfect: action 109,
its

111 in

English,

double force 136

Predicate, with eis 71 Prepositional clause, anarthrous and articular, 81 f., 236 added to local cases in Prepositions
:

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
Greek 61
nistic, statisti(^s

279

Hellenot due to Seiuitisni Gl


1'.

exiendorl
for

use in

classical

classical

historians

NT

62 f., 98 in composition with verbs 65, 111-118, 128, 237 re"Hebraic" placing partitivegen. 72 phrases 81 f. dropping of article lietween prep, aud infin. 81, 216

aud post62 f., and for

Pronouns possessive 40 duality 77, 79 f. personal 84-87 rellexives 8? unempliatic tavroO and i'oioj 87-90, 237 lOlos 90 f aiVos o and d
:

auTos

91

relatives
f.,

91-95

inter-

rogatives 93

95

over-use paving the with extinction 103 two cases 104-106 105 with three cases 106 adverbs in essence 112 dropped when com pound repeated soon after 115 compounds tend to be used instead of punetiliar simplex 115-118 Polybius using conijiounds to avoid hiatus 117 NT writers use them than the litUratcurs 118 with articular 216, see Index II under 218-220, 241 the several
100-102 way for
f.

tendency to drop article after 82, 236 combinations with adverbs 99 Semitism 99 f. with one case 100-104 alleged Latinisms

statistics
f.

Pronunciation 28, 33-36, 240, 243, 244 see Itacism Proper names and Article 83, 230 Prophecy, use oH shall in 150 f. Protagoras 172 Psilosis 33, 38, 44 Punetiliar action 109-111, 116, 117 118, 119, 120, 126, 129-131, 135, 145, 149, 173, 174, 180, 222, 247 Purist school of NT granuuarians 3, 242 Purists in MGr 26, 30, 2'i3c{ Atticism

is

Purpose

see Final clauses see Logia "Q"


use of
:

Qualitative 82 f.

anarthrous

noun

less

infiuitive

Prepositions Present stem


varieties

Quantity, levelling of 34 with p.7)TL 170 with ov Questions 170, 177 with fxri 170, 192 f, 239 in optative 196 indirect,

twenty-three

of 109

Greek
action

its

linear

109, 110, 111, 114, 117, 119, 120, 125, 126, 127, 128, 147, 149, 173, 174, 175, 180, 183, 186 iterative action 109, 114, 119, 125, 127, 128,

Quotations from classical Greek 45, 81, 156, 233, 238 f. Quotations from OT 11, 16, 52, 124,
174,

188,

190,

192,

224,

235 see

Index

I {h), p.

257

verbs 113 punetiliar action 119 238 contrasted with aorist in prohibitions 122-126 conative action 186 125, 127, 128 147, 173 timeless articular 126 with av 166 imperative, 238 compared with aorist 173 quasi-iugressive in dTrox^petre 174 subjunctive in warning clauses 178 subjunctive with compounds of compared with aorist 186 special participle in periphrasis 227
f.

129, 173, 180, 186, 233 verbs defective in 110 f. in perfectivised


f.,

Reciprocal Middle 157


Pueciprocal

Pronoun,

cavrov's

used for 87

Reduplication 109, 142, 145 Reference, dative of 63, 75 Reflexive Middle 155-157, 163
Reflexives
: no distinction for persons in plui'al 87 this confusion illiterate in singular 87 used for dXXr/Xoi's 87 replaced by Semitic use of ^I'X';

f.,

f.,

particii^le

f.

statistics

f.,

87 unemphatic iavrov 87-90 Relative time 148 demonstrative Relatives pleonastic


:

av,

uses of 6 &v Present tense Present tense

228 see

Imperfect and

with 85, 94 f., attraction 92 f. rogatives 93 f.

237 with confused with


Soris
8.i>

91-93
inter1

time 114, with irakai, etc., rendered 120, 167 by our perfect 119 for past time (historic present) 120-122, 139 see Present stem

for future

Religion

171, sentences, 239 relative clauses replaced by articular particijile 228 contechnical language 18

234relative

{iav) fi-q in

66,

Prohibition

distinction

MGr 164 use of injunctive 165 negative in 169, 187 f., 192 in same category as commands 173 ov /j-r) 187 f. must be treated here with denial 187 f.

and aorist in 122-126 not originally expressed by imperative, nor now in

of

present

servative phraseology 20 Repetition, making distributives and elatives 97 Reported speech see Oratio ohliqua Result clauses see Consecutive Resurrection, voice of the verbs applied

to 163 Revelation see Ajiocttlypse Revised Version of NT quoted

or

discussed 20, 50, 69, 72, 75, 90, 91,

280
116, 148, 231,

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
for

117, 128, 129, 132, 136-140, 163, 175, 184, 189, 225, 229, niaigin 65, 66, 75, 7S, 98, 137, 148, 163, 221, 222 the First Revision 83, 156, ISO Rlietoric, rules ibr coiniuaud in 172 Rome, Greek used at 5, 242

aV234 articular nom.

235

iJ-ia

for

241

for iufin.

under Quotations, and (6), p. 250 Sefjuence, rules of Luke observes with

by 242 Index I

see

241

Mk
:

TrpuiTrj

237
little

address statistics
in

influenced

breach 169, 199 indirect question 199


irpiv

of 197

in

Sahidic 80 Sanskrit survival of Indo-Germanic cases 61 locative of indirect object 104 aoristof "thing just happened" 135 future in -sydiid 149 grammarians' names for active and middle 153 2 sing. mid. secondary suHix
:

Sermon on the Mount, respective proportions of aorist and present imper. in Mt and Lk 174
Sextus Empiricus 52 !ihall and Will 150 f. Simple conditions 171
Sinaiticus, Codex 34, 35, 38, 42, 45, 47, 52, 53, 55, 65, 90, 133, 181, 190 aZ
:

-thus

compared with

aorist passive 161

injunctive
-tat

subjunctive makes in Epic a 1st person imperative 175

172

Vedic

165

-imperative
203

Greek survival of

weak
the

suffix

infinitive parallel with sequimini 224 parenthetic nominaditto

Vedic

iniinitives

classical

204

active tive in time-expression 235 and middle forms dillerentiated by

Slavonic perfective compounds 111 future from that in -aijG (obsolete) 149 cf Lithuanian Sophocles 215 see Index I (e), p. 268 Sources for study of ILoivr) 22 f., 27-30 Sparta 24, 32

Spoken Greek
Style, in

Luke and Heb

Allan/ 238
Scotch parallel to dp 166, 239 Second Epistle of Peter 78, 98, 171, 238 f. Semitisra see Aramaic and Hebraism

Subjective 164 negative 169 f. Subjunctive itacistic confusions with indicative 35 forms in contract verlis

see Vernacular 18 moods genitive 72, 236


[q.v.)
:

