A GRAMMAR OF
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK
BY
JAMES HOPE MOULTON
M.A. (CANTAB.), D.LIT. (LOND.)
LATE FELLOW OF KING'S COLLEGE,
GREENWOOD
PROFESSOR OF HELLENISTIC GREEK AND INDO-EUROPEAN
PHILOLOGY IN THE
TUTOR IN NEW TESTAMENT LANGUAGE AND
LITERATURE
VOL. I
PROLEGOMENA
THIRD EDITION
WITH CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS
Digitized by Ted Hildebrandt,
March 2006
1908
IN PIAM MEMORIAM
PATRIS
LABORVM
HERES DEDICO
PREFACE.
THE
call for a second edition of this work within six or seven
months
of its first appearance gives me a welcome opportunity
of
making a good many corrections and additions, without
altering
in any way its general plan. Of the scope of these new
features
I shall have something to say later; at this point I
have
to explain the title-page, from which certain words have
disappeared,
not without great reluctance on my part. The
statement
in the first edition that the book was "based on
W.
F. Moulton's edition of G. B. Winer's Grammar," claimed
for
it connexion with a work which for thirty-five years had
been
in constant use among New Testament students in this
country
and elsewhere. I should hardly have yielded this
statement
for excision, had not the suggestion come from one
whose
motives for retaining it are only less strong than my
own.
Sir John Clark, whose kindness throughout the progress
of
this work it is a special pleasure to acknowledge on such
an
opportunity, advised me that misapprehension was fre-
quently
occurring with those whose knowledge of this book
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
undertaking
to the Preface, and take sole responsibility. I
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 Pietat
that I should drop what
Pietat mainly prompted.
It is now forty years since my
father, to whose memory
this
book is dedicated, was invited by Messrs T. & T. Clark
to
translate and edit G. B. Winer's epoch-making Grammatik
des neutestamentliehen
Spraehidioms.
The proposal originated
with
Bishop Ellicott, afterwards Chairman of the New Testa-
vii
viii PREFACE.
ment
Revision Company, and the last survivor of a band of
workers
who, while the following pages were in the press,
became
united once more. Dr Ellicott had been in corre-
spondence
on biblical matters with the young Assistant Tutor
at
the Wesleyan Theological College,
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
father's
advice in selecting new members of the Revision
Company.
Mr Moulton took his place in the
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
of
its reception. It would not be seemly for me to enlarge
on
its merits, and it would be as superfluous as unbecoming.
I
will only allow myself the satisfaction of quoting a few
words
from one who may well be called the greatest New
Testament
scholar this country has seen for generations. In
giving
his
Dr
Hort said (Romans and Ephesians, p.
71):—
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 con-
sulted 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 com-
mentaries are a helpful addition.
In 1875 Dr Moulton was transferred
to
charged
by his Church with the heavy task of building up
from
the foundation a great Public School. What time a
Head
Master could spare to scholarship was for many years
almost
entirely pledged to the New Testament and Apocrypha
Revision.
Naturally it was not possible to do much to his
Grammar
when the second edition was called for in 1877.
The
third edition, five years later, was even less delayed for
the
incorporation of new matter; and the book stands now,
in
all essential points, just as it first came from its author's
pen.
Meanwhile the conviction was growing that the next
PREFACE.
edition
must be a new book. Winer's own last edition,
though
far from 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
from
the lumber-room. The literature to which Winer
appealed
was largely buried in inaccessible foreign periodicals.
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
stowed
away in compressed notes at the foot of the page.
Had
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 col-
league,
to whom he had given, at first as his pupil, and
afterwards
during years of University training and colleague-
ship
in teaching, an insight into his methods and principles,
and
at least an eager enthusiasm for the subject to which he
had
devoted his own life. But not a page of the new book
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 teaching
work
scarcely touched the Greek Testament, classics and com-
parative
philology claiming the major part of my time. But
I
have not felt that this time was ill spent as a prepara-
tion
for the teaching of the New Testament. The study of
the
Science of Language in general, and especially in the field
of
the languages which are nearest of kin to Greek, is well
adapted
to provide points of view from which new light may
be
shed on the words of Scripture. Theologians, adepts in
criticism,
experts in early Christian literature, bring to a task
like
this 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 investi-
gated
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 com-
parative
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 have 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
yet
more important for his purpose, which might not otherwise
come
his way. The immense stores of illustration which have
been
opened to us by the discoveries of Egyptian papyri, ac-
cessible
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 need-
ing
detailed discussion, and much new illustrative material
from
papyri and inscriptions, the presentation of which will, I
hope,
be found helpful and suggestive. In the present volume,
therefore,
I make no attempt at exhaustiveness, and of ten
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
ever
since in boyhood I read Max Muller's incomparable
Lectures; and I 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
as
concisely as I can the systematic facts of Hellenistic acci-
PREFACE. xi
dence
and syntax, not in the form of an appendix to a
grammar
of classical Greek, but giving the later language
the
independent dignity which it deserves. Both Winer
himself
and the other older scholars, whom a reviewer thinks
I
have unduly neglected, will naturally bulk more largely
than
they can do in chapters mainly intended to describe
the
most modern work. But the mere citation of authori-
ties,
in a handbook designed for practical utility, must
naturally
be subordinated to the succinct presentation of
results.
There will, I hope, 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 new
generation.
It remains to perform the pleasant
duty of acknowledging
varied
help which has contributed a large proportion of any-
thing
that may be true or useful in this book. It would be
endless
were I to name teachers, colleagues, and friends in
tracted
debts of those manifold and intangible kinds which
can
only be summarised in the most inadequate way: no
Cantab
who has lived as long within that home of exact
science
and sincere research, will fail to understand what I
fail
to express. Next to the
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 established
the
Science of Language on the firm basis it occupies to-day.
In
fields where British scholarship is more on a level with
that
of
of
Greek classical lore, I have also done my best to learn
what
fellow-workers east of the
common
stock. It is to a German professor,
working
upon
the material of which our own Drs Grenfell and
Hunt
have provided so large a proportion, that I owe the
impulse
which has produced the chief novelty of my work.
My
appreciation of the memorable achievement of Dr Deiss-
mann
is expressed in the body of the book; and I must
only
add here my grateful acknowledgement of the many
encouragements
he has given me in my efforts to glean
xii PREFACE.
after
him in the field he has made his own. He has now
crowned
them with the all too generous appreciations of
my
work which he has contributed to the Theologische
Literaturzeitung and the Theologische Rundschau. Another
great
name figures on most of the pages of this book.
The
services that Professor Blass has rendered to New
Testament
study are already almost equal to those he has
rendered
to classical scholarship. I have been frequently
obliged
to record a difference of opinion, though never with-
out
the inward voice whispering "impar
congresses Achilli."
But
the freshness of view which this great Hellenist brings
to
the subject makes him almost as helpful when he fails
to
convince as when he succeeds; and I have learned more
and
more from him, the more earnestly I have studied for
myself.
The name of another brilliant writer on New
Testament
Grammar, Professor Schmiedel, will figure more
constantly
in my second volume than my plan allows it to
do
in this.
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
throughout
is naturally that of Westcott and Hort. The
principles
on which 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
to
be only the result of second century revision. But in
frequently
quoting other readings, and especially those which
belong
to what Dr Kenyon conveniently calls the d-text,
I
follow very readily the precedent of Blass. I need not
say
that Mr Geden's Concordance has been in continual
use.
I have not felt bound to enter much into questions
of
"higher criticism." In the case of the Synoptic Gospels,
the
assumption of the "two-source hypothesis" has suggested
a
number of grammaticul points of interest. Grammar helps
to
rivet closer the links which bind together the writings of
Luke,
and those of Paul (though the Pastorals often need
separate
treatment): while the Johannine Gospel and Epistles
similarly
form a single grammatical entity. Whether the
remaining
Books add seven or nine to the tale of separate
authors,
does not concern us here; for the Apocalypse,
PREFACE. xiii
1
Peter 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
volume.
I count myself fortunate indeed in that three
scholars
of the first rank in different lines of study have
read
my proofs through, and helped me with invaluable
encouragement
and advice. It is only due to them that I
should
claim the sole responsibility for errors which I may
have
failed to escape, in spite of their watchfulness on my
behalf.
Two of them are old friends with whom I have
taken
counsel for many years. Dr 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
fruit
of his profound and accurate exegesis, which students
of
his works on
Harris
has brought me fresh lights from other points of
view
and I have been particularly glad of criticism from a
specialist
in Syriac, who speaks with authority on matters
which
take a prominent place in my argument. The third
name
is that of Professor Albert Thumb, of
kindness
of this great scholar, in examining so carefully the
work
of one who is still a]gnoou<menoj t&?
prosw<p&,
cannot
be
adequately acknowledged here. Nearly every page of my
book
owes its debt either to his writings or to the criticisms
and
suggestions with which he has favoured me. At least
twice
he has called my attention to important articles in
English
which I had overlooked and in my illustrations
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. Finally, in the necessary
drudgery
of index-making I have had welcome aid at home.
By
drawing up the index of Scripture quotations, my mother
has
done for me what she did for my father nearly forty years
ago.
My brother, the Rev. W. Fiddian Moulton, M.A., has
spared
time from a busy pastor's life to make me the Greek
index.
To all these who have helped me so freely, and to
many
others whose encouragement and counsel has been a
constant
stimulus—I would mention especially my Man-
xiv PREFACE.
—I
tender my heartfelt thanks.
The new features of this edition are necessarily confined
within
narrow range. 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,
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
here.
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
anticipates
from the evidence of the papyri as set forth in my
work.
My Prolegomena, he says, "really
prove that there can
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 papyri." I agree
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
certainly
be more scientific. But the practical advantages of
confining
attention to what concerns the grammatical inter-
pretation
of a Book of unique importance, written in a language
which
has absolutely no other literature worthy of the name,
need
hardly be laboured here, and this foreword is already
long
enough. I am as conscious as ever of the shortcomings
of
this book when placed in the succession of, one which has
so
many associations of learning and industry, of caution and
flawless
accuracy. But I hope that its many deficiencies may
NOTE TO THE THIRD EDITION. xv
not
prevent it from leading its readers nearer to the meaning
of
the great literature which it strives to interpret. The
new
tool is certain not to be all its maker fondly wished it
to
be; but from a vein so rich in treasure even the poorest
instrument
can hardly fail to bring out nuggets of pure gold.
J. H. M.
NOTE TO THE THIRD EDITION.
As
it is not yet three years since this book first appeared,
I
am spared the necessity of introducing very drastic change.
Several
new collections of papyri have been published, and
other
fresh material, of which I should have liked to avail
myself
more fully. But the alterations and additions have
been
limited by my wish not to disturb the pagination.
Within
this limit, however, I have managed to bring in a
large
number of small changes-removing obscurities, correcting
mistakes,
or registering a change of opinion; while, by the use
of
blank spaces, or the cutting down of superfluities, I have
added
very many fresh references. For the convenience of
readers
who possess former editions, I add below1 a note of
the
pages on which changes or additions occur, other than
those
that are quite trifling. No small proportion of my
time
has been given to the Indices. Experience has shown
that
I had planned the Greek Index on too small a scale.
In
the expansion of this Index, as also for the correction of
many
statistics in the body of the book, I have again to
acknowledge
with hearty thanks the generous help of Mr
1 See pp. xii.,
xx.-xxiii., 4, 7, 8, 10, 13-17, 19, 21, 26, 27, 29, 36, 38, 40,
41.
43, 45-50, 52-56, 64, 65, 67-69, 76-81, 86, 87, 93, 95-99, 101, 105, 107,
110,
113-115, 117, 119-121, 123, 125, 129, 130, 134, 135, 144, 145, 150, 156, 159,
161-163,
167, 168, 174, 176-179, 181, 185, 187, 188, 191;193-196, 198, 200, 204,
205,
214, 215, 223-225, 227-231, 234-237, 239-211, 213-249. Pp. 260-265
have
many alterations, Index iii a few. Index ii and the Addenda are new.
xvi NOTE TO THE THIRD EDITION.
H.
Scott. To the kindness of many reviewers and corre-
spondents
I must make a general acknowledgement for the
help
they have given me. One debt of this kind, however,
I
could not omit to mention, due to a learned member of
my
own College, who is working in the same field. The
Accidence
of Mr H. St. J. Thackeray's Septuagint Grammar
is
now happily far advanced towards publication; and I have
had
the privilege of reading it in MS, to my own great
profit.
I only wish I could have succeeded in my endeavour
to
provide ere now for my kind critics an instalment of the
systematic
grammar to which this volume is intended to be
an
introduction. It is small comfort that Prof. Schmiedel
is
still in the middle of the sentence where he left off ten
years
ago. The irreparable loss that Prof. Blass's death
inflicts
on our studies makes me more than ever wishful
that
Dr Schmiedel and his new coadjutor may not keep us
waiting
long.
Some important fields which I might
have entered have
been
pointed out by Prof. S. Dickey, in the Princeton Theological
Review
for Jan. 1908, p. 151. Happily, I need not be
exhaustive
in Prolegomena, though the temptation
to rove
further
is very strong. There is only one topic on which
I
feel it essential to enlarge at present, touching as it does
my
central position, that the New Testament was written
in
the normal Koinh< of the Empire, except for certain parts
where
over-literal translation from Semitic originals affected
its
quality. I must not here defend afresh the general thesis
against
attacks like that of Messrs Conybeare and Stock,
delivered
in advance in their excellent Selections
from the
Septuagint, p. 22 (1905), or Dr Nestle's review of my book in
the
Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift
for December 8, 1906.
There
are many points in this learned and suggestive review
to
which I hope to recur before long. But there is one new
line
essayed by some leading critics of Deissmannism—if
I
may coin a word on an obvious analogy—which claims
a
few words here. In the first additional note appended to
my
second edition (p. 242, below), I referred to the evidence
for
a large Aramaic-speaking Jewish population in
anticipated
the possibility that "Hebraists" might interpret
our
parallels from the papyri as Aramaisms of home growth,
NOTE TO THE THIRD EDITION. xvii
As
this argument had not yet been advanced, I did not offer
an
answer. But simultaneously Prof. Swete was bringing out
his
monumental Commentary on the Apocalypse; and I
found
on p. cxx that the veteran editor of the LXX was dis-
posed
to take this very line. The late Dr H. A. Redpath also
wrote
to me, referring to an article of his own in the American
Journal of Theology for January 1903, pp.
10 f., which I should
not
have overlooked. With two such authorities to support
this
suggestion, I cannot of course leave the matter as it
stands
in the note referred to. Fuller discussion I must defer,
but
I may point out that our case does not rest on the papyri
alone.
Let it be granted, for the sake of argument, that we
have
no right to delete from the list of Hebraisms uses for
which
we can only quote Egyptian parallels, such as the use
of
meta< referred to on p. 246. There will still remain a
multitude
of uses in which we can support the papyri from
vernacular
inscriptions of different countries, without encoun-
tering
any probability of Jewish influence. Take, for example,
the
case of instrumental e]n, where the Hebrew b;
has
naturally
been
recognised by most scholars in the past. I have asserted
(p.
12) that Ptolemaic exx. of e]n maxai<r^ (Tb P 16 al.) rescue
Paul's
e]n r[a<bd& from this category: before their discovery
Dr
Findlay (EGT on 1 Co 4 21) cited Lucian, Dial. Mort.
xxiii.
3. Now let us suppose that the Egyptian official who
wrote
Tb P 16 was unconsciously using an idiom of the
Ghetto,
and that Lucian's Syrian origin—credat
Iudaeus.
was
peeping out in a reminiscence of the nursery. We shall
still
be able to cite examples of the reckless extension
of
e]n
in Hellenistic of other countries; and we shall find
that
the roots of this particular extension go down deep into
classical
uses loquendi: see the quotations in
Kuhner-Gerth
i.
465, and especially note the Homeric e]n o]fqalmoi?si
Fide<sqai (Il. i. 587 al.) and e]n puri> kai<ein (Il. xxiv. 38),
which
are quite near enough to explain the development.
That
some Biblical uses of e]n go beyond even the generous
limits
of Hellenistic usage, neither Deissmann nor I seek to
deny
(see p. 104). But evidence accumulates to forbid my
allowing
Semitisin as a vera causa for the
mass of Biblical
instances
of e]n
in senses which make the Atticist stare and
gasp.
And on the general question I confess myself uncon-
xviii NOTE TO THE THIRD EDITION.
vinced
that Egyptian Greek differs materially from that
current
in the Empire as a whole, or that the large Jewish
population
left their stamp on the language of Greeks or
bilingual
Egyptians in the Delta, any more than the perhaps
equally
large proportion of Jews in
speech
of our
of
argument which I personally believe to be sound, but I do
not
press it here—the dogma of Thumb (see pp. 17 n. and
94
below), that a usage native in Modern Greek is ipso facto
no
Semitism. It has been pressed by Psichari in his valuable
Essai
sur le grec de la Septante (1908). But I have already
overstepped
the limits of a Preface, and will only express
the
earnest hope that the modest results of a laborious
revision
may make this book more helpful to the great
company
of Biblical students whom it is my ambition to
serve.
J.
H. M.
CONTENTS.
------------------
Chap.
Page
I.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS 1
II.
HISTORY OF THE "COMMON" GREEK 22
III.
NOTES ON THE ACCIDENCE 42
IV.
SYNTAX: THE NOUN 57
V.
ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS 77
VI.
THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION 108
VII.
THE VERB: VOICE 152
VIII.
THE VERB: THE MOODS 164
IX.
THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE 202
ADDITIONAL NOTES 233
ADDITIONAL NOTES TO THE SECOND EDITION 242
I. INDEX TO QUOTATIONS 250
II. INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND FORMS 266
III. INDEX OF SUBJECTS 278
ADDENDA TO INDICES 290
ABBREVIATIONS.
-------------------------
ABBREVIATIONS
for the names of Books of Scripture will explain them-
selves.
In the OT and 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 within
brackets.
Centuries are denoted iii/13 B.C., ii/A.D., etc., except when an exact date
is
given. Where the date may fall within wider limits, the notation
is
ii/i B.C., iv/v A.D., etc. Where papyri or inscriptions are not dated,
it
may generally be taken that no date is given by the editor.
The abbreviations for papyri and
inscriptions are given in Index I (c)
and
(d), pp. 251 ff. below, with the full titles of the collections quoted.
The ordinary abbreviations for MSS,
Versions, and patristic writers
are
used in textual notes.
Other abbreviations will, it is
hoped, need no explanation: perhaps
MGr
for Modern Greek should be mentioned. It should be observed
that
references are to pages, unless otherwise stated: papyri and inscrip-
tions
are generally cited by number. In all these documents the usual
notation
is followed, and the original spelling preserved.
Abbott
JG= Johannine Grammar, by E. A.
Abbott.
Abbott—see
Index I (e) iii.
AJP=American Journal of
Philology, ed. B. L. Gildersleeve,
1880 ft.
Archiv—see Index I (c).
Audollent—see
Index I (c).
BCH— see Index I (c).
Blass=
Grammar of NT Greek, by F. Blass. Second English edition,
tr. H. St J. Thackeray,
by the addition of pp. 306-333.)
Sometimes the reference is to notes
in Blass's Acta Apostolorum (Gottingen 1895): the context will
make it clear.
Brugmann
Dist.= Die distributiven u. d.
kollektiven Numeralia der idg.
Sprachen, by K. Brugmann. (Abhandl. d. K.
Second edition,
Buttmann=
Grammar of New Testament Greek, by A. Buttmaun.
English edition by J. H. Thayer,
xxi
xxii ABBREVIATIONS.
BZ= Byzantinische
Zeitschrift, ed. K. Krumbacher,
Cauer—see
Index I (c).
CGT=
CR= Classical Review
(London 1887 ff.). Especially reference is made
to the writer's collection of forms
and syntactical examples from the
papyri, in CR xv. 31-38 and 434-442
(Feb. and Dec. 1901), and
xviii. 106-112 and 151-155 (March
and April 1904—to be continued).
CQ = Classical Quarterly.
Dalman
Words= The Words of Jesus, by G.
Dalman. English edition,
tr. D. M. Kay,
Dalman
Gramm.= Grammatik des judisch-palastinischen
Aramaisch, by
G. Dalman,
DB=Dictionary of the
Bible, edited by J. Hastings. 5 vols.,
1898-1904.
Deissmann
BS= Bible Studies, by G. A.
Deissmann. English edition,
including Bibelstudien and Neue
Bibelstudien, tr. A. Grieve,
1901.
Deissmann
In Christo =Die Die neutestamentliche
Formel "in Christo Jesu,"
by G. A. Deissmann,
Delbruck
Grundr.= Grundriss der vergleichenden
Grammatik der
indogermanischen Sprachen, by K.
Brugmann and B. Delbruck:
Dritter Band, Vergleichende Syntax,
by Delbruck, Strassburg 1893-
1900. (References to Brugmann's
part, on phonology and morphology,
are given to his own abridgement, Kurze vergleichende Grammatik,
1904, which has also an abridged
Comparative Syntax.)
Dieterich
Unters.=Untersuchungen zur Geschichte
der griechischen
Sprache, von der hellenistischen
Zeit bis zum 10. Jahrh. n. Chr., by
K. Dieterich,
DLZ= Deutsche
Literaturzeitung,
EB=Encyclopaedia Biblica,
edited by T. K. Cheyne and J. S. Black.
4 vols.,
EGT=Expositor's Greek
Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll.
4 vols. (vol. iv. not yet
published),
Exp B=Expositor's Bible,
edited by W. R. Nicoll. 49 vols.,
1887-1898.
Expos= The Expositor, edited
by W. R. Nicoll. Cited by series, volume,
and page.
Exp T= The Expository Times,
edited by J. Hastings.
Gildersleeve Studies= Studies in Honor of
Professor Gildersleeve,
Gildersleeve
Synt. = Syntax of Classical Greek, by
B. L. Gildersleeve and
C. W. E. Miller. Part i,
Giles
Manual 2=A Short Manual of
Comparative Philology for classical
students, by P. Giles. Second
edition,
W. W. Goodwin. Third edition,
Goodwin
Greek Gram. = A Greek Grammar, by W.
W. Goodwin.
1894.
Grimm-Thayer
=Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti,
translated and
ABBREVIATIONS. xxiii
enlarged by J. H. Thayer, as "
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament."
Hatzidakis
= Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik, by G. N.
Hatzidakis.
Hawkins
HS= Howe Synopticce, by J. C.
Hawkins.
HR=
A Concordance to the Septuagint, by E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath.
IMA—see Index I (c).
Indog. Forsch.= Indogermanische
Forschungen, edited by K. Brugmann
and. W. Streitberg. Strassburg 1892
Jannaris
HG= A Historical Greek Grammar, by A.
N. Jannaris.
1897.
JBL =Journal of Biblical
Literature.
JHS—see Index I (c).
JTS =Journal of Theological
Studies.
Julicher
Introd.=Introduction to the New
Testament, by A. Julicher.
English edition, tr. by J. P. Ward,
Kalker=Quaestiones
de elocutione Polybiana, by F. Kaelker. In Leipziger
Studien
III.. ii., 1880.
Kuhner
3, or Kuhner-Blass, Kuhner-Gerth =Ausfuhrliche Grammatik der
griechischen Sprache, by R. Kuhner.
Third edition, Elementar-und
Formenlehre, by F. Blass. 2 vols.,
B. Gerth. 2 vols., 1898, 1904.
Kuhring
Praep. = De Praepusitionum Graec. in
chards Aegyptiis usu, by
W. Kuhring.
KZ=Kuhn’s Zeitschrift fur
vergleichende Sprachforschung.
LS=A Greek-English
Lexicon, by H. G. Liddell and R. Scott. Eighth
edition,
Mayser=
Grammatik der gr. Papyri aus der Ptolemilerzeit, by
Meisterhans
3= Grammatik der attischen Inschriften, by K. Meisterhans.
Third edition by E. Schwyzer (see p.
29 n.),
MG=Concordance
to the Greek Testament, by W. F. Moulton and A. S.
Geden.
Milligan-Moulton
Commentary on the Gospel of
and W. F. Moulton.
Mithraslit.—see
Index I (4
Monro
HG= Homeric Grammar, by D. B. Monro.
Second edition,
Nachmanson=Laute
and Formen der Magnetischen Inschriften, by E.
Nachmanson, Upsala 1903.
Ramsay
Paul= Paul the Traveller and Roman
Citizen, by W. M. Ramsay
Third edition,
Ramsay
C. and B.—see Index I (e).
RE 3 = Herzog-Hauck
Realencyclopadie. (In progress.) Leipzig.
REGr=Revue des Etudes grecques.
Reinhold=De
Graecitate Patrum, by H. Reinhold.
xxiv ABBREVIATIONS.
RhM=
Riddell
= A Digest of Platonic Idioms, by J. Riddell (in his edition of
the Apology,
Rutherford
NP= The New Phrynichus, by W. G. Rutherford,
Schanz
Beitr.=Beitrage zur historischen
Syntax der griechischen Sprache,
edited by M. Schanz. Wurtzburg 1882
ff.
Schmid
Attic. = Der Atticismus in seinen
Hauptvertretern von Dionysius
von Halikarnass his auf den zweiten
Philostratus, by W. Schmid.
4 vols. and Register,
Schmidt
Jos.= De Flavii Josephi elocutione,
by W. Schmidt,
Schulze
Gr. Lat. =Graeca Latina, by W.
Schulze,
Schwyzer
Perg.= Grammatik der pergamenischen
Inschrif ten, by E.
Schweizer (see p. 29 n.),
SH=
The Epistle to the Romans, by
Fifth edition,
ThLZ=Theologische
Literaturzeitung, edited by A. Harnack and E.
Schurer,
Thumb
Hellen.= Die griechische Sprache im
Zeitalter des Hellenismus,
by A. Thumb, Strassburg 1901.
Thumb
Handb.= Handbuch der neugriechischen
Volkssprache, by A.
Thumb, Strassburg 1895.
Ti=Novum
Testamentum Graece, by C. Tischendorf. Editio octava
critica maior. 2 vols.,
Gregory, containing Prolegomena,
1894.
Viereck
SG—see Index I (c).
Viteau = Etude sur le grec du Noveau Testament, by J.
Viteau. Vol. i,
Le Verbe:
Syntaxe des Propositions, Paris 1893; vol. ii, Sujet,
Complement
et Attribut, 1896.
Volker = Syntax der griechischen Papyri. I. Der Artikel, by F.
Volker,
Votaw=
The Use of the Infinitive in Biblical Greek, by C. W. Votaw.
Wellh.=Einleitung
in die drei ersten Evangelien, by J. Wellhausen.
WH=
The New Testament in the Original Greek, by B. F. Westcott and
F. J. A. Hort. Vol. i, Text (also
ed. minor); vol. ii, Introduction.
WH
App= Appendix to WH, in vol. ii,
containing Notes on Select
Witk.
= Epistulae Privatae Graecae, ed. S. Witkowski.
WM=
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,
WS=
G. B. Winer's Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidionis.
Eighth edition, newly edited by P.
W. Schinieclel,
(In progress.)
ZNTW =Zeitschrift fur die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by
E. Preuselien.
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
PROLEGOMENA
-----------------------
CHAPTER
I.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS.
New Lights. As recently as 1895, in the opening chapter
of a beginner's manual
of New Testament
Greek,
the present writer defined the language as "Hebraic
Greek,
colloquial Greek, and late Greek." In this definition
the
characteristic features of the dialect were expressed
according
to a formula which was not questioned then by
any
of the leading writers on the subject. It was entirely
approved
by Dr W. F. Moulton, who would undoubtedly at
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 impera-
tive
reason that, in this first instalment of a work in which
I
hoped to be my father's collaborator, I have been com-
pelled
seriously to modify the position he took, in view of
fresh
evidence which came too late for him to examine.
In
the second edition of the manual referred to,1 "common
Greek
" is substituted for the first element in the definition.
The
disappearance of that word "Hebraic" from its pro-
minent
place in our delineation of NT language marks a
change
in our conceptions of the subject nothing less than re-
volutionary.
This is not a revolution in theory alone. It
1 Introduction to the Study of New Testament Greek, with a First Reader.
Second
Edition, 1904 (C. H. Kelly—now R. Culley).
2 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
touches
exegesis at innumerable points. It demands large
modifications
in our very latest grammars, and an overhauling
of
our best and most trusted commentaries. To write a new
Grammar,
so soon after the appearance of fresh light which
transforms
in very important respects our whole point of
view,
may seem a premature undertaking. But it must not
be
supposed that we are concerned with a revolutionary
theory
which needs time for readjusting our science to new
conditions.
The development of the Greek language, in the
period
which separates Plato and Demosthenes from our own
days,
has been patiently studied for a generation, and the
main
lines of a scientific history have been thoroughly estab-
lished.
What has happened to our own particular study is
only
the discovery of its unity with the larger science which
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 full stream of progress. It follows that
we
have now fresh material for illustrating our subject, and
a
more certain methodology for the use of material which
we
had already at hand.
"Biblical The isolated position of the Greek found
Greek." in the LXX and the NT has been the problem
dividing grammatical
students of this liter-
ature
for generations past. That the Greek Scriptures, and
the
small body of writings which in language go with
them,
were written in the Koinh<, the "common" or "Hellen-
istic"
Greek1 that superseded the dialects of the classical
period,
was well enough known. But it was most obviously
different
from the literary Koinh< of the period. It could not
be
adequately paralleled from Plutarch or Arrian, and the
Jewish
writers Philo and Josephus2 were no more helpful
than
their "profane" contemporaries. Naturally the pecu-
liarities
of Biblical 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
1 I shall use the terms Hellenistic, Hellenist, and Hellenism throughout for
the
Greek of the later period, which had become coextensive with Western
civilisation.
2 See below, p. 233.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. 3
translation
had taken place from an original Aramaic. But
even
where this was not the case, it was argued, the writers
used
Greek as foreigners, Aramaic thought underlying Greek
expression.
Moreover, they were so familiar with the LXX
that
its idiosyncrasies passed largely into their own style,
which
accordingly was charged with Semitisms from two dis-
tinct
sources. Hence this "Judaic" or "Biblical" Greek, this
"language
of the Holy Ghost,"1 found in the sacred writings
and
never profaned by common use. It was a phenomenon
against
which the science of language could raise no a priori
objection.
The Purist, who insisted on finding parallels in
classical
Greek literature for everything in the Greek NT,
found
his task impossible without straining language to the
breaking-point.
His antagonist the Hebraist went absurdly
far
in recognising Semitic influence where none was really
operative.
But when a grammarian of balanced judgement
like
G. B. Winer came to sum up the bygone controversy, he
was
found admitting enough Semitisms to make the Biblical
Greek
essentially an isolated language still.
Greek Papyri: It is just this
isolation which the new
Deissmann. evidence comes in to destroy.a The Greek
papyri of
novel;
but their importance for the historical study of the
language
did not begin to be realised until, within the last
decade
or so, the explorers began to enrich us with an output
of
treasure which has been perpetually fruitful in surprises.
The
attention of the classical world has been busy with the
lost
treatise of Aristotle and the new poets Bacchylides and
Herodas,
while theologians everywhere have eagerly dis-
cussed
new "Sayings of Jesus." But even these last must
yield
in importance to the spoil which has been gathered
from
the wills, official reports, private letters, petitions,
accounts,
and other trivial survivals from the rubbish-heaps
of
antiquity.b They
were studied by a young investigator of
genius,
at that time known only by one small treatise on the
Pauline
formula e]n Xrist&?, which to those who read it now
shows
abundantly the powers that were to achieve such
1 So Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of NT Greek,
p. iv (E. T.), follow-
ing
Rothe. (Cited by Thumb, Hellenismus
181.1 [a b See p. 242.
4 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
splendid
pioneer work within three or four years. Deiss-
mann's
Bibelstudien appeared in 1895, his Neue Bibelstudien1
in
1897. It is needless to describe how
these lexical researches
in
the papyri and the later inscriptions proved that hundreds
of
words, hitherto assumed to be “Biblical,”—technical words,
as
it were, called into existence or minted afresh by the
language
of Jewish religion,--were in reality normal first-
century
spoken Greek, excluded from literature by the nice
canons
of Atticising taste. Professor Deissmann dealt but
briefly
with the grammatical features of this newly-discovered
Greek;
but no one charged with the duty of editing a Gram-
mar
of NT Greek could read his work without seeing that a
systematic
grammatical study in this field was the indis-
pensable
equipment for such a task. In that conviction the
present
writer set himself to the study of the collections
which
have poured with bewildering rapidity from the busy
workshops
of
conspicuous.
The lexical gleanings after Deissmann which
these
researches have produced, almost entirely in documents
published
since his books were written, have enabled me
to
confirm his conclusions from independent investigation.2
A
large part of my grammatical material is collected in a
series
of papers in the Classical Review
(see p. xxi.), 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.
Vernacular The new
linguistic facts now in evidence
Greek. show with startling clearness that we have
at last
before us the language in which the
apostles
and evangelists wrote. The papyri exhibit in their
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.3 Men who aspired to literary fame wrote in an
1 See p. xxi. above.
2 See Expositor for April 1901, Feb. and Dec.
1903 ; and new series in 1908.
3 Cf Wellhausen (Einl. 9): "In the Gospels, spoken Greek, and indeed
Greek
spoken among the lower classes, makes its entrance into literature."
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. 5
artificial
dialect, a would-be revival of the language of
in
her prime, much as educated Greeks of the present day
profess
to do. The NT writers had little idea that they
were
writing literature. The Holy Ghost spoke absolutely
in
the language of the people, as we might surely have
expected
He would. The writings inspired of Him were
those
Which he may read that binds the
sheaf,
Or builds the house, or digs the grave,
And those wild eyes that watch the wave
In roarings round the coral reef.
The
very grammar and dictionary cry out against men who
would
allow the Scriptures to appear in any other form than
that
"understanded of the people."
A Universal There is one
very striking fact brought out
Language. by the study of papyri and inscriptions which
preserve for
us the Hellenistic vernacular.
It
was a language without serious dialectic differences,
except
presumably in pronunciation. The history of this
lingua franca must be traced in a
later chapter. Here it
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.a The well-known heroics of
Juvenal (iii. 60 f.)
Non
possum ferre, Quirites,
Graecam Urbem—,
joined
with the Greek "Ei]j
[Eauto<n"
of the Roman Emperor
and
the Greek Epistle to the Romans, serve as obvious evidence
that
a man need have known little Latin to live in
It
was not
That
the Greek then current in almost every part of the Em-
pire
was virtually uniform 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;3
1 Cf A. S. Wilkins, Roman Education 19; SH lii ff,
2 So at least most
critics believe. Dr Sanday, however, prefers
which
suits our point equally well.
3 See, for instance, the writer's
Two Lectures on the Science of Language,
pp.
21-23.
[a See p. 242.
6 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
and
when we know how actively it works within the narrow
limits
of
parently
be suspended in the vast area covered by Hellenistic
Greek.
We shall return to this difficulty later (pp. 19-39)
for
the present we must be content with the fact that any
dialect
variation that did exist is mostly beyond the range
of
our present knowledge to detect. Inscriptions, distributed
over
the whole area, and dated with precision enough to
trace
the slow development of the vernacular as it ad-
vanced
towards Medieval and Modern Greek, present us
with
a grammar which only lacks homogeneity according
as
their authors varied in culture. As we have seen, the
papyri
of
language
seen in the NT, as well as with inscriptions like
those
of
see
how immeasurably important these conditions were for
the
growth of Christianity. The historian marks the fact
that
the Gospel began its career of conquest at the one
period
in the world's annals when civilisation was concen-
trated
under a single ruler. The grammarian adds that
this
was the only period when a single language was under-
stood
throughout the countries which counted for the history
of
that Empire. The historian and the grammarian must of
course
refrain from talking about "
be
suspected of "an apologetic bias" or "an edifying tone,"
and
that is necessarily fatal to any reputation for scientific
attainment.
We will only remark that some old-fashioned
people
are disposed to see in these facts a shmei?on in its
way
as instructive as the Gift of Tongues.
Bilingualism It is needless to observe that except in
the Greek
world, properly so called, Greek
did
not hold a monopoly.
period
of the Greek papyri is very strongly bilingual, the
mixture
of Greek and native names in the same family, and
the
prevalence of double nomenclature, often making it diffi-
cult
to tell the race of an individual A bilingual country
1 It should be noted that
in the papyri we have not to do only with
Egyptians
and Greeks. In Par P 48 (153 B.C.) there is a letter addressed to an
Arab
by two of his brothers. The editor, M. Brunet du Presle, remarks as
follows
on this:—"It is worth our while to notice the rapid diffusion of Greek,
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. 7
is
vividly presented to us in the narrative of Ac 14, where
the
apostles preach in Greek and are unable 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 epitaph published by Mr Cronin in
JHS; 1902, p. 369 (see Exp T xiv. 430), and dated "little
if
at all later than iii/A.D." We need not develop the evidence
for
other countries: it is more to the point if we look at the
conditions
of a modern bilingual country, such as we have
at
home in the country of
tician
or preacher, visiting a place in the heart of the Princi-
pality,
could be sure of an audience, even if it were assumed that
he
would speak in English. If he did, they would understand
him.