Septuagint
2f., 13

Justin Martyr's dependence

"translation Greek" of

on

els dTravTrjcnv in 14 8, 233 constructions of iyevero ^'n'^ 16 f. extent of Luke's imitation 18 Hebraisms from this source to be

compounds of alter
6.V

54 SwT?

55, 193 f., 196 origin 164 alter relation to injunctive 165

dv 166, 186, 239, 240 trplv (?)) dv 169 after ei fiyri 169, 239 negatives 170, 184 f.,

carefully distinguished

forms in -aav 33 indecl. irX-iipijs 50 gender of BdaX 59 avT'ij for nil 59 TnareveLv 67 f. parenthetic nominative 70 violent use of gen. abs. 74 renderings of "exthe Hebrew inlin. abs. 75 f. hausted" iSiosand iavrov 88 redundant demonstrative after relative 95, 237 "seventy-seven times" 98 uses of iv 103 statistics for -rrpds c. historic present dat. and gen. 106 senii121 diroKpideis elirev 131 aorist and peraoristic perfect 142 fect together 143 K^Kpaya and Kpd'^w 147 KOLfidf active 162 a7ro^'e^'o/x163 statistics for dv 166 fiefos imper. 176 subj. used for perf. oi) fxrj 188, 191 f. future 185 owtj ei c. optaopt. 196 optative 194 tive disajjpearing in final clauses 197 potential opt. 197 f. o^eXo)/ 201 articular inlin. 220, 241 participle for indicative 224 partic. c. el/xi, Aramaism 226 N7 c, disproving edu partic. translated with ov 232
isms 18
pi.

3rd

from Arama-

187 f., 190, 192 1st person volitive used to supplement imperative 175, 177 ditto in 2ud and 3rd person volitive in positive commands 177 f. c. 'iva as an imperative 177 f. 177 f. with fxi) its tone in command 178 in warning 178, 184 present allowed volitive classified 184 here 178 184 f. deliberative 184, 185 futur-

184, 185, 186, 192, 240 future indie, trespasses on all three 184 f., 240 volitive clauses of purpose 185 futuristic with idv and (see Final) in oTav {q.v. in Index II), etc. 185
istic

tenses of 186 comparisons 185 f. has excluded with ei 187, 239 optative from final clauses 196 f. c. Lva has become e(|uivalent of iufin. 205 (see 'iva in Index II)

Subsequent action, alleged aoi'. partic. of 132-134 Suffixes see severally in Index II Superfluous words see Pleonasm Superlative 78 f., 236

Syncretism of cases 61, 72, 104 of tenses in English 135 Synoptic question, grammatical points
'in 15-18, 71, 95, 103, 104, 105, 124,

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
174, 175, 189-192, 224, 226 f., 231, see under Matthew, 236, 241, 242 Mark, LvJcc Syntax alleged Semitisms in 12 f.

281
Greek as a 5
f.,

Universal Language, 19, 28 f., 31

cl'

Latinisms 21
Syriae 104, 241,

244 see

Lewis, and

Aramaic
Syrian Recension 42, 53
Teleology 219
Telic

see a-text

Vase-inscrijitions, Attic 31, 33 Vaticanus, Codex 34, 35, 38, 42, 47, 52, 53, 54, 80, 90, 97, 131, 133, 159, 169, 181, 190, 244 a^- see ft-tcxl

see Final clauses


:

Temporal Participle 230 connexion with Tenses

original 108 f., 186 in conditional sentences 166, 201 in infinitive 204 in verbal adsee under the several jective 221

time nn119 with dV 166,

Verba direncli et coqilandi 239 Verbal adjectives 221 f. Verbs forms 38, 51-56 in fit (sea Nonthematic) number 58 f. transitive and intransitive 64, 65 (7.?'.) Aktionsarl cases governed by 64-68
:

108-118, 221 al (see Adion-forin) defectives 110 f. compounds (q.v.) tenses 119-151 (see under the

Tenses
Tcrtullian 69 Textual Criticism

several tenses) voice moods 164-201


iq.v.)
:

(q.v.) 152-163 intinitive

ing on 34-36
see also

a, ft and 5 text {q. r. ) under Alcxandrinus, L'ezac,

pronunciation bear-

Siimiticus, Vaticamis, etc. "Textus Receptus" see a-text

Thematic vowel 171 Thucvdides 25, 62, Index I (c), p. 263

215,

216 see
72,

Time
73,

cases

75

70, expressing connexion with63,tense

un-

and participle (q.v.) 202-232 Vernacular Greek 1, 4 f., 22-41, 83, 85, 188, 234, 239 al Vocative not strictly a case 60 relations with articular nominative of address 70 f., 235 few forms surviving 71 anarthrous nominative tends to supplant it 71 progressive omission of & 71 like imperative, is an interjection 171 Voice 152-163, 221, 2Z8Liiee Middle,

original

108

f.,

119 expressed by

augment, and possibl}' by suffix -i 128 the perfect accompanied by

Passive, Active Volitive future 150, 151,


tive

177 subjuncf.

175,

177

f.,

184

see

under

mark

of 141
:

Timelessness
jicrfect

and

participles 126 aorist 134


f.

f.,

131

Future and Sv.hjunctivc Vulgate see Latin

Traditional spelling 35

"Translation Greek"

4, 13, 39, 59, 76,

102, 104, 105, 106, 188 f., 237, 240, ^ee HeJ^raism ?in(\ Arn,m<n,242, 248 Translations of Latin, Syiiac, Sahidic, Bohairic, Gothic (q.v.) Hebrew (Delitzsch) 104, 163 MGr

Wales, bilingualism in 7 f., 10 f. " We "-document 217 see Acts Week, days of 96, 237

" Western
:

"

Text

NT

Wish
200 201

f.

optative in 195 unrealised ditto in future with 6<f>e\ov

see o-tcxt

(rallis

and B.F.B.S.)
I (c), p.

22,

30 see

World-language see Universal


Wulfila

Index

265

see Gothic
:

Uncontracted vowels 38, 48, 54f., 234 eavrou and Unenipliatic pronouns 85 ioios 87-90 UnfuUilled condition 171, 196, 199201 wish 200 purpose 201 Unification of Greek dialects 30 Uniformity of KoiciJ 5f., 19, 38-41

Xcnophon fore-runner 31 grammar of 62

see

of Hellenism

Index

(0), p.

263
pseudo- 25

Xenophon,
(c), p.

see

Index

263

Zaconian, 32, 249

adde:^da to indices

INDEX
{a)

I.

New

Testament.

Matthew

ADDENDA TO
{d)

INDICES.

283

Papyri and Ostkaka.

BU

284
/xerci

ADDENDA
" Seinitism
f.

T(3
TTtts

INDICES.

"

with wotdu 106,

246
/MT^TTOIS

248

" Hehraistic " with negative, 245 f 245 TTfiLjTos c. gen. 245
TraT-qp voc,

oTTws 177, 178,


oral'

206

f.

SKeuas 246
avyyci'fvcTi, crvyyevis

168, 248 oTi for djare 209, 249


oi) /MT]

= when

244

o[/at d7r6

249 246
248

reaaapes ace. 213


Ttaaepas, Ttaffepd.Koi'Ta 244
tbs

for ews

249

irapexii'V voices of,

wo-Te

249

Modern Gkeek.
PAGE
'oeiv^^iSitv (Cos)
.

PAGE
248
Trapa
iraffo.

249

e(f>6aaa

102, 246 247


.

compounded
.

247 244 247

/can

244

249

INDEX
Aeschines 245 action-form Aoriht
:

III.
243
:

ivimcdiatr. past 247

perfect 247 f. in Aramaic


: :

compared with for Egypt 242


infin.

247

expressing

KoivT]

Lexical notes
:

ets airdvTTia-w

242

245 Literary element in Luke accurate use of ^ deos 60, 244

NT

imper. 248 Attic treatment of a 244


Bezae, Codex 244, 249 Bilingualisni 243

Middle

" incorrect" uses 248

Modern Greek
Tvaaa 244 vivals 249
for,

versions of

ttTro

245

NT 243
246

tls

sur-

Dative, illiterate use of gen.

245

Ostraka243ff., 283
atro 245 245 use of l)erfect 248 Hebraism in ? 245 in relf. to Scripture, Paul Perfect 248 combined with aorist ^crxvi"^ 248

Education, varieties of 244 " Exhausted " lBlos 246


Final cLauses
:

Partitive gen.

replaced

by
?

Paul

literary use of
:

Icrre

weakened

iva

249

Genitive

with clkovhv and yewaOai 245 et's supplying ior partitive 245 possessive 246

Hebraism

'iare

yLvwcrKovres
f.

245 use

Prepositions, replacing partitive 24."^ imPresent stem punetiliar 24-7 perative compared with aorist 247
:

of TTas with negative 245

Revised Version 245

Imperfect 248
Infinitive
IVa
:

for imperative 248 purpose (anarthrous) 249 relations with

Subjunctive, futuristic 249

Symmachus

245.

248 in MGr

249
Textual Criticism pronunciation bearing on, 244 relations of B and D 244, 249 Time, cases expressing 245

John

use of IVa 206, 249

Ka^a/3ei;ou<ra 243, 245,

246

<^

Publications of

T.
Abbott

&
John.

T.

CLARK,
{Inter-

38 GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH.


(T. K., B.D., D.Lit.)
national Critical Commentary.)

Adams

(Prof.

EphESIANS and ColOSSIANS. Primer on Teaching, with B.Sc.)


Post 8vo, 10s. 6d.

special

reference to

Adamson
Adamson
Ahlfeld

Sunday School Work. 6d. The Christian (Kev. R. M., M.A.)

Doctrine of Lord's
Is. Ed., fcap. Cr. price 6s.

Supper.

Im|)erial 16nio (8 x 6), 4s. 6d. net.

Spirit of The Voice fromPower. 2nd 8vo, 8vo, the Cross. Aitken(Eev. James, M.A.) The Book of Job. With Introduction Crown and Alcock (Deborah) The Seven Churches of Asia. W. Lindsay) BiblicalTheology. Two Alexander Svo, A. V. Allen D.D.) Christian Institutions. {International
(T., D.D.) (Dr.), etc.
Notes.
Svo,
Is.

The

6d.

Is.

(Prof.

vols.

21s.

(Prof.

G.,

Theological Library.)

Post Svo, 12s.

Ancient Faith in Modern Light, The. Svo, 10s. 6d. Andrews (S. J.) The Life of Our Lord. Large post Svo, 9s. Ante-Nicene Christian Library A Collection of all the Works OF THE Fathers of the Christian Church prior to the Council of

Nic^A. Twenty-four vols. Svo, Subscription of Four Volumes at Subscription price of


containing

Selection price, 6, 6s. 21s. Additional Volume,

MSS.

Augustine's

Works

discovered since the completion of the Series, 12s. 6d. net. Edited by Fifteen vols. Dods, D.D.

Marcus

Svo, Subscription price, 3, 19s. net. scription pi'ice of 21s.

Selection of Four

Volumes

at Sub-

3s. 6d. Balfour (R. G., D.D.) Central Truths and Side Issues. St. Paul and the Eoman Law. Post Svo, 4s. 6d. Ball (W. E., LL.D.) The Miracles of Unbelief. Sixth Ballard (Frank, M.A., B.Sc.)

The Church of Christ. Two The Doctrine of the Church.Svo, Svo, M.A.) The Apostolic Age Its Life, Church Crown Doctrine, Worship, and Polity. Three Svo, Baumgarten (Professor) Apostolic History. The Free Church of Scotland. Post Svo, 6d. Bayne LL.D.) Crown Svo, Beck (Dr.) Outlines of Biblical Psychology. Pastoral Theology of the New Testament. Crown Svo, Bengel Gnomon of the New Testament. With Original Notes,
Bannerman Bannerman
(Prof.)
vols.

Edition.

Post Svo,

2s. 6d. net.

21s.

(D. D., D.D.) Bartlet (Prof. J. Vernon,

12s.

{Eras of

History.

Svo, 6s. vols.


3s.

ISs. net.

(P.,

4s.

6s.

Besser's

Christ the Life of the World. Price 6s. Beveridge (Rev. John, B.D.) The Covenanters. {Neio Bihle Class

Five vols. Svo, Subscription Explanatory and Illustrative. Cheaper Edition, the five volumes hound in three, 24s.

price,

31s. 6d.

Beveridge (Rev. W.,

M.A.) A Short History of the Westminster Assembly. Crown Svo, 2s. 6d. net. Two vols. Beyschlag (W., D.D.) New Testament Theology.

Primer.)

Paper covers, 6d.

cloth covers, Sd.

demy

Svo, Second Edition, ISs. net.

Bible Class Handbooks. Edited by 3s. each.

Crown
Prof.

Svo. Forty-seven Volumes, Is. 3d. to Marcus Dods, D.D., and Alex. Whyte, D.D.
ajjplicciJiov.

Detailed List free on application.

**

Detailed Catalogue free on

T.

and

T. Clark's Publications.

C, D.D.) St. Peter and St. Jude. Bigg Commentary.) Blaikie (Prof. W. D.D.) The Preachers of Scotland from the
(Prof.
Critical

Bible Class Primers. Forty-four now issued in the Series. Edited by Princ. S. D. F. Salmond, D.D. Paper covers, 6d. each; free by post, 7d. In cloth, 8d. free by post, 9d. Detailed List free on application. Bible Dictionary. Edited by J as. Hastings, D.D. Special Prospectus on In Five Volumes, imperial 8vo, price per Volume, in cloth, 28s. application. in half-morocco, 34s. Sets can also be had in various styles of leather bindings.
;

{International

Post 8vo, 10s. 6d.

G-.,

6th to the 19th Centuky.

Blake (Buchanan, B.D.)

Post How to Read the Prophets.


8vo, 7s. 6d.

Part I. The

Isaiah Pre-Exiliau Minor Prophets (with Joel). Second Edition, 4s. Part II. Third Edition, 2s. 6d. Part III. Jeremiah, 4s. Part IV. (ch. i.-xxxix.). Part V. Isaiah (ch. xl.-lxvi.), and the Post-Exilian Prophets. Ezekiel, 4s. The Series being now complete, Messrs. Clark offer the Set of Five Volumes for 15s.