But should he unexpectedly address them in Welsh, we
may
be very sure they would be "the more quiet"; and a
speaker
anxious to conciliate a hostile meeting would gain a
great
initial advantage if he could surprise them with the
sound
of their native tongue.1 Now this is exactly what
happened
when Paul addressed the
stairs
of Antonia. They took for granted he would speak
in Greek,
and yet they made "a great
in
which
indicated a wish to address them. Schurer nods, for
once,
when he calls in Paul's Aramaic speech as a witness of
the
people's ignorance of Greek.2 It does not prove even
the
"inadequate"
knowledge which he gives as the alternative
possibility
for the lower classes, if by "inadequate know-
after
Alexander's conquest, among a mass of people who in all other respects
jealously
preserved their national characteristics under foreign masters. The
papyri
show us Egyptians, Persians, Jews, and here Arabs, who do not appear
to
belong to the upper classes, using the Greek language. We must not be too
exacting
towards them in the matter of style. Nevertheless the letter which
follows
is almost irreproachable in syntax and orthography, which does not
always
happen even with men of Greek birth." If these remarks, published in
1865,
had been followed up as they deserved, Deissmann would have come
too
late. It is strange how little attention was aroused by the great collections
of
papyri at
1 These words were
written before I had read Dr T. K. Abbott's able, but
not
always conclusive, article in his volume of Essays.
On p. 164 he gives an
incident
from bilingual
T.
H. Williams tells me he has often heard Welsh teachers illustrating the
narrative
of Ac 21 40 222 in the same way: cf also A. S. Wilkins, CR ii. 142 f.
(On
Lystra, see p. 233.) 2 Jewish People, II. i. 48 (=3 II. 63).
8 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
ledge"
is implied that the crowd would have been unable to
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
necessary.1 We have in fact a state
of things essentially the
same
as in Lystra. But the imperfect knowledge of Greek
which
may be assumed for the masses in
Lystra
is decidedly less probable for
Hellenist
Jews, ignorant of Aramaic, would be found there as
in
much
larger. That Jesus Himself and the Apostles regularly
used
Aramaic is beyond question, but that Greek was also
at
command is almost equally certain. There is not the
slightest
presumption against the use of Greek in writings
purporting
to emanate from the circle of the first believers.2
They
would write as men who had used the language from
boyhood,
not as foreigners painfully expressing themselves
in
an imperfectly known idiom. Their Greek would differ
in
quality according to their education, like that of the
private
letters among the Egyptian papyri. But it does
not
appear that any of them used Greek as we may some-
times
find cultured foreigners using English, obviously trans-
lating
out of their own language as they go along. Even
the
Greek of the Apocalypse itself 3 does not seem to owe any
1 The evidence for the
use of Greek in
in
his Einl. in das NT, ch. ii. Cf also
Julicher in EB ii. 2007 ff. Mahaffy
(Hellenism, 130 f.) overdoes it when he
says, "Though we may believe that
in
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." Dr Nestle misunderstands me
when
he supposes me to endorse in any way Prof. Mahaffy's exaggeration here.
It
would be hard to persuade modern scholars that Christ's public teaching
was
mainly in Greek; and I should not dream of questioning His daily use
of
Aramaic. My own view is that which is authoritatively expressed in the
remarks
of Profs. Driver and Sanday (DB iv.
583a) as to our Lord's occasional
use
of Greek. Cf Ramsay, Pauline Studies
254; CR xx. 465; Mahaffy,
Silver Age 250; Mayor, St James xlii.
2 Dr T. K. Abbott (Essays 170) points 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
Justin
(JTS vi. 369). (See further below, p.
233.)
3 On Prof. Swete's
criticism here see my Preface, p. xvii.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. 9
Apocalypse. of its blunders to "Hebraism." The author's
uncertain
use of cases is obvious to the most
casual
reader. In any other writer we might be tempted to
spend
time over ta>j luxni<aj in 120, where tw?n
luxniw?n is
clearly
needed: for him it is enough to say that
the
neighbouring
ou!j
may have produced the aberration. We
find
him perpetually indifferent to concord. But the less
educated
papyri give us plentiful parallels from a field where
Semitism
cannot be suspected.1 After all, we do not suspect
Shakspere
of foreign upbringing because he says "between
you
and I."2 Neither
he nor his unconscious imitators in
modern
times would say "between I and you," any more
than
the author of the Apocalypse would have said a]po> o[
ma<rtuj o[ pisto<j (15): it is only that his grammatical sense
is
satisfied when the governing word has affected the case of
one
object.3 We shall find that other peculiarities of the
writer's
Greek are on the same 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 Oxyrhynchus,
assuming
the extent of Greek education the same.4 Close to
1 See my exx. of nom. in
apposition to noun in another case, and of gender
neglected,
in CR xviii. 151. Cf also below, p.
60. ( ]
an intentional tour
de force.) Note
the same thing in the d-text of 2 Th 18,
]Ihsou? . . . didou<j (D*FG and some Latin authorities).
2 Merchant of
3 There are parallels to
this in correct English. "Drive far away the
disastrous
Keres, they who destroy " (
Greek Religion, p. 163) would not be
mended by substituting them.
4 The grammatical peculiarities
of the book are conveniently summarised
in
a few lines by Julicher, Introd. to NT,
p. 273: for a full account see the in-
troduction
to Bousset's Commentary, in the Meyer series. It may be well to
observe,
a propos of the curious Greek of Rev,
that grammar here must play a
part
in literary criticism. It will not do to appeal to grammar to prove that
the
author is a Jew: as far as that goes, lie might just as well have been a
farmer
of the Fayum. Thought and material must exclusively determine that
question.
But as that point is hardly doubtful, we pass on to a more important
inference
from the is 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 for Rev, which would
allow
the Apostle to improve his Greek by constant use in a city like
where
his Aramaic would be useless; or we must suppose that someone (say,
the
author of Jn 2124) mended his grammar for him throughout the Gospel.
10 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
the
other end of the scale comes the learned Rabbi of Tarsus.
Paul, Luke, "A Hebrew, the son of Hebrews," he calls
"Hebrews." himself (Phil 35), and Zahn is no doubt
right
in inferring
that he always claimed Aramaic
as
his mother tongue. But he had probably used Greek from
childhood
with entire freedom, and during the main part of
his
life may have had few opportunities of using Aramaic at
all.
It is highly precarious to argue with Zahn from "Abba,
Father"
(Rom 815, Gal 46), that Aramaic was the
language
of
Paul's prayers. The peculiar sacredness of association
belonging
to the first word of the Lord's Prayer in its original
tongue
supplies a far more probable account of its liturgi-
cal
use among Gentile Christians.1 Finally, we have the
Gentile
Luke2 and the auctor
ad Hebraeos, both of whom
may
well have known no Aramaic at all: to the former we
must
return presently. Between these extremes the NT
writers
lie; and of them all we may assert with some con-
fidence
that, where translation is not involved, we shall find
hardly
any Greek expression used which would sound strangely
to
speakers of the Koinh< in Gentile lands.
Genuine To what extent then
should we expect
Semitisms. to find the style of Jewish Greek writers
coloured by the
influence of Aramaic or Heb-
rew?
Here our Welsh analogy helps us. Captain Fluellen is
marked
in Shakspere not only by his Welsh pronunciation of
English,
but also by his fondness for the phrase "look you."
Now
"look you" is English: I am
told it is common in the
Dales,
and if we could dissociate it from Shakspere's Welsh-
man
we should probably not be struck by it as a bizarre
expression.
But why does Fluellen use it so often? Because
Otherwise,
we must join the Xwri<zontej. Dr Bartlet (in Exp T for Feb. 1905,
p.
206) puts Rev under Vespasian and assigns it to the author of Jn: he thinks
that
Prof. Ramsay's account (Seven Churches,
p. 89) does not leave sufficient
time
for the development of Greek style. We can now quote for the earlier
date
the weightiest of all English authorities: see Hort's posthumous Com-
mentary (with Sanday's half
consent in the Preface).
1 Cf Bp Chase, in Texts and Studies,
the
devout Roman Catholic's "saying Paternoster";
but Paul will not allow
even
one word of prayer in a foreign tongue without adding an instant transla-
tion.
Note that Pader is the Welsh name for
the Lord's Prayer. (See p. 233.)
2 Cf Dalman, Words. 40 f.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. 11
it
translates two or three Welsh phrases of nearly identical
meaning,
which would be very much on his tongue when
talking
with his own countrymen. For the same reason the
modern
Welshman overdoes the word "indeed." In exactly the
same
way the good Attic interjection i]dou< is used by some NT
writers,
with a frequency quite un-Attic, simply because they
were
accustomed to the constant use of an equivalent inter-
jection
in their own tongue.1 Probably this 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 phrases.
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
jlh, in the ethical sense, was represented not by
the exactly
answering
a]nastre<fesqai, but by peripatei?n.2 But these
cases
are very few, and may be transferred any day to the
other
category, illustrated above in the case of i]dou<), by the
discovery
of new papyrus texts. It must not be forgotten
1 Note that James uses i]dou< 6 times in his short
Epistle, Paul only 9 times
(including
one quotation) in all his writings. In Ac 1-12 it appears 16 times,
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 OT quotations.
Mt
has 33 in narrative, 4 in quotations, 24 in speeches; Mk 0/1/6; Lk 16/1/40;
Ac
(1-12) 4/0/12, Ac (13-28) 1/0/6 ; Jn 0/1/3. Add that Heb has 4 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
local
character like Shakspere with Fluellen. Hort (Ecclesia, p. 179) says i]dou<
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 in-
applicable,
and this fact somewhat weakens its application to Ac 1-12. But
with
this reservation we may accept the independent testimony of Hort's instinct
to
our conclusion that Luke when writing without external influences upon
him
would use i]dou?
as a Greek would use it. The same is true of Paul. Let
me
quote in conclusion a curiously close parallel, unfortunately late (iv/v A.D.)
to
Lk 1316: BU 948 (a letter) ginw<skein
e]qe<lw o!ti ei#pen o[ pragmateuth>j o!ti h[ mh<thr
sou a]sqeni?,
ei]dou?, de<ka tri?j mh?nej. (See p. 70.) It weakens the case for
Aramaism
(Wellh. 29).
2 Deissmann, BS 194. Poreu<omai is thus used in 1 Pet 43
al. Cf stoixei?n.
12 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
that
the instrumental e]n in e]n maxai<r^ (Lk 2249) and e]n
r[a<bd&
(1
Co 421) was only rescued from the class of
"Hebraisms"
by
the publication of the Tebtunis Papyri (1902),
which
presented
us with half-a-dozen Ptolemaic citations for it.1
Grammatical A very
important distinction must be
and Lexical drawn at this point between Semitisms con-
cerning
vocabulary and those which affect
syntax.
The former have occupied us mainly so far, and
they
are the principal subject of Deissmann's work. Gram-
matical Semitisms are a much
more serious matter. We
might
indeed range under this head all sins against native
Greek
style and idiom, such as most NT books will show.
Co-ordination
of clauses with the simple kai<,2 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-
tive
absolutes. But in itself the phenomenon proves nothing
more
than would a string of "ands" in an English rustic's
story--elementary
culture, and not the hampering presence
of
a foreign idiom that is being perpetually translated into
its
most literal equivalent. A Semitism which definitely
contravenes
Greek syntax is what we have to watch for.
We
have seen that a]po> ]Ihsou? Xristou? o[ ma<rtuj o[ pisto<j
does
not come into this category. But Rev 213 e]n
tai?j
h[me<raij ]Anti<paj o[ ma<rtuj. . . o{j
a]pekta<nqh
would be a
glaring
example, for it is impossible to conceive of ]Anti<paj
as
an indeclinable. The Hebraist might be supposed to
argue
that the nom. is unchanged became it would be un-
changed
(stat. abs.) in Hebrew. But no one
would seriously
imagine
the text sound: it matters little whether we mend
it
with Lachmann's conjecture ]Anti<pa or with that of the
later
copyists, who repeat ai$j after h[me<raij and drop o!j.
The
typical case of e]ge<neto h#lqe will be discussed
below;
1 Expos. vi. vii. 112; cf CR xviii. 153, and Preface, p.
xvii. above.
2 Cf Hawkins HS 120 f., on the frequency of aai in
Mk. Thumb observes
that
Kai in place of hypotaxis is found in MGr—and in Aristotle (Hellenismus
129):
here even Viteau gives way. So h#rqe kairo>j ki ] a]rrw<sthsen (Abbott 70).
The
simple parataxis of Mk 1525, Jn 435 1155, is
illustrated by the uneducated
document Par P 18, e@ti du<o h[me<raj e@xomen kai> fqa<somen ei]j Phlou<si.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. 13
and
in the course of our enquiry we shall dispose of others,
like
h$j to> quga<trion au]th?j (Mk 725), which we now find
occur-
ring
in Greek that is beyond suspicion of Semitic influences.
There remain Semitisms due to
translation, from the
Hebrew
of the OT, or from Aramaic "sources" underlying
parts
of the Synoptists and Acts. The former case covers
Translation all the usages which have been supposed
Greek. to arise from over-literal rendering in the
LXX, the
constant reading of which by Hel-
lenist
Jews has unconsciously affected their Greek. In the
LXX
we may have abnormal Greek produced by the effort of
Greek-speaking
men to translate the already obsolete and
imperfectly
understood Hebrew: when the Hebrew puzzled
them,
they would often take refuge in a barbarous literalness.1
It
is not antecedently probable that such "translation
Greek"
would influence free Greek except by supplying
phrases
for conscious or unconscious quotation: these phrases
would
not become models to be followed by men who wrote
the
language as their own. How far such foreign idioms
may
get into a language, we may see by examining our own.
We
have a few foreign phrases which have been literally
translated
into English, and have maintained their place
Without
consciousness of their origin: "that goes without
saying,"
or "this gives furiously to think," will serve as
examples.
Many more are retained as conscious quotations,
with
no effort to assimilate them to English idiom. "To return
to
our muttons" illustrates one kind of these barbarisms; but
there
are Biblical phrases taken over in a similar way without
sacrificing
their unidiomatic form. We must notice, however,
that
such phrases are sterile: we have only to imagine
another
verb put for saying in our version of
Cela va sans dire
to
see how it has failed to take root in our syntax.
Hebraism in The general
discussion of this important
Luke. subject may be clinched with an enquiry
into
the diction
of Luke, whose varieties of style in
the
different parts of his work form a particularly interesting
1 My illustration here
from
Introd. 458 f. Better ones may
be seen in Mr Thackeray's "Jer b" (see JTS
ix.
94). He gives me e]sqi<ein th>n tra<pezan in 2 K 1928 al—also in the Greek
additions
to Esther (C28). Was this from some Greek original of Vergil's consumere
mensas, or was it a "Biblical"
phrase perpetuated in the Biblical style?
14 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
and
important problem.1 I
restrict myself to grammatical
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 superfluous a]feo>k or
katalipw<n and h@rcato, as more Aramaic than
Hebrew the
use
of ei#nai
with participle as a narrative tense. Either
Aramaic
or Hebrew will account for (b) the superfluous
e]lqw<n,2 kaqi<saj,
e[stw<j,
and a]nasta<j or e]gerqei<j. Pure
Hebraisms
are (c) the periphrases with pro<swpon, the use of
e]n t&? with infinitive,3 the types a]ko^?
a]kou<sete
and ble<pontej
ble<yete (see below, pp. 75 f.),
and the formulae kai> e]ge<neto,
e]la<lhsen lalw?n and a]pokriqei>j
ei#pen.4 In class (a), we find
Luke
unconcerned with the first case. The third we must
return
to (see pp. 225 ff.): suffice to say now that it has its
1 In assuming the unity
of the two books ad Theophilum, I was
quite
content
to shield myself behind Blass; but Harnack has now stepped in with
decisive
effect. The following pages will supply not a few grammatical points
to
supplement Harnack's stylistic evidence in Litice the Physician.
2 A fair vernacular
parallel in Syll.2 807 (ii/A.D.) kai>
e]sw<qh kai> e]lqw>n dhmosi<%
hu]xari<sthsen
e@mprosqen tou? dh<mou.
3
See Kalker 252, and below, p. 215. Add Par P 63 (ii/B.C.) ti<j ga>r ou!twj
e]sti>n
a]na<lhtoj (?) h} a@litroj e]n t&? logi<zesqai kai> pra<gmatoj diafora>n
eu[rei?n, o{j
ou]d ] au]to> tou? dunh<setai
sunnoei?n;
so utterly wanting in reason" (Mahaffy).
It
is of course the frequency of this
locution that is due to Semitic thought:
cf
what is said of i]dou<, above, p. 11. But see p. 249.
4 See Wellh. 16. To class
(c) I may append a note on ei]j a]pa<nthsin,
which
in Mt 2732 (d-text) and 1 Th 417 takes a genitive.
This is of course a
very
literal translation of txraq;li, which is given by HR as its original in
29
places,
as against 16 with dative. (Variants sunan., u[pant., and others are
often
occurring: I count all places where one of the primary authorities has
ei]j a]p. with gen. or dat. representing ‘’l. In addition there are a
few places
where
the phrase answers to a different original; also 1 ex. with gen. and
3
with dat. from the Apocrypha.) Luke (Ac 28 15) uses it with dat.,
and in
Mt
256 it appears absolutely, as once in LXX (1 Sa 1315).
Now this last may
be
directly paralleled in a Ptolemaic papyrus which certainly has no Semitism
—Tb
P 43 (ii/B.C.) paregenh<qhmen ei]j a]pa<nthsin (a newly arriving
magistrate).
In
BU 362 (215 A.D.) pro>j [a]]
pa<nth[sin
tou?]
h[gemo<noj has
the very gen. we want.
One
of Strack's Ptolemaic inscriptions (Archiv
iii. 129) has i!n ] ei]dh?i h{n e@sxhken
pro>j au]to>n h[ po<lij
eu]xa<riston a]pa<nthsin. It seems that the
special idea of the
word
was the official welcome of a newly arrived dignitary—an idea singularly
in
place in the NT exx. The case after it is entirely consistent with Greek
idiom,
the gen. as in our "to his
inauguration," the dat. as the case governed
by
the verb. If in the LXX the use has been extended, it is only because it
seemed
so literal a translation of the Hebrew. Note that in 1 Th 1.c. the
authorities
of the d-text
read the dat., which is I suspect better Greek. (What
has
been said applies also to ei]j u[pa<nthsin au]t&?, as in Mt 834,
Jn 1213: the two
words
seem synonymous). See also p. 242.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. 15
roots
in classical Greek, and is at most only a more liberal use
of
what is correct enough, if less common. But h@rcato raises
an
interesting question. In Lk 38 we find kai>
mh> a@rchsqe
le<gein e]n e[autoi?j. Dalman (p. 27) shows
that in narrative
"the
Palestinian-Jewish literature uses the meaningless ‘he
began,’"
a conventional locution which was evidently parallel
with
our Middle-English auxiliary gan. It
is very common
in
the Synoptists, and occurs twice as often in Luke as in
Matthew.
Dalman thinks that if this Aramaic yriwA with
participle
had become practically meaningless, we might well
find
the same use in direct speech, though no example
happens
to be known. Now in the otherwise verbally
identical
verse Mt 39 we find do<chte for a@rchsqe, "do not
presume
to say," which is thoroughly idiomatic Greek, and
manifestly
a deliberate improvement of an original preserved
more
exactly by Luke.1 It seems to follow that this original
was
a Greek translation of the Aramaic logia-document,
used
in
common by both Evangelists, but with greater freedom by
the
first. If Luke was ignorant of Aramaic,2 he would be
led
by his keen desire for accuracy to incorporate with a
minimum
of change translations he was able to secure, even.
when
they were executed by men whose Greek was not very
idiomatic.
This conclusion, which is in harmony with our
general
impressions of his methods of using his sources,
seems
to me much more probable than to suppose that it was
he
who misread Aramaic words in the manner illustrated
by
Nestle on Lk 1141f. (Exp
T xv. 528): we may just as
well
accuse the (oral or written) translation he employed.
Passing on to Dalman's (b) class, in
which Luke is con-
cerned
equally with the other Synoptists, we may observe that
only
a very free translation would drop these pleonasms. In
a
sense they are " meaningless," just as the first verb is in "He
went and did it all the
same," or " He got up and went out,"
or
(purposely to take a parallel from the vernacular) " So he
1 But see
cites
my view without approving it. I cannot resist the conviction that
Harnack
greatly overpresses his doctrine of Luke's stylistic alterations of Q.
2 Luke "probably did
not understand Aramaic," says Julicher, Introd. 359.
So
Dalman, Words 38-41. Harnack (Luke, pp. 102 f.) observes that in ch.
1
and 2 Luke either himself translated from Aramaic sources or very freely
adapted
oral materials to literary form. He prefers the second alternative.
16 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
ups
and says." But however little additional information
they
may add—and for us at least the "stand
praying" is
not
a superfluous touch—they add a distinct nuance
to the
whole
phrase, which Luke was not likely to sacrifice when he
met
it in his translation or heard it from the au]to<ptai whose
story
he was jotting down. The same may be said of the
pleonastic
phrases which begin and end Dalman's list of
"pure
Hebraisms." In this class (c) therefore there remains
only
the construction with kai> e]ge<neto, answering to the
narrative
yhiy;va, which is (strangely enough) almost peculiar to
Luke
in the NT. There are three constructions:
(a) e]ge<neto
h#lqe, (b) e]ge<neto
kai> h#lqe,
(c) e]ge<neto (au]to>n)
e]lqei?n. The
occurrences
of these respectively are for Lk 22/11/5, for
Ac
0/0/17.2 It may be added that the construction occurs
almost
always with a time clause (generally with e]n): in Lk
there
is only one exception, 1622. The phrase was clearly
therefore
temporal originally, like our "It
was in the days
of
. . . that . . ." (This is (c), but we could use the
paratactic
(a) form, or even (b), without transgressing our
idiom.)
Driver (Tenses, § 78) describes the yhiy;va construction
as
occurring when there is inserted "a clause specifying the
circumstances
under which an action takes place,"—a descrip-
tion
which will suit the Lucan usage everywhere, except
sometimes
in the (c) class (as 1622), the only one of the three
which
has no Hebrew parallel. We must infer that the
LXX
translators used this locution as a just tolerable Greek
which
literally represented the original;3 and that Lk (and
to
a minute extent Mt and Mk) deliberately recalled the
Greek
OT by using the phrase. The (a) form is used else-
where
in the NT twice in Mk and five times in Mt, only
in
the phrase e]ge<neto o!te e]te<lesen ktl. Mt 910 has (b) and
Mk
223 has (c). There are (a) forms with e@stai, Ac 217.21 323,
Bona
926 (all OT citations); and (c) forms with gi<netai Mk 215,
1 Once (Ac 1025),
e]ge<neto tou? ei]selqei?n to>n Pe<tron.
2 Blass cites Ac 45
D for (a), and finds (b) in 57. Certainly the latter sentence
may
be thus construed (see below, p. 70); nor is it a fatal objection that the
construction
is otherwise isolated in Ac. See p. 233.
3 W. F. Moulton (WM 760
n.) gives LXX exx. for the (a) and (b) forms: the
only
approach to the (c) form is 2 Mac 316, i e . . . h#n . . .
o[rw?nta . . . titrw<skesqai.
Here
Mr Thackeray thinks h#n=e@dei, "it was impossible not to . .
."
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. 17
e]a>n ge<nhtai Mt 1813, and o!pwj
mh> ge<nhtai Ac
2016. Now
in
what sense is any of this to be called "Hebraism"? It is
obvious
that (b) is a literal translation of the Hebrew, while
it
is at least grammatical as Greek, however unidiomatic.
Its
retention to a limited extent in Lk (with a single
doubtful
case in Ac), and absence elsewhere in NT (except
for
Mt 910, which is affected by the author's love for kai>
i]dou<), are best interpreted as meaning that
in free Greek
it
was rather an experiment, other constructions being
preferred
even by a writer who set himself to copy the
LXX
style. At first sight (a) would seem worse Greek still,
but
we must note that it is apparently known in MGr:1 cf
Pallis's version of Mt 111, kai> sune<bhke, sa>n te<liwse . . .,
e@fuge . . . , etc. We cannot suppose
that this is an inva-
sion
of Biblical Greek, any more than our own idiomatic
"It
happened I was at home that day." What then of (c),
which
is characteristic of Luke, and adopted by him in Ac as
an
exclusive substitute for the other two? It starts from
Greek
vernacular, beyond doubt. The normal Greek sune<bh
still
takes what represents the acc. et inf.:
sune<bh o!ti h#rqe
is
idiomatic in modern Athenian speech, against e@tuxe
na>
e@lq^ which, I am told, is commoner in the
country districts.
But
e]a>n ge<nhtai with inf. was good contemporary vernacular:
see
AP 135, BM 970, and Pap. Catt. (in Achiv 60)—all
ii/A.D.
So was gi<netai (as Mk 215): cf Par P 49 (ii/B.C.)
gi<netai
ga>r
e]ntraph?nai. From this to e]ge<neto is but a step, which
Luke
alone of NT writers seems to have taken:2 the isolated
ex.
in Mk 223 is perhaps a primitive assimilation to Lk 61.3
1 Cf Thumb, Hellenismus 123: "What appears Hebraism or Aramaism in
the
Bible must count as Greek if it shows itself as a natural development in the
MGr
vernacular." Mr Thackeray well compares asyndeta like kalw?j
poih<seij
gra<yeij in the papyri.
2 An interesting suggestion
is made by Prof. B. W. Bacon in Expos.,
April
1905,
p. 174n., who thinks that the "Semitism" may be taken over from the,
"Gospel
according to the Hebrews." The secondary character of this Gospel,
as
judged from the extant fragments, has been sufficiently proved by Dr
Adeney
(Hibbert Journal, pp. 139 ff.); but
this does not prevent our positing
an
earlier and purer form as one of Luke's sources. Bacon's quotation for this
is
after the (a) form: "Factum est
autem, cum ascendisset . . descenclit
. . ."
(No.
4 in Preuschen's collection, Antilegomena,
p. 4). The (a) form occurs in
frag.
2 of the " Ebionite Gospel" (Preuschen, p. 9).
3 Paraporeu<esqai (xALD al) may be a relic of Mk's original text.
18
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
Conclusions as By this time we
have perhaps dealt suf-
to Semitism. ficiently with the principles involved, and may
leave
details of alleged Semitisms to their
proper
places in the grammar. We have seen that the
problem
is only complicated in the Lucan writings: else-
where
we have either pure vernacular or vernacular tempered
with
"translation Greek." In Luke, the only NT writer
except
the author of Heb to show any conscious attention to
Greek
ideas of style, we find (1) rough Greek translations
from
Aramaic left mainly as they reached him, perhaps
because
their very roughness seemed too characteristic to be
refined
away; and (2) a very limited imitation of the LXX
idiom,
as specially appropriate while the story moves in the
Jewish
world. The conscious adaptation of his 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
approval
Deissmann's dictum that "Semitisms which are in
common
use belong mostly to the technical language of reli-
gion,"
like that of our sermons and Sunday magazines. Such
Semitisms
"alter the scientific description of the language
as
little as did a few Latinisms, or other booty from the
victorious
march of Greek over the world around the Medi-
terranean."1 In summing up thus the
issue of the long strife
over
NT Hebraisms, we fully apprehend the danger of going
too
far. Semitic thought, whose native literary dress was
necessarily
foreign to the Hellenic genius, was bound to
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
Semitisms
from two widely different sources. What we
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 by ordinary
1 Art. Hellenistisches Griechisch, in RE 3 vii. p. 633.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. 19
people
in daily life throughout the Roman world. If the
natural
objection is raised that there must have been 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 priori certainty, we can
meet
the difficulty with a tolerably 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 Weltsprache. We find that
pronuncia-
tion
and vocabulary exhaust between them nearly all the
phenomena
we could catalogue. Englishman, Welshman,
Hindu,
Colonial, granted a tolerable primary education, can
interchange
familiar letters without betraying except in
trifles
the dialect of their daily speech.a This fact should
help
us to realise how few local peculiarities can be expected
to
show themselves at such an interval in a language known
to
us solely from writing. We may add that a highly
educated
speaker of standard English, recognisable by his
intonation
as hailing from
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. [a
See p. 243.
A special. N. T. There is one
general consideration which
Diction? must detain us a little at the close of
this
introductory chapter. Those who have
studied
some recent work upon Hellenistic Greek, such as
Blass's
brilliant Grammar of NT Greek, will
probably be led
to
feel that modern methods result in a considerable levelling
of
distinctions, grammatical and lexical, on which the exegesis
of
the past has laid great stress. It seems necessary there-
fore
at the outset to put in a plea for caution, lest an
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
writers
used the language of their time. But that does not
mean
that they had not in a very real sense a language of
their
own. Specific examples in which we feel bound to assert
this
for them will come up from time to time in our inquiry.
In
the light of the papyri and of MGr we are compelled to
give
up some grammatical scruples which figure largely in
20 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
great
commentators like Westcott, and colour many passages
of
the RV. But it does not follow that we must promptly
obliterate
every grammatical distinction that proves to have
been
unfamiliar to the daily conversation of the first century
Egyptian
farmer. We are in no danger now of reviving
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 us
to
others as dangerous. 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
of
identical style or idiom, a kind of technical terminology,
which
may often preserve a usage of earlier language, obso-
lescent
because not needed in more slovenly colloquial speech
of
the same time. The various conservatisms of our own
religious
dialect, even on the lips of uneducated people, may
serve
as a parallel up to a certain point. The comparative
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]gra<mmatoi would
instinctively
rise above their usual level of exactness in
expression,
when dealing with such high themes as those
which
fill the NT. We are justified by these considerations
in
examining each NT writer's language first by itself, and
then
in connexion with that of his fellow-contributors to the
sacred
volume; and we may allow ourselves to retain the
original
force of distinctions which were dying or dead in
every-day
parlance, when there is a sufficient body of internal
evidence.
Of course we shall not be tempted to use this
argument
when the whole of our evidence denies a particular
survival
to Hellenistic vernacular: in such a case we could
only
find the locution as a definite literary revival, rarely
possible
in Luke and the writer to the Hebrews, and just
conceivable
in Paul.
Note on It seems hardly
worth while to discuss
Latinisins. in a general way the supposition that Latin
has influenced the Koinh<; of the NT. In the
borrowing
of Latin words of course we can see activity
enough,
and there are even phrases literally translated, like
labei?n to> i[kanon Ac 179; poiei?n to> i[. Mk 1515 (as early as
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. 21
Polybius);
meta> polla>j tau<taj h[me<raj Ac 15, etc. But
grammar
we must regard as another matter, in spite of such
collections
as Buttmann's (see his Index, s.v.
Latinisms) or
Thayer's
(
Prof.
Thumb's judgement (Hellenismus 152 ff.).
Romans writ-
ing
Greek might be expected to have difficulties for example
with
the article1—as I have noticed in the English efforts
of
Japanese boys at school in this country; but even of this
there
seems to be no very decisive proof. And though the
bulk
of the NT comes to us from authors with Roman names,
no
one will care to assert that Latin was the native language
of
Paul2 or Luke or Mark. Apart from lexical matters, we
may
be content with a general negative. "Of
any effective
grammatical
influence [of Latin] upon Greek there can be no
question:
at any rate I know nothing which could be
instanced
to this effect with any probability." So says Dr
Thumb,
and the justification of his decision in each alleged
example
may be safely left till the cases arise. It should
of
course be noted that Prof. Blass (p. 4) is rather more
disposed
to admit Latinisms in syntax. Greek and Latin
were
so constantly in contact throughout the history of the
Koinh<, that the question of Latinisms in Greek
or Graecisms
in
Latin must often turn largely on general impressions of
the
genius of each language.3
1 Foreigners sometimes
did find the article a stumbling block: witness the
long
inscription of Antiochus I of Commagene, OGIS
383 (i/B.C.)—see Ditten-
berger's
notes on p. 596 (vol. i.). We may here quote the lamented epigraphist's
note,
on Syll.2 930 (p. 785), that a
translator from Latin might fall into a
confusion
between ti<j and o!j. In a linguist who can render quo minus by
&$ e@lasson (1. 57), we take such a
mistake as a matter of course; yet we shall see
(p.
93) that its occurrence is very far from convicting a document of Latinising.
2 This does not involve
denying that Paul could speak Latin; see p. 233.
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, Graeca
enough
to affect the NT, except for some mere trifles. Brugmann (Dist. p. 9),
discussing
the idiom du<o du<o (see below, p. 97), speaks of the theory of
Semitism
and
Thumb's denial of it, and proceeds:
"The truth lies between the two, as
it
does in many similar cases—I am thinking among others of Graecisms in
Latin,
and of Latinisms and Gallicisms in German. A locution already in
existence
in Greek popular language, side by side with other forms (a]na>
du<o,
kata> du<o), received new strength
and wider circulation through the similar
Hebrew
expression as it became known." I welcome such a confirmation of my
thesis
from the acknowledged master of our craft.
CHAPTER II.
HISTORY OF THE "COMMON" GREEK.
A
New Study WE proceed to
examine the nature and
history of
the vernacular Greek itself. This
is
a study which has almost come into existence in the
present
generation. Classical scholars have studied the
Hellenistic
literature for the sake of its matter: its language
was
seldom considered worth noticing, except to chronicle
contemptuously
its deviations from "good Greek." In so
suffering,
perhaps the authors only received the treatment
they
deserved for to write Attic was the object of them all,
pursued
doubtless with varying degrees of zeal, but in all
cases
removing them far from the language they used in
daily
life. The pure study of the vernacular was hardly
possible,
for the Biblical Greek was interpreted on lines of
its
own, and the papyri were mostly reposing in their Egyptian
tombs,
the collections that were published receiving but little
attention.
(Cf above, p. 7 n.) Equally unknown was the
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
they
have spent their lives. The translation of the Gospels
into
the Greek which descends directly from their original
idiom,
is treated as sacrilege by the devotees of a "literary"
dialect
which, in point of fact, no one ever spoke! It is
left
to foreigners to recognise the value of Pallis's version
for
students who seek to understand NT Greek in the light
of
the continuous development of the language from the age
of
Alexander to our own time. See p. 243.
The Sources. As has been hinted in the preceding
paragraph,
the materials for our present-day
study
of NT Greek are threefold:—(1) the prose literature
22
HISTORY OF THE "COMMON"
GREEK. 23
of
the post-classical period, from Polybius down, and includ-
ing
the LXX; (2) the Koinh< inscriptions, and the Egyptian
non-literary
papyri; (3) modern vernacular Greek, with
especial
reference to 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 Koinh<; and how it arose.
We
should premise that we use the name here as a convenient
term
for the spoken dialect of the period under review, using
"literary
Koinh< and similar terms when the dialect of
Polybius,
Josephus, and the rest, is referred to. Whether this
is
the ancient use of the name we need not stay to examine:a
the
curious will find a paper on the subject by Prof.
Jannaris
in CR xvii. 93 ff., which may perhaps
prove that he
and
we have misused the ancient grammarians' phraseology.
Ou]
fronti>j [Ippoklei<d^. [a See p. 243.
Greek and its The history,
geography, and ethnology
Dialects. of
remarkable
phenomena which even the
literature
of the classical period presents. The very school-
boy
in his first two or three years at Greek has to realise
that
"Greek" is anything but a unity. He has not thumbed
the
Anabasis long before the merciful pedagogue takes him
on
to Homer, and his painfully acquired irregular verbs de-
mand
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
composition
must conform. And if his studies ultimately
invade
the dialect inscriptions,1 he finds in
Lacedaemon
and
for
which his literature has almost entirely failed to prepare
him.
Yet the Theban who said Fi<ttw
Deu<j
and the
Athenian
with his i@stw Zeu<j lived in towns exactly as far
apart
as Liverpool and
of
dialects within that little country arises partly from racial
1 An extremely convenient
little selection of dialect inscriptions is now
available
in the Teubner series:—Inscriptiones
Graecae ad inlustramdas Dialectos
selectae, by Felix Solmsen. The
book has less than 100 pp., but its contents
might
be relied on to perplex very tolerable scholars! 2 See p. 233.
24
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
differences.
Upon the indigenous population, represented
best
(it would seem) by the Athenians of history, swept first
from
then,
in post-Homeric days, the Dorian invaders. Dialectic
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
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
off
each little State from regular communication with its
neighbours—an
effect and a cause at once of the passion for
autonomy
which made of
Survival of the Meanwhile, a
steady process was going
Fittest. on which determined finally the character
literary
Greek.
hegemony
of
from
her at Leuktra. But
man
of letters,—Alkman (who was not a Spartan!) will
serve
as the exception that proves the rule; and Pindar,
the
lonely "Theban eagle," knew better than to try poetic
flights
in Boeotian. The intellectual supremacy of
was
beyond challenge long before the political unification of
as
the only possible dialect for prose composition. The
post-classical
writers wrote Attic according to their lights,
tempered
generally with a plentiful admixture of gram-
matical
and lexical elements drawn from the vernacular,
for
which they had too hearty a contempt even to give it
a
name. Strenuous efforts were made by precisians to
improve
the Attic quality of this artificial literary dialect;
and
we still possess the works of Atticists who cry out
1 I am assuming as proved
the thesis of Prof. Ridgeway's Early Age
of
Greek
history, religion, and language. 0f course adhuc sub iudice lis est;
and
with Prof. Thumb on the other side I should be sorry to dogmatise.
HISTORY OF THE "COMMON" GREEK. 25
against
the "bad Greek" and "solecisms" of their con-
temporaries,
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
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 ou] and mh< with the participle.
Those
writers who are less particular in their purism write
in
a literary koinh< which admits without difficulty many
features
of various origin, while generally recalling Attic.
No
doubt the influence of Thucydides encouraged this
freedom.
The true Attic, as spoken by educated people in
while
the Ionic dialect had largely influenced the some-
what
artificial idiom which the older writers at
used.
It was riot strange therefore that the standard for
most
of the post-classical writers should go back, for
instance,
to the pra<ssw of Thucydides rather than the
pra<ttw of Plato and
Demosthenes.