Joseph and Moses


Briggs (Prof. 0. A., D.D.)
OF

Founders of Israel.

Crown

8vo, 4s.

Bleek's Introduction to the

Testament. 2 vols. 8vo, I2s. net. General Introduction to the Study


'Biblical Study,' entirely

New

{Replacing the Author's re-written and greatly enlarged). 8vo, 12s. net.

Holy

Scriptuiie

Brockelmann
T.

Brown

Lexicon Syriacum. With a Preface by Professor NoLDEKE. Crown The Essence of Christianity. Post (Prof. W. Adams)
(C.)
4to, 30s. net.

The Messiah of the Apostles. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. The Messiah of the Gospels. Post 8vo, 6s. 6d. The Bible, the Church, and the Reason. Post 8vo,

6s. 6d.

8vo, 6s. net.

Bruce (Prof. A.

The Training of the Twelve ; exhibiting B., D.D.) 6th Ed., 10s. 6d. the Twelve Disciples under Discipline for the Apostleship. Humiliation of Christ. 5th Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d.

The The Kingdom of God


Apologetics
;

or, Christ's
7s. 6d.

Teaching according to the

Synoptical Gospels.

Post 8vo,

or,

Christianity

Defensively
The

Stated.
7s. 6d.

{International Theological Library.)

Third Edition, post 8vo,


:

10s. 6d.

St.

Paul's Conception of Christianity.

Post Svo,
First

The Epistle to the Hebrews


Christianity.

Apology

for

Second Edition, post 8vo, 7s. 6d. Bruce (Rev. R., D.D., Hon. Canon of Durham Cathedral.) Order and Unity. Crown Svo, 2s. 6d. net.

Apostolic

S., D.D.) The Ethics of the Old Testament. Cr. 8vo, 4s. The Formation of Chrlstian Character. Crown 8vo, 5s. Buhl (Prof. F.) Canon and Text of the Old Testament. Svo, 7s. 6d. Bungener^Felix) Rome and theCouncil in 19Century. Cr.8vo,5s. Burton (Prof. E.) Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New

Bruce (W.

Testament Greek. Post 8vo, 5s. 6d. net. Caldecott and H. R. Mackintosh (Profs.) Selections from the Literature of Theism. 7s. 6d. net. Oalvin'slNSTiTUTESOFCHRiSTiAN Religion. (Translation.)2vols.8vo,l 4s. Price on uppJication. Commentaries. Forty-five Vols. Curavit A. Tholuck. Calvini Tnstitutio Christianae Religionis.

Two

vols. Svo,

Suhscription

Candlish (Prof. J. S., D.D.) The Kingdom of God, Biblically and HlSTORICATLY CONSIDEKED. 8v0, lOs. 6d. The Christian Salvation. Lectures on the Work of Christ.
Svo, 7s. 6d.

]jrice, 14s.

T.

and

T. Clark' s Publications.
7s. 6d.

Introduction to the Life of Christ. 8vo, Caspar! (C. E.) Gaspers (A.) The Footsteps of Christ. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. Cassel (Prof. Commentary on Esther. 8vo, 6s. net.
)

Cave (Principal A., D.D.) The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice AND Atonement. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d. An Introduction to Theology. Second Edition, 8vo, 12s. Chapman (Principal C, LL.D.) Pre-Organic Evolution and the

Biblical Idea of God. Christlieb (Prof. T., D.D.)


8vo, 6s. net.

Modern

Crown

8vo, 6s.

Doubt and Christian

Belief.

Homiletic
Clark (Professor
tion.

W.

Lectures on Preaching. 7s. 6(i. The Anglican ReformaR., LL.D., D.C.L.)

{Eras of Church History. )


8vo, 3s. 6d.

6s.

The Paraclete.
Crown

The Person and Work

of the

Holy

Spirit.

Pascal and the Port Royalists. Crown Svo, 3s. Witnesses to Christ. A Contribution to Christian ApoloCrown 8vo, 4s. getics. Clarke (Professor W. N., D.D.) Theology. Thirteenth Edition, post

An
Svo,

Outline
7s.

of

Christian

6d.

The Use of the Scriptures

in

Theology.
?

What

shall

we think

of Christianity

Post Svo, 4s. Cr. Svo, 2s. 6d.

Can I believe in God the Father ? Crown Svo, 3s. Concordance to the Greek Testament Moulton (W. F., D.D.) and Geden (A. S., M.A.). Second Edition, crown 4to, 26s. net. Cooper and Maclean. The Testament of our Lord. With Intro-

Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek. Third Edition, with Supplement, demy 4to, 38s. Crippen (Eev. T. G.) A Popular Introduction to the History

duction and Notes by Prof. Cooper, D.D., and Bishop Maclean. Svo, 9s. Crawford (J. H., M. A.) The Brotherhood of Mankind. Post 8vo, os.

Cremer (Professor)

Cunningham (Principal) Historical Theology. Two The Levitical Priests. Crown Svo, Curtiss Franz Delitzsch A Memorial Tribute. Dahle (Bishop) Life after Death, Demy Svo,
OF Christian Doctrine.
(Dr. S. I.)
8vo, 9s.
:

vols. Svo, 21s.


5s.

Portrait.

Cr. Svo, 3s.

lOs. 6d.

G.) The Words of Jesus. Demy Svo, 7s. fid. net. Davidson (Prof. A.B., D.D., LL.D.) An Introductory Hebrew

Dahnan

(Prof.

Grammar.

With Progressive Edition, 8vo, 7s. 6d.

Exercises in Reading and AVriting.

17th

Syntax of the Hebrew Language. Old Testament Prophecy. Edited by


Demy
8vo, 10s. 6d. net.

3rd Ed., Svo, 7s. 6d. Prof. J. A. Pater{International


12s.

son, D.D.

The Theology of the Old Testament.


Theological Library.)

Edited by Principal S almond, D.D.


Advocate,

The Called of God.


A.

With Biographical Introduction by


and
Portraits.

Taylor Innes, M.A.,

Post Svo,

Second

Edition, 6s.

Waiting upon God.


Sermons.
Post 8vo,
6s.

Further and Final Selection of

The Epistle to the Hebrews. Crown Svo, 2s. fid. Davidson, Dr. Samuel. Autobiography and Diary. Edited by his DAuaHTEK. 8vo, 7s. 6d. Davies (Principal D. C.) The Atonement and Intercession of Christ. Crown Svo, 4s.

T.

and

T. Clark's Publications.
:

Deane (Wm., M.A.)

our Lord and the Apostles.

Deissmann

(Dr.

Gr.

Pseudepigrapha The Books which influenced Bible Studies. Second Edition, 8vo, A.)
Post 8vo,
7s. 6d.

9s.

Delitzsch (Prof. )

System of Biblical Psychology,


;

on Genesis, 2 vols. 8vo, 12s. net and Ecclesiastes, net; Pkovekbs, 2 vols., 12s. net; Song of Solomon 6s. net; Isaiah, Fourth Edition, rewritten, 2 vols., 12s. net; Hebrews, 2 vols., 12s. net. of 21s. net. *^* Any Four Volumes may be had at original Subscription price

New Commentary

8vo, 6s. net; Psalms, 3 vols., 18s.

Deussen

(Prof.

P.) The Philosophy of the Upanishads.


8vo.

The

Religion and Philosophy of India.

Dictionary of the Bible, A.

Dods

(Prof.
8vo, 4s.

Marcus) The Bible:


tid.

{Seepage 2.) Its Origin

and Nature. Crown

net.

Dods (Marcus, M.A.) Forerunners of Dante. Crown 8vo, 4s. net. Doedes Manual of New Testament Hermeneuticn. Cr. 8vo, 3s. Hippo lytus and Callistus. 8vo, 6s. net. Dollinger (Dr.) Declarations and Letters on the Vatican Decrees,

1869-1887.

Authorised Translation.

Dorner (Professor)

History of the Development of the Doctrine


Five vols.

Crown

8vo, 3s. 6d.

of the Person of Christ.

Subscription price, 26s. 3d. net.

System of Christian Doctrine. Subscription price, 2 Is. net. System of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 14s. Driver (Prof. S. R., D.D.) An Introduction to the Literature
OF

rHB

Old Testament.
:

[International

Theological

Library.)

7th

Edition, post 8vo, 12s.

Deuteronomy

Critical

and

Exegetical

Commentary.
Apostolic
10s. 6d.

Drummond

[International Critical Commentary.) (R. J., D.D.)

Third Edition, post 8vo, 12s.

The

Pelation

of

the

Teaching to the Teaching of Christ.

Second Edition, 8vo,

Du Bose

(Prof.

W.

P.,
)

D.D.) The Ecumenical Councils.


6s.

{Eras

Duff (Prof. David, D.D.) The Early Church. 8vo, 12s. Dyke (Paul Van) The Age of the Renascence. With an Introduction by Henry Van Dyke. [Eras of Church History.) 6s. Eadie (Professor) Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles to the

of Church History.

Ephesians, Philifpians, Colossians. New and Revised Editions, Edited each or set, 18s. net. by Rev. Wm. Young, M.A. Three vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Ebrard (Dr. J. H. A.) The Gospel FIistory. 8vo, 6s. net. Apologetics. Three vols. 8vo, 18s. net. Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. 8vo, 6s. net.

Edgar (R. M'C, D.D.) The Gospel of a Risen Saviour. 7s. Elliott On the Inspiration of the Holy Scripturfs. 8vo, Eras of the Christian Church Noio complete in Ten Vohimes Dd Bose (Prof. W. P., D.D.) The Ecumenical Councils. 6s. Waterman (L., D.D.) The Post-Apostolic Age. 6s.

6d.
6s.

Dyke (Paul Van) The Age of the

Renascence.

6s.

Emesti BiblicalInterpretation of New Testament. Two vols., 8s. Ewald (Heinrich) Hebrew Syntax. 8vo, 8s. 6d.

Locke (Clinton, D.D.) The Age of the Great Western Schism. 6s. Ludlow (J. M., D.D.)The Age of the Crusades. 6s, Vincent (Prof. M. R., D.D.) The Age of Hildebrand. 6s. Clark (Prof. W. R., LL.D., D.C.L.) The Anglican Reformation. 6s. Wells (Prof. C. L. ) The Age of Charlemagne. 6s. Bartlet (Prof. .1. Vernon, M.A.) Tlie Apostolic Age. 6s. Walker (Prof. W., Ph.D., D.D.) The Protestant Reformation. 6s.

T.

and

T. Clark's Publications.
:

8vo, 6s. net. Svo, 6s. net. Expository Times. Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Monthly, 6d. Fairbairn (Prin.) The Revelation of Law in Scripture, 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Ewald

(Heinrich)

Revelation

Its

Nature and Record.

Old and New Testament Theology.

Ezekiel and the Book of his Prophecy.


8vo, 10s. 6d.

Fourth Edition

Prophecy. Second Edition, Svo, 10s. 6ii. Pastoral Theology. Crown Svo, 6s. Fairweather (Rev. W., M.A.) Origen and Greek

Patristic

Theology. 3s. Falconer (J. W., B.D.) From Apostle to Priest. Study of Early Church Organisation. Oi'own Svo, 4s. 6d. Ferries (Rev. George, D.D.) The Growth of Christian Faith.

Svo,

7s.

6d. net.

Fisher (Prof. G.

P., D.D.,

LL.D.) History of Christian Doctrine.


Second Edition, post Svo, 12s. {In the Series of the World's
Svo, 3s.

{International Theological Library.)

Forbes
Foreign
Forrest

(J.

Epoch- Markers.)

M.A.) Socrates. Crown Four Theological Library


T.,

Volumes
of

for

One Guinea.

De-

tailed List on aijplication.

(D. W., D.D.) The Christ perience. Fourth Edition, post Svo, 6s.

History and of Ex-

Frank (Prof. F. H.) Systkm of Christian Certainty. Svo, 6s. net. Funcke (Otto) The World of Faith and the Everyday World,

as displayed in the Footsteps of

Abraham.

Post Svo,

7s. 6d.

Garvie (Prof. A. E., D.D.) The Ritschlian Theology. 2nd Ed., Svo, 9s. Gebhardt (H.) The Doctrine of the Apocalypse. Svo, 6s. net. A Record of Geere (H. Valentine) By Nile and Euphrates.

Discovery and Adventure.

Svo, 6s. net. Gieseler (Dr. J. C. L.) Ecclesiastical History. Four vols. Svo, 21s. Given (Rev. Prof. J. J.) The Truth of Scripture in connection WITH Revelation, Inspiration, anh the Canon. Svo, 6s. The Christian Pastor and Gladden (Washington, D.D., LL.D.) the Working Church. {Liternational Theol. Library.) Post Svo, 10s. 6d.

Gerlach

Deiuy Commentary on the Pentateuch.

Svo, price Ss. 6d. net.

Glasgow

(Prof.)

Apocalypse

Translated

and

Expounded.

Svo, 10s. 6d.

Gloag (Paton

Prophecies. Cr. Svo, 7s. J., D.D,) The Messianic Introduction to the Catholic Epistles. Svo, 10.s. 6d. Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. Svo, 7s. 6d. Exegetical Studies. Crowu Svo, .5s.

6d.

Godet

(Prof.
I.

The Primeval World. Crown Svo, 3s. F.)An Introduction to the New Testament
The Epistles of St. Paul. Svo, 12s. 6d. net. The Gospel Collection, and St. Matthew's Gospel. Svo, 6s. net. Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. 2 vols. Svo, i2s. net. Commentary on St. John's Gospel. 3 vols. Svo, iss net. Commentary on Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. Svo, 12s. net. Commentary on 1st Epistle to Corinthians. 2 vols. Svo,
net.

II.

2s

*^* *

Any Four Volumes

Defence of The Christian Faith. Goebel (Siegfried) The Parables of Jesus.

at the original Subscription price of 21s. net. Crown Svo, 4s.

Svo, 6s. net.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.