Literary Koinh<. Such, then, was the
" Common Greek "
of
literature, from which we have still to
derive
our illustrations for the NT to a very large extent.
Any
lexicon will show how important for our purpose is
the
vocabulary of the Koinh< writers, from Polybius down.
And
even the most rigid Atticists found themselves unable
to
avoid words and usages which Plato would not have
recognised.
But side by side with this was a fondness for
obsolete
words with literary associations. Take nau?j, for
example,
which is freely found in Aelian, Josephus, and
other
Koinh< writers. It 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
of
the
(I
am naming all the collections that I happen to have by
me.2) We turn to the NT and
find it once, and that is
1 Schwyzer, Die Weltsprachen dess Altertums, p. 15
n., cites as the earliest
extant
prose monument of genuine Attic in literature, the pseudo-Xenophon's
De republica Atheniensi, which dates from
before 413 B. C. 2
In 1905.
26 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
in
Luke's shipwreck narrative, in a phrase which Blass
(Philology 186) suspects to be a
reminiscence 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
course
of our investigations. Here it will suffice to refer
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.1
Modern The writers who
figure in Dr W.
“Attic.” Schmid's well-known book, Der Atticismus,
were not the last to
found a literary lan-
guage
on the artificial resuscitation of the ancient Attic.
Essentially
the same thing is being tried in our time.
"The
purists of to-day," says Thumb (Hellenismus
180),
"are
like the old Atticists to a hair." 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
by Athenian undergraduates with bloodshed
if
need be.2 We have nothing to
do with this curious
phenomenon,
except to warn students that before citing MGr
in
illustration of the NT, they must make sure whether
their
source is kaqareu<ousa or o[miloume<nh, book Greek or
spoken
Greek. The former may of course have borrowed
from
ancient or modern sources—for it is a medley far
more
mixed than we should get by compounding together
Cynewulf
and Kipling--the particular feature for which it
is
cited. But it obviously cannot stand in any line of his-
torical
development, and it is just as valuable as Volapuk to
1 For literary elements
in NT writers, see especially
Kunstprosa ii. 482 ff. In the
paragraph above referred to, Blass suggests that
in
Ac 2029 Luke misused the literary word a@ficij. If so, he hardly sinned
alone:
cf the citations in Grimm-Thayer, which are at least ambiguous, and add
Jos.
Ant. ii. 18 fin. mh> prodhlw<santej t&?
patri> th>n e]kei?se a@ficin, where departure
seems
certain. See our note sub voce in Expositor vii. vi. 376. The meaning
"my
home-coming" is hardly likely.
2 See Krumbacher's
vigorous polemic, Das Problem d. neugr.
Schriftsprache,
summarised
by the present writer in Exp T. xiv.
550 ff. Hatzidakis replies with
equal
energy in REGr, 1903, pp. 210 ff.,
and further in an ]Apa<nthsij (1905).
HISTORY OF THE
"COMMON" GREEK. 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.
First Century We pass on then
to the spoken dialect
Koinh<:
Sources. of the first century
Hellenists, its history
and its
peculiarities. Our sources are, in
order
of importance, (1) non-literary papyri, (2) inscriptions,
(3)
modern vernacular Greek. The literary sources are
almost
confined to the Biblical Greek. A few general words
may
be said on these sources, before we examine the origin of
the
Greek which they embody.
(1) Papyri The papyri have one very obvious dis-
advantage,
in that, with the not very import-
ant
exception of
to
one country,
disadvantage
does not practically count. They date from
311
B.C. to vii/A.D. The monuments of the earliest period
are
fairly abundant, and they give us specimens of the spoken
Koinh< 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 Roman
has
the same degree of unity as we should see in the contents
of
the sacks of waste paper sent to an English paper-mill
from
a solicitor's office, a farm, a school, a shop, a manse, and
a
house in
considered
separately. Wills, law-reports, contracts, census-
returns,
marriage-settlements, receipts and official orders
largely
ran along stereotyped lines; and, as formula tend
to
be permanent, we have a degree of conservatism in the
language
which is not seen in documents free from these
trammels.
Petitions contain this element in greater or less
extent,
but naturally show more freedom in the recitation of
the
particular grievances for which redress is claimed.
Private
letters are our most valuable sources; and they
are
all the better for the immense differences that betray
1 On these see the
monumental work of
culanensis (Teulmer, 1903); also
E. L. Hicks in CR i. 186.
28 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
themselves
in the education of their writers. The well-worn
epistolary
formulae show variety mostly in their spelling; and
their
value for the student lies primarily in their remarkable
resemblances
to the conventional phraseology which even the
NT
letter-writers were content to use.1 That part of the
letter
which is free from formula is perhaps most instructive
when
its grammar is weakest, for it shows which way the
language
was tending. Few papyri are more suggestive than
the
letter of the lower-school-boy to his father, OP 119
(ii/iii.
A.D.). It would have surprised Theon père,
when he
applied
the well-merited cane, to learn that seventeen centuries
afterwards
there might be scholars who would count his boy's
audacious
missive greater treasure than a new fragment of
Sappho!
But this is by the way. It must not be
inferred
from
our laudation of the ungrammatical papyri that the
NT
writers are at all comparable to these scribes in lack of
education. The indifference to concord, which we noted
in
Rev, is almost isolated in this connexion. But the
illiterates
show us by their exaggerations the tendencies
which
the better schooled writers keep in restraint. With
writings
from farmers and from emperors, and every class
between,
we can form a kind of "grammatometer" by which
to
estimate how the language stands in the development of
any
particular use we may wish to investigate.
(2) Inscriptions. Inscriptions come
second to papyri, in
this
connexion, mainly because their very
material
shows that they were meant to last. Their Greek
may
not be of the purest; but we see it, such as it is, in its best
clothes,
while that of the papyri is in corduroys. The special
value
of the Common Greek inscriptions lies in their corroborat-
ing
the papyri, for they practically show that there was but
little
dialectic difference between the Greek of Egypt and that of
of
pronunciation, and we have evidence that districts differed
in
their preferences among sundry equivalent locutions; but
a
speaker of Greek would be understood without the slightest
difficulty
wherever he went throughout the immense area
1 On this point see
Deissmann, BS 21 ff.; J. R. Harris,
in Expos. v. viii.
161;
G. G. Findlay, Thess. (CGT), lxi.;
Robinson, Eph. 275-284.
HISTORY OF THE "COMMON"
GREEK. 29
over
which the Greek world-speech reigned. With the caveat
already
implied, that inscription-Greek may contain literary
elements
which are absent from an unstudied private letter,
we
may use without misgiving the immense and ever-growing
collections
of later Greek epigraphy. How much may be
made
of them is well seen in the Preisschrift
of Dr E.
Schwyzer,1 Grammatik der Pergamenischen Inschriften, an
invaluable
guide to the accidence of the Koinh<. (It has been
followed
up by E. Nachmanson in his Laute und
Formen der
Magnetischen Inschriften (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
Koinh< will find so useful as a book of late inscriptions,
such
as Dittenberger's Orientis Graeci
Inscriptiones selectae, or
the
larger part of his Sylloge (ed. 2).
(3) Modern Finally we
have MGr to bring in.2 The
Greek. discovery that the vernacular of to-day goes
back
historically to the Koinh< was made in
1834
by Heilmaier, in a book on the origin of the
"Romaic."
This discovery once established, it
became clear
that
we could work back from MGr to reconstruct the
otherwise
imperfectly known oral Greek of the Hellenistic
age.3 It is however only in the last generation that
the
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,4
started
from wrong premisses as to the relation between the
old
language and the new.5 We have now, in such books
1 He was Schweizer in
1898, when this book was published, but has changed
since,
to our confusion. He has edited Meisterhans' Grammatik der attischem
Inschrifien3, and written the
interesting lecture on Die Weltsprache
named
above.
2 I must enter here a
caveat as to the use of G. F. Abbott's charming little
volume,
Songs of Modern Greece, as a source for scientific purposes. Prof.
Psichari
and Dr Rouse show me that I have trusted it too much.
3 I cite from Kretschmer, Die Entstehung der Koinh<, p. 4.
4 Cf. WM index s. v. "Greek (modern)," p.
824.
5 Cf Krumbacher in KZ xxvii. 488. Krumbacher uses the
epithet "dilet-
tante"
about Mullach, ib. p. 497, but rather
(I fancy) for his theories than his
facts.
After all, Mullach came too early to be blameworthy for his unscientific
position.
30 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
as
Thumb's Handbuch der neugriechischen
Volkssprache and
Hatzidakis's
Einleitung in die neugriechische
Grammatik, the
means
of checking not a few statements about MGr which were
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 Pallis1 will at first produce the impression that
the
gulf is very wide indeed; but the strong points of con-
tact
will become very evident in time. Hatzidakis indeed
even
goes so far as to assert that "the language generally
spoken
to-day in the towns differs less from the common
language
of Polybius than this last differs from the language
of
Homer."2
The Birth of We are now
ready to enquire how this
the
Koinh<. Common
Greek of the NT rose out of the
classical
language. Some features of its
development
are undoubted, and may be noted first. The
impulse
which produced it lay, beyond question, in the work
of
Alexander the Great. The unification of
necessary
first step in the accomplishment of his dream of
Hellenising
the world which he had marked out for conquest.
To
achieve unity of speech throughout the little country
which
his father's diplomatic and military triumphs had
virtually
conquered for him, was a task too serious for
Alexander
himself to face. But unconsciously he effected
this,
as a by-product of his colossal achievement; and the
next
generation found that not only had a common language
emerged
from the chaos of Hellenic dialects, but a new and
1 [H Ne<a
Diaqh<kh, metafrasme<nh a]po> to>n
]Alec. Pa<llh (
(Pallis
has now translated the Iliad, and
even some of Kant—with striking
success,
in 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
Pallis's
version.
2 REGr, 1903, p. 220.
(See a further note below, pp. 233f.)
HISTORY OF THE "COMMON"
GREEK. 31
nearly
homogeneous world-speech had been created, in which
Persian
and Egyptian might do business together, and
Roman
proconsuls issue their commands to the subjects of a
mightier
empire than Alexander's own. His army was in
itself
a powerful agent in the levelling process which ulti-
mately
destroyed nearly all the Greek dialects. The
Anabasis
of the Ten Thousand Greeks, seventy years before,
had
doubtless produced results of the same kind on a small
scale.
Clearchus the Lacedaemonian, Menon the Thessalian,
Socrates
the Arcadian, Proxenus the Bceotian, 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; and when Cheirisophus of Sparta and
Xenophon
of Athens had safely brought the host home, it is
not
strange that the historian himself had suffered in the
purity
of his Attic, which has some peculiarities distinctly
foreshadowing
the Koinh<.1 The assimilating process would
go
much further in the camp of Alexander, where, during
prolonged
campaigns, men from all parts of
tent-fellows
and messmates, with no choice but to accom-
modate
their mode of speech in its more individual character-
istics
to the average Greek which was gradually being
evolved
among their comrades. In this process naturally
those
features which were peculiar to a single dialect would
have
the smallest chance of surviving, and those which most
successfully
combined the characteristics of many dialects
would
be surest of a place in the resultant "common speech."
The
army by itself only furnished a nucleus for the new growth.
As
Hellenism swept victoriously into
itself
on all the shores of the eastern
mixture
of nationalities in the new-rising communities de-
manded
a common language as the medium of intercourse,
1 Cf Rutherford, NP 160-174. The same may be said of the
language of
the
lower classes in
from
all parts. So [Xenophon] Constitution, of
have
an individual dialect, and manner of life and fashion of their own; but
the
Athenians have what is compounded from all the Greeks and barbarians."
The
vase-inscriptions abundantly evidence this. (Kretschrner, Entstehung d.
p.
34.) The importance of Xenophon as a forerunner of Hellenism is
well
brought out by Mahaffy, Progress of Hellenism
in Alexander's Empire,
Lecture
i.
32
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK
and
the Greek of the victorious armies of Alexander was
ready
for the purpose. In the country districts of the
motherland,
the old dialects lived on for generations; but by
this
time
Hellenising
movement to which the world was to owe so
much.
Besides, the dialects which strikingly differed from
the
new Koinh< were spoken by races that mostly lay outside
the
movement. History gives an almost pathetic interest to
an
inscription like that from Larissa (Michel 41—end of
iii/B.C.),
where the citizens record a resolutions from King
Philip
V, and their own consequent resolutions:—
Tageuo<ntoun ]Anagki<ppoi Petqalei<oi k.t.l.,
Fili<ppoi toi? basilei?oj
e[pistola>n a]puste<llantoj po>t
to>j tago>j kai> ta>n
po<lin ta>n
u[pogegramme<nan:
Basileu>j Fi<lippoj
Larisai<wn toi?j tagoi?j kai> th?i po<lei
xai<rein (and so on in normal Koinh<).
Decay of the The old and the new survived thus side
Dialects. by
side into the imperial age; but Christianity
had only a
brief opportunity of speaking in
the
old dialects of
the
dialect live on. To-day scholars recognise a single modern
idiom,
the Zaconian, which does not directly descend from
the
Koinh<. As we might expect,
this is nothing but the
ancient
Laconian, whose broad ā holds its ground still in the
speech
of a race impervious to literature and proudly con-
servative
of a language that was always abnormal to an
extreme.
Apart from this the dialects died out entirely.a
They
contributed their share to the resultant Common Greek;
but
it is an assured result of MGr philology that there are
no
elements of speech whatever now existing, due to the
ancient
dialects, which did not find their way into the stream
of
development through the channel of the vernacular Koinh<
of
more than two thousand years ago. [a See p. 243.
Relative Contri- So far we may go
without difference
butions to the of opinion. The only serious dispute arises
Resultant. when we ask what were the relative magni-
of the contributions of the several
dialects
to the new resultant speech. That the literary
Koinh< was predominantly Attic has been already
stated, and
is
of course beyond doubt. But was Attic muse than one
HISTORY OF THE "COMMON"
GREEK. 33
among
many elements assimilated in the new vernacular?
It
has always been taken for granted that the intellectual
queen
of
ness
of establishing a new dialect based on a combination of
the
old ones. This conclusion has recently been challenged
by
Dr Paul Kretschmer, a brilliant comparative philologist,
previously
distinguished for his studies on the language of
the
Greek vase-inscriptions and on the dialects of the Greeks'
nearest
neighbours.1 In his tractate entitled Die Entstehung
der Koinh<, published in the
Transactions of the
Academy
for 1900, he undertook to show that the oral
Koinh< contained elements from Boeotian, Ionic,
and even
North-west
Greek, to a larger extent than from Attic. His
argument
affects pronunciation mainly. That Boeotian
monophthongising
of the diphthongs, Doric softening of b,
d and g, and Ionic
de-aspiration of words beginning with h,
affected
the spoken language more than any Attic influence
of
this nature, might perhaps be allowed. But when we turn
to
features which had to be represented in writing, as contrasted
with
mere variant pronunciations of the same written word,
the
case becomes less striking. Boeotian may have supplied
3
plur. forms in -san for imperfect and optative, but these do
not
appear to any considerable extent outside the LXX: the
NT
exx. are precarious, and they are surprisingly rare in
the
papyri.2 North-west Greek has the accusative plural in
-ej, found freely in papyri
and (for the word te<ssarej) in
MSS
of the NT; also the middle conjugation of ei]mi<, and the
confusion
of forms from –a<w and –e<w verbs. Doric contri-
butes
some guttural forms from verbs in -zw, and a few lexical
items.
Ionic supplies a fair number of isolated forms, and
may
be responsible for many -w or –w? flexions from -mi
verbs,
and sonic uncontracted noun-forms like o]ste<wn or
xruse<&. But the one peculiarly Attic feature of the Koinh<;
which
Kretschmer does allow, its treatment of original a, in
contrast
with Ionic phonology on one side and that of the
remaining
dialects on the other, is so far-reaching in its effects
1 Die griech. Vaseninschriften, 1894; Einleitung in die Geschichte der griech.
Sprache, 1896.
2 See CR xv. 36, and the addenda in xviii.
110.
34
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
that
we cannot but give it more weight than to any other
feature.
And while the accidence of Attic has bequeathed
to
the vernacular much matter which it shared with other
dialects,
one may question whether the accidence of any
single
dialect would present anything like the same similarity
to
that of the Koinh< as the Attic does. We can hardly resist
the
conclusion of the experts that Kretschmer has failed to
prove
his point. At the same time we may allow that the
influence
of the other dialects on pronunciation
has been
commonly
underestimated. Kretschmer necessarily recognises
that
Attic supplied the orthography of the Koinh<, except for
those
uneducated persons to whom we owe so much for their
instructive
mis-spellings. Consequently, he says, when the
Hellenist
wrote xai<rei and pronounced it cheri,
his language
was
really Boeotian and not Attic.1 It is obvious that the
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.a For
our
purpose we may assume that we have before us a Greek
which
includes important contributions from various dialects,
but
with Attic as the basis, although the exclusive peculiarities
of
Attic make but a small show in it. We shall see later on
(pp.
213 ff.) that syntax tells a clearer story in at least one
matter
of importance, the articular infinitive.
Pronunciation At this point it
should be observed that
and MS pronunciation is not to be passed over as a
Tradition. matter of no
practical importance by the
modern
student of Hellenistic. The undeni-
able
fact that 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
era,
has some very obvious results for both grammar and
textual
criticism. That ai and e, ei (^) and i, oi and u were
identities
for the scribes of our MSS, is certain.2 The scribe
made
his choice according to the grammar and the sense,
1 Against this
emphasising of Bmotian, see Thumb, Hellenismus
228.
2 On the date of the
levelling of quantity, so notable a feature in MGr, see
Hatzidakis
in ]Aqhna? for 1901 (xiii. 247).
He decides that it began outside
nearly
so, before the scribes of x and B wrote. [a See p.
243.
HISTORY OF THE “COMMON"
GREEK. 35
just
as we choose between kings, king's,
and kings', or
between
bow and bough. He wrote su< nominative and soi<
dative;
lu<sasqai infinitive and lu<sasqe imperative filei?j,
ei]domen indicative, and fil^?j,
i@dwmen
subjunctive; bou<lei verb,
but
boul^?
noun--here of course there was the accentual
difference,
if he wrote to dictation. There was nothing
however
to prevent him from writing e]ce<fnhj, e]fni<dioj,
a]feirhme<noj, etc., if his
antiquarian knowledge failed; while
there
were times when his choice between (for example)
infinitive
and imperative, as in Lk 1913, was determined only
by
his own or perhaps a traditional exegesis. It will be seen
therefore
that we cannot regard our best MSS as decisive
on
such questions, except as far as we may see reason to
trust
their general accuracy in grammatical tradition. WH
may
be justified in printing i!na . . . e]piskia<sei in Ac 515,
after
B and some cursives; but the passage is wholly useless
for
any argument as to the use of i!na with a future. Or let
us
take the constructions of ou] mh< as exhibited for WH
text
in
the concordance (MG). There are 71 occurrences with aor.
subj.,
and 2 more in which the -sw might theoretically be
future.
Against these we find 8 cases of the future, and 15
in
which the parsing depends on our choice between ei and ^.
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
author's
grammar if he dictated the text. To this we may
add
that by the time and B were written o and w were no
longer
distinct in pronunciation, which transfers two more
cases
to the list of the indeterminates. It is not therefore
simply
the overwhelming manuscript authority which decides
us
for e@xwmen in Rom 51. Without the help of
the versions
and
patristic citations, it would be difficult to prove that the
orthography
of the MSS is really based on a very ancient
traditional
interpretation. It is indeed quite possible that
the
Apostle's own pronunciation did not distinguish o and w
sufficiently
to give Tertius a clear lead, without his making
inquiry.1 In all these matters we
may fairly recognise a
1 o and w were confused in
various quarters before this date: of Schwyzer,
Pergam. 95; Nachmanson, Magnet. 64; Thumb. Hellenismus 143. We have
36 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
case
nearly parallel with the editor's choice between such
alternatives
as ti<nej and tine<j in Heb 316, where the tradition
varies.
The modern expositor feels himself entirely at
liberty
to decide according to his view of the context. On
our
choice in Rom, 1.c., see below, (p.
110).
Contributions Before we leave
dialectology, it may be
of NW Greek, well to make a few more remarks on the
nature of
the contributions which we have
noted.
Some surprise may be felt at the importance of
the
elements alleged to have been brought into the language
by
the "North-west Greek," which lies altogether outside
the
literary limits. The group embraces as its main consti-
tuents
the dialects of
Achaia,
and is known to us only from inscriptions, amongst
which
those of
we
should have expected to influence the resultant language,
but
it is soon observed that its part (on Kretschmer's theory)
has
been very marked. The characteristic Achaian accus.
plur.
in -ej
successfully established itself in the common
Greek,
as its presence in the vernacular of to-day sufficiently
shows.
Its prominence in the papyri2 indicates that it was
making
a good fight, which in the case of te<ssarej had
already
become a fairly assured victory. In the NT te<ssaraj
never
occurs without some excellent authority for te<ssarej.3
cf
WH App2 157.a Moreover we find
that A, in Rev 116, has
a]ste<rej—with omission of e@xwn, it is true, but this
may
well
be an effort to mend the grammar. It is of course
impossible
to build on this example; but taking into account
the
obvious fact that the author of Rev was still decidedly
a]gra<mmatoj in Greek, and
remembering the similar phen-
omena
of the papyri, we might expect his autograph to
exhibit
accusatives in -ej, and in other instances beside
te<ssarej. The middle conjugation of ei]mi< is given by
confusion
of this very word in BU 607 (ii/A.D.). See p. 244, and the copious
early
papyrus evidence in Mayser, pp. 98 f., 139.
1 Brugmann, Gr. Gramm.3 17. [a See
pp. 243 f.
2 See CR xv. 34, 435, xviii. 109 (where by a
curious mistake I cited Dr Thumb
for,
instead of against, Kretschmer's argument on this point).
3 Jn 1117 x D; Ac 2729 and
Rev 914; Rev 44 ti A (WHmg),
71 A bis P semel.
Mr
Thackeray says te<ssarej acc. is constant in the
B text of the Octateuch.
HISTORY OF THE "COMMON" GREEK. 37
Kretschmer
as a NW Greek feature; but the Delphian h#tai
and
e@wntai are balanced by Messenian h#ntai, and Lesbian
e@sso, which looks as if some middle forms had
existed in the
earliest
Greek. But the confusion of the –a<w and –e<w verbs,
which
is frequent in the papyri1 and NT, and is complete in
MGr,
may well have come from the NW Greek, though
encouraged
by Ionic. We cannot attempt here to discuss the
question
between Thumb and Kretschmer; but an a
priori
argument
might be found for the latter in the well-known
fact
that between iii/ and i/B.C. the political importance of
yielded
to the wider Koinh< about a hundred years before Paul
began
to write: it seems antecedently probable that this
dialect
would leave some traces on that which superseded
it.
Possibly the extension of the 3rd plur. -san, and even
the
perfect -an,
may be due to the same source:2 the former
is
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
very
large area. The elements we have tentatively set down
to
the NW Greek secured their ultimate victory through
their
practical convenience. The fusion of –a<w and –e<w verbs
amalgamated
two grammatical categories which served no
useful
purpose by their distinctness. The accus. in –ej
reduced
the number of case-forms to be remembered, at the
cost
of a confusion which English bears without difficulty,
and
even Attic bore in po<leij, basilei?j, plei<ouj, etc.; while
the
other novelties both reduced the tale of equivalent
suffixes
and (in the case of -san) provided a useful means of
distinction
between 1st sing. and 3rd plur.
and of Ionic. We come to
securer ground when we
estimate the
part taken by Ionic in the
formation
of the Koinh<, for here Thumb and Kretschmer
are
at one. The former shows that we cannot safely trace
any
feature of Common Greek to the influence of some
1 See CR xv. 36, 435,
xviii. 110. Thumb suggests that the common aor. in
-hsa started the process of
fusion. .
2 The -san suffix is found in
Delphian (Valaori, Delph. Dial. 60) rather pro-
minently,
both in indic. and opt. The case for -an (ibid.) is weaker.
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 –a?j –a?doj
and
–ou?j
–ou?doj
are by this principle recognised as a clear
debt
of MGr to Ionic elements in the Koinh<. Like the
other
elements which came from a single ancient dialect,
they
had to struggle for existence. We find them in the
Egyptian
Greek; but in the NT –a?j makes gen. –a?, as often
even
in
Kretschmer
gives as Ionic factors in the Koinh<; the forms
kiqw<n, (=xitw<n) and the like,2 psilosis (which the
Ionians
shared
with their Aeolic neighbours), the uncontracted noun
and
verb forms already alluded to, and the invasion of the
-mi verbs by thematic forms
(contract or ordinary).3 He
explains
the declension spei?ra spei<rhj (normal in the Koinh<
from
i/B.c.) as due not to Ionism, but to the analogy of glw?ssa
glw<sshj. To his argument on
this point we might add the
consideration
that the declension –ra -rhj is both earlier and
more
stable than –ui?a, -ui<hj, a difference which I
would connect
with
the fact that the combination ih continued to be barred
in
Attic at a time when rh (from rFa) was no longer objected
to
(contrast u[gia?,
and ko<rh):a if Ionic forms had been simply
taken
over, ei]dui<hj would have come in as early as spei<rhj.
Did dialectic But
such discussion may be left to the
differences philological journals. What concerns the NT
persist? student is the question of dialectic varieties
within the Koinh<; itself rather than in
its
previous
history. Are we to expect persistence of Ionic
features
in Asia Minor; and will the Greek of Egypt,
1 But –a?doj is rare both at
Nachmanson
120.
2 Kiqw<n, ku<qra and e]nqau?ta occur not seldom in
papyri; and it is rather
curious
that they are practically absent from NT MSS. I can only find in Ti
xeiqw?naj D.' (Mt 1010) and kitw?naj B* (Mk 1463—"ut
alibi x,"
says the editor).
Ku<qra occurs in Clem.
LXX,
according to great uncials (Thackeray). Ba<qrakoj, which is found in
MGr
(as Abbott 56) I cannot trace, nor pa<qnh. Cf. Hatzidakis 160 f.
3 The perfect e!wka from i!hmi (NT afe<wntai) is noted as Ionic
rather than
Done
by Thumb, ThLZ xxviii. 421 n. Since
this was a prehistoric form (cf
Gothic
saiso from saia, "sow"), we cannot determine the question certainly.
But
note that the imperative a]few<sqw occurs in an Arcadian
inscription (Michel
58515—iii/?B.C.).
Its survival in Hellenistic is the more easily understood, if it
really
existed in two or three dialects of the classical period.
[a See p. 244.
HISTORY OF THE "COMMON"
GREEK. 39
after
two thousand years? Speaking generally, we may
reply
in the negative. Dialectic differences there must have
been
in a language spoken over so large an area. But they
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
Weltsprache the educated colloquial
closely approxi-
mates
everywhere when written down, differing locally to
some
extent, but in vocabulary and orthography rather than
in
grammar. The uneducated vernacular differs more, but
its
differences still show least in the grammar. The study
of
the papyri and the Koinh< inscriptions of
closes
essentially the same phenomena in Hellenistic. There
are
few points of grammar in which the NT language differs
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 have been quite
possible
Hellenistic is heavily overworked because it happens
to
coincide with a Semitic idiom. Apart from these, we
have
a few small matters in which the NT differs from the
usage
of the papyri. The weakening of ou] mh< is the most
important
of these, for certainly the papyri lend no coun-
tenance
whatever to any theory that of ou] mh< was a normal
unemphatic
negative in Hellenistic. We shall return to this
at
a later stage (see pp. 187 ff.); but meanwhile we may note
that
in the NT ou] mh< seems nearly always connected with
"translation
Greek"—the places where no Semitic original
can
be suspected show it only in the very emphatic sense
which
is common to classical and Hellenistic use. Among
smaller
points are the NT construction of e@noxoj with gen.
of
penalty, and the prevailing use of a]pekri<qhn for a]pekri-
na<mhn: in both of these the papyri wholly or
mainly agree
with
the classical usage; but that in the latter case the
NT
has good Hellenistic warrant, is shown by Phrynichus
(see
by
the MGr a]pokri<qhka.
Thumb's Verdict. The whole question of
dialectic differ-
ences within
the spoken Koinh< is judicially
summed
up by our greatest living authority, Dr Albert
40
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
Thumb,
in chap. v. of his book on Greek in the
Hel-
lenistic Age, already often quoted.1
He thinks that such
differences
must have existed largely, in
but
that writings like the Greek Bible, intended for general
circulation,
employed a Darchschnittsprache which
avoided local
peculiarities,
though intended for single localities. (The letters
of
Paul are no exception to this rule, for he could not be
familiar
with the peculiarities of Galatian or Achaian, still
less
of Roman, Koinh<.) To the question
whether our autho-
rities
are right in speaking of a special Alexandrian Greek,
Thumb
practically returns a negative. For nearly all the
purposes
of our own special study, Hellenistic Greek may be
regarded
as a unity, hardly varying except with the education
of
the writer, his tendency to use or ignore specialities of
literary
language, and the degree of his dependence upon
foreign
originals which might be either freely or slavishly
rendered
into the current Greek.
It is however to be noted that the
minute dialectic
differences
which can be detected in NT Greek are some-
times
significant to the literary critic. In an article in
ThLZ, 1903, p. 421, Thumb
calls attention to the promin-
ence
of e]mo<j in Jn, as against mou elsewhere.2 He tells us
that
e]mo<j 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
Gospel
came from
same
showing Luke should come from
other
country outside
while
Rev, in which out of the four possessive pronouns e]mo<j
alone
occurs, and that but once, seems to be from the pen of
a recent immigrant. Valeat
quantum! In
the same paper
Thumb
shows that the infinitive still survives in Pontic,
1 Cf. Blass 4 n.; and
Thumb's paper in Neue Jahrb. for
1906.
2 ]Emo<j occurs 41 times in Jn, once each in 3 Jn and
Rev, and 34 times in
the
rest of the NT. It must be admitted that the other possessives do not tell
the
same story: the three together appear 12 times in Jn (Ev and Epp), 12 in
Lk,
and 21 in the rest of NT. Blass (p. 168) notes how u[mw?n in Paul (in the
position
of the attribute) ousts the emphatic u[me<teroj. (For that position cf.
h[ sou? ou]si<a, Mithraslit. p. 17 and
note.)
HISTORY OF THE "COMMON"
GREEK. 41
while
in
The
syntactical conditions under which the infinitive is found
in
Poetic answer very well to those which appear in the NT: in
such
uses Western Greek tended to enlarge the sphere of i!na.
This
test, applied to Jn, rather neutralises that from e]mo<j:
see
below, p. 205, 211. Probably the careful study of local
MGr
patois will reveal more of these minutia. Another field
for
research is presented by the orthographical peculiarities of
the
NT uncials, which, in comparison with the papyri and
inscriptions,
will help to fix the provenance of
the MSS, and
thus
supply criteria for that localising of textual types which
is
an indispensable step towards the ultimate goal of criticism.1
1 One or two hints in
this direction are given by Thumb, Hellenismus
179.
ADDITIONAL NOTE. —A few new points
may be added on the subjects of this
chapter.
First conies the important fact—noted by Thumb in his Hellenismus,
p.
9, and again in reviewing Mayser (Archiv
iv. 487)—that the pre-Byzantine
history
of the Koinh< divides about the date A.D. The NT falls accordingly in the
early
years of a new period, which does not, however, differ from its predecessor
in
anything that ordinary observers would notice. The fact needs bearing in
mind,
nevertheless, when we are comparing the Greek of the LXX and the NT.
There are difficulties as to the
relations of h, ^, and ei, which have some
importance
in view of the matters noted on p. 35. In Attic ^ and ei were fused
at
an early date; whereas h remained distinct, being the open e, while in the
diphthong
it had become close. Ionic
inscriptions show the same fusion. In
papyri
^,
like &
and %,
sheds its i
just as h
(w
and a)
can add it, regardless of
grammar;
so that h
and ^
are equivalent, and they remain distinct from ei
(=i) till a late period. It
is difficult to correlate these facts; but it must be
remembered
that the papyri only represent
at
one with all other Greek-speaking countries as to the quality of h. There is
also
the probability that the ^ which alternates with h is often hysterogenous-
boulei? was replaced by a newly formed boul^? because of the h that runs through
the
rest of the singular flexion. (I owe many suggestions here to a letter from
Prof.
Thumb, March 1908.) See further Mayser 126 ff.
On the question of the contributions
of the old dialects to the Koinh<, research
seems
progressively emphasising the preponderance of Attic. There are pheno-
mena
which are plausibly treated as Doric in origin ; but Thumb reasonably
points
to Mayser's evidence, showing that these did not emerge till the later
period
of the Koinh<, as a serious difficulty in such an account of their
history.
On
the other hand, he rightly criticises Mayser's tendency to minimise the Ionic
influence:
he believes that dialectic elements, and especially Ionisms, found
their
way into the spoken Attic of the lower classes, which spread itself largely
through
the operation of trade. "The first people to speak a Koinh< were Ionians,
who
used the speech of their Athenian lords. . . . Outside the Athenian empire,
the
Macedonians were the first to take up the new language, and joined their
subject
Greeks, especially Ionians, in spreading it through the world." The
old
dialects worked still in producing local differentiations in the Koinh< itself.
CHAPTER III.
NOTES ON THE ACCIDENCE.
The Uncials and BEFORE we begin to examine the conditions
the Papyri. of Hellenistic syntax, we must devote a
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
gathering
into small compass the accidence of the NT writers
I
have done in my little Introduction (see above, p. 1 n.); and
it
will have to be done again more minutely in the second
part
of this Grammar. In the present chapter we shall try
to
prepare ourselves for answering a preliminary question of
great
importance, viz., what was the position occupied by the
NT
writers between the literary and illiterate Greek of their
time.
For this purpose the forms give us a more easily
applied
test than the syntax. But before we can use them
we
must make sure that we have them substantially as they
stood
in the autographs. May not such MSS as x and B-
and
D still more—have conformed their orthography to the
popular
style, just as those of the "Syrian" revision con-
formed
it in some respects to the literary standards? We
cannot
give a universal answer to this question, for we have
seen
already that an artificial orthography left the door open
for
not a few uncertainties. But there are some suggestive
signs
that the great uncials, in this respect as in others,
are
not far away from the autographs. A very instruc-
tive
phenomenon is the curious substitution of e]a<n for a@n
after
o!j, o!pou, etc., which WH have faithfully reproduced
in
numberless places from the MSS. This was so little recog-
nised
as a genuine feature of vernacular Greek, that the
editors
of the volumes of papyri began by gravely subscribing
"1.
a@n"
wherever the abnormal e]a<n showed, itself. They
42
NOTES ON THE ACCIDENCE. 43
were
soon compelled to save themselves the trouble. Deiss-
mann,
BS 204, gave a considerable list from
the papyri,
which
abundantly proved the genuineness of this e]a<n; and
four
years later (1901) the material had grown so much
that
it was possible to determine the time-limits of the
peculiarity
with fair certainty. If my count is right,1 the
proportion
of e]a<n to a@n is 13 : 29 in papyri dated B.C. The
proportion
was soon reversed, the figures being 25 : 7 for
i/A.D.,
76 : 9 for ii/, 9 : 3 for iii./, 4 : 8 for iv/. This e]a<n
occurs
last in a vi/ papyrus. It will be seen that the above
construction
was specially common in i/ and ii/, when e]a<n
greatly
predominated, and that the fashion had almost died
away
before the great uncials were written. It seems
that
in this small point the uncials faithfully reproduce
originals
written under conditions long obsolete.2 This
particular
example affords us a very fair test; but we
may
reinforce it with a variety of cases where the MSS
accurately
reproduce the spelling of i/A.D. We will follow
the
order of the material in WH App2
148 ff. ("Notes on
Orthography"):
it is unnecessary to give detailed references
for
the papyrus evidence, which will be found fully stated
in
the papers from CR, already cited. We
must bear
in
mind throughout Hort's caution (p. 148) that "all our
MSS
have to a greater or less extent suffered from the
1 CR xv. 32, xv. 434: for the exx. B.C. I have added figures from
papyri
read
up to 1905. See further on p. 231; and compare Mr Thackeray's inde-
pendent
statistics in JTS ix. 95, which give
the same result.
2 The case of a@n, if, is separate. In the NT this is confined apparently to Jn,
where
it occurs six times. In the papyri it is decidedly a symptom of illiteracy.
With
this agrees what Meisterhans3 255 f. says: "Only six times is a@n found
from
v/ to iii./B.C. The form a@n is entirely foreign to
the Attic inscrip-
tions,
though it is often found in the Ionicising literary prose of v/
(Thucydides: cf the Tragedians)." Since a@n is the modern form, we
may
perhaps
regard it as a dialectic variant which ultimately ousted the Attic e]a<n.
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 occasional appearances in Ionic are due to Atticising! Certainly h@n is
the
normal Ionic form, but a@n may have been Ionic as well, though rarer. (So
Dr
P. Giles.) Nachmanson (p. 68) gives e]a<n as the only form from
Magnesia.
Some
peculiar local distribution is needed to explain why a@n (if) is absent
from
the incorrectly written Rev, and reserved for the correct Jn. Both
a@n and e]a<n are found promiscuously
in the
130).
44
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
effacement
of unclassical forms of words." Note also his
statement
that the "Western" MSS show the reverse
tendency.
"The orthography of common life, which to a
certain
extent was used by all the writers of the NT, though
in
unequal 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
has
said the last word on the problem of the d-text; and
with
our new knowledge of the essentially popular character
of
NT 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
written
by men of education approximately parallel with that
of
the apostolic writers.