Gotthold's Emblems THAT ABE MaDE.
;

or,

Invisible Things Understood by Things

CpOWII 8vO,

Gould

(Prof.

E.

Co7n7nentary.)

St. P., D.D.) Post 8vo, 10s. 6d.

5s.

Mark.

{International

Critical

Gray

(Prof. G. Buchanan, D.D.) Commentary.) Post 8vo, 12s.


lated, Revised,

Numbers.
New
or,

{International Critical

Grimm's Greek-English Lexicon of the


Guyot (Arnold, LL.D.)

and Enlarged by Joseph H. Thayer, D.D.

Crown 8vo, 5s. 6d. Light of Modern Science. With Illustrations. Hagenbach (Dr. K. R.) History of Doctrines. 3 vols. 8vo, 18s. net. History of the Reformation. 2 vols. 8vo, 12s. net.

Creation;

Testament. TransDemy 4to, 36s. The Biblical Cosmogony in the

Halcombe (Rev. J. J., M. A.) What Think We of the Gospels 1 3s. 6d. Hall (Newman, D.D.) Divine Brotherhood. 3rd Ed., cr. 8vo, 4s. Hamilton (T., D.D.) Beyond the Stars; or, Heaven, its Inhabitants,
Occupations,

Harless (Dr. C.

Harper
Harris

(Pres. Critical Commentary.)


(S.,

and Third crown System of Christian Ethics. A.) W. R., Ph.D.) Amos and Hosea.
Life.

Edition,

8vo, 3s. 6d.

8vo,

6s. net.

{International

D.D.)

God Post the

8vo, 12s.

Creator and Lord of All.

Two

vols, post 8vo, 16s.

Hastie (The late Prof.)


ITS

Theology of the Reformed Church in Fundamental Principles {Croall Lectures). Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. net. Outlines of Pastoral Theology. For Young Ministers

antl Students.

Haupt (Erich) Havemiek (H. Heard (Rev. J.

The First Epistle of St. John. 8vo, A. Ch.) Introduction to Old Testament. M. A.) The Tripartite Nature of Man.
B.,

Is. 6d. net.

6s. net.

6s. net.
Cr.-Svo, 6s. Cr. 8vo, 6s.

Old AND New Theology. A Constructive Critique. Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology contrasted.

The Hulsean Hefele (Bishop)

Lectures, 1892-93.

Crown

8vo, 6s.

History of the Councils of the Church.

Vol. L.toA.D. 325. Vol. II., a.d. 326 to 429. Vol. III., a.d. 431 to the close of the Council of Chalcedon, 451. Vol. IV., a.d. 451 to 680. Vol. V., a.d. 626 to 787. 8vo, 12s. each.

Henderson (Rev. H, F., M.A.) The Religious Controversies of


Scotland.
18s.

Post 8vo,

4s. 6d. net.

Hengstenberg (Professor)

Commentary
;

on Psalms,
;

3 vols. 8vo,

net; Ecclesiastes, etc., 8vo, 6s. net; Ezekiel, 8vo, 6s. net; The Genuineness of Daniel, etc., 8vo, 6s. net History of the Kingdom OF God, 2 vols. 8vo, 12s. net Christologt of the Old Testament, 4 vols., 21s. net; St. John's Gospel, 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. * ^* Any Four Volumes at the original Subscription price of 21s. net.

Herkless (Prof.

Herzog

D.D.) Encyclopedia
Imp. 8vo,
8s.

J.,

Francis and Dominic.

Crown

8vo, 3s.

nominations in
pcedia.)

of Living Divines, etc., of all DeEurope and America. {Supplement to Herzog' s Encyclo-

Hill (Rev. J.

Hamlyn, D.D.) St. Ephraem the Syrian. 8vo, 7s. 6d. Hilprecht (Prof. H. V.) Explorations in Bible Lands. Large

Svo, 12s. 6d. net.

Hodgson (Principal

J. M., M.A., D.Sc, D.D.) Theologia Outlines of Religious Faith and Doctrine. Crown Svo, 3s. 6d.

Pectoris

Holborn (Alfred, M.A.)

The Pentateuch in the Light of To-day.

Simple Introduction to the Pentateuch on the Lines of the Higher Criticism. Second Edition, crown 8vo, 2s, net.

T.

and

T. Clark's Publications.
in Life

Hudson

(Prof.

W. H.) Kousseau, and Naturalism


Crown
8vo, 3s.

and

Thought.

Inge (W. R., D.D.) Faith and Knowledge. Post 8vo, 4s. 6d. net. Innes (A. D., M.A.) Cranmer and the English Eeformation.
Crown
Svo, 3s.

Innes (A.
Aspect.

Taylor) The Trial of Jesus Christ.


(Prof. G.

In

its

Second Edition, post Svo, 2s. 6d. International Critical Commentary.

Legal

Gray

Buchanan, D.D.)

Numbers.

12s.
12s.

(Prof. S. R., D.D. ) Deuteronomy. Moore (Prof. G. F., D.D.) Judges. 12s. Smith (Prof. H. P., D.D.) Samuel. 12s. Toy (Prof. C. H., D.D.) Proverbs. 12s.

Driver

Harper (Pres. W. R.) Amos and Hosea. 12s. Gould (Prof. E. P., D.D.) St. Mark. 10s. 6d.
A. C, D.D.) Romans. 12s. Abbott (Prof. T. K., B.D., D.Lit.) Ephesians and Colossians. 10s. 6d. Vincent (Prof. M. R., D.D.) Phil ippians and Philemon. 8s. 6d. Bigg (Prof. C, D.D.) St. Peter and St. Jude. 10s. 6d.

Plummer (Alfred, D.D.) St. Luke. 12s. Sanday (Prof. W., D.D.) and Headlam (Prin.

For List offuhire Volumes

see p.

1 5.

International Theological Library, Davidson (Prof. A. B.) Theology of the Old Testament.

Driver

An Introduction to the Literature of the Old (Prof. S. R., D.D.) Testament. 12s. Smith (Prof. H. P.) Old Testament History. 12s.
12s.

12s.

Smyth (Newman, D.D.) Christian Ethics. 10s. 6d. Bruce (Prof. A. B., D.D.) Apologetics. 10s. 6d. Fisher (Prof. G. P., D.D., LL.D.) History of Christian Doctrine. Allen (Prof. A. V. G., D.D.) Christian Institutions. 12s. McGiFFERT (Prof. A. C, Ph.D.) The Apostolic Age. 12s. Gladden (Washington, D.D. ) The Christian Pastor. 10s. 6d. Stevens (Prof. G. B., D.D.) The Theology of the New Testament.
Rainy
12s. Christian Doctrine of Salvation. The Ancient Catholic Church. 12s. (Prin. R.) For List of future Volumes sec p. 14.

123.

The

Iverach (Princ. James, D.D.) Descartes, Spinoza, and the New Philosophy. Crown Svo, 3s. Janet (Paul) Final Causes. Second Edition, demy Svo, 12s. The Theory of Morals. Demy Svo, 10s. 6d. Johns (C. H. W., M.A.) The Oldest Code of Laws in the World.

Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts, and Letters. Demy Svo, 12s. net. Johnstone (P. De Lacy, M.A.) Muhammad and his Power. 3s. Johnstone (Prof. R., D.D.) Commentary on 1st Peter. Svo, 10s. 6d. Jones (E. E. C.) Elements of Logic. Svo, 7s. 6d. Jordan (Rev. Louis H., B.D.) Comparative Religion Its Genesis

The Code of Laws promulgated by Hammurabi, King 2242. Crown Svo, Is. 6d. net.

of Babylon, B.C. 2285-

and Growth.

Introduction by Principal Fairbairn, D.D.

Svo, 12s. net.

Kaftan

Crown Svo, 6s. W. Hastie, D.D. Cr. Svo, 58. Principles of Politics, etc Crown Svo, 2s. 6d. Kennedy (James, D.D.) The Note-Line in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Kant

The Metaphysic of Ethics.


Philosophy of Law.
4s. 6d. net.

(Prof. J., D.D.) The Truth of Authorised Translation. 2 vols. Svo, 16s. net.

the Christian Religion.

Trans, by

T.

and

T. Clark' s Publications.

Keil (Prof.) Pentateuch, 3 vols. 8vo, 18s. net; Joshua, Judges, AND EuTH, 8vo, 6s. net Samuel, 8vo, 6s. net Kings, 8vo, 6s. net Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 8vo, 6s. net Chronicles, Svo, 6s. net
; ;
; ; ;

Jeremiah, 2 vols. 8vo, 12s. net; Ezekiel, 2 vols. 8vo, 12s. net; Daniel, Minor Prophets, 2 vols. Svo, 12s. net Introduction to Svo, 6s. net

the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, 2 vols. net Handbook of Biblical Archeology, 2 vols. Svo, 12s. net.
;

Svo, 12s.

*^f*

Any Four Volumes

Notes on Genesis. Crown Svo, Is. 6d. (Rev. N., M.A.) Kidd (James, D.D.) Morality and Religion. Svo, 10s. 6d. Killen (Prof.) The Framework of the Church. Svo, 9s.

Keymer

at the original Subscription price of 21s. net.

The Old Catholic Church. Svo, 9s. The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious.

Cr. Svo, 2s. 6d.

2s. 6d. Kilpatrick (Prof. T. B., D.D.) Christian Character. Konig (Dr. Ed.) The Exiles' Book of Consolation (Deutero-Isaiah). Crown Svo, 3s. 6d. Konig (Dr. F. E. ) The Religious History of Israel. Cr. Svo, 3s. 6d.

Krause

Ideal of Humanity. Crown Svo, 3s. W.) The Suffering Saviour. Cr. Svo, 6s. David, the King of Israel. Second Edition, cr. Svo, 6s. Autobiography. Crown Svo, 6s. Kurtz (Prof. ) Handbook of Church History (from 1517). 8vo,7s. 6d. History of the Old Covenant, Three vols. Svo, 18s. net. Ladd (Prof. G. T.) The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture. Two
(F. C. F.)

The
F.

Krummacher

(Dr.

vols. Svo,

1600 pp., 24s.


J.

Laidlaw

(Prof. J., D.D.)

Lambert (Rev.
Testament.

The Bible Doctrine of Man. C, B.D.) The Sacraments in


2ud Edition, in 4

PostSvo,

7s. 6d.

the

New

Demy Svo, price 10s. 6d. Lane (Laura M.) Life of Alexander Vinet. Crown Svo, 7s. 6d. Lange (J. P., D.D.) The Life of our Lord Jesus Christ. Edited

by Marcus Dods, D.D.

Commentaries on the Old and


;

New

vols. Svo, price 2Ss. net.

Testaments.
;

Edited

Le

by Philip Schaff, D.D. Old Testament, 14 vols. New Testament, 10 vols. Apocrypha, 1 vol. Subscription price, net, 15s. each. St. Matthew and St. Mark, 3 vols. Svo, ISs. net; St. Luke, 2 vols. Svo, 12s. net; St. John, 2 vols. Svo, 12s. net. '^* Any Four Volumes at the original Subscription price of 21s. net. Camus (E., Bishop of La Rochelle) The Children of Nazareth.

Fcap. 4to.

4s.

Lechler (Prof. G. V., D.D.)


Times.

The

Apostolic and Post- Apostolic


2 vols.
cr.

Lehmann

Their Diversity and Unity in Life and Doctrine.

Scenes from the Life of Jesus. Cr. Svo, 3s. 6d. (Pastor) Lewis (Tayler, LL.D.) The Six Days of Creation. Cr. 8vo, 7s. 6d. Lidgett (Rev. J. Scott) The Fatherhood of God in Christian

Svo, 16s.

Truth and
Use.

Life.

Lilley (J. P., D.D.)

The

Svo, Ss. net.

Lord's Supper:
2s. 6d.

Its Origin,

Nature, and

Crown

Svo, 5s.

The Pastoral
LilUe (Arthur)

Epistles.

Principles of Protestantism.

Buddha

2s. 6d.

Lindsay (Prin. T.

and Buddhism. Crown Svo, 3s. M., D.D.) Luther and the German Eeforma-

TiON. Crown 8vo, 3s. Lisco (F. G.) Parables of Jesus Explained. Fcap. Svo, 5s. Locke (Clinton, D.D.) The Age of the Great Western Schism.

{Eras of Church History. )

6s.

T.

and

T. Clark's Publications.
:

Lotze (Hermann) Microgosmus


relation to the

An

Essay concerning
vols.

Man and
24s.

his

World.

Cheaper Edition, 2

Ludlow

(J.

M.,

D.D.)The Age of the Crusades.

8vo (1450 pp.),

Church History.) 6s. Luthardt, Kaluiis. and Bruckner The Luthardt(Prof.) St. John the Author

{Eras

of

Church. Crown 8vo, 5s. of theFourth Gospel. 7s.6d.

Commentary on St. John's Gospel. 3 vols. 8vo, 18s. net. History of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 6s. net. Apologetic Lectures on the Fundamental (7 Ed.), Saving 3 vols. cr. 8vo, 6s. each. (5 Ed.), Moral Truths of Christianity (4 Ed.). Macdonald Introduction to Pentateuch. Two vols. 8vo, 12s. net. Creation and the Fall. 8vo, 6s. net. The Apology of the Christian Macgregor (Rev. Jas., D.D.)

Religion.

8vo, 10s. 6d.


:

The Revelation and the Record


Previous Question in the Proof of Christianity.

Essays on Matters of
8vo, 7s. 6d.

Studies in the History of


Svo, 7s. 6d.

New

Testament Apologetics.

Macgregor (Rev. G. H. C, M.A.) So Great Salvation. Cr. 32mo, Is. Macpherson (Rev. John, M.A.) Commentary on the Epistle to

THE Ephesians.

8vo, lOs. 6d.

Post 8vo, 9s. Life of. 8vo, 9s. McGiffert (Prof. A. C, Ph.D.) History of Christianity in Apcstolic Age. {International Theological Lihrary.) Post Svo, 12s.