Orthography.
We begin with the " unusual aspirated
forms "
(p. 150), e]f ] e[lpi<di, etc., kaq ] i[di<an,
a@fide etc., and ou]x
o[li<goj.a
For all these there is a large
body
of evidence from papyri and inscriptions. There are a
good
many other words affected thus, the commonest of
which,
e@toj,
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,--
kaq ] e!toj
due to kaq ] h[me<ran, a@fide, to a]fora?n,
etc.;1
and the two types struggled for survival. MGr e]fe<to
shows
that the aspirated form did not always yield. The
uncertainty
of the MS 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
great
uncials becomes clearer as we go on. The reverse
phenomenon,
psilosis, exx. of which figure on p.
151, is
part
of the general tendency which started from the Ionic
and
Aeolic of Asia Minor and became universal, as MGr
shows.
The mention of tamei?on (p. 152—add
1 The curious coincidence
that many, but by no means all, of these words
once
began with F, led to the fancy
(repeated by Hort) that the lost con-
sonant
had to do with the aspiration. I need not stay to explain why this
cannot
be accepted. The explanation by analogy within the Koinh< is that
favoured
by Thumb. (See additional note, p. 234.) [a See p. 244.
NOTES ON THE ACCIDENCE. 45
p.
177) brings up a Hellenistic sound-law, universal after A.D.,
viz.
the coalescence of two successive i
sounds; the inf. diasei?n
for
--sei<ein (LPg—i/B.C.) will
serve as a good example—cf
a]nasi? in Lk 235 x.1 Tamei?on,
ingly
attested by the papyri of the Roman age, where we
seldom
find the reversion seen in Mt 2022. In a[leei?j (Mk 117 al)
we
have dissimilation instead of contraction. Under the head
of
Elision (p. 153), it may be worth while to mention that
the
neglect of this even in a verse citation, as in the MSS
at
1 Co 1533, is in accord with an exceedingly common
practice
in inscriptions. The presence or absence of mov-
able
n
(pp. 153 f.) cannot be reduced to any visible rule:
the
evanescence of the nasal in pronunciation makes this
natural.
Cf p. 49 below. Among the spellings recorded on
pp.
155 f. we note sfuri<j, ge<nhma, (vegetable product),
and
-xu<nnw2 as well attested in the
papyri; while the wavering of
usage
between rr
and rs
is traceable down through Hellen-
istic
to MGr.3 The case of the
spelling a]rabw<n ("only
Western")
is instructive. Deissmann (BS 183)
gives but
one
ex. of the rr
form, and nine of the single consonant,
from
three documents. His natural questioning
of Hort's
orthography
is curiously discounted by the papyri published
up
to 1905, which make the totals 11 for the "Western"
and
15 for rr.4
The word will serve as a reminder that
only
the unanimity of the papyri can make us really sure
of
our autographs' spelling: cf Deissmann, BS
181. The
wavering
of inscriptional testimony as to Zmu<rna (ib. 185)
makes
it impossible to be decisive; but the coincidence of
Smyraean
coins makes it seem difficult to reject the witness
of
x,
on suspicion of "Western" taint. In words with ss the
papyri
show the Attic tt in about the same small proportion
as
the NT uncials, and with much the same absence of
intelligible
principle. @Ornic (Lk 1334 xD, also banned as
"Western")
has some papyrus warrant, and survives in the
MGr
(Cappadocian) o]rni<x: cf Thumb, Hellen. 90. It started
in
Doric Greek. Coming to the note on te<ssarej and tessa-
1 Buresch RhM xlvi. 213 n. Correct Ti in loc. So a]poklei?n, OP 265 (i/A.D.).
2 So MGr (
3 Thumb 1.c. 422. On this and the ss,
tt, see now
Wackernagel’s Hellen-
istica (1907). 4
CR xv. 33, since supplemented.
46
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
ra<konta (p. 157), we meet our
first dissonance between NT
uncials
and papyri. The e forms are in the latter relatively
few,
and distinctly illiterate, in the first centuries A.D. Indeed
the
evidence for te<ssera or te<sseraj is virtually nil before
the
Byzantine age,1 and there does not seem to be the
smallest
probability that the Apostles wrote anything but
the
Attic form. For tessera<konta the case is a little
better,
but
it is hopelessly outnumbered by the -ar- form in docu-
ments
antedating the NT uncials; the modern sera<nta, side
by
side with sara<nta, shows that the strife continued. No
doubt
before iv/A.D. te<sserej
-a (not tesse<rwn) had begun to
establish
themselves in the place they hold to-day. ]Erauna<w
is
certain from i/A.D. onward;2 and Mayser (pp. 42, 56)
gives
a ii/B.C. papyrus parallel for a]na<qhma ]Attikw?j, a]na<qema (x bis, B
semel).
Spellings like kri<ma (p. 158) are supported
by a great multi-
plication
in Koinh< documents of -ma nouns with shortened
penultimate.
Cf Moeris (p. 28), a]na<qhma ]Attikw?j, a]na<qema
[Ellhnikw?j, and note a]feu<rema bis in Par P 62 (ii/B.C.).
Even
su<stema is found (not *su<stama), Gen 110,
which shows
how
late and mechanical this process was. The convenient
differentiation
of meaning between a]na<qhma and a]na<qema3
preserved
the former intact, though xADX are quotable for
the
levelling in its one NT occurrence. The
complete estab-
lishment
of ei# mh<n after iii/B.C. is an interesting confirmation
of
the best uncials. Despite Hort (p. 158), we must make
the
difference between a ei# mh<n and h#
mh<n
"strictly orthograph-
ical"
after all, if the alternative is to suppose any connexion
with
ei],
if. Numerous early citations make this last
assump-
tion
impossible.4 On ei and i (p. 153) the papyri are
1 Te<ssarej acc. is another matter:
see above, p. 36.
2 But e@reuna in the Ptolemaic PP
iii. 65 bis, Par P 602,
and Tb P 38, al.
So
also MGr. @Erauna was limited in range.
See Buresch, RhM xlvi. 213 f.;
but
note also Thumb, Hellen. 176 f., who
disposes of the notion that it was an
Alexandrinism.
Kretschmer, DLZ, 1901, p. 1049,
brings parallels from Thera
(au]- in compounds of eri).
See papyrus citations in CR xv. 34,
xviii. 107.
3 Deissmann has shown
that a]na<qema, curse, is not an innovation of "Biblical
Greek"
(ZNTW ii. 342).
4 The syntax is decisive
in the Messenian "Mysteries" inscription (91 B.C.,
Syll. 653, Michel 694): o]rkizo<ntw
to>n gunaikono<mon: ei# ma>n e!cein e]pime<leian, ktl.
(The
same inscription has ei#ten for ei#ta, as in Mk 428:
this is also Ionic.) Add
Syll. 578 (iii/B.c.), and
note. PP iii. 56 (before 260 Ex.) has h#, but I have
11
papyrus exx. of ei# from ii/B.C. to i/A.D.
NOTES ON THE ACCIDENCE. 47
entirely
indecisive: ei even for i is an everyday
occurrence.
At
any rate they give no encouragement to our introducing
gei<nomai and geinw<skw, as WH would like to
do: to judge
from
mere impressions, gi<nomai, is at least as common
as
gei<nomai. This matter of the notorious equivalence of a
and
i
is adduced by Thumb (reviewing Blass2, ThLZ, 1903,
421)
as a specimen of philological facts which are not always
present
to the minds of theological text-critics: he cites
Brooke
and M’Lean (JTS, 1902, 601 ff.), who
seriously treat
i@den, i@don, as various readings
deserving a place in the LXX
text.
Ti did the same in Rev,
where even WH (see App2
169)
marked
i@don,
etc., as alternative. In this matter no
reader
of
the papyri would care to set much store by some of the
minutiae
which WH so conscientiously gather from the great
uncials.
It would probably be safer in general to spell
according
to tradition; for even WH admit that their para-
mount
witness, B, "has little authority on behalf of a as
against
i."
Finally might be mentioned a notable
matter
of
pronunciation to which Hort does not refer. The less
educated
papyrus writers very frequently use a for au, before
consonants,
from ii/B.C. onwards.1 Its
frequent appearance in
Attic
inscriptions after 74 B.C. is noted by Meisterhans3
154.
In Lk 21 ( ]Agou<stou) this pronunciation
shows itself,
according
to xC*D; but we do not seem to
find a]to<j, e[ato<n,
etc.,
in the MSS, as we should have expected.2 An excellent
suggestion
is made by Dr J. B. Mayor (Expos. IV.
x. 289)—
following
up one of Hort's that a]katapa<stouj in 2 Pet
214
AB may be thus explained: he compares a]xmhr&? 119 A.
In
arguing his case, he fails to see that the dropping of a u
(or
rather F) between vowels is
altogether another thing; but
his
remaining exx. (to which add those cited from papyri in
CR xv. 33, 434, xviii.
107) are enough to prove his point.
Laurent
remarks (BCH 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
in
Romance: see Lindsay, Latin Language
41 f. See early exx. in Mayser 114.
2 In MGr (see Thumb, Handbuch,, p. 59) we find au]to<j (pronounced aftos)
side
by side with a]to<j (obsolete except in Pontus), whence the
short form to<,
etc.
There was therefore a grammatical difference in the Koinh< itself.
48 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
Inflexion :-- We pass on to the noun flexion (p. 163).
Nouns. Nouns in -ra and participles in –ui?a
in the
papyri
regularly form genitive and dative in
-hj
-^, except that –ui<aj, -ui<% are still found in the
Ptolemaic
period.
Here again the oldest uncials alone (in NT, but very
rarely
in LXX) generally support the unmistakable verdict of
the
contemporary documents of the Koinh<. We saw reason
(above,
p. 38) to regard this as the analogical assimilation of
-ra nouns (and—somewhat
later and less markedly— -ui?a
participles)
to the other -a flexions of the first declension,
rather
than as an Ionic survival. We may add that as ma<xaira
produced
maxai<rhj on the model of do<ca do<chj, so, by a
reverse
analogy process, the gen. Nu<mfhj as a proper name
produced
what may be read as Nu<mfa Numfan in nom. and
acc.:
the best reading of Col 415 (au]th?j
B) may thus
stand,
without
postulating a Doric Nu<mfan, the improbability of
which
decides Lightfoot for the alternative.1 The heteroclite
proper
names, which fluctuate between 1st and 3rd decl., are
paralleled
by Egyptian place-names in papyri. Critics, like
Clemen,
whose keen scent has differentiated documents by the
evidence
of Lu<stran and Lu<stroij in Ac 146.8
(see Knowling,
EGT in loc.),2 might be
invited to track down the "redactor"
who
presumably perpetrated either Kerkesou<x^ or Kerxe-
sou<xwn in Gil 46 (ii/A.D.).
Ramsay (Paul 129) shows that
Mu<ra acc. -an and gen. -wn. Uncritical people may
perhaps
feel encouraged thus to believe that Mt 21 and
Mt
23, despite the heteroclisis, are from the same hand.a The
variations
between 1st and 2nd decl. in words like e[kato<ntar-
xoj (-hj) are found passim, in papyri: for conscientious
labour
wasted
thereon see Schmiedel's amusing note in his Preface
to
WS. In contracted nouns and adjectives we have
abundant
parallels for forms like o]ste<wn, xruse<wn, and for
xrusa?n (formed by analogy of a]rgura?n). The good attesta-
tion
of the type noo<j noi~, after the analogy of bou?j, may
be
observed in passing. The fact that we do not find
short
forms of nouns in -ioj -ion (e.g. ku<rij,
paidi<n)b
is a
1 See the writer's paper
in Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. Oct. 1898,
p. 12, where
the
archaic vocative in -ă is suggested as the connecting link. Cf Dou?la as a
proper
name (Dieterich, Unters. 172), and Ei]rh?na in a Christian inscr.
(Ramsay,
C. & B. ii. 497 n.). 2 Cf Harnack, Apostelg). 86 n. [ab See p. 244.
NOTES ON THE ACCIDENCE. 49
noteworthy
test of the educational standard of the writers,
for
the papyri show them even as early as and always
in
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 a
monopoly,
as MGr shows everywhere. We must not omit
mention
of the "Mixed Declension," which arose from
analogies
in the –a- and
-o- nouns, and spread rapidly because
of
its convenience, especially for foreign names. The stem
ends
in a long vowel or diphthong, which receives -j for nom.
and
-n
for acc., remaining unchanged in voc., gen. and dat.
sing.
]Ihsou?j is the most conspicuous
of many NT exx. It
plays
a large part in MGr.1 Passing lightly over the exact
correspondence
between uncials and papyri in the accusatives
of
klei<j and xa<rij (p. 164), we may pause on xei?ran in
Jn
2025 xAB. The great frequency of this formation in
uneducated
papyri, which adequately foreshadows its victory
in
MGr,2 naturally produced sporadic examples in our MSS,
but
it is not at all likely that the autographs showed it (unless
possibly
in Rev). Gregory (in Ti, vol. iii. 118 f.) registers
forms
like a]sssfalh?n and podh<rhn, which also have
papyrus
parallels,
but could be explained more easily from the analogy
of
1st decl. nouns. Mei<zwn acc. (Jn 536
ABEGMD)
is a good
example
of the irrational addition of n, which seems to have
been
added after long vowels almost as freely as the equally
unpronounced
i.3
One further noun calls for comment,
viz.,
]Elaiw?noj in Ac 112
(p. 165). The noun e]laiw<n = olivetum
occurs
at least thirty times in papyri between i/ and iii/A.D.,
which
prompts surprise at Blass's continued scepticism.
[Elikw<n (salicetum) is an ancient example of the turning of
a
similar word into a proper name.4
1 See CR xviii. 109, Kuhner-Blass § 136.
2 It seems most probable
that the modern levelling of 1st and 3rd decl.
started
with this accusative. See Thumb, Handbuch
28, 35; also p. 18 for
the
pronunciation. of -n final. The formation occurs often in LXX.
3 Thus a!lwi is acc. sing., while h#n (=^#) is sometimes
subjunctive. For
exx.
see CR xviii. 108. So o!sa
e]a>n h#n
in Gen 617 E. See p. 168.
4 See Deissmann, BS 208 if., and the addenda in Expos. vii. 111, viii.
429;
also below, pp. 69 and 235. See also p.
244, on suggeneu?si (App.2
165).
50 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
Indeclinable Two
curious incleclinables meet us period-
Adjectives. ically among the adjectives. Plh<rhj should
be read in
Mk 428 (C*, Hort) and Ac 65
(xAC*DEHP al.), and is
probably to be recognised in Jn 114
(-rh D). Cf 2 Jn 8 (L), Mk 819
(AFGM al.), Ac 63 (AEHP al.)
1928
(AEL 13). Thus in almost every NT
occurrence of an
oblique
case of this word we meet with the indeclinable form
in
good uncials. The papyrus citations for
this begin with
LPc
(ii/B.C.), which suits its appearance in the LXX. We
cannot
well credit educated writers, such as Luke, with this
vulgar
form; but I readily concede to Deissmann (Licht
v.
Osten 85 f.) that it is
possible in Jn. (Here B. Weiss and
others
would make the adj. depend in sense upon au]tou?, but
do<can seems more appropriate, from the whole
trend of the
sentence:
it is the "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
kai> e]qeasa<meqa . . . patro<j a parenthesis, had it
not been
for
the supposed necessity of construing plh<rhj as a nomina-
tive.
We restore the popular form also in Mk.1 The other
indeclinables
in question are plei<w and the other forms in -w
from
the old comparative base in -yos. Cronert
(in Philologus
lxi.
161 ff.) has shown how frequently in papyri and even
in
literature these forms are used, like plh<rhj and h!misu,
without
modification for case. In Mt 2653
we have a
good
example preserved in xBD, the later MSS duly mend-
ing
the grammar with plei<ouj. Is it possible that
the
false
reading in Jn 1029 started from an original mei<zw of
this
kind?
Many more noun forms might be cited
in which the
MSS
prove to have retained the genuine Hellenistic, as evi-
denced
by the papyri; but these typical examples will serve.
1 See the full evidence
in Cronert Mem. 179: add CR xv. 35, 435, xviii. 109
also
C. H. Turner in JTS i. 120 ff. and
561 f. ; Radermacher in RhM lvii.
151;
Reinhold
53. Deissmann, New Light 44 f., deals
briefly with Jn 1.c. Winer,
p.
705, compares the "grammatically independent" plh<rhj clause with the
nom.
seen in Phil 319, Mk 1249. W. F. Moulton makes no remark there, but
in
the note on Jn 114 (Milligan-Moulton in loc.) he accepts the construction
found
in the RV, or permits his colleague to do so. At that date the ease
for
the indeclinable plh<rhj was before him only in
the LXX (as Job 2124
xBAC); See Blass 81 n.: Mr R. R. Ottley adds a
probable ex. in Is 632 B.
NOTES ON THE ACCIDENCE. 51
Verbs
naturally supply yet more abundant material, but we
need
not cite it fully here. Pursuing the order of WH App2
Verbs :— we pause a moment on the dropped augments,
etc., in pp.
168 f., which are well illustrated
in
papyri. This phenomenon goes back to Herodotus, and
Augments. well be a contribution of Ionic to the
Common
Greek. Diphthongs are naturally the
first
to show the tendency: it is not likely, for example, that
Drs
Grenfell and Hunt would now, as in the editio
princeps
of
the Oxyrhynchus Logia (1897, p. 7), call oi]kodomhme<nh a
"more
serious error" than ai for e or ei for i. The double
augment
of a]pekatesta<qh in papyri and NT may be noted as
a
suggestive trifle under this head of augments before we pass
Person on. Very satisfactory confirmation of our
endings. uncial
tradition is supplied by the person-
endings. The
functionally useless difference
of
ending between the strong and the weak aorist began to
disappear
in our period. The strong aorist act. or mid. is
only
found in some thirty -w verbs (and their compounds) in
the
NT; and while the great frequency of their occurrence
protected
the root-form, the overwhelming predominance of
the
sigmatic aorist tended to drive off the field its rival's
person-endings.
The limits of this usage in the NT text are
entirely
in accord with the better-written papyri. Thus we
find
little encouragement for gena<menoj,1 for which
any number
of
papyrus citations may be made. But when we notice gena
[.
. .] in BU 1033 (ii/A.D.) corrected to geno . . . by a second
hand,2
we see that education still rebelled against this develop-
ment,
which had begun with the Attic ei#paj centuries before.
The
tendency, in fairly cultured speech, mainly concerned the
act.,
and the indic. middle. For the details see the careful
note
in WS p. 111. Whether the same intrusion should
1 So Lk 2244 x, Lk 2422 B,
and Mk 626 and 1542 D: there is no further
uncial
support,
if Ti is reliable, throughout Mt, Mk, and Lk, in a total of 40 occur
rences.
The ptc. does not occur in Jn. I have not looked further.
2 Eu[ra<menoj in Heb 912
(all uncials except D2 is perhaps due to the frequency
of
1st aor. in -ra. The ptc. itself appears in an inscr. of the
Roman age,
IMA iii. 1119. P. Buttmaim
cites gena<menoj from Archimedes (iii/B.C.), though
Wilamowitz-Mollendorf
in his extracts from the Psammiles (Lesebuch
243 ff.)
edits
geno<menoj seven times. But in a Doric author the question
concerns us
little
MGr shows that gena<menoj came to stay.
52
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
be
allowed in the imperf., eg. ei#xan Mk 87, is
doubtful,
view
of the scanty warrant from the papyri. It is for the
same
reason more than doubtful whether we can accept
parela<bosan 2 Th 36 xAD*: I have only 4
imperf. and
2
aor. exx. from Ptolemaic times, and the forms e]lamba<-
nesan and a]fi<lesan (BM 18, 41, 161
B.C.—cited by WM
91
n.5) show that the innovation had not attained great
fixity
before i/A.D. The ocular confusion suggested by Hort
in
2 Th l.c. would be furthered by the
later currency of this
convenient
ending. What we find it hard to allow in a
writer
of Paul's culture is a little easier in Jn (1522. 24
xBL etc.); and e]doliou?san Rom 313
(LXX) might have been
written
by Paul himself, apart from quotation—we can
hardly
cite any other 3 pl. imperf. from –o<w verbs. As
early
as ii/B.C. we find h]ciou?san in Magn. 47: see Nach-
manson's
parallels, pp. 148 f. The –ej
of 2 sg.
perf., read
by
WH in Rev 23.5 1117, and in 1st aor. Rev 24,
may
perhaps
be allowed in Rev as a mark of imperfect Greek:
it
has no warrant from educated writing outside.1 The
3
pl. perf. in -an is well attested in Ac 1636 and Ro
167
xAB, Lk 936 BLX, Col 21 x*ABCD*P , as well as in
Jn, Jas
and
Rev, where it raises less difficulty. It certainly makes
a
fair show in the papyri, from 164 B.C. down (see Mayser
323),
but not in documents which would encourage us to
receive
it for Luke or even Paul. As the only difference
between
perf. and 1 aor.-endings, the -asi was foredoomed to
yield
to the assimilating tendency; but possible occurrences
of
–an
are relatively few, and the witness of the papyri inde-
cisive,
and it is safer, except in Rev, to suppose it a vulgarism
due
to the occasional lapse of an early scribe.2 If it were
really
Alexandrian, as Sextus Empiricus says, we could
understand
its comparative frequency in the papyri; but
Thumb
decisively rejects this (Hellenismus
170), on the
ground
of its frequent appearance elsewhere.3 The termina-
1 Even B shows it, in Ac
2122. Note also a]peka<luyej Mt 1125 D.
2 Ge<gonan formed the
starting-point of a valuable paper by K. Buresch in
RhM, 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 -osan
type.
3 At
NOTES ON THE ACCIDENCE. 53
tion
-asi
invades what is formally, though not in meaning, a
present,
in the case of h!kasi, which is a genuine vernacular
form
(cf. h!kamen in Pal P 48 (ii/B.C.). WH (App2 176) reject
it
as "Western" in Mk 83, regarding it as a paraphrase
of
ei]si<n (BLD); but it must be observed that the Lewis
Syriac
is now to be added to xADN, with the Latin and
other
versions, which support it. It is after all a form
which
we might expect in Mk, and equally expect to find
removed
by revisers, whether Alexandrian or Syrian. By
way
of completing the person-endings, we may observe that
the
pluperf. act. has exclusively the later -ein form, with
-ei- even in 3 pl.;1
and that the 3 pl. imper. in -twsan and
-sqwsan are unchallenged.
Taking up the contract verbs, we
note how the confusions
between
–a<w
and –e<w forms (p. 173) are supported by our
external
evidence, and by MGr. Our first serious revolt from
WH
concerns the infinitive in –oi?n (and by analogy -%?n). The
evidence
for it is "small, but of good quality" (p. 173—cf
Introd.
§ 410): it is in fact confined to B*D in Mt 1332, B*
in
Mk 432, x* in 1 Pet 215, BD* in Heb 75
(where see Ti),
and
a lectionary in Lk 931. This evidence may pass if our
object
is 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
Hatzidakis
(p. 193),2 and two papyri, BM iii. p. 136 bis
(18
A.D.), and PFi 24 (ii/A.D.). Blass (p. 48) does not regard
the
form as established for the NT. We can quote against
it
from i—iv/A.D. plentiful exx. of –ou?n in papyri. (That –ou?n
and
–a?n
(not %?n)
are the correct Attic forms, may be seen from
Meisterhans3
175 f., which Hort's hesitation as to –a?n
prompts
me to quote: for the reason of the apparent
irregularity
see Brugmann, Gr. Gramm.3
61, or WS 42.)
Next
may be named, for –a<w verbs, the 2nd sing. pres. mid. in
-a?sai
(kauxa?sai,
o]duna?sai),
which has been formed afresh
in
the Koinh< with the help of the -sai that answers to 3rd
1 There are isolated
exceptions in the papyri.
2 So WS 116 n. Two other
inscriptions are cited by Hatzidakis, but
without
dates. Vitelli (on PFi. l.c.) refers
to Cronert 220 n., who corrects
Schmieders
philology: the form is of course a simple product of analogy--
lu<ei: lu<ein ::
dhloi? : dhloi?n,
54
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
sing.
-tai
in the perfect.1 It is well paralleled by the early
fut.
xariei?sai in GH 14 c (iii/B.C.), for which xari<esai appears
in
OP 292 (i/A.D.). Fa<gesai and pi<esai, which naturally went
together,
give us the only exx. outside –a<w verbs, to which
the
quotations in G. Meyer Gr. Gram.3
549 suggest that
the
innovation was mainly confined. The later extensions
may
be noted in Hatzidakis 188. Note the converse change
in
du<n^. Unfortunately we do not seem to have exx. of the
subj.
of –o<w
verbs, to help the parsing of i!na zhlou?te and
the
like (p. 167). Blass (Kuhner3 i. 2. 587, and Gr. 48)
accepts
Hort's view that the subj. of these verbs became
identical
with the indic., just as it always was in the –a<w
verbs.
(See W. F. Moulton's note, WM 363. Ex 116 o!tan
maiou?sqe . . . kai> w#si, there cited, is a very
good example.)
But
Blass rightly, I think, rejects the supposition that
eu]odw?tai (1 Co 162) can be anything but a
pres. subj. To
read
eu]o<dwtai, as perf. indic., is possible, though the
editors
do
not seem by their printing to have favoured that
alternative.
That it is a perf. subj. is extremely unlikely.
The
parallels on which Hort (p. 179) relies—set forth with
important
additions in Blass's Kuhner i. 2. 100 f.--do
nothing
to make it likely that the Koinh< had any perf. subj.
apart
from the ordinary periphrastic form.2 It is hard,
moreover,
to see why the pres. subj. is not satisfactory here:
see
Dr Findlay's note in loc. (EGT vol. ii.). Finally we
note
the disappearance of the –h<w verbs from the Koinh<,
with
the exception of zh<w and xrh<omai3 (as we ought to call
them);
also the sporadic appearance of the uncontracted
e]de<eto Lk 838 (B and a few others –ei?to, which looks like a
correction).
It is supported by Esth 143A, BU 926 (ii/A.D.)
and
the Mithras Liturgy (p. 12): it is probably, as Blass
suggests,
a mere analogy-product from de<omai conjugated
1 To suppose this (or fa<gesai, similarly formed from fa<getai) 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, KZ
xxvii.
497, scoffs at E. Curtius for talking of an "uralte" –sai.
2 To argue this would
demand a very technical discussion. It is enough
to
say that the Attic kektw?mai and memnw?mai are not derivative
verbs, and that
the
three derivative verbs which can be quoted, from Doric, Cretan and
Ionic
respectively, supply slender justification for the supposed Koinh< parallel.
3 Xra?sqai was the Hellenistic
infin., but there is no example of it in NT.
NOTES ON THE ACCIDENCE. 55
like
lu<omai,1 and owes nothing to Ionic. It affords no
warrant
for suspecting uncontracted forms elsewhere: kate<xeen
Mk
143 is an aor., as in Attic.
The verbs in -mi, continued in
Hellenistic to suffer from
the
process of gradual extinction which began even in
Homeric
Greek, and in MGr has eliminated every form
outside
the verb "be." The papyri
agree with the NT
Verbs in -mi. uncials in showing forms like du<nomai, and
-e<deto (as well as –e<doto), and various
flexions
after contract verb types. New verbs like i[sta<nw2
are
formed, and new tenses like –e!staka (transitive). The
most
important novelty apart from these is the aor. subj.
doi? and gnoi?,3 as to which W. F.
Moulton's view (WM 360 n.)
is
finally established by good attestation from papyri. The
pres.
subj. didoi?,
after the –o<w
verbs, set the analogy at
work.
That in much later documents such forms may be
opt.
need not trouble us. The form d&<h is more difficult.
Schwyzer
(p. 191) quotes Moeris for poi&<h in Common
Greek,
and calls in the analogy of tim&<h: the further step
to
d&<h (also attested by Moeris) was eased by the fact
that
doi<h drew towards cliff, and would consequently become
monosyllabic:
see p. 45. Dw<^ (subj.) seems a
syntact-
ical
necessity in Eph 117 (B d&?), 2 Tim 225 (cf later
uncials
in Eph 316 and Jn 1516): this form, well known in
Homer,
survives in Boeotian and Delphian inscriptions, as
Michel
1411 (ii/B.C.,
ligible
that NW Greek (cf above, p. 36 f.) should have
thus
contributed to the Koinh<; an item which (like other
contributions
from a single quarter, e.g. te<ssarej acc.) kept
only
a precarious existence by the side of other forms. We
return
to this later (pp. 193 f.). From oi#da we have in papyri,
as
in NT, ordinary perfect indic. flexion,5 and pluperf. for
^@dein, with occasional literary revival of the
older irregular
forms.
Finally, in the conjugation of ei]mi<, the middle forms
1 See below, p. 234.
2 The form –sta<nw in x and D (p. 175) is
interesting in that it exactly antici-
pates
the MGr. So NP 53 (iii/A.D.), in Wilcken's reading; Syl/. 73776
(ii/A.D.):
3 So in 2nd person also, a]podoi?j Lk 1259 D
(as papyri).
4 See G. Meyer3
656. Witkowski, p. xxii, reads a]podou<hi (subj.) in Par P 58.
5 Probably Ionic: so
Herodotus, and even our texts of Homer (0d.
i. 337).
56 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
are
well established (h@mhn, h@meqa—see above, p. 37), as
to a
still
further extent in MGr. Even the MGr present ei#mai is
found
already in a Phrygian inscription v. Ramsay C.
and B.
ii.
565 (early iv/A.D.). G. Meyer (3 569) regarded e@stai as
the
3rd sing. of this, transferred to future meaning. Note
that
the old 1st sing. h#n reappears in D at Ac 2018: elsewhere
h@mhn stands alone. The rarer h@tw alternates with e@stw, in
papyri
and late inscriptions, as in NT.
Miscellaneous It is needless to add any details as to
noteworthy
forms among the "principal
parts"
of verbs. Papyrus parallels may be cited for h]noi<ghn,
for
the double formation of a[rpa<zw and basta<zw (h[rpa<ghn
and
h[rpa<sqhn, e]ba<stasa and e]ba<staca1), for the alternative
perf.
of tugxa<nw (see Ti on Heb 86), for the 1 aor. of a@gw, etc.
Note
especially the intrusion of the m, from the present of lam-
ba<nw into various parts of the verb, and into
derivative nouns
(p.
149). This is normal in the papyri after the Ptolemaic
period,
in which there is still some lingering of the older forms.
The
same phenomenon occurred partially in Ionic; but the
Ionic
fut. la<myomai, by taking over the a as well as the nasal
of
the present, shows that it was an independent development
in
the Koinh<. 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 NT
period
in the interests of an artificial grammar.
1 So P 1 38 (? rightly)
in Rev 22; cf dusba<staktoj Lk 1146. It
is MGr.
ADDITIONAL Noms.—Superficially
parallel with te<ssera, etc. is the curious
variant
e]kaqeri<sqh, which in Mk 141f. immediately
follows kaqari<sqhti. WH
(App.2 157) note that this
occurs only in augmented or reduplicated tense-forms:
so
also in LXX (Thackeray). Clearly the e came in as a second augment, follow-
ing
what looked like kata<. For the itacism of ai and e (WH ib.), cf Mayser
107,
who shows that the change of ai was illiterate, and
quite rare in Ptolemaic
times.
Later it became normal, till ai and e were only distinguished
ortho-
graphically.
Mr Thackeray sends me statistics as to ou]qei<j, supplement-
ing
the tables of Mayser (pp. 180 ff.). The phenomenon seems to be of Attic
origin,
appearing early in iv/B.C. Thence it spread to the Koinh<, where in
ii/B.C.
it greatly predominated. But in i/A.D. ou]dei<j was markedly
recovering,
and
before 111/A.D. it had driven out ou]qei<j. The survival of ou]qei<j in NT uncials
is
therefore significant. The compound e]couqenei?n, born perhaps in
ii/B.C., is
found
in the more literary LXX writers, and in Luke and Paul: the later LXX
books
show e]coudenou?n coined when ou]dei<j was reasserting itself.
The 3 pl.
opt.
in -san
may be noted in D (Ac 1727 bis).
The agreement of D with the
LXX
in a formation markedly absent from the NT is curious; but it must not
(says
Dr Thumb) be used to support any theory of Egyptian origin for the MS.
CHAPTER IV.
SYNTAX: THE NOUN.
WE
address ourselves to the syntax, beginning with that of
the
Noun. There are grammatical categories
here that
Number:— scarcely ask for more than bare mention.
On the
subject of Number there is one
obvious
thing to say the dual has gone. Many
Greek
dialects,
Ionic conspicuously, had discarded this hoary luxury
The Dual. long before the Common Greek was born
Neuter Plurals. and no theory of the relation of the Koinh< to
the dialects
would allow Attic to force on
the
resultant speech a set of forms so useless as these. The
dual
may well have arisen in prehistoric days when men could
not
count beyond two; 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
of
the distinction between duality and plurality had wider
results
than the mere banishment of the dual number from
declensions
and conjugations. The significant new flexion of
du<o should be noted here: there is a
pluralised dative dusi<,
but
in other respects du<o is indeclinable. @Amfw has dis-
appeared
in favour of the normally declined @amfo<teroj.
Apart
from this matter the only noteworthy point under
Number
is the marked weakening of the old principle that
neuter
plurals (in their origin identical with collectives in
-a1) took a singular verb.
In the NT we have a large
1 See Giles, Manual2, 264 ff. I might add here that Dr Giles thinks the
dual
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
57
58 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
extension
of what in classical Greek was a comparatively rare
licence,
the plural verb being allowed when the individual
items
in the subject are separately in view, while the singular
treats
the subject as a collective unity.1 The liberty of using
the
plural freely makes the use of the singular distinctly
more
significant than it could be in classical Greek.
"Pindaric" It may be added that the converse
Construction. phenomenon, known as the sxh?ma
Pinda-
riko<n, is found in the NT:
see Mk 441, Mt 519
619, 1 Co 1550, Rev 912. It is really only a
special case of
anacoluthon,
no more peculiar to Pindar than to Shakspere.
An
interesting communication by Prof. Skeat to the
bridge
Philological Society (Proceedings,
lxvii. 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 often used in the singular number, though the subject
may
be in the plural. "Thus" what cares these roarers for
the
name of king?"-- "and now abideth
faith, hope, [love],
these
three,"—etc.; the last being as true to English idiom
as
to its original Greek. That the construction is also pos-
sible
with order inverted, is shown by another citation, "For
thy
three thousand ducats here is six." (See also p. 234.)
Impersonal An
idiomatic use of the plural appears
Plural. in passages like Mt 220 teqnh<kasin, Lk 1220
ai]tou?sin, where there is such a
suppression
of
the subject in bringing emphasis on the action, that
we
get the effect of a passive, or of French on,
German
man. Our "they
say" is like it. Lightfoot compares the
"rhetorical
plural" in Euripides IT 1359, kle<ptontej
e]k
gh?j co<ana kai> quhpo<louj (i.e. Iphigenia). Add Livy
ix. 1,
"auctores belli [one man]
dedidimus." Winer gives other
parallels,
but rightly refuses to put Mt 98 2744, 1 Co 1529
163
into this category. If Heb 101 has not a primitive
error
(as Hort suspected), the plural subject of prosfe<rousin
extant
use 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
Culture, i. 242 f. The
Indo-Germans had numerals up to 100 before their
separation;
but the superfluous dual, I suggest, had been already utilised for a
new
purpose.
1 This is conspicuous in
D (Wellh. 12).
SYNTAX: THE NOUN. 59
and
du<nantai might fairly be described in this way; for the
priests
are certainly not prominent in the writer's thought,
and
a passive construction would have given the meaning
exactly.
So Westcott (for prosf.) who quotes Jn 156 202,
Rev
126, Mt 716, Mk 1013, Lk.1723. See also p. 163, n. 2.
Gender:— On Gender likewise there is not much to
say. There
are sundry differences in 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
uses
of gender which NT Greek shares with the classical.
One
or two cases of slavish translation should be mentioned.
In
Rom 114 the LXX t&? Ba<al is cited as t^? B., which
occurs
however three times in LXX, and in Ascensio
Isaiae 12.
Prof.
F. C. Burkitt (CR xiv. 458), in
commenting on this last
passage,
accepts the explanation that the gender is deter-
mined
by the Q’ri tw,Bo, translated ai]sxu<nh. In Mk 1211
and
Mt 2142 we have the LXX au!th=txzo: the translators
may
perhaps have interpreted their own Greek by recalling
Breach of kefalh>n gwni<aj. Breach of concord in
Gender
Greek of Rev
(p. 9).a The very
difficult ei@ tij
spla<gxna kai> oi]ktirmo< of Phil 21 comes in here,
involving
as
it does both number and gender. We might quote in illus-
tration
Par P 15 (ii/B.C.) e]pi ti mi<an tw?n . . . .oi]kiw?n, and
BU 326 (ii/A.D.) ei] de< ti perissa> gra<mmata . . . katali<pw.b
But
Blass's ei@ ti,
read throughout, is a great improvement:
si quid valet is the sense required,
as Lightfoot practically
shows
by his translation. H. A. A. Kennedy (EGT
in loc.)
makes
independently the same suggestion. Note that the Codex
Amiatinus
(and others) read si quid viscera. [a
b See
p. 241.
A significant remark may be quoted
from the great
Byzantinist,
K. Krumbacher, a propos of these
breaches of
concord.
In his Problem. d. neugr. Schriftsprache (p.
50) he
observes:
"If one finds in Greek literature,
between the early
Byzantine
age and the present day, mistakes like leainw?n mh>
sugxwrou<ntwn, fulai> katalabo<ntej,
pa<ntwn tw?n gunaikwn,
60 A
GRAMMAR 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 that the MGr present participle, e.g.
de<nontaj, is as indeclinable as
our own equivalent "binding,"
we
can see 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 Rev.1 A few nouns wavering in gender
may
be named. Limo<j 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
425 and Ac 1128, Lk 1514. The apparently purposeless
variation
between h[ qeo<j and h[ qea< in Ac 19 is explained
by
inscriptions.2
Some masculine -oj nouns like e@leoj, h#xoj,
plou?toj, passed into the neuter declension in
Hellenistic,
and
remain there in MGr: see Hatzidakis, pp. 356
Case:— We are free now to examine the pheno-
Disappearance mena of Case. To
estimate the position of
of the Hellenistic
cases along the line of develop-
Local Cases. ment, we may sum up briefly what may
be seen
at
the two ends of this line. MGr has only the three cases
we
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
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 pre-
1 Cf Reinhold 57 f., and
p. 234 below. We may cite typical breaches of con-
cord
from the papyri. Firstly, case:—KP 37 (ii/A.D.) !Hrwn e@graya u[pe>r au]tou?
mh> ei]dw>j gr(a<mmata):—this is quite true as
it stands, but Heron meant ei]do<toj!
So
BU 31 (ei]do<j!). BU 1002 (i/B.C.) ]Antifi<lou !Ellhn . . . i[ppa<rxhj. Letr.
149
(ii/A.D.) tou? a]delfou? . . . o[ dia<toxoj (=diad.). OP 527 (ii–iii/A.D.)
peri>
Serh<nou tou? gnafe<wj o[
sunergazo<menoj.a Then gender:—BU 997 (ii/B.C.) th<n,
u[pa<rxon au]tw?i oi]ki<an. Th. 577 (iii/A.D.) stolh>n
leinou?n. Ib. 1013
(i/A.D.)
h[ o[mologw?n. Ib.
1036 (ii/A.D.) stolh>n leinou?n. LPu (ii/B.C.) th>n tw?n
qew?n a@nasson a]kou<santa. AP 113 (ii/A.D.) o[
teteleuthkw>j au]th?j mh<thr.
2 Cf Blass on 1927:
"Usitate dicitur h[
qeo<j
(ut v.37); verum etiam inscriptio
Ephesia
. . . t^? megi<st^ qe%?
]Efesi<% ]Arte<midi, cum alibi . . . h[
qeo<j
eadem dicatur.
. . . Itaque formulam sollemnem h[ mega<lh qea>. "A. mira diligentia L.
conservavit."
ab See p. 244.
SYNTAX: THE NOUN. 61
historic
times three out of the primitive seven cases (or eight,
if
we include the vocative), viz., the from
case (ablative), the
with case (instrumental1),
and the at or in case (locative), all
of
which survived in Sanskrit, and appreciably in Latin,
though
obscured in the latter by the formal syncretism of
ablative,
instrumental, and (except in singular of -a- and
-o-
nouns) locative. In other words, the purely local cases,
in
which the meaning could be brought out by a place-
adverb
(for this purpose called a preposition), sacrificed their
distinct
forms and usages.2 Greek is accordingly marked,
Encroachment like English, by the very free use of preposi-
of Prepositions. tions. This characteristic is most obviously
intensified
in Hellenistic, where we are per-
petually
finding prepositional phrases used to express rela-
tions
which in classical Greek would have been adequately
given
by a case alone. It is needless to
illustrate this fact,
except
with one typical example which will fitly introduce
the
next point to be discussed. We have already (pp. 11 f.)
referred
to the instrumental e]n, formerly regarded as a trans-
lation
of the familiar Hebrew B;, but now well established as
vernacular
Greek of Ptolemaic and later times. The examples
adduced
all happen to be from the category "armed with";
but
it seems fair to argue that an instrumental sense for e]n
is
generally available if the context strongly pleads for it,
without
regarding this restriction or assuming Hebraism.3
Nor
is the intrusion of e]n exclusively a feature of "Biblical"
Greek,
in the places where the prep. seems to be superfluous.
Thus
in Gal 51 the simple dative appears with e]ne<xomai:
Par
P 63 (ii/B.C.—a royal letter) gives us tou>j
e]nesxhme<nouj
1 The instrumental proper
all but coincided with the dative in form
throughout
the sing. of the 1st and 2nd decl., so that the still surviving
dative
of instrument may in these declensions be regarded as the ancient case:
the
comitative "with," however,
was always expressed by a preposition, except
in
the idiom au]toi?j a]ndra<si, and the "military dative.'
2 Note that the to case also disappeared, the
"terminal acculsative" seen in
ire Romam,. The surviving Greek
cases thus represent purely grammatical
relations,
those of subject, object, possession, remoter object, and instrument.
3 I should not wish to
exclude the possibility that this e]n, although correct
vernacular
Greek, came to be used rather excessively by translators from
Hebrew,
or by men whose mother tongue was Aramaic. The use would be
explained
on the same lines as that of i]dou< on p. 11.
62 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
e@n tisin a]gnoh<masin. In Par P 22 (ii/B.C.) we have t&?
lim&?
dialuqh?nai, while the contemporary
28 has dialuo<menai e]n
t&? lim&?. What gave birth to this extension of the uses
of
e]n?
It seems certainly to imply a growing
lack of
clearness
in the simple dative, resulting in an unwilling-
ness
to trust it to express the required meaning without
further
definition. We may see in the multiplied use of pre-
positions
an incipient symptom of that simplification of cases
which
culminates in the abbreviated case system of to-day.
Decay of the The NT student may easily overlook the
Dative :— fact that the dative has already entered
the way that
leads to extinction. I take
a
page at random from Mk in WH, and count 21 datives
against
23 genitives and 25 accusatives. A random page
from
the Teubner Herodotus gives me only 10, against
23
and 29 respectively one from Plato 11, against 12
and
25. Such figures could obviously prove nothing con-
clusive
until they were continued over a large area, but
they
may be taken as evidence that the dative is not dead
Uses with yet. Taking the NT as a whole, the dative
Prepositions. with prepositions falls behind the accusative
and genitive
in the proportion 15 to 19 and
17
respectively. This makes the dative considerably more
prominent
than in classical and post-classical historians.1
The
preponderance is, however, due solely to e]n, the commonest
of
all the prepositions, outnumbering ei]j by about three to
two:
were both these omitted, the dative would come down
to
2 ½ in the above proportion, while the accusative would still
be
10. And although e]n, has greatly enlarged its sphere of
influence2
in the NT as compared with literary Koinh<, we
1 Helbing, in Schanz's Beitrage, No. 16 (1904), p. 11, gives a
table for the
respective
frequency of dat., gen., and accus. with prepositions, which works out
for
Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon, taken together, at 1 : 1 2 : 3 ; for
twelve
post-classical historians, from Polybius to Zosimus, at 1 : 15 : 24.
2 This is well seen by
comparing the statistics of Helbing, pp. 8 f. He gives
the
figures for the three favourite prepositions of the historians. ]En is one of
the
three in every author except Polybius, Diodorus, and Josephus; ei]j falls out
of
the list in Eusebius only. The total occurrences of ei]j in the three classical
historians
amount to 6,531, those of e]n to 6,031; while in the
twelve Hellenistic
writers
ei]j
comes to 31,651, and e]n, to only 17,130. Contrast the NT, where
ei]j is preferred to e]n, only in Mk and Heb,
and the total occurrences amount to
1,743
and 2,698 respectively. See the list in
p. 98 below: note there also the
SYNTAX: THE NOUN.
63
find
very clear examples of ei]j encroaching on its domain.a
There
are many NT passages where a real distinction between
ei]j and e]n is impossible to draw
without excessive subtlety,
for
which all the motive is gone when we find in MGr sto<
with
accusative ( = ei]j to<n) the substitute for the
now obsolete
dative;
while the language in its intermediate stages steadily
tends
towards this ultimate goal.1 By the side of this we
may
put the disappearance of u[po< with the dative, the
accusative
serving to express both motion and rest: in the
classical
historians the dative is nearly as frequent as the
accusative,
and some of their successors, notably Appian and
Herodian,
made it greatly outnumber its rival--see Helbing,
op. cit., p. 22. Similarly pro<j with dative stands in
NT in
the
ratio of less than 01 to pro<j with accusative: in the three
classical
historians it averages nearly 12; in the later twelve,
01
again. ]Epi<, and para< are the only
prepositions in which
the
use with three cases is really alive; and even e]pi<, rather
illustrates
our tendency than contradicts it—see p. 107.
Other cases We pass on
to other symptoms of sen-
substituted. escence in the dative. In the papyri there
are some
clear examples of an accusative
expressing
point of time instead of duration (see CR
xviii.
152);
and in Ac 2016 and Jn 452, Rev 33 we may
recognise the
same
thing.2 Of course the dative
of "time when" was still
very
much more common. There were not wanting, indeed,
instances
where a classical use of the accusative, such as that of
specification
(Goodwin Greek Gram. § 1058), has
yielded to a
dative
of reference (instrumental).3 We have examples of
its
survival in Jn 610 al (WM
288 f.); but, as in the papyri,
the
dative is very much commoner. The evidence of the
decay
of the dative was examined with great minuteness by
F.
Krebs in his three pamphlets, Zur Rection
der Casus in der
spateren historischen
Gracitat (1887-1890).
He deals only
marked
drop in the total for e]pi< which
in the twelve writers of literary Koinh<
comes
not far behind e]n, (14,093).
1 See below, p. 234.
2 Thus OP 477 (ii/A.D.) to>
pe<mpton e@toj,
"in the fifth year"—a recurrent
formula.
Add Gen 4316 (Dieterich, Unters. 151). With w!ran, however, the
use
began in classical times: see Blass 94. See also p. 245.
3 Of CR. xv. 438, xviii.
153, and the useful Program b
Compernass, De
Sermome
Gr. Volg. Pisidiae Phrygiaeque meridionalis,
pp. 2 f. [a See p.
245.
64 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
with
the literary Koinh<; 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.
Krebs
starts with verbs which are beginning to take the
accusative,
having been confined to the dative in the earlier
language.
The distinction in meaning between transitive
verbs
and verbs whose complement was properly instrumental
(as
with xra?sqai--which itself takes an abnormal accus. in
1
Co 731),a or the dative of person interested, inevitably
faded
away
with time, and the grammatical distinction became
accordingly
a useless survival. Of Krebs' exx., polemei?n
takes
accus. also in vernacular, e]nedreu<ein and eu]dokei?n in the
NT;
but ceni<zesqai, a]panta?n and u[panta?n retain the dative
there.1
The movement was accompanied with various
symptoms
of reaction. Proskunei?n in the NT takes the
dative
about twice as often as the accusative.2 The phrase
paraba<llesqai t^? yux^? (Polybius) is matched
in respect of
its
innovating dative by paraboleu<esqai in Phil 230.
We
will
dismiss the decay of the dative with the remark that
the
more illiterate papyri and inscriptions decidedly show it
before
the NT had acquired any antiquity. The schoolboy
of
OP 119, referred to already (p. 28), uses se< for soi< after
gra<fw; while later samples (see CR as above) include such
monstrosities as ti<ni lo<gou, su>n tw?n ui[w?n, xari<zete e]mou?.3b
Dittenberger
would actually recognise the same thing in
OGIS 17 ]Aqhna?i Swtei<r% Ni<k^
kai> basile<wj Ptolemai<ou.
But
at the beginning of iii B.C. this confusion is surely
unthinkable,
and there is a curious asyndeton left: should
the
kai<, be transposed?4 Even OP 811 (A.D. 1), eu]xaristw?n
[Ermi<ppou, seems much too early to be intentional.
We may
follow
Krebs further as he shows the encroachments of the
accusative
upon the genitive, and upon the field of verbs
which
were formerly intransitive. It will be seen that the
1 Also, we may add, peiqarxei?n, which takes a gen.
(like a]kou<w) in Tb P 104
(i/B.C.),
OP 265 (i/A.D.), and the "Gadatas" inscr. (Michel 32). For the dat.,
as
in NT, cf Magn. 114, etc. Eu]dokei?n. acc. is only in a
quotation (Mt 1218).
2 Contrast the
inscriptions: see CR xv. 436. But note Par P 51 (ii/B.C.)
i!na proskunh<s^j au]to<n 3 See other exx. in
Dieterich, Unters. 150.
4 D.'s further ex., No.
87 (iii/B.C.) u[pe>r basile<wj . . . kai>
basili<sshj . . .
kai> Ptolemai<wi tw?i ui[w?i seems merely a mason's
carelessness. See his note on
No.
364 (18 B.C.), and exx. in his hide, p. 238. [a
b See p. 245.
SYNTAX: THE NOUN. 65
NT
does not tally in details with the literary Koinh<, though
it
independently shows the same tendencies at work. In
Accusative gains his second part Krebs turns to the genitive.
from genitive, The first verb in which we are
interested is
the late
compound a]pelpi<zein, [which gene-
rally
takes acc. instead of the natural gen. This it seems
to
do in Lk 635, if we read mhde<na with x etc. and the
Lewis
Syriac:1 so Ti WHmg RVmg. Kratei?n
(Krebs
ii.
14) takes the gen. only 8 times in NT, out of 46 occur-
rences,
but diafe<rein ("surpass") has gen. always. ]En-
tre<pesqai (p. 15) takes only the
acc.,2 and so does klhronomei?n.
Dra<ssomai (p. 17) has the acc. in
the only place where it
occurs
(1 Co 319, altered from LXX). ]Epiqumw? may be added
to
this list, if we may follow BD al. in Mt 528. Add likewise
the
sporadic exx. of acc. with verbs of filling (Rev 173 al.;
see
Blass 102): Thumb observes (ThLZ 422)
that
the
usage lives on in MGr.3 There follows a category
from intransitive of intransitive verbs which in Hellenistic
construction, have begun to take a direct object in the
acc. Of
these we recognise as NT examples
e]nergei?n (six times), sunergei?n, (in Rom 828
AB and Origen),
pleonektei?n (four times, and once
in passive), and xorhgei?n.
and from dat. The third part of Krebs' work' deals with
and gen. after compound verbs and their cases. Here
compounds. prosfwnei?n c. acc. may claim 613,
but it
has the dat.
four times; u[potre<xein has acc.
in
its only occurrence; e]pe<rxesqai, has only dat. or prepositional
phrase;
katabarei?n occurs once, c. acc.; katalalei?n takes gen. in
NT,
but is once passive, as is kataponei?n in its two occurrences;
while
katisxu<ein shows no sign of the acc. construction.
Limits of the It
would of course be easy to supplement
blurring of old. from the NT grammar these illustrations of
distinctions. a general tendency, but exhaustive discussion
is not
needed here. We must (proceed to
note
a few special characteristics of the individual cases as
they
appear in NT Greek, in uses deviating from earlier
1 Mhde<n, if not to be read mhde<n', is an internal
accus., nil desperantes.
2 A passage from
Dionysius (Krebs 16), ou@te qei?on fobhqe<ntej xo<lon
ou@te
a]nqrwpi<nhn e]ntrape<ntej
ne<mesin,
bears a curiously close resemblance to Lk 182.
3 See further, p. 235.
66 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
language.
Before doing so, however, we must make some
general
observations, by way of applying to noun syntax the
principles
noted above, p. 20. We should not assume, from
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
which
are found in common with the same word. The very
fact
that in Jn 423 proskunei?n is found with dat. and
then
with
acc. is enough to prove the existence of a difference,
subtle
no doubt but real, between the two, unless the writer
is
guilty of a most improbable slovenliness. The fact that
the
maintenance of an old and well-known distinction between
the
acc. and the gen. with a]kou<w saves the author of Ac
97
and
229 from a patent self-contradiction, should by itself be
enough
to make us recognise it for Luke, and for other writers
until
it is proved wrong. So with the subtle and suggestive
variation
in Heb 64f. from gen. to acc. with geu<esqai.1a
Further,
the argument that because ei]j often denotes rest
in or at, and sometimes represents that motion towards (as
distinguished
from motion to) which may perhaps have been
the
primitive differentia of the dat., therefore it is immaterial
whether
ei]j
or e]n
or the simple dat. be used with any par-
ticular
word, would be entirely unwarrantable. It depends
upon
the character of the word itself. If its content be
limited,
it may well happen that hardly any appreciable
difference
is made by placing it in one or another of cer-
tain
nearly equivalent relations to a noun. But if it is a
word
of large content and extensive use, we naturally expect
to
find these alternative expressions made use of to define the
different
ideas connected with the word they qualify, so as to
set
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-
1 To illustrate with a
lexical example, we need not think that the evidence
which
proves e]rwta?n in the vernacular no longer restricted to the meaning
question (cf Expos. vi. viii. 431), compromises the
antithesis between the verbs
in
Jn 1623, rightly given by RVmg. Our English ask is the complete equivalent
of
the Hellenistic e]rwta?n; and if we translated ai]th<shte
by some
other word, say
beg or petition, we should naturally take ask to mean question
there. See West-
cott
or Milligan-Moulton in loc., or
Loisy, Le Quatribne Eeangile, p. 789.
a
See p. 245.
SYNTAX: THE
NOUN. 67
thing
to quicken it, brought out vividly where the need of a
distinction
stimulated it into new life. A critical example
is
afforded by the construction of pisteu<w, as to which Blass
Construction of (p. 110) declares that (beside the prepositional
pisteu<w. construction, with the meaning "believe
in")
it takes the
dat. "passim even in the sense
'to
believe in,' as in Ac 514 188."1 Again, p. 123, "pisteu<ein
ei]j alternates with pist. e]n (Mk 115) and
pist. e]pi<, in
addition
to which the correct classical pist. tini< appears."
Let
us examine this. In classical Greeks as LS observe,
"the
two notions [believe and believe in] run into each
other."
To be unable to distinguish ideas so vitally different
in
the scheme of Christianity would certainly have been a
serious
matter for the NT writers. Blass allows that with
the
preposition the meaning is believe in.
Is this meaning
ever
found with the simple dat., or is pisteu<ein
tini<
appro-
priated
entirely for the other idea? The answer must, it
would
seem, come from examination of the NT passages,
rather
than from outside. There are about forty occurrences
of
pisteu<ein with dat., apart from those where the verb
means
entrust. It will be admitted that in the great majority
of
these
passages the meaning is believe.
There remain a few
passages
where the alternative is arguable, such as Jn 524. 38
(in
which the lo<goj just preceding shows that believe is more
appropriate),
831 (where the variation from the previous p.
ei]j
cannot
be merely accidental), Ac 514 (where the dat. may be
construed
with proseti<qento, as in RV), 1634 and 188
(where
accepting
the truth of God's word satisfies the connexion).
(See
p. 235.) It might be said that the influence of the
LXX
tends to weaken the normal distinction in the phrase
p. t&? qe&?. But it is very clear
that the LXX is not re-
sponsible
for the NT use of pisteu<ein. The only pre-
positional
phrase used in the LXX is that with which
is
itself very rare, and this occurs in only one NT passage,2
Mk
115, where there can be little doubt hat Deissmann
is
right3 in translating " believe in (the sphere of)a
the
1 The second passage is
dropped in 2, but not in the English edition.
2 Eph 113 is
only an apparent exception, for the second e]n &$ is assimilated to
the
first, and its sense is determined by e]sfragi<sqhte. (P.
e]pi< se
in Wis 122.)
3 In Christo 46 f Cf Gal 321 (B) e]n
no<m&. [a
See p. 245.
68
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
Gospel":
he compares 1 Th 32, Rom 19, 2 Co 818 1014, etc.
The
construction pist. e]pi<, which outside John is
commoner
than
ei]j,
is found in Is 2816, where B omits e]pi<, and conformity
to
the NT application of the passage may well have occasioned
its
insertion in xAQ. It would seem therefore as if the
substitution
of ei]j
or e]pi<, for the simple dative may have ob-
tained
currency mainly in Christian circles, where the import-
ance
of the difference between mere belief (l;; Nymix<h,) and personal
trust
(B; "h) was keenly realised.
The prepositional construc-
tion
was suggested no doubt by its being a more literal
translation
of the Hebrew phrase with B;. But in itself it
was
entirely on the lines of development of the Greek
language,
as we have seen. There was, moreover, a fitness
in
it for the use for which it was specialised. To repose
one's
trust upon God or Christ was well
expressed by pisteu<ein
the
dative suggesting more of the state, and the accus-
ative
more of the initial act of faith; while ei]j recalls at once
the
bringing of the soul into that mystical union which Paul
loved
to express by e]n Xrist&?. But as between e]pi<, and
cis,
we may freely admit that it is not safe to refine too
much:
the difference may amount to little more than that
between
our own believe on and believe in.1 The really im-
portant
matter is the recognition of a clear distinction between
believe on or in and believe with the
dative simply.2
1 For a closely allied
equivalence, cf that of e]n and e]pi> t&?
o]no<mati,
as de-
monstrated
by Heitmuller, Im Namen Jesu (1903),
1. ch. i.
2 We may give a table of
the constructions of pisteu<w, when not absolute, and
not=
entrust. As elsewhere, it depends on
WH text, ignoring passages in [[ ]].
c. ei]j
c. e]pi< c. e]n c. dat. Total.
dat. acc.
Mt 1 — 1 -- 4 6
Mk. — — — 1 1 2
Lk
and Ac 3 1 4 — 9 17
Jn
and 1 Jn. 37 — — — 18 55
Paul 3 4 2 — 6 15
Jas — — — — 1 1
1
Pet 1 1 — — — 2
Total 45 6 7 1 39 98
1
Jn 416 is omitted, as e]gnw<kamen determines the
construction; also Ac 514 and
Eph
113, for reasons given above. See Thumb, Neue Jahrb. 1906, p. 253.
SYNTAX: THE NOUN. 69
Special. uses We have still
to gather some noteworthy
of the Cases:-- points in the use of the cases, particularly
Nominative. the Nominative, on which nothing
has been
said
hitherto. The case has a certain tend-
ency
to be residuary legatee of case-relations not obviously
appropriated
by other cases. We have its use as the name-
case,
unaltered by the construction of the sentence, in Rev
911:
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 Rev (see p. 9),
and
the general NT usage is certainly assimilation (Mt 121,
Mk
316, Ac 271). The classical parallels may serve for a
writer
such as Luke, if we are to write e]laiw<n in Lk
1929
2137. In WH and the RV it is e]laiw?n, gen. pl., and so
Blass.
We noted above (p. 49) the conclusive evidence which
compels
us to accept the noun e]laiw<n, olivetum, as a word
current
in the Koinh<. WH (App2
165) regard the presence
of
]Elaiw?noj in Ac 112 as corroborating the
argument drawn
from
the unambiguous to> o@roj tw?n e]laiw?n. Tertullian's in
Elaeonem secedebat, the prevalence of olivetum in the Latin
versions,
and the new fact (unknown to WH) that e]laiw<n is
a
word abundantly occurring in the vernacular, may together
perhaps
incline us rather to the other view, with Deissmann,
Tischendorf,
Tregelles, and Weiss (cf W. F. Moulton's note in
WM
227). Certainly, if we were forced to emend on
conjecture,
to substitute ]Elaiw?na in Lk
ll.cc. in one of which
places
the initial a]. following makes it especially easy—would
cause
much less disturbance than to force Blass e]laiw?n
upon
Acts and Josephus. (See further on p. 235.)
"Nominativus The nominative
which stands at the
Pendens. head of a clause without construction
is
a familiar
phenomenon hardly needing to
be
illustrated: it is one of the easiest of anacolutha,
and
as much at home in English as in Greek. The
special
case in which the participle is concerned will en-
gage
our attention later (p. 225). Typical text. are Lk 216,
Ac
740, Mt 540 D (o[ qe<lwn . . .
a@fej au]t&?—a
plausible
reading,
as t&? qe<lonti, is an easy correction), 1 Jn 224,
Rev
226, etc. Note Mt 1714 and Mk 134 in D.
The parenthetic nominative in
expressions of time is well
70 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
seen
in Mt 1532, Mk 82, also Lk 928. In popular Attic the
construction
goes as far back as v/B.C.1 Viteau (Sujet
41) cites
Parenthetic Eccles 216 (note emendation in A and xc.a.) and
Nominative Jos 111. On the latter Nestle
notes (Exp T
xvi. 429)
that B (e@ti h[me<rai trei?j kai> dia-
bai<nete) gives the rationale.a Deissmann adds from the
Acta
Pauli et Theclae (in OP p. 9) h[me<rai
ga>r h@dh trei?j kai> nu<ktej
trei?j Qe<kla ou]k e]gh<gertai.2 We must leave it an open ques-
tion
whether Ac 57 (see p. 16) belongs to this category: it
means
an isolated return to the construction of e]ge<neto which
Luke
used in his Gospel, but then abandoned. This may not
however
be quite decisive. The use of parenthetic nominat-
ives
appears in the papyri most abundantly in descriptions
with
ou]lh< or gei<tonej. Thus "ei]ko<nej"2 will run, "to A.,
long-faced,
straight-nosed, a scar on his right wrist"; and a
piece
of land or a house is inventoried with " belonging to
A.,
its neighbours on the south the open street, on the west
the
house of B."—all nominatives without construction. We
compare
such examples as Jn 16.
Articular There
is a very marked increase in the
Nominative use of the
articular nominative in address.
in address. Nearly sixty examples of it are found in the
NT. There
seems no sufficient reason for
assigning
any influence to the coincident Hebrew use, for
classical
Greek shows the idiom well established. The rough
and
peremptory tone which characterises most of the other
examples
seems to have disappeared. Contrast the Aristo-
phanic
o[ pai?j a]kolou<qei, "you there! the lad, I mean"
(Blass),
with the tender h[ pai?j e@geire2 in Lk 854: we may
still
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 1232, Jn 193, where we
may
represent the nuance by "Fear not, you little flock!
"Hail,
you 'King'!" In the latter passage
we can easily
feel
the inappropriateness of the basileu? found in x, which
would
admit the royal right, as in Ac 267. Its appearance
1 Meisterhans3
203. See CR xvii. 197, where Cronert reads in BM ii. 299
(no.
417—iv/A.D.) e]peidh> a]sxolw? e]lqi?n pro>j
se>n au]te> (=-ai>) h[me<re, "his diebus"
—a
violent example if true. Cf p. 11 n.1 ad fin. [a
See p. 245.
2 See p. 235.
SYNTAX: THE NOUN. 71
in
Mk 1518 is merely a note of the writer's imperfect
sensibility
to the more delicate shades of Greek idiom.
Vocative. Note that Lk, and perhaps Mt (xAL), cor-
rect Mk here. The anarthrous nom. should
probably
be regarded as a mere substitute for the vocative,
which
begins from the earliest times to be supplanted by
the
nominative. In MGr the forms in -e are practically the
only
separate vocatives surviving. Hellenistic has little
more,
retaining some in -a and –eu?, with the isolated gu<nai,
pa<ter, and qu<gater; but the nom. is beginning
to assert
itself
even here, for path<r1a and quga<thr 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
feature
calling for comment. In the Lucan writings only is
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 the NT, though not entirely in the translation
Greek
of the OT. The progressive omission of w# is not wholly
easy
to explain, for the classical examples (see Gerth's
Kuhner3 § 357. 4) show that the
simple voc. has normally
a
touch of dignity or reserve. A specially
good ex. occurs in
Plato Crito
52A, tau<taij dh<
famen kai> de<, Sw<kratej, tai?j
ai]ti<aij e]ne<cesqai, where "the effect
of omitting w# is to
increase
the impressiveness, since w# Sw<kratej is the regular
mode
of address: in English we obtain the same effect by
exactly
the opposite means" (Adam). NT use has thus
approximated
to our own, and may well have travelled upon
the
same path without any outside interference, such as A.
Buttmann
would find in Latinism.2
Common to nominative and accusative
is the use of ei]j
with
acc. to replace a predicate, in such phraes as ei#nai ei]j
and
e]gei<rein ei]j (Ac 823 1322 ). This cannot fairly be described
1 There seems no adequate
reason to write pa<thr, as WH (App2 165).
2 J. A. Scott, in AJP xxvi. 32-43, has a careful study of
the classical use
of
w#. He shows that w#, "with the
vocative was familiar, and was not freely
used
until the familiar language of comedy, dialectic, and the law courts became
the
language of literature, when the vocative rarely appears without the inter-
jection."
The Attic sermo valgaris in this case
did not determine the usage of
the
Hellenistic vernacular. [a
See p. 245.
72
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
as
a Hebraism, for the vernacular shows a similar extension
of
the old use of ei]j, expressing destination: so for example
Predicates KP
46 (ii/A.D.), e@sxon par ] u[mw?n ei]j da<(neion)
with ei]j. spe<rmata, a recurrent formula.
It is obvious
that "I
received it as a loan" and
"for a
loan"
do not differ except in grammar. The fact that this
ei]j is mainly found in translation falls into line
with other
phenomena
already discussed—the overdoing of a correct
locution
in passages based on a Semitic original, simply
because
it has the advantage of being a literal rendering.
Genitive. We may pass
over the accusative, as
little
remains to be said of it except on
points
of detail. As to the genitive, readers of Winer will
perhaps
hardly need reminding now-a-days that to call the
case
"unquestionably the whence-case"
is an utterly obsolete
procedure.
The Greek genitive is syncretic (cf p. 61); and
the
ablative, the only case which answers to Winer's "case
of
proceeding from or out of," is responsible for a part
of the
uses
of the genitive in which it was merged. Most of the
ordinary
divisions of the case we find still in extensive use.
The
objective gen. is very prominent, and exegesis has often
to
discuss the application of this or the subjective label to a
particular
phrase. It is as well to remember that in Greek
this
question is entirely one of exegesis, not of grammar.
There
is no approximation to the development by which we
have
restricted the inflexional genitive in our language almost
entirely
to the subjective use. The partitive gen. is largely
replaced
by the abl. with a]po< or e]k,a but is still used
freely,
sometimes
in peculiar phrases. In Mt 281 (RV) we have
o]ye< with this gen.,"late on the
sabbath:" cf Tb P 230 (ii/B.C.)
o]yi<teron th?j w!raj, and Par P 35, 37
(ii/B.C.) o]ye> th?j w!raj, and
Philostratus
(ap. Blass2 312) o]ye>
tw?n Trwikw?n,
"at a late
stage
in the Trojan war." This last writer however has also
o]ye> tou<twn, “after these thing,” and Blass now (l.c.) adopts
this
meaning in Mt, giving other quotations. This use of
after
involves an ablative gen., "late
from." There
remains
the vespere sabbati of the Latt. and
the Lewis Syr.,
favoured
by Weiss, Wright, etc. Since o]ye< could be used
practically
as au indeclinable noun (see Mk 1111 al), this seems
a
natural development, but the question is not easy to
a See p 245.
SYNTAX: THE NOUN. 73
decide.1 How freely the
partitive gen. was used in the Koinh<
may
be seen in passages like Ac 2116, where it is subject of
a
sentence.
See WM 253 for classical parallel: add
OGIS 5659
o[ profh<thj h@ tw?n . . .
i[ere<wn . . . oi@sei.
How unnecessary
it
was there for Dittenberger to insert tij, may be seen from
the
standing phrase o[ dei?na tw?n fi<lwn, " X., one of the
Privy
Council"
(as Par P 15 (ii/B.C.), etc.).
Genitive of The
papyri show us abundantly the
Time and Place. genitive of time and place like no<tou
"on
the
south," e@touj b "in the 2nd year." It
comes
most naturally from the simplest of all genitives, that
of
possession, "belonging to"; but the abl. is possible, as we
find
the place idea expressed in Rev 2113 by a]po>
no<tou.
"Time
or place within which"—cf tou? o@ntoj mhno<j "within
the
current month," FP 124 (ii/A.D.)—is the normal differentia
of
this genitive, which has thus perhaps its closest affinity
with
the partitive. For time, this
genitive is common in
NT,
as in phrases like nukto<j, xeimw?noj, o@rqrou
baqe<wj, tou?
loipou?. For place,
we have mostly stereotyped words and
phrases
like poi<aj Lk 519, and ancient words like au]tou?,
pou?. It is
strange that the commentators and grammarians
have
so much neglected the difficult gen. in Ac 1926. Dr
Knowling
merely declines Hackett's suggestion that ]Efe<sou
and
pa<shj th?j
]Asi<aj
depend on o@xlon,
for which however
we
might quote a good parallel in Sophocles OT
236 (see
Jebb).
The gloss e!wj
(D), "within," may possibly express
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 Kuhner-Gerth i. 384 f. On the
whole,
one feels disposed to make o@xlon responsible after all.
The question of Hebraism is raised
again by the genitive
of
definition. Some of the "long
series of phrases" coming
1 See below, p. 101, for
a construction which may be parallel. There is a
rote
in Dalman's Gram. d. jud,.-pal.
(Hor. Hebr. 500) is tentatively approved
as the original of o]ye<.
The phrase
"means
always the time immediately after the
close of the Sabbath." In Mt 281,
accordingly,
"at most a late hour of the night would. be designated: the term
is
impossible for dawn. A reckoning of the Sabbath from sunrise to sunrise
(Weiss
in loc.) is unheard of."
74 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
under
this head "obviously take their origin from Hebrew,"
says
Blass (p. 98). The poetical examples collected in
Genitive of Jebb's note on Sophocles, Antig. 114 (or
Definition. more fully in Kuhner-Gerth, i. 264), include
some which
are quite as remarkable as the
"Hebraisms"
quotable from the NT. Thus kardi<a ponhra>
a]pisti<aj (Heb 312) will pair off well
with to<sonde to<lmhj.
pro<swpon (Soph. OT 533). That many of these phrases
really
are literal translations from the Hebrew need not be
questioned;
and if an existing usage was available for the
purpose,
we can understand its being overstrained. Our
only
concern is with passages where no Semitic original
is
admissible. In these it seems fair to assume that the
poetical
phraseology of the Attic period had come down
into
the market-place, as happened also, for example, in
a]
2
Pet 214, which have plentiful illustration from papyri.1
Genitive The rapid extension of the genitive
Absolute. absolute
is a very obvious feature of Hel-
lenistic
Greek—so obvious, indeed, that we
are
not tempted to dwell on it here. In the papyri it may
often
be seen forming a string of statements, without a finite
verb
for several lines. We also find there a use frequently
seen
in the NT—e.g., in Mt 118 81 918, Mk 131, Lk 1236, Ac
2217, etc.--the gen. abs.
referring to a noun or pronoun already
in
the sentence, without any effort to assimilate the cases.2
Rarely
in NT, but frequently in papyri, we find a participle
standing
by itself in gen. abs. without a noun or pronoun in
agreement:
thus Mt 1714, Ac 2131. A violent use occurs in
Heb
89 (LXX) e]n h[me<r%
e]pilabome<nou mou:
so Blass, but
the
construction was probably suggested immediately by the
original
Hebrew. Westcott compares Barn 228 e]n
h[me<r% e]ntei-
lame<nou sou
au]t&?. The old accus. abs.,
belonging to impersonal
verbs,
has vanished except in the word tuxo<n "perhaps" (1
Co
166): Blass points out how Luke avoids it in Ac 2330, where
classical
Greek would demand mhnuqe<n, c. acc. et inf. The papyri
show
e]co<ntoj passim for the classical e]co<n, it being allowed.
1 See p. 235.
2 Cf exx. from Polybius
in Kalker 281; and below, p. 236.
SYNTAX: THE
NOUN. 75
One example of a noteworthy pure
dative, the dativus
incommode; may be briefly
referred to. In Rev 25.16 e@rxomai,
soi is used rather markedly in place of e@.
pro<j se:
a reason
Dative of for
the peculiar phraseology is offered in
Disadvantage. JTS iii. 516. It
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.
Datives of Side by side with the common locative
time, reference, dative of time (point of time), we have an
accompaniment. instrumental dative of extension of time,
which is not
always easy to distinguish from
it.
Thus in Lk 829 plloi?j xro<noij is
"oftentimes" (loc.)
in
RV text, "of a long time" (instr.) in mg. The latter,
which
is clearly found in xro<n& i[
ai]wni<oij Rom 1625, is supported by the
recurring formula in
private
letters, e]rrw?sqai< se eu@xomai polloi?j xro<noij.1 The
field
of accusative and instrumental is contiguous also in the
"dative
of reference": ge<nei in Mk 726, Ac 436 al, as in BU 887
(ii/A.D.)
ge<nei Frugi<an. Jn 610 affords one of the few
NT exx.
of
the acc. in similar construction. TP 1 (ii/B.C.) probebh-
ko<taj h@dh toi?j e@tesin (class.), compared with
Lk 17.18 236,
shows
how the ubiquitous e]n came in with datives that did
not
need it: here we may presume an Aramaic background.
A
difficult dative in Rev 84, tai?j proseuxai?j (RV text "with
the
prayers," and so Milligan and Holtzmann), is probably
to
be taken as the sociative instrumental: cf BU 6 9 (ii/A.D.)
a{j kai> a]podw<sw soi t&?
e@ngista doqhsome<n& o]ywni<&, "with
(i.e.
at the time of) my next wages." Cf Abbott Joh. Gr. 519.