Christian Dogmatics.

McCosh (James),

the

The Apostles' Creed.


M'Hardy
(G-.,

Post Svo,

4s. net.

D.D.) Savonarola.

M'Intosh (Rev. Hugh, M.A.) Is Christ Infallible and the Third Edition, post Svo, 6s. net. Bible True Mackintosh (Prof. R., D.D.) Hegel and Hegelianism. Crown 8vo, 3s.
?

Crown

Svo, 3s.

M'Realsham
Mair

(E. D.) Epistle to the Eomans.

Romans Dissected.

Critical Analysis of the

(A., D.D.) Edition, Revised and Enlarged, crown Svo,

Crown Svo, 2s. Studies in the Christian

Evidences.

Third

Martensen (Bishop) Christian Dogmatics. Svo, 6s. net. Indfvidual Christian Ethics. Social.) (General

6s.

Three

vols. Svo, 6s. net each.

Matheson

(Geo.,

D.D.) Growth of the Spirit of Christianity, from


Dawn
of the Lutheran Era.
Svo.

the First Century to the

Meyer

New

(Dr.)

Critical
;

Two

vols. Svo, 21s.

and Exegetical Commentaries on the


vols.

Testament.

Twenty

Stibscription j)rice, 5,
;

5s.
_

net

Romans, 2 vols. Corinthians, 2 vols. Galatians, one vol. Ephesians and Philemon, one vol. Philippians and Colossians, one vol. Thessalonians {Dr. Lilnemann), one vol. The Pastoral Epistles {Dr. Hebrews {Dr. Lilnemann), one vol. St. James and St. Huther), one vol. John's Epistles {Huther), one vol. Peter and Jude {Dr. Huther), one vol. Michie (Charles, M.A.) Bible Words and Phrases. ISmo, Is.
Acts, 2 vols.
;
;

selection of Four Volumes at Subscription price of 2\s. price, 10s. 6d. each volume. and Luke, 2 vols. ; St. Matthew, 2 vols. ;

Xon- Subscription
St.

Mark

John, 2

vols.

Milligan (George, D.D.) The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Post Svo, 6s. of the Dead. Milligan (Prof W., D.D.) The Resurrection
Second Edition, crown Svo,
4s. 6d.

MiUigan (Prof. W., D.D.) and Moulton (W.


mentary ON THE Gospel of
St. John.

F.,
9s.

D.D.)

Com-

Imp. Svo,

lO

T.

and

T.

Clark s

Publicatio7is.

Moffatt (James, D.D.) The Historical New Testament. Second Edition, demy 8vo, 16s. Moore (Prof. G. F., D.D.) Judges. {International Critical Com-

Scripture Testimony to the Holy Spirit. 6d. 6d. Exposition of the FirstEpistle of John. 8vo, Moulton (James H., D.Litt.) A Grammar of New Testament The Prolegomena. Part Greek. Moulton (W. M.A.) A Concordance D.D.) and Geden (A. and TO THE Greek Testament. Crown Muir (Sir W.) Mohammedan Controversy, Etc. 8vo, 36s. Indian Mutiny. Two New Edition. Muirhead (Dr. Lewis A.) The Times of Christ. With Map. MiQler (Dr. Julius) The Christian Doctrine of Sin.
Tnentary.)
(J.,

Second Edition, post 8vo,

12s.

Morgan

D.D.)

7s.

7s.

Parti.
F.,

II.

{In the Press.)

S., 4to, 20s. net,

31s. 6d. net.

7s. 6d.

vols.

net.

2s.

Murphy

Naville (Ernest)

Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus. 9s. The Problem of Evil. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d. The Christ. Translated by Rev. T. J Despres. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d. Modern Physics. Crown 8vo, 5s. Neander (Dr.) Church History. Eight vols. 8vo, 2, 2s. net. Nicoll (W. Robertson, M.A., LL.D.) The Incarnate Saviour.

(Professor)

Commentary on the Psalms.


.

2 vols., I2s. net.

8vo, 6s. net.

Hymns and Thoughts on Religion. Crown 8vo, 12s. net. 2 Oeliler (Prof.) Theology of the Old Testament. Olshausen (Dr. H.) Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and
Novalis
4s.

Cheap Edition,

price 3s. 6d.

vols.,

Acts.
6s.

Four

Romans, one
net
;

Crown 8vo Edition, 4 vols., 24s. 8vo, 6s. net Corinthians, one vol. 8vo, Philippians, Titus, and First Timothy, one vol. 8vo, 6s. net.
vols., 21s. net.

vol.

Oosterzee (Dr. Van)

The Year of
;

Salvation.

Two
;

vols., 6s. each.

Moses
Orelli (Dr. C.

Crown 8vo, 6s. von) Old Testament Prophecy Commentary on


:

A
;

Biblical Study.

Isaiah

Jeremiah

The Twelve Minor Prophets.


vols., 6s. net,

4 vols.

Subscription

price, 21s. net

separate

Owen

Orr (Prof. James, (Dr. John)

Hume. Crown 8vo, 3s. Edited Best and only Complete Edition. by Rev. Dr. Goold. Twenty-four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, 4, 4s. The 'Hebrews' may be had separately, in seven vols., l, 6s. net.

Works.

D.D.) David

each.

Palestine,

Map

of.

Edited by
;

J.

G.

Bartholomew,

F.R.G.S., and
to

Prof. G. A.

Smith, M.D., D.D.


In cloth, 10s. 6d.

an Inch.

With complete Index. Scale 4 Miles mounted on rollers, varnished, 15s.

Patrick (Rev. Principal W., D.D.)


Lord.
Post 8vo.

James

the Brother of our


Two
vols. 8vo, I2s. net.

Philippi (F. A.)

Piper Lives of Leaders of Church Universal. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Popular Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Philip ScHAFF, D.D. With Illustrations and Maps. Vol. I. The Synoptical Gospels. Vol. II. St. John's Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles. Vol. III. Romans to Philemon. Vol. IV. Hebrews to Revelation.

Commentary on the Romans.


In four vols, imperial 8vo, 12s. 6d. each.

Plummer

mentary.)

St. Luke. (International (Alfred, D.D.) Fourth Edition, post 8vo, 12s.

Critical

Com-

English Church History, 1509-1575. Crown 8vo, English Church History, 1575-1649. Crown Svo, Pressens6 (Edward de) The Redeemer Discourses. Crown

3s. net.
3s. net.

8vo, 6s.

T,
Profeit (Rev. W.,

and

T. Clark's Publications.
or,

M.A.) The Creation of Matter;


8vo, 2s. net.

Material

Crown Punjer (Bemhard) History of the Christian Philosophy of Religion from the Reformation to Kant. Purves Dr. D.) The Life Everlasting, Crown ENCYCLOPiEDiA of Theology. Two 8vo, Rabiger Rainy (Principal) Delivery and Development of Christian
8vo, 16s.

Elements, Evolution, and Creation.

(E,ev.

4s. net.

(Prof.)

vols. 8vo, I2s. net.

UOUTRINE.

8vo, lOs. 6d.

The Ancient
logical Library.)

Cath