"Hebraic" Finally, we may speak of
one more dative
Dative. use, that of which a]ko^?
a]kou<sete,
Mt 1314,
will serve
as a type. In giving a list of
these
phrases, Blass (p. 119) remarks that "the usage is an
imitation
of the Hebrew infinite absolute like tUmyA tOm, and
is
consequently found already in the LXX"; also that " the
analogous
classical phrases such as ga<m& gamei?n (in true
1 W. Schulze (Gr. Lat. 14) would make Latin
responsible for the first start
of
this extension. But it must be allowed that the classical phrase t&?
xro<n&,
"by
lapse of time," was capable of giving the impulse. For the antiquity of
this
instrumental, see Delbruck, Grundr. §
109. Cf CR xv. 438, xviii. 153.
76 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
wedlock'),
fug^? feu<gein (‘to flee with all speed’) are only
accidentally
similar to these." I should state this rather differ-
ently.
It may be allowed that this
construction, and that
with
the participle (ble<pontej ble<yete) are examples of
"translation
Greek." But in what sense are they imitations
of
the
Hebrew? It seems to me that such a
description implies
something
much nearer and more literal, such as a]kou<ein
a]kou<sete.1 Is it then mere adeident that we find the
Hebrew
locution
represented by Greek which recalls respectively the
ga<m& gamei?n and fug^?
feu<gein
quoted by Blass, and the well-
known
Aeschylean
oi{ prw?ta me>n
ble<pontej e@blepon ma<thn,
klu<ontej
ou]k h@kouon
(P.V. 447 f),2
or
the feu<gwn e]kfeu<gei of Herodotus? The Greek translator,
endeavouring
to be as literal as he could, nevertheless took care
to
use Greek that was possible, however unidiomatica—a
description
well suiting the kind of language used in every
age
by translators who have gained the conscientious accuracy,
but
not the sure-footed freedom, of the mature scholar.
1 As we actually find in
Jos 1713 e]coleqreu?sai de> au]tou>j ou]k
e]cwle<qreusan:
A
emends o]leqreu<sei. (I owe this to Votaw, p. 56.) 2 The idea of these
words
became proverbial: cf [Demosthenes] 797, w!ste, to> th?j
paroimi<aj, o[rw?ntaj
mh> o[ra?n kai> a]kou<ontaj
mh> a]kou<ein.
Of course the resemblance to Mt l.c.
is more
superficial
than real, for Aeschylus means "though they saw, they saw in vain."
But
there is enough nearness to suggest the NT form as possible Greek. An
exact
parallel is quoted by Winer from Lucian (Dial.
Marin. iv. 3) i]dw>n ei#don:
the
participle has vanished in the Teubner text, whether with or without MS
authority
I cannot stop to examine. It should be
made penal to introduce
emendations
into classical texts without a footnote! [a See p. 245.
ADDITIONAL NOTES.—The predicative
cis occurs in M. Aurelius vi. 42—see
Wilamowitz,
Leseb. ii. 198. Marcus at any rate
will not be suspected of
Semitism!
A similar use of e]n is quotable from Hb P 42 (iii/B.C.) dw<somen
e]n
o]feilh<mati "as a
debt." The freedom with which the
dative was used in the
days
of its obsolescence may be further illustrated with vernacular exx. For
the
dat. ethicus cf e@rrwso<
moi, Tb P
31p, 314 (both ii/A.D). Dat. commodi,
BM
iii.
p. 1 (iii/B.C.) compel him e]kxwrh?sai< moi tw?n e]mw?n
merw?n. The
instrumental
of
time-duration is common. So Polyb. xxxii. 12 polloi?j
xro<noij.
Syll. 734
(ii/A.D.)
polloi?j e@tesi (to>n dei?na)= "long live
X!" Str P 22 ( iii/A.D. ) h[ gunh> e]n
t^? nom^? ge<gonen poll&?
xro<n& OGIS
710 (ii/A.D.)
xro<n& [diafqare>]n
a]nw<rqwsen
(classical).
Note the remarkable instr. in Ep. Diogn. 7, w$ tou>j
ou]ranoiu>j e@ktisen:
see
Gildersleeve in loc. Instr. also is
PFi 2 (iii/A.D.), we appoint X. in charge of
the
gaol kindu<n& h[mw?n ktl. Locative uses are presumable in BM iii.
p. 105 (i/A. D. )
e]a>n a]fuster^? kau<masi "is deficient in fuel." OP 742 (2 B. C., With.
94) i!na t^?
a]naba<sei au]ta>j a@cwmen (1st aor.), "our
return." In the same papyrus is a
curious
instrumental: para<doj
. . . a]riqmw?i au]ta<j, "carefully counted" (Wilcken).
CHAPTER V.
ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS.
Adjectives
:— THERE is not much to be said under the
"Duality,” head of Adjectives, except on the important
“Duality”
question raised by the phenomena
of
comparison. The question touches the use of dual
pronouns
of the e!teroj class, as well as the relation between
comparative
and superlative. The abolition of a
dis-
tinction
between duality and plurality is almost inevitable
sooner
or later in language history. English affords us
instructive
parallels. The simplicity and convenience of our
suffixes
-er and -est have helped to preserve in common speech
the
old degrees of comparison. But how often does the man
in
the street say "the better of the two"? One would not
like
to say offhand how far in this matter modern litera-
ture
is impeccable on Lindley Murray rules; but in conver-
sation
the 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
best
of the two" is the English of the future is a fairly safe
assertion.
Whether, adjectivally, is as archaic
as po<teroj:1
when
we translate ti<na a]po> tw?n du<o (Mt 2721) by
the
archaism
"whether of the twain," we are only advertising
the
fact that the original was normal speech and our trans-
lation
artificial. We have not yet arrived at "either of the
three,"
but people say "either A. or B. or C." without a
qualm.
Of course the first step was taken ages ago in the
extinction
of the dual, the survival of which in Germanic
1 In twelve papyrus
collections there is one occurrence of po<teroj in the
indices,
and that is nearly illegible and (to me, at least) quite unintelligible
(AP
135, ii/A.D.). It is replaced by ti<j already in the LXX.
77
78 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
is
evidenced, centuries after the NT, by Wulfila's Gothic:
Other
modern languages tell the same tale. In the NT the
obsolescence
of the superlative, except in the elative
sense, is
in Comparison, most marked. It is mere chance that only
one example of
the –tatoj superlative
has
survived,1 for there are scores of
them in the papyri. Of the
genuine
superlative sense, however, the examples there are
very
rare; practically we may say that in the vernacular
documents
the superlative forms are used to express the
sense
of our "very." The confusion of comparative and
superlative
is well seen in some illiterate papyri, where
phrases
like to> me<giston kai> gnhsiw<teron occur. One or
two
typical examples of irregular comparatives may be cited
—the
references will be found, with other examples, in
CR xv. 439 and xviii. 154.
Specially instructive is the
papyrus
of the astronomer Eudoxus, written in ii/B.C. There
we
have kaq ] o{n o[ h!lioj fero<menoj th>n me>n
h[me<ran braxu-
te<ran poiei?
th>n de> nu<kta makrote<ran. The context demands
a
superlative, and Blass no doubt rightly assumes that the
author
(iv/B.C.) wrote braxuta<thn and makrota<thn. In that
case
the scribe's alteration is very significant. He has in the
same
way altered megi<st^ to meizo<nei in another place, and
he
writes e]n e[kate<rwi tw?n zwidi<wn for "in each of the
(twelve)
signs." In Tb P 33 (ii/B.C.) we
have e]n mei<zoni
a]ciw<mati, an elative.2 It is in fact clear that me<gistoj is
practically
obsolete in Hellenistic: its appearance in 2 Pet
is
as significant as its absence from the rest of the NT.
The
Revisers' scrupulous margin in 1 Co 1313 and Mt 181
may
be safely dispensed with, on the new evidence. Krei<ttwn
and
xei<rwn are always strictly comparative in NT, but they
have
no superlatives:2 kra<tistoj only a title. Krei<ttwn
(in
adv.) occurs once, in 2 Tim 118, but does not appear in
any
of
Grenfell and Hunt's papyri, except in an official Ptolemaic
document:3 be<ltistoj
(not it NT)
has a somewhat better
claim
(ter in ii/B.C.). ]Amei<nwn and a@ristoj (not NT) appear
occasionally.
Note especially OP 716 (ii/A.D.) th>n
a]mei<nona
1 Ac 26b, in
true superlative sense; this speech is much affected by literary
style.
2 See p. 236 below. 3 Tb
P 2780 (113 B.C.).
ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITION'S. 79
ai!resin dido<nti, "to the highest
bidder." Yet a@ristoj is found
in
OP 292 (i/A.D.), a vernacular document, bit the sole witness
among
the papyri named. ]Ela<sswn is common, but e]la<xistoj
(a
true superl. in 1 Co 159, as in Tb P 24 (ii/B.C.)--an official
document,
but in very bad Greek) has not wholly disappeared.
Plei<wn and plei?stoj are common, but the
latter is generally
elative
in the papyri note however Tb P 105
(ii/B.C.) th>n
e]some<nhn plei<sthn timh<n, and other exx. wlich
may support
I
Co 1427. Mt 1120 may show the
elative—"those very
numerous
mighty works"; but the other rendering is as good.
In
Jn 115 prw?toj mou, and 1518
prw?ton u[mw?n, we have the
superlative
ousting the comparative. Winer quotes Aelian
(WM
306), and we can add sou? prw?to<j ei]mi, from LPw
(ii/iii
A.D.—magic).a There seems no longer adequate reason
to
question that pro<teroj 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 Grenfell-
Hunt
volumes it only occurs 9 times, in 7 documents.
The
mere use of prw?toj in Ac 11, it must be allowed,
proves
very
little as to the author's intention to write a third
treatise.
Ramsay himself (Paul, p. 28) admits
that the
absence
of pro<teroj from the Lucan writings precludes
certainty
for the hypothesis. See further p. 236. [a See p. 245.
and
in The case is not quite so strong for the
Pronouns. pronouns. There are plenty of
places where
e!teroj,
e[ka<teroj, o[po<teroj, etc., are used of more
than
two, and a@lloj of two only; but also places where the
pronouns
are used carefully according to classical precedent.
It
seems a fair assumption that these words held much the
same
relative position as was described just slow for our own
comparative
and superlative in phrases like "the better (best)
of
two." Educated men would know the
distinction and
observe
it, unless off their guard. In these cases we must let
the
context decide, paying due attention to the degree of
grammatical
precision usually attained by each several author.
It
is remarkable that in this respect we find Luke by no
means
particular. In Lk 86-8 he actually substitutes e!teroj
for
the correct a@lloj which appears in his presumed source,
Mk
45-8 (cf Mt 135-8); and in Lk 629 he does not alter th>n
a@llhn (siago<na!) which appears also in
Mt 539, but is corrected
80 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
in
Clem. Horn. 158. This will clearly need remembering
when
we examine other "dual” words in Luke.1 See pp. 245f.
]Amfo<teroi
= all? A difficulty under this head is raised by
Ac
1916. The
probability that a]mfo<teroi,
was
used for pa<ntej in B 336 (ii/A.D.), and two clear
examples
of it in NP 67 and 60 (iv/A.D.),2 with the undeniable
Byzantine
use, form a strong temptation where the relief would
be
so great.3 I cannot
but think that Ramsay is quite right
in
saying (Paul, p. 272), "The
seven sons in v.14 change in an
unintelligible
way to two in v.1-6 (except in the Bezan text)."
Luke
must have been a very slovenly writer if he really
meant
this, and the Bezan reading of v.14 does not help us to
understand
how the more difficult "neutral text" arose if it
really
was secondary. On the other hand, Luke is one of
the
last NT writers whom we should expect to fall into a
colloquialism
of which early examples are so rare: that he
shares
the loose use of e!teroj, etc., current in his time, does
nothing
to mitigate this improbability. If we
are to defend
these
verses from Ramsay's criticisms—and in a purely
grammatical
discussion we cannot deal with them except on
this
side--must we not assume that the original text of v.14
is
lost?a If this contained a
fuller statement, the abruptness
of
to> pneu?ma to> ponhro<n in v.14, and of our a]mfote<rwn,
might
be removed without compromising the characteristic
e[pta<: we might also have a clearer term to
describe Sceva's
office.
The alternative is to suppose the verses an interpo-
lation
from a less educated source, which has been imperfectly
adapted
to Luke's style.4
We pass on to the Article, on which
there is not very
much
to say, since in all essentials its use is in agreement
1 Note in the Messenian Syll. 65391 (91 B.C.) to>n
me>n e!na . . . to>n d ] a@llon,
of
two. The aberrant e!teron . . . a@llon Lk 719f. B is most simply explained
by
supposing that the scribe has found place for two variants. If we press
the
reading, the messengers are represented as softening the message, no longer
"another
kind of Messiah," but "another of the same kind": cf Gal 16f.
The
meaning "different" naturally developed out of "the other class
(of two),"
and
it survived when the normal use of e!teroj had faded out. See also
p. 246.
2 BU 1057 (13 B. C.)
must, I think, be otherwise explained.
3 See notes in Expos. VI. viii. 426 and CR xv. 440.
4 The Sahidic and some
later versions took a]mfote<rwn as "all."
Were this
better
supported, we should find another ex. in Ac 238. Dr Nestle thinks me
unduly
timid as to adopting this interpretation. [a See p. 246.
ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS, 81
with
Attic. It might indeed be asserted that the NT is in
this
respect remarkably "correct" when compared with the
papyri.
It shows no trace of the use of the
The Article:— article as a relative, which is found in classical
"Correctness" Greek outside Attic, in papyri from the
first,1
of NT Greek. and
to some extent in MGr. The papyri
likewise
exhibit some examples of the article as demonstra-
tive,
apart from connexion with me<n or de<,1 whereas the NT
has
no ex. beyond the poetical quotation in Ac 1728. Further,
we
have nothing answering to the vernacular idiom by which
the
article may be omitted between preposition and infini-
tive.
In family or business accounts among the
papyri we
find
with significant frequency an item of so much ei]j pei?n,
with
the dative of the persons for whom this thoughtful
provision
is made. There are three passages in Herodotus
where
a]nti< behaves thus: see vi. 32 a]nti>
ei#nai,
with
Strachan's
note, and
p.
216). In these three points we may possibly recognise
Ionic
influence showing itself in a limited part of the
vernacular;
it is at least noteworthy that Herodotus will
supply
parallels for them all. The Ionic elements in the
Koinh< were briefly alluded to above (pp. 37
f.), where other
evidence
was noted for the sporadic character of these
infusions,
and their tendency to enlarge their borders in the
later
development of the Common Greek.
Hebraisms
We are not much troubled with Hebra-
ism under
the article.2 Blass
(p. 151)
regards
as "thoroughly Hebraic" such phrases as pro>
prosw<pou Kuri<ou, e]n
o]fqalmoi?j h[mw?n, e]n h[me<r% o]rgh?j; but
kat ] oi#koin au]tw?n "is a regular
phrase and perhaps not
a
Hebraism." Where Semitic originals
lie behind out
Greek,
the dictum is unobjectionable; but the mere admis-
sion
that kat ] oi#kon au]tw?n is Greek shows how slightly
these
phrases diverge from the spirit of the translator's
language.
Phrases like tou>j e]n oi@k&, dia>
xeiro>j e]c oi@kou,
etc.,
are recurrent in the papyri, and the extension, such as
it
is, lies in the addition of a dependent genitive.3 The
principle
of "correlation" (on which see the note in WM,
1 See Volker 5 f.; also CR, xviii. 155. 2 See p. 236. 3
See pp. 99 f.
82 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
p.
175) here supports the strong tendency to drop the
article
after a preposition. This is seen working in the
papyri:
of Volker, Der Artikel pp. 1 5-1 7. Without laying
Anarthrous down
a law that the noun is naturally
Prepositional anarthrous when attached to a preposition,
Phrases we
may certainly say that the usage is so pre-
dominant that
no refinements of interpreta-
tion
are justifiable. Obviously e]n oi@k& (Mk 21) is not "in a
house,"
nor e]n a]gor% (Lk 732) "in a market-place," nor
e]n a]gui%?, in the current papyrus
formula, "in a street." We
say
"down town," "on 'Change," "in bed," "from
start to
finish."1 If we substitute "in my bed,"
"from the beginning
to
the end," we are, it seems, more pictorial; we point, as it
were,
to the objects in question. There is nothing indefinite
about
the anarthrous noun there; but for some reason the
qualitative
aspect of a noun, rather than the deictic, is
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.
It
would seem that English here is on the same lines as Greek,
which,
however, makes the anarthrous use with prepositions
much
more predominant than it is with us. Pursuing further
Anarthrous the classes of words in which we insert the
"Headings. in translation, we have the anarthrous use
"in
sentences having the nature of headings"
(Hort,
1 Peter, p. 15b). Hort assigns to
this cause the
dropped
articles before qeou?, pneu<matoj and ai!matoj in
1
Pet 12; Winer cites the opening words of Mt, Mk, and
Rev.
The lists of words which specially affect the dropped
Qualitative article will, of course, need careful examina-
Force in tion for the individual cases. Thus, when
Anarthrous
Winer includes path<r in his list, and quotes
Nouns. Jn
114 and Heb 127, we must feel that
in
both passages the qualitative force is very apparent-
1 According to Ramsay (Paul, p. 195), para>
potamo<n,
Ac 1613, shows famili-
arity
with the locality. To accept this involves giving up e]nomi<zomen
proseuxh<n
ei#nai, a step not to be lightly taken. (See
further, p. 236.)
ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS. 83
“what
son is there whom his father, as a father,
does not
chasten?"
(On the former passage see RV margin, and
the
note in WM 151.) For exegesis, there are few of the
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 object. Even the
RV
misses this badly sometimes, as in Jn 668.1
Proper Names Scholarship has not
yet solved completely
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
style.
The usage of different writers varies greatly; and the
familiar
law that the article is used of a person already
named
(anaphoric use), or well known already, is not uni-
formly
observed. Deissmann has attempted to define the
papyrus
usage in the
p.
1467. He shows how the writers still follow the classical
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 name is appended in the genitive, it normally has
the
article. There are very many cases where irregularities
occur
for which we have no explanation. See also Volker
p.
9, who notes the curious fact that the names of slaves and
animals
receive the article when mentioned the first time,
where
personalities that counted are named without the article.
The
innumerable papyrus parallels to Sau?loj o[ kai>
(Ac
139) may just be alluded to before we pass from
this
subject:
see Deissmann BS 313 ff., and Ramsay,
CR xix. 429.
Position of The position
of the article is naturally
Article. much affected by the colloquial character of
NT language.
In written style the ambi-
guous
position of ei]j to>n qa<naton, Rom 64, would have been
cleared
up by prefixing tou?, if the meaning was (as seems
1 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
84
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
probable)
"by this baptism in o his death." In most cases,
there
is no doubt as to whether the prepositional phrase
belongs
to the neighbouring noun. A very curious misplace-
ment
of the article occurs in the o[ o@xloj polu<j1 of Jn 129.
As
Sir R. C. Jebb notes on Sophocles, OT
1199 f., the noun
and
adjective may be fused into a composite idea; but Jebb's
exx.
(like 1 Pet 118 and the cases cited in W. F. Moulton's
note,
WM 166) illustrate only the addition of a second
adjective
after the group article-adjective-noun (cf OP 99
--i/A.D.—th?j
u[parxou<shj au]t&? mhtrikh?j oi]ki<aj triste<gou).2
We
cannot discuss here the problem of Tit 213, for we must,
as
grammarians, leave the matter open: see WM 162, 156 n.
But
we might cite, for what they are worth, the papyri
BU
366, 367, 368, 371, 395 (all vii/A.D.), which attest the
translation
"our great God and Saviour" as current among
Greek-speaking
Christians. The formula runs e]n o]no<mati tou?
kuri<ou kai>
despo<tou ]Ihsou? Xristou? tou? qeou ? kai> swth?roj
h[mw?n, kai>
th?j despoi<nhj h[mw?n th?j a[gi<aj qeoto<kou, ktl. A
curious
echo is found in the Ptolemaic formula applied to the
deified
kings: thus GH 15 (ii/B.C.), tou? mega<lou qeou? eu]er-
ge<tou kai>
swth?roj [e]pifanou?j] eu]xari<stou. The phrase here
is,
of course, applied to one person. One is
not surprised to
find
that P. Wendland, at the end of his suggestive paper
on
Swth<r in ZNTW v. 335
ff., treats the rival rendering
in
Tit l.c. summarily as " an
exegetical mistake," like the
severance
of tou? qeou? h[mw?n, and swth?roj 'I. X. in 2 Pet 11.
Familiarity
with the everlasting apotheosis that flaunts itself
in
the papyri and inscriptions of Ptolemaic and Imperial times,
lends
strong support to Wendland's contention that Christians,
from
the latter part of i/A.D. onward, deliberately annexed for
their
Divine Master the phraseology that was impiously
arrogated
to themselves by some of the worst of men.
Personal From the Article we turn to the Per-
Pronouns
:— sonal Pronouns. A very short
excursion
"Semitic here
brings us up against another evidence
Redundance."
of "the dependence of [NT]
language on
1 If it is merely
careless Greek, one may compare Par P 602 (ii/B.C.?) a]po>
tw?n
plhrwma<twn a]rxai<wn. (On the whole subject,
see further p. 236.)
2 See note in CR xviii. 154a.
ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS.
85
Semitic
speech," in the "extraordinary frequency of the
oblique
cases of the personal pronouns used without emphasis"
(Blass
164). Dependence on Semitic would surely need
to
be very strongly evidenced in other ways before we
could
readily accept such an account of elements affecting
the
whole fabric of everyday speech. Now a redundance
of
personal pronouns is just what we should expect in
the
colloquial style, to judge from what we hear in our own
vernacular.
(Cf Thumb, Hellen. 108 f.). A reader
of the peti-
tions
and private letters in a collection of papyri would not
notice
any particular difference in this respect from the Greek
of
the NT. For example, in Par P 51 GI, (ii/B.C.) we see an
eminently
redundant pronoun in a]nu<gw (=a]noi<gw) tou>j
o]fqalmou<j mou. A specially good case is OP 2 99 (i/A.D.)
La<mpwni
muoqhreut^? e@dwka au]t&? . . . draxma>j h: the
syntax
is exactly that of Rev 27, etc. Kalkei
(Quaest. 274)
quotes dio> kai> pa<lin e]perrw<sqhsan dia> tau?ta from Polybius,
with
other redundances of the kind. Such line
as this
from
a Klepht ballad (Abbott 42),
kai> stri<bei
to> mousta<ki tou, klw<qei kai> ta> malli<a tou
("and
he twirls his moustache and dresses his hair") illus-
trates
the survival of the old vernacular usage in MGr. In
words
like kefalh<, where the context generally makes the
ownership
obvious, NT Greek often follows classical Greek and
is
content with the article. But such a passage as Mt 617,
a@leiyai< sou th>n kefalh<n, where the middle voice
alone
would
suffice (cf p. 236), shows that the language already
is
learning to prefer the fuller form. The strength of this
tendency
enhances the probability that in Jn 838 tou?
patro<j
is
"the
Father" and not "your father": see Milligan-Moulton.
Emphasis in It is perhaps
rather too readily taken for
Nominative. granted that the personal pronouns must
always be
emphatic when they appear in
the
nominative case. H. L. Ebeling (Gildersleeve
Studies,
p.
240) points out that there is no necessary emphasis in
the
Platonic h#n d ] e]gw<, e@fhn e]gw<, w[j su> f^<j, etc.; and
Gildersleeve
himself observes (Synt. § 6 9): "The emphasis of
the
1st and 2nd persons is not to be insisted on too much
in
poetry or in familiar prose. Notice the
frequency of
e]g&#da, e]g&#mai." Are we obliged then to see a special
86
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
stress
in the pronoun whenever it denotes the Master, like
the
Pythagorean au]to>j e@fa? We may perhaps better
describe
it as fairly represented to the eye by the capital in
"He,"
to the ear by the slower pronunciation which reverence
likes
to give when the pronoun refers to Christ. Generally
the
pronoun is unmistakable emphatic in nom., from Mt 121
onwards;
but occasionally the force of the emphasis is not
obvious--cf
Lk 192. The
question suggests itself whether
we
are compelled to explain the difficult su> ei#paj and the
like
(Mt 2664 2711, Mk 152, Lk 2270 233, Jn 1837) by putting
a
stress on the pronoun. Can we drop this
and translate,
"You
have said it," i.e. "That is right"? It is pointed out
however
by Thayer (JBL xiii. 40-49) that the plh<n in
Mt
2664 is not satisfied by making the phrase a mere
equivalent
of "Yes"—to mention only one of the passages
where
difficulties arise. We seem thrown back on Thayer's
rendering
"You say it," "the
word is here yours.
[Hmei?j for ]Egw<? There remains here the difficult question
of the use
of h[mei?j for e]gw<. The gram-
marian's
part in this problem is happily a small one, and
need
detain us only briefly. K. Dick, in his elaborate study
of
the question,1 gives a few apposite examples from late
Greek
literature and from papyrus letters, which prove
beyond
all possible doubt that I and we chased each other
throughout
these documents without rhyme or reason. We
may
supplement his exx. with a few more references taken at
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.) o@nti moi e]n
Ptolemai<dei .
. . prose<pesen h[mi ?n, JHS xix. 92 (ii/A.D.) xai?re<
moi, mh?ter glukuta<th, kai>
fronti<zete h[mw?n o!sa e]n nekroi?j, and
BU
449 (ii/iii A.D.) a]kou<saj o!ti nwqreu<^
a]gwniou?men.
For
the
grammar of the last ex. cf Par P 43 (ii/B.C.,= Witk.
p. 54 f.) e@rrwmai de> kau]toi<, EP 13 (222 B.C.) ti< a}n poiou?ntej
xarizoi<mhn, al. Dick succeeds in showing—so Deissmann
thinks—that
every theory suggested for regularising Paul's
use
of these pronouns breaks down entirely. It would seem
that
the question must be passed on from the grammarian to
1 Der schriftstellerische Plural bei Paulus (1900), pp. 18 if. See also
Deissmann's
summary of this book, Theol. Rundschau v. 65.
ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS. 87
the
exegete; for our grammatical material gives us not the
slightest
evidence of any distinction between the two
numbers
in ordinary writing. It is futile to argue from
Latin
to Greek, or we might expect help from Prof. Conway's
careful
study of nos in
superiority,
in various forms, which the nos
carries, has no
parallel
in Greek.
Reflexive The
reflexive pronouns have developed
Pronoun. some
unclassical uses, notably that in the
plural they
are all fused in to the forms
originally
appropriated to the third person. The presence
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 examples of it, mostly in very illiterate docu-
ments,2 while for the plural
the use is general, beginning to
appear
even in classical times.3 This answers to what we
find
in the NT, where some seventy cases of the plural occur
without
a single genuine example of the singular;4 late
scribes,
reflecting the developments of their own time, have
introduced
it into Jn 1834 and Rom 139 (Gal 514). As in the
papyri,
e[autou<j sometimes stands for a]llh<louj,a and some-
times
is itself replaced by the personal pronoun. In
translations
from Semitic originals we may find, instead of
e[auto<n, a periphrasis with yuxh<;5 thus Lk 925, compared
with
its presumed original Mk 836. But this principle will
have
to be most carefully restricted to definitely translated
passages;
and even there it would be truer to say that e[auto<n
has
been levelled up to th>n yuxh>n au]tou?, than that yuxh<
has
been emptied of meaning.6
"Exhausted" In one class of phrases
e[autou? is used
e[autou? and without emphasis, in a way that
brings up the
i@dioj. discussion
of its fellow i@dioj.b In sepulchral
inscriptions
we find a son describing his
1 Transactions of
2 See CR xv. 441, xviii. 154, Mayser 304. It
is rather perplexing to find it
in
literature: e.g. Lucian, Dial. Marin. iv. 3; Polybius 10; Marcus vii.
13;
Aristeas 215.
3 Polybius always uses au]tw?n (Kalker, Quaestiones, p.
4 In 1 Co 1029
e[autou?="one's."
5 See J. A. Robinson, Study of the Gospels, p. 114.
6 On the shorter forms au]tou?, etc. see Mayser 305
ff. [a b See p, 240.
88 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
father
as o[ path<r, o[
i@dioj path<r,
or o[ e[autou? path<r, and the
difference
between the three is not very easily discernible.
In
a number of these inscriptions contained in vol. iii. of the
IMA.
I count 21 exx. with i@dioj, 10 with e[autou?, and 16
with
neither. The papyrus formula used in all legal
documents
where a woman is the principal, viz. meta> kuri<ou
tou? e[auth?j a]ndro<j (a]delfou?, etc.), gives a
parallel for this
rather
faded use of the reflexive. It starts the more
serious
question whether i@dioj is to be supposed similarly
weakened
in Hellenistic. This is often affirmed, and is
vouched
for by no less an authority than Deissmann (BS
123
f.). He calls special attention to such passages in the
LXX
as Job 2412 (oi@kwn i]di<wn), Prov 2715
(tou? i]di<ou oi@kou),
912 (tou? e[autou? a]mpelw?noj. . . tou? i]di<ou gewrgi<ou), 227
(i]di<oij
despo<taij),
in which the pronoun has nothing what-
ever
answering to it in the original. He reminds us that
the
"exhausted i@dioj" occurs in writers of the literary
Koinh<, and that in Josephus even oi]kei?oj comes to share this
weakening:
a few Attic inscriptions from i/B.C.
(Meisterhans3
235)
show i@dioj
with the like attenuated content. Our
inference
must be that in Ac 2424 Luke is not ironically
suggesting
the poverty of Felix's title, and that in Mt 225
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 doctrine of the exhausted i@dioj is
in
some danger of being worked too hard. In CR
xv.
440
f. are put down all the occurrences of i@dioj in BU vols.
i.
and ii., which contain nearly 700 documents of various
antiquity.
It is certainly remarkable that in all
these
passages
there is not one which goes to swell Deissmann's
list.
Not even in the Byzantine papyri have we a single
case
where i@dioj
is not exactly represented by the English
own. In a papyrus as early as the Ptolemaic period
we
find
the possessive pronoun added—o@nta h[mw?n i@dion, which
is
just like "our own." (Cf Pet 316, Tit 112, Ac 28.)
This
use became normal in the Byzantine age, in which i@dioj
still
had force enough to make such phrases as i]di<an kai>
nomi<mhn gunai?ka. Now, in the ace of the literary examples,
we
cannot venture to deny in toto the
weakening of i@dioj,
still
less the practical equivalence of i@dioj and e[autou?, which
ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS.
89
is
evident from the sepulchral inscriptions above cited, as
well
as from such passages as Prov 912 and 1 Co 72. But
the
strong signs of life in the word throughout the papyri
have
to be allowed for.
In correlating these perplexing
phenomena, we may
bring
in the following considerations:—(1) the fact that
Josephus
similarly weakens oi]kei?oj seems to show that the
question
turns on thought rather 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
meaning.1
People who say "It's an awful nuisance," will
without
any sense of incongruity say "How awfull" when
they
read of some great catastrophe in the newspaper. No
doubt
the habitual light use of such words does tend in
time
to attenuate their content, but even this rule is not
universal.
"To annoy" is in Hellenistic sku<llein,2 and in
modern
French gener. There was a time when
the Greek
in
thus speaking compared his trouble to the pains of flaying
alive,
when the Frenchman recalled the thought of Gehenna;
but
the original full sense was unknown to the unlearned
speaker
of a later day. Sometimes, however, the full sense
lives
on, and even succeeds in ousting the lighter sense, as
in
our word vast, the adverb of which is
now; rarely heard
as
a mere synonym of very. (3) The use
of the English
own
will help us somewhat. "Let each man be fully
assured
in his own mind " (Rom 145) has the double
advantage
of being the English of our daily speech and
of
representing literally the original e]n t&?
i]di<& noi~.
What
function
has the adjective there? It is not, abnormally, an
emphatic
assertion of property: I am in no danger of being
assured
in someone else's mind. It is simply method of
laying
stress on the personal pronoun: e]n
t&? noi~
and "in
his
mind" alike transfer the stress to the noun.a This fact
at
once shows the equivalence of i@dioj and e[autou? in certain
locutions.
Now, when we look at the examples of "exhausted
i@dioj," we find that they very largely
are attached to words
that
imply some sort of belonging. Husband and wife
account
for seven examples in the NT, and other relation-
1 Cf p. 237 below.
2 See Expos. VI.
iii. 273 f. a See p. 246.
90 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
ships,
including that of master and slave, for a good many
more.
A large number come under the category of the
mind,
thoughts and passions, and parts of the body. House,
estate,
riding-animal, country or language, and similar very
intimate
possessions receive the epithet. If occasionally
this
sense of property is expressed where we should not
express
it, this need not compromise the assertion that
i@dioj itself was always as strong as our
English word own.
There
are a host of places n the NT, as in the papyri,
where
its emphasis is undeniable; e.g. Mt 91, Lk 641, Jn 141
(note
its position) 518 etc., Ac 125, 1 Co 38, Gal 65,
Heb 727,
and
many others equally decisive. One feels therefore quite
justified
in adopting the argument of Westcott, Milligan-
Moulton,
etc., that the emphatic position of to>n i@dion in Jn 141
was
meant as a hint that the unnamed companion of Andrew,
presumably
John, fetched his brother. What to do in such
cases
as Ac 2424 and Mt 225, is not easy to say. The Revisers
insert
own in the latter place; and it is
fair to argue that
the
word suggests the strength of the counter-attraction,
which
is more fully expressed in the companion parable,
Lk
1418. The case of Drusilla is less easy. It is hardly
enough
to plead that i@dioj is customarily attached to the
relationship;
for (with the Revisers) we instinctively feel
that
own is appropriate in 1 Pet 31 and similar passages,
but
inappropriate here. It is the only NT passage where
there
is any real difficulty; and since B stands almost alone
in
reading i]di<%, the temptation for once to prefer x is very
strong.
The error may have arisen simply from the common-
ness
of the combination h[ i]di<a gunh<, which was here trans-
ferred
to a context in which it was not at home.
[O i@dioj. Before
leaving i@dioj
something should
be said about the use of
o[ i@dioj without a
noun
expressed. This occur in Jn 111 131, Ac 423 2423
In
the papyri we find the singular used
thus as a term
of
endearment to near relations: e.g. o[ dei?na t&?
i]di<&
xai<rein. In Expos.
vi. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a
possible
encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who
would
translate Ac 2028 "the
blood of one who was his
own."
Mt 2724, according to the text of xL and the later
authorities,
will supply a parallel for the grammatical
ADJECTIVES,
PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS. 91
ambiguity:
there as here we have to decide whether the
second
genitive is an adjective qualifying the first or a noun
dependent
on it. The MGr use of o[ i@dioj, as substitute for
the
old o[ au]to<j, has nothing foreshadowing it in the NT;
but
in the papyrus of Eudoxus (ii/B.C.) we (find a passage
where
th?i i]di<ai,at is followed by th?i
au]th?i in
the same sense,
so
that it seems inevitable to trace, with Blass, an anti-
cipation
of MGr here. Perhaps the use was locally
restricted.
Au]to>j o[ and
There is an apparent weakening of
o[ au]to>j. au]to>j
o[ in
Hellenistic, which tends to blunt
the
distinction between this and e]kei?noj o[.
Dean
Robinson (Gospels, p. 106) translates
Lk 1021 "in that
hour"
(Mt 1125 e]n e]kei<n& t&? kair&?), and so Lk 1212
(Mk 1311
e]kei<n^), and 107. It is difficult to be satisfied with
"John
himself
" in Mt 34; and in Luke particularly we feel that
the
pronoun means little more than "that." Outside Luke,
and
the one passage of Mt, au]to>j o[ has manifestly its full
classical
force. From the papyri we may quote OP 745
(i/A.D.)
au]to>n to>n ]Anta?n," the said A.": note also GH 26
(ii/B.C.)
o[ aut]o>j $Wroj, "the same
Horus," i.e. "the aforesaid,"
and
so in BU 1052 (i/B.C.). We find the
former use in
MGr,
e.g. au]to> to> kri<ma, "this sin" (Abbott 184), etc.
We
have
already seen (p. 86) that the emphatic au]to>j standing
alone
can replace classical e]kei?noj (See now Wellh. 26 f.)
Relatives :— Turning
to the Relatives we note the
Use of o!stij. limiting of o!stij, a conspicuous trait of
the
vernacular,
where the nominative (with the
neuter
accusative) covers very nearly all the occurrences of
the
pronoun. The phrase e!wj o!tou is the only exception
in
NT
Greek. The obsolescence of the distinction between o!j
and
o!stij
is asserted by Blass for Luke, but not for Paul.
A
type like Lk 24 ei]j po<lin Dauei>d h!tij
kalei?tai Bhqlee<m,
may
be exactly paralleled from Herodotus (see Blass 173)
and
from papyri: so in an invitation formula au@rion h!tij
e]sti>n ie, "to-morrow, which
is the 15th"—cf Mt 2762. Hort,
on
1 Pet 211 (Comm. p. 133), allows that "there are some
places
in the NT in which o!stij cannot be distinguished from
o!j." "In most places, however, of the
NT," he proceeds," o!stij
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
nature.'" A large number of the exceptions, especially
in
Lucan
writings, seem to be by no means cases of equivalence
between
o!j
and o!stij,
whether agreeing or disagreeing with
classical
use. Some of them would have been
expressed
with
o!sper
in Attic: thus in Ac 1128 we seem to expect
h!per e]ge<neto. Others throw subtle
stress on the relative,
which
can be brought out by various paraphrases, as in Lk 120,
"which
for all that." Or o!stij represents what in English
would
be expressed by a demonstrative and a conjunction, as
in
Lk 1042, "and it shall not be taken away." In Mt we
find
o!stij
used four times a the beginning of a parable,
where,
though the principal figure is formally described as
an
individual, he is really a type, and o!stij is therefore
appropriate.
We may refer to Blass 173, for examples
of
o!j used
for o!stij,
with indefinite reference. The large
number
of places in which o!stij is obviously right, according
to
classical use, may fairly stand as proof that the distinction
is
not yet dead. We must not stay to trace
the distinction
further
here, but may venture on the assertion that the
two
relatives are never absolutely convertible, however
blurred
may be the outlines of the classical distinction in
Luke,
and possibly in sporadic passages outside his writings.
Milker
(Quest. 245 f.) asserts that Polybius
uses o!stij
for o!j
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 or less unclassical examples in the
Lucan
books fourteen do happen to achieve this result. We
chronicle
this fact as in duty bound, but without suggesting
any
inclination to regard it as a key to our problem. If
Kalker
is right for Polybius—and there certainly seems
weight
in his remark that this substitution occurs just where
the
forms of o!j
end in a vowel--we may have to admit that
the
distinction during the Koinh< period had worn rather
thin.
It would be like the distinction between our relatives
who
and that, which in a considerable proportion of sentences
are
sufficiently convertible to be selected mostly according
to
our sense of rhythm or euphony: this, however, does not
imply
that the distinction is even blurred, much less lost.
The attraction of the Relative—which, of course, does
ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS. 93
not
involve o!stij—is
a construction at least as popular in late
Attraction. as in classical Greek. It appears abundantly
in their
papyri, even in the most illiterate
of
them; and in legal documents we have the principle
stretched
further in formula, such as a]rourw?n de<ka du<o
h} o!swn e]a>n w#sin ou]sw?n. There are to be noted
some
exceptions
to the general rule of attraction, on which see
Blass
173. In several cases of alleged breach of rule we may
more
probably (with Blass) recognise the implied presence
of
the "internal accusative": so in 2 Co 14, Eph 16
41, where
Dr
Plummer (CGT, 2 Co i.e.) would make
the dative the
original
case for the relative.
Relatives and Confusion of
relative and indirect inter-
Interrogatives roative is not uncommon. " !Osoj, oi#oj,
confused. o[poi?oj, h[li<koj occur in the NT as
indirect
interrogatives, and also—with the exception
of
h[li<loj—as relatives," W. F. Moulton observes (WM 210 n.);
and
in the papyri even o!j can be used in an indirect question.
Good
examples are found in PP ii. 37 (ii/B.C.) kalw?j ou#n
poih<seij
fronti<saj di ] w$n dei? tau?ta e]rgasqh?nai,
and RL 29
(iii/B.C.) fra<zontej [to< te] au]tw?n o@noma kai> e]n h$i kw<mhi
oi]kou?sin kai>
p[o<sou
timw?n] tai. So already in Sophocles, Antig.
542,
OT 1068 (see Jebb's notes) ; and in
Plato, Euth. 14E
a{ me>n ga>r dido<asin,
panti> dh?lon.
It is superfluous to say
that
this usage cannot possibly be extended to diect question,
so
as to justify the AV in Mt 2650. The more illiterate
papyri
and inscriptions show ti<j for relative o!stij or o!j not
seldom, as eu$ron georgo>n ti<j au]ta> e[lku<s^--ti<noj e]a>n
xri<an
e@x^j--ti<j a}n
kakw?j poih<sei,1 etc. Jebb on Soph.
0T 1141
remarks
that while "ti<j in classical Greek can replace o!stij
only
where there is an indirect question, . . . Hellenistic Greek
did
not always observe this rule: Mk 1436." There is no ade-
quate
reason for punctuating Jas 313 so as to bring in this
misuse
of ti<j. But Mt 1019
and Lk 178 are essentially similar;2
nor
does there seem to be any decisive reason against so reading
Ac
1325. Dieterich (Unters. 200) gives several inscriptional
exx.,
and observes that the use was specially strong in
1 BU 822 (iii/A. D. ), BM
239 (iv/A.D.), JHS xix. 299. See p.
21 above. Gn 3825
is
a clear ex. from LXX.
2 I must retract the denial I gave in CR xv. 441.
94
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
Minor.
It is interesting therefore to note Thumb's statement
(ThLZ xxviii. 423), that the
interrogative is similarly used in
Pontic
now—a clear case of local survival. The NT use of
o!ti, for ti< in a direct question is
a curious example of the
confusion
between the two categories, a confusion much
further
developed in our own language.
Developments MGr developments are instructive when
in MGr. we are examining the relatives and inter-
rogatives.
The normal relative is pou?, fol-
lowed
by the proper case of the demonstrative, as o[ giatro>j
pou? to>n e@steila, "the doctor whom
I sent," etc. The
ingenious
Abbe Viteau discovers a construction very much
like
this, though he does not draw the parallel, in Jn 917 o!ti
h]ne<&ce<n sou tou>j
o]fqalmou<j,
"thou whose eyes he hath
opened":
he cites Mk 617f. 824
as further exx. Since o!
ti
and
rw,xE
are passable equivalents, we have here a "pure
Hebraism"—a
gem of the first water! We might better
Viteaa's
instruction by tracing to the same fertile source
the
MGr idiom, supporting our case with a reference to
Jannaris
HG § 1439, on MGr parallels to Mk 725
(h$j.
. .
au]th?j) and the like.1 It will be wise however for us to sober
ourselves
with a glance at Thumb's remarks, Hellen.
130,
after
which we may proceed to look for parallels nearer home
than
Hebrew. In older English this was the
regular con-
struction.
Thus, "thurh God, the ic thurh his willan hider
asend
waes" (Gen 458); "namely oon That with a spere
was
thirled his brest-boon "
(Chaucer, Knightes Tale 1851 f.).
Cf
the German "der du bist" = who art.2 The idiom is
still
among us; and Mrs Gamp, remarking "which her
name
is Mrs Harris," will hardly be suspected of Hebraism!
The
presence of a usage in MGr affords an almost decisive
disproof
of Semitism in the Koinh<, only one small corner of
whose
domain came within range of Semitic influences; and we
have
merely to recognise afresh the ease with which identical
idioms
may arise in totally independent languages. It does
not
however follow that Blass is wrong when he claims
1 See below, p. 237; also
Wellh. 2, who adds exx. from D.
2 See Skeat's Chaucer, Prologue and Knightes Tale, p. xxxvi. I
owe the
gestion
to my friend Mr E. E. Kellett.
ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS. 95
Mk
725 17 1319, Lk 316, and passages
in Rev, as "specialy
suggested
by Semitic usage." The phenomenon is frequent
in
the LXX (see WM: 185), and the NT exx. are nearly
all
from places where Aramaic sources are presumed. A
vernacular
use may be stretched (cf pp. 10 f.) beyond its
natural
limits, when convenient for literal translation. But
Blass's
own quotation, ou$ h[ pnoh> au]tou? e]n h[mi?n
e]sti<n,1
comes
from
a piece of free Greek. That this use did exist in the
old
vernacular, away from any Semitic influence, is proved
by
the papyri (p. 85). The quotations in Kuhner-Gerth
§
561 n.2, and in Blass and Winer ll.cc.,
show 'that it had
its
roots in the classical language. As was natural in a
usage
which started from anacoluthon, the relative and
the
pleonastic demonstrative were generally, in the earlier
examples,
separated by a good many intervening words.
The modern Interrogative is mostly poio<j, for tij is has
practically
worn down to the indeclinable ti<, just as our
what
(historically identical with the Latin quod)
has become
indifferent
in gender. The NT decidedly shows the early
stages
of this extension of poi?oj. It will not do for us to
refine
too much on the distinction between the two pronouns.
The
weakening of the special sense of poi?oj called into being a
new
pronoun to express the sense qualis,
namely, potapo<j, which
was
the old podapo<j ("of what country?"), modified by popular
etymology
to suggest po<te, and thus denuded of its associa-
tion
in meaning with a]llod-apo<j, h[med-apo<j, and u[med-apo<j.2
Numerals :— We take next the Numerals. The use
ei$j as ordinal; of ei$j as an ordinal is "undoubtedly a
Hebrew
idiom," according to Blass, p. 144.
Our
doubts, nevertheless, will not be repressed; and they
are
encouraged by the query in Thumb's review. To
begin
with, why did the Hebraism affect only the first
numeral,
and not its successors? If the use was
vernacular
Greek,
the reason of the restriction is obvious: prw?toj is
the
only ordinal which altogether differs in foam from the
1 Clement ad Cor. 21 fin. (Lightfoot, p. 78). Nestle (ZNTW i. 178 ff.)
thinks
the writer was of Semitic birth. Gal 210 will serve instead.
2 The suffix is that of
Latin prop-inquos, long-inquos, Skt. anv-anc, etc.: pod-
and
a]llod-
are quod, what, aliud, while h[med-,
u[med-,
answer to ablative forms
in
Skt.
96
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
cardinal.1
When we add that both German and English say
"page forty" (WM 311), we are
prepared for the belief that
the
Greek vernacular also had his natural use. Now, although
ei$j kai> ei]kosto<j, unus et vicesimus, one and
twentieth, are (as
Blass
says) essentially different, since the ordinal element is
present
at the end of the phrase, this is not so with t^? mi%?
kai>
ei]ka<di,2 BU 623
A.D.). But the matter is really settled
by
the fact that in MGr the cardinals beyond 4 have ousted
the
ordinals entirely (Thumb, Handbuch
56); and Dieterich
(Unters. 187 f.) shows from inscriptions
that the use is as old
as
Byzantine Greek. It would seem then that the encroach-
ment
of the cardinal began in the one case where the ordinal
was
entirely distinct in form, spread thence over other
numerals,
and was finally repelled from the first four, in which
constant
use preserved alike the declension and the distinct
ordinal
form. Had Semitic influence been at work, there is
no
conceivable reason why we should not have had t^?
pe<nte
at
the same time. Simultaneously with this process we note
Simplification the firm establishment of simplified ordinals
of the “teens”; from 13th to 19th, which now (from iii/B.C.
onwards) are
exclusively of the form triskai-
de<katoj, tessareskaide<katoj, etc., with only
isolated exceptions.
Similarly
we find de<ka trei?j, de<ka e!c, etc., almost invariably in
papyri,
and de<ka du<o as well as dw<deka.3a These
phenomena
all
started in the classical period: cf Meisterhans3 160.
ei$j as
Indefinite
There is a further use of ei$j which calls
Article. for
remark, its development into an indefinite
article,
like ein in German, un in French, or
our
own an: in MGr the process is
complete. The fact that
1 Deu<teroj is not derived from du<o, but popular etymology
would naturally
connect
them. Curiously enough, Hebrew shares the peculiarity noted above,
which
somewhat weakens our argument Aramaic, like Latin and English, uses
a
word distinct from the cardinal for second
as well as first. Hebrew has lost
all
ordinals beyond 10, and Aramaic shows them only in the Jerus. Targ. See
Dalman,
Gramm. 99 f. For clays of the month,
the encroachment of cardinals
has
gone further still in both dialects. The fact that the ordinals up to 10 are
all
treated alike in Hebrew, reinforces our view.
2 Ei]ka<j, like tria<j,
deka<j, triaka<j,
etc., was originally either No. 20 or a
set
of 20, though used only for
the 20th of the month. Cf in Philo tria<j=3rd day
(LS),
and tetra<j, the usual name for Wednesday, surviving in MGr: see p.
237.
3 Wellhausen notes that D
has only de<ka du<o and ib. [a See p. 246.
ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS. 97
ei$j, progressively ousted tij in popular speech, and
that even
in
classical Greek there was a use which only needed a little
diluting
to make it essentially the same,1 is surely enough to
prove
that the development lay entirely within the Greek
language,
and only by accident agrees with Semitic. (See
Wellh.
27.) We must not therefore follow Meyer (on Mt
819),
in denying that ei$j is ever used in the NT in the sense
of
tij:
it is dangerous to import exegetical subtleties into the
o[ ei$j NT, against the known history of the Common
Greek. The use of o[
ei$j in Mk
1410 is, as
noted
in Expos. VI. vii. 111, paralleled in
early papyri.2
In Blass's second edition (p. 330)
we find a virtual sur-
Distributives. render of the Hebraism in du<o
du<o, sumpo<sia
sumpo<sia (Mk 639f.), desma>j
desma<j
(Mt 1330
in
Epiphanius --a very probable reading, as
accounting for the
variants):
he remarks on mi<an mi<an in Sophocles (Frag. 201)
that
"Atticists had evidently complained of it as vulgar, and
it
was not only Jewish-Greek." Winer compared Aeschylus
Persae
981, muri<a muri<a pempasta<n. Deissmann (ThLZ,
1898,
p. 631) cites dh<s^ tri<a tri<a from OP 121 (iii/A.D.);
and
(as W. F. Moulton noted WM 312 n.) the usage is
found
in MGr.3 Thumb is undeniably right in calling the
coincidence
with Hebrew a mere accident. In the papyri
(e.g.
Tb P 635 --ii/B.C.) the
repetition of an adjective produces
an
elative = mega<lou mega<lou=megi<stou. It should be added
that
in Lk 101 we have a mixed distributive a]na>
du<o du<o
(B
al): so in Ev.
Petr. 35, as Blass notes, and Acta
92
(Tisch.).4 See Brugmann, Distributiva (cites above, p. 21).
"Noah the Two single passages clai a word before
eighth person. we pass on from the numerals. @Ogdoon
Nw?e
e]fu<lacen
in 2 Pet 25 presents us with
1 It is difficult to see
any difference between ei$j and tij in Aristophancs,
Av. 1292 :—
pe<rdic
me>n ei$j ka<phloj w]noma<zeto
xwlo<j,
Meni<pp& d ] h#n xelidw>n tou@noma, k.t.l.
From
the papyri we may cite as exx. AP 30 (ii/B.C.) Kondu<lou
e[no>j tw?n a[liei<wn
(Sc.
prosklhqe<ntoj); BU 1044 (iv/A.D.) e!noj
(sic=ei$j) lego<menon (= -oj) Fah?sij.
2 We may add good exx.
from Par P 15 (ii/B.C.) to>n e!na au]tw?n $Wron—tou? e[no>j
tw?n e]gkaloume<nwn Nexouqou?. Tb P 357 (ii/A.D.) tou?
tou? e[no>j au]tw?n patro<j.
3 Thumb, Hellen. 128, Handbuch, 57.
4 See W. Schulze, Graeca Latina 13. Add now Wellh. 31.
98
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
a
classical idiom which can be shown to survive at any rate in
literary
Common Greek: see exx. in WM 312, and Schaefer l.c.
I
have only noticed one instance in the papyri (p. 107), and
in
2 Pet we rather expect bookish phrases. The AV of
this
passage is an instructive illustration for our inquiries
as
to Hebraisms. "Noah the eighth person" is not English,
for
all its appearing in a work which we are taught to regard
as
the impeccable standard of classic purity. It is a piece of
"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
the
language—like the misprint "strain at
a gnat"—we
should
have had a fair parallel for "Hebraism" as hitherto
understood.
As it stands, a phrase which no one has ever
thought
of imitating, it serves to illustrate the over-literal
translations
which appear very frequently in the LXX and in
the
NT, where a Semitic original underlies the Greek text.
(Compare
what is said of Gallicisms in English on p. 13.)
" Seventy times Last in this division comes a note on
seven." Mt 1822. Blass ignores entirely the ren-
dering
"seventy-seven times" (RV margin),
despite
the fact that this meaning is unmistakable in Gen 424
(LXX).
It will surely be felt that W. F.
Moulton (WM
314)
was right in regarding that passage as decisive. A
definite
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
exercise
the privilege of seventy-sevenfold forgiveness. For
a
partial grammatical parallle see Iliad
xxii. 349, deka<kij [te]
kai> Fei<kosi, "tenfold and twenty-fold,"
if the text is sound.
Prepositions :— It will be worth while
to give statistics
Relative for the relative frequency of Prepositions in
Frequency. the NT, answering to those cited from Helbing
(above, pp. 2 f.) for the classical and post-
classical
historians. If we represent e]n by unity, the order of
precedence
works out thus:-- ei]j 64, e]k 34, e]pi<
32, pro<j
25,
dia 24,
a[po< 24, kata< 17, meta< 17, peri<
12, u[po<
08,
para< 07, u[pe<r 054, su<n 048, pro<
018, a]nti< 008,
a]na< 0045. We shall have to return later to
prepositions
compounded
with verbs, following our present principle of
ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSTTIONS. 99
dealing
with them in connexion with the parts of speech
with
which they are used. A few miscellaneous matters
come
in best at this point. First let us notice the pro-
Prepositions minence in Hellenistic of combinations of
joined with prepositions with adverbs.
In papyri we
Adverbs. find such as e]k
to<te, OP
486 (ii/A.D.)
pe<rusi (Deissmann BS 221), and even a]f
]
o!te e]lousa<mhn, "since I last
bathed," OP 528 (ii/A.D.). In
NT
we have a]po> to<te, a]po> pe<rusi, a]p ] a@rti, e]k
pa<lai, e]f ]
a!pac, e]pi>
tri<j, etc. The roots of the usage may be seen in
the
classical e]j a]ei<, and the like. Some of these combinations
became
fixed, as u[poka<tw, u[pera<nw, kate<nanti. This may
be
set beside the abundance of "Improper" prepositions. All
of
these, except e]ggu<j and a{ma, take gen. only.1
Thumb
comments2
on the survival of such as e!wj, e]pa<nw, o]pi<sw,
u[poka<tw, in MGr. Hebraism in
this field was supposed to
have
been responsible for the coining of e]nw<pion, till Deiss-
mann
proved it vernacular.3 The
compound preposition a]na>
me<son was similarly aspersed; but it has
turned up abundantly
in
the papyri,—not however in any use which would help
1
Co 65, where it is almost impossible to believe the text
sound.
(An exact parallel occurs in the Athenaeum
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
not]."
It is hard to believe Paul would have been so slovenly
in
writing, or even dictating.) We have a further set of
"Hebraisms"
in the compound prepositions which are freely
made
with pro<swpon, xei<r and sto<ma (Blass 129 f.): see
above,
p. 81. Even here the Semitism is still on the
familiar
lines: a phrase which is possible in native Greek
is
extended widely beyond its idiomatic limits because it
translates
exactly a common Hebrew locution; and the
conscious
use of Biblical turns of speech explains the appli-
cation
of such phrases on the lips of men whose
minds are
saturated
with the sacred writers' language. As early as iii/B.C.
1 Paraplh<sion Phil 227. xACD has dat. 2 TLZ xxviii. 422. 3
BS 213.
Cf Expos.
vii. 113: add OP 658 (iii/A.D.), and Tb P 14 (114 B.C.) parhggel-
ko<tej e]nw<pion, "I gave notice in
person." Hb P 30 (before, 271 B.C.) is the
earliest
ex. Cf Par P 63 (ii/B.C.) e]nopi<oij (so Mahaffy); and see
Mayser 457.
100 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
in
a Libyan's will, we meet with kata> pro<swpo<n tinoj;1 and
in
mercantile language we constantly find the formula dia>
xeiro<j, used absolutely, it is
true—e.g. MP 25 (iii/B.C.), "from
hand
to hand," as contrasted with "through an intermediary."
We
may refer to Heitmuller's proof2 that the kindred phrase
ei]j to> o@noma< tinoj is good vernacular. The
strong tendency
to
use compound prepositional phrases, which we have been
illustrating
already, would make it all the easier to develop
these
adaptations of familiar language.
Prepositions The eighteen
classical prepositions are,
with one case. as we have just seen, all represented in NT
Greek,
except a]mfi<, which has disappeared
as
a separate word, like ambi in Latin,
and like its correlative
in
English, the former existence of which in our own branch
is
shown by the survival of um in modern
German. It
was
not sufficiently differentiated from peri<, to assert itself
in
the competition; and the decay of the idea of duality
weakened
further a preposition which still proclaimed its
original
meaning, "on both sides," by its resemblance to
a]mfo<teroi. ]Ana< has escaped the same fate by its distributive
use,
which accounts for seven instances, the phrase a]na>
me<son
for
four, and a]na> me<roj for one. ]Anti<, occurs 22 times,
but
a]nq ] w$n reduces the number of free occurrences to 17.
Rare
though it is, it retains its individuality. "In front of,"
with
a normal adnominal genitive, passes naturally into "in
place
of," with the idea of equivalence or return or substitu-
tion,
our for. For the preposition in Jn 116, an
excellent
parallel
from Philo is given in WM (p. 456 n.).3 Pro< occurs
48
times, including 9 exx. of pro> tou? c. inf., which invades
the
province of pri<n. In Jn 121 we have pro>
e{c h[merw?n
tou? pa<sxa, which looks extremely
like ante diem tertiwm,
Kalendas. The plausible Latinism forces itself on our
attention
all the more when we compare IMA iii.
325 (ii/A.D.)
1 Deissmann BS 140.
2 Im Namen Jesu 100 ff. So p. 63, for e]n
o]no<mati o!ti,
Mk 941.
3 Blass compares gh?n
pro> gh?j e]lau<nesqai, "from one land to another,"
e]lpi<sin e]c e]lpi<dwn, and the like (pl.
124). The Philonic passage is from De
Poster. Caini § 145 (p. 254 M.): dio> ta>j prw<taj ai]ei> xa<ritaj,
pri>n koresqe<ntaj
e]cubri<sai
tou>j laxo<ntaj, e]pisxw>n kai> tamieusa<menoj ei]sau?qij
e[te<raj a]nt ] e]kei<nwn,
kai> tri<taj
a]nti> tw?n deute<rwn kai> ai]ei> ne<aj a]nti>
palaiote<rewn . . . e]pidi<dwsi.
ADJECTIVES PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS. 101
pro ie Kalandw?n Au]gou<stwn, and parallels in
translated
documents
to be seen in Viereck's Sermo Graecus
(see pp. 12,
13,
21, etc.). And yet it is soon found that the same
construction
occurs in phrases which have nothing in
common
with the peculiar formula of Latin days of the
month.
In the Mysteries inscription from Andania (Michel
694,
i/B.C.) we recognise it in Doric—pro> a[mera?n
de<ka tw?n
musthri<wn; and the illiterate
vernacular of FP 118 (ii/A.D.),
prw> du<o h[mero?n a]go<rason
ta> o]rniqa<ria th?j ei[orth?j ("buy the
fowls
two days before the feast"), when combined with Jn l. c.,
makes
the hypothesis of Latinism utterly improbable. The
second
genitive in these three passages is best taken as an
ablative—"starting from the mysteries," etc.
It is found as
early
as Herodotus, who has (vi. 46) deute<r& e@tei
tou<twn,"
in
the
second year from these events": cf also OP 492 (ii/A.D.) met
]
e]niauto>n e!na th?j teleuth?j mou, "a year after
(starting from)
my
death." See also the note on o]ye<, supr. p. 72. There
remains
the idiomatic use of pro<, seen in 2 Co 122 pro>
e]tw?n
dekatessar<rwn, "fourteen years
before." Blass (p. 127 n.)
cites
pro> a[mera?n de<ka 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
testimony.1
It becomes clear that historically the
resem-
blance
between the ante 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
disposed
of already.2 This enquiry, with the general con-
siderations
as to Latinisms which were advanced above (pp.
20
f.), will serve to encourage scepticism when we note the
1 Add FP 122 (i/ii A.D.
), BU 180 (ii/iii A.D.), 592 (ii/A.D.), NP 47 (iii/A.D.),
Ch
P 15 (iv/A.D.), BU 836 (vi/A.D).
2 W. Schulze, Graec. Lat. 14-19, has a long and
striking list of passages
illustrating
the usage in question, which shows how common it became. His
earliest
citation is pro> triw?n h[merw?n th?j teleuth?j from Hippocrates
(v/B.C.),
which
will go with that from Herodotus given above. We have accordingly
both
Ionic and Doric warrant for this Koinh< construction, dating from
a period
which
makes Latin necessarily the borrower, were we bound to deny independent
development.
Schulze adds a parallel from Lithuanian! Our explanation of
the
dependent gen. as an ablative is supported by pro>
mia?j h[me<raj h} c.
acc. et inf.,
in
OGIS 435 (ii/B.C.) and Jos. Ant. xiv. 317: h@
replaces
the ablative genitive
exactly
as it does after comparatives.
102 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
resemblance
of w[j a]po> stadi<wn dekape<nte (Jn 1113) to
a milli-
bus passuum duobus (Blass 95). Blass cites Jn 218, Rev 1420,
and
the usage of Koinh< writers like Diodorus and Plutarch.
Mutatis mutandis, this idiom is
identical in principle with that
just
quoted for pro<. After noting the translation-Hebraism
fobei?sqai a]po< in Mt 1028 (
= Lk 124),1 we proceed to observe
the
enlargement of the sphere of a]po<, which encroaches upon
e]k, u[po<, and para<.a The title of the modern vernacular
Gospels,
"metafrasme<nh a]po> to>n ]Alec.
Pa<llh,"
reminds us
that
a]po< has advanced further in the interval. Already in
the
NT it sometimes expressed the agent after passive verbs
(e.g. Lk 843), where it is
quite unnecessary to resort to
refinements
unless the usage of a particular writer demands
them.
The alleged Hebraism in kaqaro>j a]po< is dispelled by
Deissmann's
quotations, BS 196. The use of
prepositions,
where
earlier Greek would have been content with a simple
case,
enables e]k
in NT to outnumber a]po< still, though
obsolete
to-day,b except in the Epirot a]x or o]x.2 Thus a]po<
is
used to express the partitive sense, and to replace the
genitive
of material (as Mt 2721 34); e]k can even make a
partitive
phrase capable of becoming subject of a sentence, as
in
Jn 1617. For present purposes
we need not pursue further
the
NT uses of a]po< and e]k, which may be sought in the
lexicon;
but we may quote two illustrative inscriptional
passages
with e]k.
Letronne 190 and 198 have swqei>j
e]k,
"safe
home from" (a place), which has affinity with Heb 57;
and
u[pa<rxwn qeo>j e]k qeou? kai> qea?j, from the Rosetta stone
(OGIS 90—ii/B.C.), will elucidate Phil 35,
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
used
centuries earlier of Ptolemy Epiphanes!3
We have already (pp. 62 f.) sketched
the developments of
1 Were the active fobei?n still extant (below, p.
162), this might be taken as
"do
not be panic-stricken by." It is like prose<xein
a]po<,
Lk 121. See p. 107.
2 Thus o]x
to> bouno<,
" from the hill," occurs in a modern song, Abbott 128 f.
3 Epiphanes=Avatar: the
common translation " illustrious " is no longer
tenable.
See Dittenberger's note, OGIS p. 144. So this title also antici-
pates
the NT (e]pifa<neia). Cf
what is said on Christian adaptations of heathen
terms,
above, p. 84. (On a]po< see also below, p. 237.) [a b See p. 246,
ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS. 103
ei]j, and need say no more of the single-case
prepositions,
with
one very large exception.a The late Greek uses of
Further uses e]n would take too much space if discussed in
of e]n. full here. It has become so much a maid-of-
all-work
that we cannot wonder at its ulti-
mate
disappearance, as too indeterminate. Students of Pauline
theology
will not need to be reminded of Deissmann's masterly
monograph
on "The NT Formula e]n
Xrist&? ]Ihsou?," with its
careful
investigation of LXX uses of and proof of the
originality
of Paul's use. But SH (on Rom 611) seem rightly
to
urge that the idea of the mystic indwelling originated with
the
Master's own teaching: the actual phrase in Jn 154 may
be
determined by Pauline language, but in the original Aramaic
teaching
the thought may have been essentially present.
While
there are a good many NT uses of e]n 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 NT writers were innovating.
If
papyri have probebhko<ej h@dh toi?j e@tesin (TP 1 ii/B.C.),
we
need not assume Hebraism in Lk 17 merely because the
evangelist
inserts e]n:
his faithful preservation of his source's
h[me<raij is another matter. See
pp. 61 f. above. In Ac 714
(LXX)
we have e]n
= "amounting to," from which that in
Mk
48 bis does not greatly
differ. This is precisely paralleled
by
BU 970 (ii/A.D.) prooi?ka e]n draxmai?j e]nnakosi<aij, OP 724
(ii/A.D.)
e@sxej th>n prw<thn do<sin e]n draxmai?j tessara<konta,
BU
105 0 (i/A.D.) i[ma<tia . . . e]n . . . draxmai?j
e[kato<n ("to
the
value of"). The use in Eph 215
e]n do<gmasin, "consisting
in,"
is akin to this. For e]n
toi?j =
"in the house of," as in
Lk
249, we have RL 382 (iii/B.C.) e]n
toi?j ]Apollwni<ou, Tb P 12
(ii/B.C.)
e]n toi?j
]Amenne<wj
"in A.'s office," OP 523 (ii/A.D.)
e]n toi?j
Klaudi<ou: cf Par P 49 (ii/B.C.) ei]j ta> Prwta<rxou
katalu<sw, and even e]n
tw?i !Wrou in Tb P 27. We have in
official
documents e]n
meaning "in the department of": so
Tb
P 27 (ii./B.C.) to> e]n au]tw?i o]feilo<menon, 72 a{j
e]n Marrei?
topogrammatei?, al. I do not recall an exact NT parallel, but
1
Co 62, ei] e]n u[mi?n kri<netai o[
ko<smoj
is not far away. We
have
another use of e]n with a personal dative in 1 Co 1411
"in
my judgement": possibly Judel e]n qe&? is akin to this.
Such
uses would answer to para< c. dat. in classical Greek
a
See v. 246.
104 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
The
last might seem to be expressed more naturally by the
"dative
of person judging" (like Ac 720 a]stei?oj
t&? Qe&?,
or
1
Co l.c. e@somai
t&? lalou?nti ba<rbaroj). But the earliest
uses
of dative and locative have some common ground, which
is
indeed the leading cause of their syncretism. Thus we find
loc.
in Sanskrit used quite often for the dat. of indirect object
after
verbs of speaking. How readily e]n was added to the
dative,
which in older Greek would have needed no preposi-
tion,
we see well in such a passage as OP 48 8 (ii/iii. A.D.),
where
" more . . . by one aroura" is expressed by e]n. This
particular
dative is an instrumental—the same case as our
"the more the merrier"—, and is therefore parallel to that
of
e]n maxai<r^, "armed with a sword," which we have
already
mentioned
(pp. 12, 61). We may fairly claim that "Hebraistic"
e]n is by this time reduced within tolerably narrow
limits. One
further
e]n,
may be noted for its difficulty, and for its bearing
on
Synoptic questions,--the i[mmologei?n e@n tini which is common
to
Mt 1032 and Lk 128: 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
explanation—"the
repose of faith in Him whom it confesses":
so
Westcott, quoting Heracleon, who originated this view
(Canon5
305 n.). Deissmann (In Christo 60)
quotes Delitzsch's
Hebrew
rendering ybi hd,Oy , and puts it with Mt
317 934 116
2321,
as an example of a literal translation "mit angstlicher,
die
hermeneutische Pedanterie nahelegender Pietat." Dr
Bendel
Harris recalls the Graecised translation in Rev 35, and
gives
me Syriac parallels. On the whole, it seems best not
to
look for justification of this usage in Greek. The agreement
of
Mt and Lk, in a point where accidental coincidence is out
of
the question, remains the most important element in the
whole
matter, proving as it does that Luke did not use any
knowledge
of Aramaic so as to deal independently with the
translated
Logia that came to him.1
Prepositions Of the prepositions with two cases, di<a
with two and
meta< show no signs of weakening their
Cases; hold
on both; but kata< c. gen. and peri<
u[pe<r and u[po<
c. acc.
distinctly fall behind
1 Cf the similar
agreement as to fobei?sqai a]po<, above, p. 102.
ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS. 105
We
may give the statistics in proof. Dia< gen. 382, acc,
279;
meta< gen. 361, acc. 100; kata< gen. 73, acc. 391;
peri<, gen. 291, acc. 38; u[pe<r gen. 126, acc. 19; u[po< gen.
165,
acc. 50. Comparing this list with that
in a classical
Greek
grammar, we see that meta<, peri< and u[po<1 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 kata<, (like a]na<, Rev 2121)
is used as an adverb
distributively,
as in to> kaq ] ei$j or ei$j kata> ei$j Mk 1419,
[Jn] 89,
Rom
125. The MGr kaqei<j or kaqe<naj, "each,"
preserves this,
which
probably started from the stereotyping of to> kaq ] e!na,
e{n kaq ] e!n, etc., declined by
analogy: cf e@ndhmoj from e]n
dh<m& (w@n), or proconsul from pro console. The enfeebling
of
the
distinction between peri< and u[pe<r c. gen. is a matter of
some
importance in the NT, where these prepositions are
used
in well-known passages to describe the relation of the
Redeemer
to man or man's sins. It is an evident fact that
u[pe<r is often a colourless "about,"
as in 2 Co 823: it is used,
for
example, scores of times in accounts, with the sense of
our
commercial "to." This seems to
show that its original
fullness
of content must not be presumed upon in theological
definitions,
although it may not have been wholly forgotten.
The
distinction between a]nti< and the more colourless u[pe<r, in
applying
the metaphor of purchase, is well seen in Mk 1045
(
Mt 2028) lu<tron a]nti> pollw?n, and the quotation of
this
logion
in 1 Tim 26 a]nti<lutron u[pe>r pa<ntwn.2 Dia< c. acc.
mostly
retains its meaning "for the sake of," "because
of,"
distinct from "through," "by the instrumentality of,”
which
belongs to the genitive. As early as MP 16 and
20
(iii/B.C.), we have i!na dia> se> basileu? tou?
dikai<ou tu<xw;
but
if the humble petitioner had 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" is more appropriate. This applies exactly
to
Jn 657. So Rom 820,
where Winer's explanation is correct
(p.
498). In much later Greek, as Hatzidakis shows (p. 213)
1 For u[po< c. dat. can be quoted OGIS 54 (iii/B.C.) u[f
] e[autw?i poihsa<menoj,
and
OP 708 (as late as ii/A.D.) e]k tou? u[po> soi>
nomou?. LXX has peri< c. dat.
2 Note that dou>j
e[auto<n
is substituted for the translation-Greek dou?nai th>n
yuxh>n au]tou?: on this see above, p.
87. See further on u[pe<r, p. 237.
106
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
dia< c. acc. monopolised the field, which it
still holds in
MGr.1
With the genitive, dia< is often contrasted
with
e]k, u[po<, etc., as denoting
mediate and not original authorship:
as
1 Co 86, Mt 122. In
Heb 210 it is used of God, who is "the
final
Cause and the efficient Cause of all things" (Westcott).
There
seems no adequate reason for accepting Blass's con-
jectural
emendation, di ] a]sqenei<aj, in Gal 413:
"because of an
illness"
is an entirely satisfactory statement (see Lightfoot
in loc.), and the Vulgate per is not strong enough to justify
Blass's
confidence.2
influenced
by literal translation from Semitic.a Its relations
with
su<n are not what they were in Attic, but it remains
very
much the commoner way of saying with. Thumb
points
out (Hellen. 125) that MGr use
disproves Hebraism
in
polemei?n meta< tinoj, Rev 127 al.b Thus, for
example, Abbott
44:
pole<mhse me>
trei?j xilia<dej Tou<rkouj, "he fought with
3000
Turks."
and with The category
of prepositions used with
three. three
cases is hurrying towards extinction,
as we should
expect.
have
crossed the line into the two-case class and in the NT
pro<j has nearly gone a step further, for its
figures are
c.
gen. 1 (Ac 2734, literary), dat. 6 ( = "close to" or
"at,"
in
Mk, Lk, Jn ter and Rev), acc. 679. With the dative,
however,
it occurs 104 times in LXX, and 23 times c. gen.:
the
decay seems to have been rapid. Cf however PFi 5
pro>j t&? pulw?ni, as late as 245 A.D.
For para< the numbers
are,
c. gen. 78, dat. 50, acc. 60. Blass notes that c. dat. it
is
only used of persons, as generally in classical Greek, except
in
Jn. 1925. One phrase with para< calls for a note on its
use
in the papyri. Oi[ par ] au]tou? is exceedingly common
there
to denote "his agents" or “representatives.” It has
hitherto
been less easy to find parallels for Mk 321, where
it
must mean "his family": see Swete and Field in loc.
We
can now cite GH 36 (ii/B.C.) oi[ par ] h[mw?n pa<ntej
1 Contrast Ac 242
with OP 41 (iii/iv A.D.) pollw?n a]gaq?n a]polau<omen
dia> sai<.
2 Ou]
duna<menoj di ] a]sqe<neian pleu?sai may be quoted from OP 726 (ii/A.D.),
and
a like phrase from OP 261 (i/A.D.), but of course they prove little of
nothing.
[a See pp.
246 f.; b see p. 247.
ADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS. 107
BU
998 (ii/B.C.), and Par P 36 (ii/B.C.).1 Finally we come
to
e]pi<, the only preposition which is still thoroughly at home
with
all the cases (gen. 216, dat. 176, acc. 464). The
weakening
of case-distinctions is shown however by the very
disproportion
of these figures, and by the confusion of meaning
which
is frequently arising. In Heb 810 1016 we construe
kardi<aj as acc. only because of e]pi>
th>n dia<noian
which follows
it
in the latter passage: on the other hand, the original in
Jer
31(38)33 is singular, which favours taking it as genitive.2
Our
local upon can in fact be rendered by e]pi< with gen.,
dat.,
or acc., with comparatively little difference of force.
Particular
phrases are appropriated to the several cases, but
the
reason is not always obvious, though it may often be
traced
back to classical language, where distinctions were
rather
clearer. Among the current phrases we may note
e]pi> to> au]to< "together,"
"in all," perpetually used in arith-
metical
statements: see Ac 115 247. Cf Blass2 330. The
common
e]f ] &$ c. fut. indic. "on condition that," does not
appear
in
the NT. But with a pres. in 2 Co 54, and an aor. in Rom 512,
the
meaning is essentially the same ("in view of the fact that"),
allowing
for the sense resulting from a jussive future.
1 Expos. vi. vii. 118, viii. 436. See Witkowski's note, p. 72.
2 For Mk 639 e]pi>
t&? xo<rt&,
Mt 1419 substitutes e]pi> tou? x., but with e]pi>
to>n x.
in
D. In Ac 711 D has gen. for acc., and in 816 acc. for
dat. In Eph 110 it
seems
difficult to draw any valid distinction between the cases of e]pi>
toi?j
ou]ranoi?j and e]pi>
th?j gh?j.
Nor can we distinguish between e]p ] e]sxa<tou in Heb 11
and
the dative in Tb P 69 (ii/B.C.), w$n h[
dioi<khsij e]p ] e]sxa<t& te<taktai.
ADDITIONAL NOTES.—P. 79. Mr
Thackeray says prw?toj is used for pro<teroj
regularly
in LXX. The latter occurs not infrequently in Ptolemaic papyri, but
seems
to have weakened greatly in the Roman period.—P. 98. The Ptolemaic
PP
iii. 28 has e]dragmatokle<ptei tri<toj
w@n. Cf.
Abbott JG 562 on p. mo<noj
au]to<j
Jn
615x. On Mt
1822, W. C. Allen takes 70 x7 in Gen and Mt ll. cc. alike.
A
further parallel for cardinal in place of adverb is BU 1074 (late D.)
trispuqionei<khj, but dekaolumpionei<khj, etc.—P. 99. In Syll. 3859 Hadrian says
he
could not find e]k po<te fe<rein au]to>
h@rcasqe. This is a fairly close parallel to
the
e!wj po<te which Dr Nestle brings up against my argument
about Semitisms.
If
it "may be quotable from early Greek," I cannot quite see why it is
for
Dr
Nestle "a Hebraism, even if it is still used by Palls in his MGr
translation."
I
seem to hear the shade of Hadrian demanding "Am I a Jew?"—P. 102.
BU
1079 (41 A. D. ) ble<pe sato>n a]po> tw?n ]Ioudai<wn, "take heed to yourself against
the
Jews (i.e. moneylenders),"
contains an idiom which the Hebraists will
hardly
care to claim now!—P. 103. Fresh exx. of e]n accumulate in a great
variety
of meanings. Amongst them I have only room for the Delphian inscr.,
Syll. 8508 (iii/B.C.) kriqe<ntw
e]n a@ndroij tri<oij, "let
them be tried before three
judges,"
a good illustration of e]n in Ac 1731.
CHAPTER VI.
THE
VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.
OUR
first subject under the Verb will be one which has
not
yet achieved an entrance into the grammars. For
the
last few years the comparative philologists—mostly in
“Aktionsart.”
the problems
of Aktionsart, or the "kind of
action"
denoted by different verbal formations. The subject,
complex
in itself, has unfortunately been entangled not a
little
by inconsistent terminology; but it must be studied by
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-Germanic languages.
The
English student may be referred to pp. 477 ff. of Dr P.
Giles's
admirable Manual of Comparative Philology,
ed. 2.
A
fuller summary may be found in pp. 471 of Karl Brug-
mann's
Griech. Gramm., ed. 3, where the
great philologist sets
forth
the results of Delbruck and other pioneers in compara-
tive
syntax, with an authority and lucidity all his own.
Conjugation The student of
Hebrew will not need
and Tense telling that a Tense-system, dividing verbal
Stems. 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. It
may
be more of a surprise to be told that in our own
family
of languages Tense is proved by scientific inquiry to
be
relatively a late invention, so much so that the elementary
distinction
between Past and Present had only been developed
to
a rudimentary extent when the various branches of the
family
separated so that they ceased to be mutually intel-
ligible.
As the language then possessed no Passive whatever,
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. Brug-
mann
distinguishes no less than twenty-three conjugations,
or
present-stem classes, of which traces remain in Greek;
and
there are others preserved in other languages. We
must
add the aorists and perfect as formations essentially
parallel.
In most of these we are able to detect an
Aktionsart originally appropriate
to the conjugation, though
naturally
blurred by later developments. It is seen that the
Point Action; Aorist has a "punctiliar" action,1 that
is, it
regards
action as a point: it represents the
point
of entrance (Ingressive, as balei?n "let fly," basileu?sai
"come
to the throne"), or that of completion (Effective, as
balei?n "hit"), or it looks at a whole
action simply as having
occurred,
without distinguishing any steps in its progress
(Constative,2 as basileu?sai "reign," or
as when a sculptor
says
of his statue, e]poi<hsen o[ dei?na "X. made it"). On
Action in the
same graph, the Constative will be a
Perspective;
line reduced to a point by
perspective. The
Present has
generally a durative action-
"linear,"
we may call it, to keep up the same graphic
Linear Action; illustration--as in ba<llein "to be throw-
ing, basileu<ein
"to be
on the throne."
The
Perfect action is a variety by
itself, denoting what
Perfect Action; began in the past and still continues: thus
from the
"point" root weido,
"discover,
descry,"
comes the primitive perfect oi#da, "I discovered (ei#don)
and
still enjoy the results," i.e. "I know." The present
stems
which show an i-reduplication (i!sthmi,
gi<gnomai)
are
Iterative supposed
to have started with an Iterative
Action. action,
so that gi<gnomai, would originally
present the
succession of moments which are
individually
represented by e]geno<mhn. And so throughout
the
conjugations which are exclusively present. Other con-
jugations
are capable of making both present and aorist
1 I venture to accept
from a correspondent this new-coined word to represent
the
German pumktuell, the English of
which is preoccupied.
2 Unity of terminology
demands our accepting this word from the German
pioneers,
and thus supplementing the stores of the New English, Dictionary.
Otherwise
one would prefer the clearer word "summary."
110 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
stems,
as e@fhn
compared with e@bhn, gra<fein with trapei?n,
ste<nein with gene<sqai. In these the pure verb-root is by
nature
either (a) "punctiliar," (b)
durative, or (c) capable of
being
both. Thus the root of e]negkei?n, like our bring, is
essentially
a "point" word, being classed as "Effective":
accordingly
it forms no present stem. That of fe<rw, fero,
bear, on the other hand, is
essentially durative or "linear",
and
therefore forms no aorist stem.1 So with that of e@sti, est,
is, which has no aorist,
while e]geno<mhn, as we have seen, had
no
durative present. An example of the third class is e@xw,
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" (linear action). In Greek
the
present stem is regularly durative, "to hold," while e@sxon
is
a point word, "I received": thus, e@sxon para> or a]po>
sou?
is
the normal expression in a papyrus receipt.2 Misappre-
hension
of the action-form of e@xw is responsible for most of
the
pother about e@xwmen in Rom 51. The durative
present
can
only mean "let us enjoy the possession of peace" (dikaiw-
qe<ntej) e@sxomen
ei]rh<nhn
is 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
the
moment of their justification. See p. 247.
Rationale of It is evident
that this study of the kind
Defective of action denoted by the verbal root, and the
Verbs. modification of that action produced by the
formation of
tense and conjugation stems,
will
have considerable influence upon our lexical treatment
of
the many verbs in which present and aorist are derived
from
different roots. [Ora<w (cognate with our "beware")
is
very clearly durative wherever it occurs in the NT; and
1 The new aorist (historically
perfect) in the Germanic languages (our bore)
has
a constative action.
2 Note also a petition,
Par P 22 (ii/B.C.), in which the tenses are
carefully
distinguished, as the erasure of an aorist in favour of the imperfect
shows.
Two women in the Serapeum at
mother,
who had deserted her husband for another man: kai>
tou?to poh<sasa
ze ou]k e@sxe to> th?j
a]dikhsa<shj pro<swpon, a]lla> sunhrga<sato w[j e]panelei?tai
au]to>n
o[ dhlou<menoj, "she did not put on the face of the wrong-doer, but
(her para-
mour)
began to intrigue with her to destroy (her husband)."
THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 111
we
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 o@pwpa would
be
"I have caught sight of." Ei#don "I discovered," and
w@fqhn "I came before the, eyes of,"
are obviously point-
words,
and can form no present. Ei#pon, has a similar dis-
ability,
and we remember at once that its congeners (F)e@poj,
vox, Sanskrit vac, etc., describe a single utterance:
much the
same
is true of e]rre<qhn, and its cognate nouns (F) r[h?ma,
verbum, and word. On the other hand, le<gw, whose constative
aorist
e@leca,
is replaced in ordinary language by ei#pon, clearly
denotes
speech in progress, and the same feature is very
marked
in lo<goj. The meaning of lo<goj has been developed
in
post-Homeric times along lines similar to those on which
the
Latin sermo was produced from the
purely physical verb
sero. One more example we
may give, as it leads to our
remaining
point. ]Esqi<w is very obviously
durative: o[ e]sqi<wn
met ] e]mou?, Mk 1418, is
"he who is taking a meal with me."
The
root ed is so distinctly durative
that it forms no aorist,
but
the punctiliar fagei?n (originally "to divide")
supplies the
defect.
It will be found that fagei?n in the NT is invariably
constative:1
it denotes simply the action of e]sqi<ein seen in
perspective,
and not either the beginning or the end of that
Compounds and action. But we find the compound katesqi<ein,
Perfective katafagei?n, used to express the
completed
Action. act,
eating something till it is finished. How
little
the preposition's proper meaning affects
the
resulting sense is seen by the fact that what in Greek
is
katesqi<ein and in Latin "devorare," is in English "eat
up"
and in Latin also "comesse."
In all the Indo-Germanic
languages,
most conspicuously and systematically in the
Slavonic
but clearly enough in our own, this function of verb
compounds
may be seen. The choice of the preposition which
is
to produce this perfective action2
depends upon conditions
1 There is one apparent
exception, Rev 1010, where o!te e@fagon
au]to<
is
"when
I had eaten it up." But e@fagon is simply the
continuation of
kate<fagon (see below, p. 115).
2 One could wish that a
term had been chosen which would not have
suggested
an echo of the tense-name. "Perfective action" has nothing
whatever
to do with the Perfect tense.
112 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
which
vary with the meaning of the verbal root. Most of them
are
capable of "perfectivising" an imperfective verb, when the
original
adverb's local sense has been sufficiently obscured,
We
may compare in English the meaning of bring
and bring
up, sit and sit down, drive and drive away and drive home,1
knock and knock in and knock down,
take and overtake and
take over and betake, carry and carry off
and carry through,
work and work out and work off, fiddle and fiddle
in (Tenny-
son's
"Amphion"), set and set back and set at and overset, see
and
see to, write and write off, hear and hear out, break and
to-break (Judg 953
AV), make and make over, wake and wake
up, follow and follow up, come and come on, go and go round,
shine and shine away (= dispel by shining). Among
all the
varieties
of this list it will be seen that the compounded
adverb
in each case perfectivises the
simplex, the combination
denoting
action which has accomplished a result, while the
simplex
denoted action in progress, or else momentary action
to
which no special result was assigned. In the above list
are
included many exx. in which the local force of the
adverb
is very far from being exhausted. Drive
in, drive out,
drive off, drive away, and drive home are alike perfective, but
the
goals attained are different according to the distinct
sense
of the adverbs. In a great many compounds the
local
force of the adverb is so strong that it leaves the action
of
the verb untouched. 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
Greek.
In both these languages many of the compound
verbs
have completely lost consciousness of the meaning
originally
borne by the prepositional element, which is
accordingly
confined to its perfectivising function. This is
especially
the case with com (con) and ex (e) in Latin, as in
consequi " follow out, attain," efficere "work out";2 and with
a]po<,a dia<, kata< and su<n in Greek, as in a]poqanei?n "die "
(qn^<skein "be dying"), diafugei?n "escape" (feu<gein
"flee"),
katadiw<kein "hunt down"
(diw<kw ="pursue"),
1
"Prepositions," when compounded, are still the pure adverbs they were
at
the first, so that this accusative noun turned adverb is entirely on all fours
with
the rest. 2
See p. 237. [a
See p. 247.
THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 113
katerga<zesqai "work out," sunthrei?n "keep safe" (threi?n
=
"watch"). An example may be
brought in here to
illustrate
how this principle works in details of exegesis.
In
Lk 829 the true force of the pluperfect, combined with the
vernacular
usage of polloi?j xro<noij (see p. 75), goes to show
that
the meaning is "it had long ago obtained and now
kept
complete mastery of him." Sunarpa<zw then, as the
perfective
of a[rpra<zw, denotes not the temporary paroxysm,
but
the establishment of a permanent hold. The inter-
pretation
of su<n, here depends upon the obvious fact that
its
normal adverbial force is no longer at work. It is
however
always possible for the dormant su<n to awake, as
a
glance at this very word in LS will show. "Seize and
carry
away" is the common meaning, but in cunarpa<sasai
ta>j e]ma>j ei#xon xe<raj (Euripides Hec. 1163) we may recognise
the
original together. Probably the
actual majority of
compounds
with these prepositions are debarred from the
perfective
force by the persistency of the local meaning: in
types
like diaporeu<esqai, katabai<nein, sune<rxesqai, the pre-
position
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.
Lightfoot's interpretation brings e]piginw<skw under
this
category. The present simplex, ginw<skein, is durative,
"to
be taking in knowledge." The
simplex aorist has point
action,
generally effective, meaning "ascertain, realise," but
occasionally
(as in Jn. 1725, 2 Tim 219) it is constative: e@gnwn
se gathers into one perspective all the successive
moments of
ginw<skwsi se< in Jn 173. ]Epignw?nai, "find out, determine,"
is
rather more decisive than the gnw?nai (effective); but in
the
present stem it seems to differ from ginw<skein by includ-
ing
the goal in the picture of the journey there—it tells
of
knowledge already gained. Thus 1 Co 1312 would be
paraphrased,
"Now I am acquiring knowledge which
is only
partial
at best: then I shall have learnt my lesson, shall know,
as
God in my mortal life knew me." But I confess I lean
more
and more to Dean Robinson's doctrine (Ephes.
248 ff.):
the
vernacular is rich in e]pi< compounds of the kind he describes.
The meaning of the Present-stem of
these perfec-
tivised
roots naturally demands explanation. Since
qn^<-
114
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
skein is "to be dying" and a]poqanei?n "to die,"
what is
there
left for a]poqn^<skein? An
analysis of the occur-
Present Stem rences of this stem in the NT will anticipate
of perfectivised some important points we shall have to make
Verbs under
the heading of Tenses. Putting aside
the special use me<llw
a]poqn^<skein,1
we find
the
present stem used as an iterative in 1 Co 1531, and as
frequentative in Heb 78 1023,
1 Co 1522, Rev 1413: the
latter
describes action which recurs from time to time with
different
individuals, as the iterative describes action repeated
by
the same agent.2 In Jn 2123
and 1 Co 1532 it stands
for
a future, on which usage see p. 120. Only in Lk 842,
2
Co 69, and Heb 1121 is it strictly durative, replacing
the
now
obsolete simplex qn^<skw.3 The simplex, however,
vanished
only because the "linear perfective" expressed its
meaning
sufficiently, denoting as it does the whole process
leading
up to an attained goal. Katafeu<gein, for example,
implies
that the refuge is reached, but it depicts the journey
there
in a coup d’oeil: katafugei?n is only concerned with
the
moment
of arrival. A very important example in the NT
is
the recurrent oi[ a]pollu<menoi, "the
perishing." Just as
much
as a]poktei<nw and its passive a]poqn^<skw,
a]po<llumai4
implies
the completion of the process of destruction. When
we
speak of a "dying" man, we do not absolutely bar the
possibility
of a recovery, but our word implies death as the
goal
in sight. Similarly in the cry of the Prodigal, lim&?
a]po<llumai, Lk 1517,
and in that of the disciples in the storm,
sw?son, a]pollu<meqa, Mt 825, we
recognise in the perfective
verb
the sense of an inevitable doom,
under the visible con-
ditions,
even though the subsequent story tells us it was
averted.
In oi[ a]pollu<menoi, 1 Co l18 al, strongly durative
though
the verb is, we see perfectivity in the fact that the
goal
is ideally reached: a complete
transformation of its
1 Me<llw c. pres. inf. occurs
eighty-four times in NT; c. fut. thrice in Ac
(m.
e@sesqai);
c. aor. six times (Ac 126, Rom 818, Gal 323,
Rev 32 (a]poqanei?n) 316
124;
also Lk 2036 in D and Marcion).
2 Both will be (. . .), a
series of points, on the graph hitherto used.
3 Te<qnhka is really the perfect
of a]poqn^<skw: a perfect needed no per-
fectivising
in a "point-word" like this.
4 Note that in all three
the simplex is obsolete, for the same reason in
each
case.
THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 115
subjects
is required to bring them out of the ruin implicit
in
their state.
Preposition Before passing
on, we may note the
not repeated. survival in NT Greek of a classical idiom
by which the
preposition in a compound is
omitted,
without weakening the sense, when the verb is
repeated.
Thus in Euripides, Bacch. 1065, kath?gon,
h#gon,
h#gon, answers to the English "pulled
down, down, down."
I
do not remember seeing this traced in the NT, but in
Rev
1010 (supra, p. 111 n.) e@fagon seems to be the
continuation
of
kate<fagon; in Jn 112 e@labon takes up pare<labon, and in
Rom
154 proegra<fh is repeated as e]gra<fh. So also e]rau-
nw?ntej 1 Pet 110f., e]ndusa<menoi, 2 Co 53, and sth?nai Eph 613(?):
—
add 1 Co 109, Phil 124f. not,
I think, Rom 29f. or Mt 517.19.
The
order forbids 1 Co 122. In
all these cases we are justified
in
treating the simplex as a full equivalent of the compound;
but
of course in any given case it may be otherwise explicable.
Growth of "The perfective Aktionsart in
Polybius,"
Constative the earliest of the great Koinh< writers, forms
Aorist the
subject of an elaborate study by Dr
Eleanor
Purdie, in Indog. Forsch. ix. 63-153
(1898).
In a later volume, xii. 319-372, II. Meltzer con-
troverts
Miss Purdie's results in detail; and an independent
comparison
with results derivable from NT Greek shows
that
her conclusions may need considerable qualification. Re-
search
in this field is, as Brugmann himself observes (Griech.
Gram.3 484),
still in its initial stages; but that the Newnham
philologist
is on the right lines generally, is held by some
of
the best authorities, including Thumb, who thinks her
thesis
supported by MGr.a Her
contention is that since
Homer
the aorist simplex had been progressively taking
the
constative colour, at the expense of its earlier punc-
and of tiliar
character; and that there is a
"Perfective " growing tendency to use the compounds,
Compounds. especially
those with dia<, kata< and su<n, to
express what
in the oldest Greek could be
sufficiently
indicated by the simplex. To a certain extent
the
NT use agrees with that of Polybius. Thus fugei?n is
constative
eleven times, "to flee," with no suggestion of the
prolongation
of flight (feu<gein) or of its successful accom-
a
see p. 247.
116 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
plishment
(diafugei?n or katafugei?n). (It seems to me clear
that
in Heb 1134 we have e@fugon for the beginning of action,
—not
the goal of safety attained, but the first and decisive step
away
from danger. Similarly in Mt 2333 we should read
"how
are ye to flee from the judgement of Gehenna?"—just
as
in 37. The thought is not of
the inevitableness of God's
punishment,
but of the stubbornness of men who will not take
a
step to escape it. The perfective therefore would be inap-
propriate.)
The papyri decidedly support this
differentiation
of
simplex and compound. In the same way we find that
diw?cai is always constative in NT, while the
perfective
katadiw?cai, "hunt down,"
occurs once in Mk 136, where
"followed
after" (AV and RV) is not exact. ]Erga<sasqai
is
certainly constative in Mt 2516, 3 Jn 5, and Heb 1133: it
surveys
in perspective the continuous labour which is so often
expressed
by e]rga<zesqai. In Mt
2610, and even 2 Jn. 8, the
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 kata<. Fula<cai "guard"
seems
always constative, diafula<cai "preserve"
occurring
in
Lk 410. Similarly thrh?sai "watch,
keep," a continuous
process
seen in perspective: sun- and dia-threi?n (present stem
only)
denote "watching" which succeeds up to the point of
time
contemplated. (See p. 237.) ]Agwni<zesqai, is only used
in
the durative present, but katagwni<sasqai (Heb 1133)
is
a
good perfective. Fagei?n and katafagei?n differ quite on
Polybian
lines (see above). On the other hand, in the
verbs
Miss Purdie examines, the NT makes decidedly less
use
of the compound than does Polybius; while the non-
constative
aorists which she notes as exceptions to the
general
tendency are reinforced by others which in Polybius
are
seldom such. Thus i]dei?n is comparatively rare in
Polybius:
"in several cases the meaning is
purely constative,
and
those exx. in which a perfective1 meaning must be
admitted
bear a very small proportion to the extremely
frequent
occurrences of the compound verb in the like
1 That is,
"punctiliar": Miss Purdie does
not distinguish this from per-
fective
proper (with preposition). Brugmann, following Delbruck, has lately
insisted
on reserving " perfective " for the compounds. Uniformity of ter-
minology
is so important that I have altered the earlier phraseology throughout.
THE
VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 117
sense
" (op. cit. p. 94 f.). In the
NT, however, the simplex
i]dei?n is exceedingly common, while the
compound (kaqora?n,
Rom
120) only appears once. It is
moreover—so far as I can
judge
without the labour of a count--as often punctiliar
(ingressive)
as constative: Mt 210, "when they caught sight
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 dis-
tinguish
the one from the other.) Here comes in
one of
Meltzer's
criticisms, that the historian's strong dislike of
hiatus
(cf above, p. 92) accounts for very many of his
preferences
for compound verbs. This fact
undeniably
damages
the case for Polybius himself; but it does not dis-
pose
of inferences--less decided, but not unimportant—
which
may be drawn from NT Greek and that of the papyri.
We
are not surprised to find that the NT has no perfective
compounds
of qea<omai, qewre<w, logi<zomai, pra<ssw,
kinduneu<w,
a@rxomai, me<llw, o[rgi<zomai,
du<nw (unless
in Col 39), or mi<sgw
(mi<gnumi), to set beside those
cited from the historian. Noe<w
is
rather difficult to square with the rule. Its present
simplex
is often obviously linear, as in now?n kai>
fronw?n,
the
standing
phrase of a testator beginning a will: the durative
"understand"
or "conceive" is the only possible translation
in
many NT passages. The aor. in Jn 1240 and Eph 34 may
be
the constative of this, or it may be ingressive, "realise."
But
it is often difficult to make a real perfective out of the
compound
katanoh?sai, which should describe the completion
of
a mental process. In some passages, as Lk 2023 ("he
detected
their craftiness"), or Ac 731 ("to master the mystery"),
this
will do very well; but the durative action is most cer-
tainly
represented in the present katanoei?n, except Ac 2730
("noticed
one after another"). Maqei?n is sometimes con-
stative,
summing up the process of manqa<nein; but it has
often
purely point action, "ascertain": so in Ac 2327, Gal 32,
and
frequently in the papyri. In other places moreover it
describes
a fully learnt lesson, and not the process of study.
On
Miss Purdie's principle this should be reserved for
katamaqei?n, which occurs in Mt 628:
both here and for
katanoh<sate in the Lucan parallel
1224. 27 the RV retains
the
durative "consider." It may
however mean "understand,
118
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
take
in this fact about." The NT use of tele<w, again, differs
widely
from that of Polybius, where the perfective compound
(sunt.) greatly predominates:
in NT the simplex outnumbers
it
fourfold. Moreover the aorist in the NT is always punctiliar
("finish"):
only in Gal 516 is the constative "perform” a
possible
alternative. ]Orgisqh?nai is another divergent, for
instead
of the perfective diorg., "fly into a rage," we six
times
have the simplex in the NT, where the constative
aorist
"be angry" never occurs.1 Finally we note that
kaqe<zesqai is always purely
durative in NT ("sit," not "sit
down,"
which is kaqi<sai), thus differing from Polybian use.
A
few additions might be made. Thus Lk 1913 has the simplex
pragmateu<sasqai "trade," with
the perfective compound in
v.15
diepragmateu<santo "gained by
trading." But the great
majority
of the dia< compounds retain the full force of the dia<.
Provisional The net result of
this comparison may
Results. perhaps be stated thus,
provisionally: for
anything
like a decisive settlement we must
wait
for some xalke<nteroj grammarian who will toil right
through
the papyri and the Koinh< literature with a minuteness
matching
Miss Purdie's over her six books of Polybius—a
task
for which a year's holiday is a condicio
sine qua non.
The
growth of the constative aorist was certainly a feature
in
the development of 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
of
its working will depend on the personal equation. In the
use
of compound verbs, especially, we cannot expect the neglige
style
of ordinary conversation, or even the higher degree of
elaboration
to which Luke or the auctor ad Hebraeos
could rise,
to
come near the profusion of a literary man like Polybius.2
Time and Perhaps this brief account of recent re-
Tense. searches, in a field hitherto almost untrodden
by NT
scholars, may suffice to prepare the
1 Rev 1118
might mean "were angry," but the ingressive "waxed angry"
(at
the accession of the King) suits the context better. 2 See p.
237.
THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 119
way
for the necessary attempt to place on a scientific basis
the
use of the tenses, a subject on which many of the most
crucial
questions of exegesis depend. It has
been made
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 of Aktionsart it is a
mere accident that
feu<gw is (generally) present and e@feugon,
e@fugon,
and fugw<n
past:
the main point we must settle is the distinction between
feug and fug which is common to all
their moods.
The Present :— On the Present stem,
as normally denoting
linear or
durative action, not much more
need
now be said. The reader may be reminded of one idiom
which
comes out of the linear idea, the use of words like
pa<lai with the present in a sense best
expressed by our
perfect.
Thus in 2 Co 1219 "have you been thinking all
this
time?" or Jn 1527, "you have been with me from the
beginning."
So in MGr, e[ch?nta
mh?naj s ] a]gapw?
(Abbott 222).
The
durative present in such cases gathers up past and pre-
sent
time into one phrase. It must not be thought, however,
that
the durative meaning monopolises the present stem. In
the
prehistoric period only certain conjugations had linear
action;
and though later analogic processes mostly levelled
the
primitive diversity, there are still some survivals of
importance.
The punctiliar force is obvious in certain
presents.
words
as paragge<llw Ac 1618, a]fi<entai
Mk 25
("are this
moment forgiven,"—contr. a]fi<entai Lk 523), Ac 934,
etc. So possibly a]fi<omen Lk 114,
which has a]fh<kamen as
its
representative in Mt. But here it seems better to
recognise
the iterative present—"for we
habitually forgive":
this
is like the difference between Lk and Mt seen in their
versions
of the prayer for daily bread. (Cf also Lk 630.) Blass
(p.
188) adds a]spa<zetai as the correlative to the regular a]spa<-
sasqe. It is very possible that in the prehistoric
period a
distinct
present existed for the strong aorist stem, such as
Giles
plausibly traces in a@rxesqai compared with the durative
e@rxesqai.1 The conjecture--which is necessarily
unverifiable
1 Manual2 482. The ar is like ra in trapei?n against tre<pein, the familial
Greek
representative of the original vocalic r.
120
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
—would
sufficiently explain this verb's punctiliar action.
But
it may indeed be suspected that point and line action
were
both originally possible in present and aorist-stem for-
mations
which remained without formative prefix or suffix.
On
this assumption, analogical levelling was largely responsible
for
the durative character which belongs to most of the
special
conjugation stems of the present. But this is con-
jectural,
and we need only observe that the punctiliar roots
denoting future which appear in the present stem have given
time; rise
to the use of the so-called present tense
to
denote future time.1 In au@rion a]poqn^<-
skomen (1 Co 1532) we have a verb in
which the perfective
prefix
has neutralised the inceptive force of the suffix –i<skw:
it
is only the obsoleteness of the simplex which allows it ever
to
borrow a durative action. Ei#mi in Attic is a notable
example
of a punctiliar root used for a future in the present
indicative.
But though it is generally asserted that this use
of
present tense for future originates in the words with
momentary
action, this limitation does not appear in the
NT
examples, any more than in English. We can say,
"I
am going to
and
die<rxomai in 1 Co 165, gi<netai in Mt 262,
and other futural
presents
that may be paralleled from the vernacular of the
papyri,
have no lack of durativity about them. In this stage
of
Greek, 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 the usual acceptation of
the term, is
and past time; shown not only by the fact that it can
stand
for future time, but by its equally
well-known
use as a past. The "Historic"
present
is
divided by Brugmann (Gr. Gram.3
484 f.) into the
"dramatic"
and the "registering" present. The latter
registers
a date, with words like gi<gnetai, teleut%?, etc.
I
cannot recall a NT example, for Mt 24 is not really
parallel.
The former, common in all vernaculars—we
have
only
to overhear a servant girl's "so she says to me," if we
1 Compare the close
connexion between aorist (not
present) subjunctive and
the
future, which is indeed in its history mainly a specialising of the former.
THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 121
desiderate
proof that the usage is at home among us--is
abundantly
represented in the NT.1 From
that mine of
statistical
wealth, Hawkins's Horae Synopticae, we find that Mk
uses
the historic present 151 times, Mt 93 times, Lk 8 times,
with
13 in Ac; also that it is rare in the rest of the NT, ex-
cept
in Jn. But it is not true that it was "by no means common
in
Hellenistic Greek." Sir John
Hawkins himself observes
that
it is common in Josephus and in Job: Mr Thackeray
notes
145 exx. in 1 Sam alone--its rarity in LXX was only
inferred
from the absence of le<gei. That Luke invariably
(except
in 849) altered Mark's favourite usage means that it
was
too familiar for his liking. I have not catalogued the
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 nar-
rative.
It may be seen alternating with past tenses, as in
the
NT: cf the curious document Par P 51 (ii/B.C.), recording
some
extremely trivial dreams. Thus a]nu<gw . . . o[rw? . . .
klai<gw . . .
e]poreuo<mhn . . . kai> e@rxomai . . . e@legon,
etc.
It
was indeed a permanent element in prose narrative,
whether
colloquial or literary;2 but it seems to have run
much
the same course as in English, where the historic
present
is not normally used in educated conversation or in
literature
as a narrative form. It carries a special effect of
its
own, which may be a favourite mannerism of a particular
author,
but entirely avoided by others. Applying this prin-
ciple,
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 in
cultured
speech of his time, but not enough to recall the
encouragement
of classical writers whom he probably never
read,
and would not have imitated if he had read them.
The
limits of the historic present are well seen in the fact
that
it is absent from Homer, not because it was foreign to
1 An instructive parallel
for le<gei ]Ihsou?j, especially as in the
Oxyrhynchus
Logia,
may be seen in Roman edicts. Thus Syll.
376 Kai?sar (Nero) le<gei;
ib. 656 (ii/A.D.—a
proconsul); OGIS 665 (49 A. D. ),
etc.
2 A peculiar use of the
historic present is noticeable in MGr, where it fre-
quently
takes up a past tense: thus, o[ Tso<lkaj
e]cespa<qwse, kra<zei ta> pallhka<ria,
"drew
his sword and calls" (Abbott 44—see also 22, 26, etc.). See p. 139 n.
122 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
the
old Achaian dialect, but because of its felt incongruity in
epic
style: it is absent from the Nibelungenlied
in the same way.
The Moods of the present stem will
be treated under their
separate
heads later. But there are two uses which should
come
in here, as bearing on the kind of action belonging to
Present and the tense-stem. The first concerns the two
Aorist in normal methods of expressing Prohibition in
Prohibitions: classical Greek, which survive in NT Greek,
though less
predominant than before. There
is
a familiar rule that mh< is used with present imperative
or
aorist subjunctive; 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 CR xvii. 295, who credits
Dr Henry
tributes
a brief but suggestive note in xviii. 262 f. (June
1904),
and Dr Headlam then writes in full upon the subject
in
xix. 30-36, citing the dicta of Hermann from which the
doctrine
started, and rebutting some objections raised by Mr
the
beginning and end of the language-history, and proving
incidentally
that the alleged distinction must hold for the NT
language,
which lies midway. "Davidson told me that, when
in Modern he
was learning modern Greek, he had been
Greek; puzzled
about the distinction, until he heard
a Greek
friend use the present imperative to
a
dog which was barking. This gave him the clue. He
turned
to Plato's Apology, and immediately
stumbled upon
the
excellent instances 20E mh< qorubh<shte, before clamour
begins,
and mh> qorubei?te, when it has begun." The
latter
means in fact "desist from interrupting," the former
"do
not interrupt (in future)." Headlam
shows how the
present
imperative often calls out the retort, "But I am not
doing
so," which the aorist locution never does: it would
require "No, I will not." This is certainly the case in MGr,
where
mh< gra<f^j is addressed to a person who is already
writing,
mh> gra<y^j to one who has not begun. The
in Papyri; facts for classical and for present-day Greek
may be supplemented from the four volumes
of
OP: we need not labour the proof of a canon which
could
hardly be invalid for a period lying between periods
a
See p. 247.
THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 123
in
which it is known to have been in force. I have
noted
in OP six cases of mh< c. aor. subj. referring to
requests
made in a letter, which of course cannot be
attended
to till the letter arrives. Thus mh>
a]melh<s^j,
mh> a@llwj poih<s^j o!ra
mhdeni> . . . proskrou<s^j, etc. (all
ii/A.D.).
One other (OP 744, i/B.C.) is worth quoting as a
sample
of such requests followed by a reply: ei@rhkaj . . .
o!ti Mh< me
e]pila<q^j. Pw?j du<namai< se e]pilaqei?n; On the
other
hand, we have four cases of mh< c. pres. imper., all
clearly
referable
to the rule. Tou?to mh> le<ge (what he had said)— mh<
a]gwni<a (bis) "don't go on worrying" –mh>
sklu<lle e[ath>n
e]nph?nai (sic!) "don't
bother to give information (??)": in the
last
case (295 --i/A.D.) the writer
had apparently left school
young,
and we can only guess her meaning, but it may
well
be "stop troubling." As we shall see, the crux is the
differentia
of the present imperative, which is not easy to
illustrate
decisively from the papyri. Hb P 56 (iii/B.C.) su> ou$#n
mh> e]no<xlei au]to<n (as you are doing) is
good. FP 112 (i/A.D.)
the
only case there—is obscured by hiatus. The prevalence
of
reports and accounts in Tb P i. gives little opportunity
for
the construction; but in the royal edict Tb P 6 (ii/B.C.),
we
find kai> mhqeni> e]pitre<pete kaq ] o[ntinou?n
tro<pon pra<ssein
ti tw?n prodedhlwme<nwn, the conformity of
which with
the
rule is suggested by the words "as we have before
commanded,"
with which the sentence apparently opens:
a
hiatus again causes difficulty. The frequency of these prohi-
and in NT. bitions in NT presents a very marked contrast
to the
papyri, but the hortatory character of
the
writing accounts for this. The following table gives the
statistics
for mh<
with the 2nd person:--
c. pres. imp. c. aor. subj.
Mt. 12 29
Mk 8 9
Lk. 27 19
Ac
5 4
Jn
and Epp 19 1
Rev 3 5
Paul 47 8
Heb 5 5
Jas 7 2
1
Pet 1 2
------
------
134 84
124 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
We
have included the cases where mh< is preceded by o!ra or
the
like. But sometimes this is not (as in the Gospels) a
mere
compound prohibition, like our "take care not to . . . “
In
Gal 515 "take heed lest" can hardly be classed as a
prohibition
at all; while in Mk 144, o!ra mhdeni> ei@p^j, there
is
virtual parataxis, o!ra being only a sort of particle adding
emphasis.
The analysis of the list raises several suggestive
points.
In Mt we note that except 120 and 39 all the
examples
are from sayings of Christ, 39 in all, while in
Lk
32 are thus described (36 if we include a citation of
four
precepts from the Decalogue). Since Mt has 12 pres.
to
27 aor., but Lk 21 to 11, we see that there was no sort of
uniformity
in translating from the Aramaic. There is no
case
where Mt and Lk have varied the tense while using
the
same word in reporting the same logion;1 but we find
Mt
altering Mk in 2423, manifestly for the better, if the
canon
is true. In Mk the balance is heavily inclined to
the
pres., for 5 out of 9 aor. examples are in the recitation
of
the commandments. In Jn there is only one aor., 37,
an
exception the more curious in that desine
mirari seems
clearly
the meaning; but see below. Paul uses the aor.
even
less than he appears to do, for Rom 106 is a quotation,
and
Col 221 ter virtually
such: this leaves only 2 Th 313,
1
Tim 51, 2 Tim 18, with Gal 515, on which see
above. Heb
has
only two aorists (1035 1225--the latter with ble<pete),
apart
from a triple quotation 38. 15 47. The very marked
predominance
of the mh> poi<ei type is accordingly unbroken
except
in Mt, and in Rev and 1 Pet so far as they go. In
the
NT as a whole the proportion is 61 p.c. to 39, which
does
not greatly differ from the 56 to 44 noted in the
Attic
Orators by Miller (AJP xiii. 423).
Passages Before we proceed to draw our deduc-
agreeing. tions from the canon thus applied to the NT,
it will be
well to present a few of the
passages
in which it obviously holds. In the following
places
the reply to the mh> poi<ei must clearly be either
"I
am not doing so" or "I will stop doing it":--Mk 536
1 D uses kwlu<shte in Lk 1816,
where Mt and Mk, as well as the other MSS
in
Lk, have the much more appropriate present.
THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 125
939
and parallels, Lk 713 849 852 (cf Mk ti<
klai<ete;)
1020
117
1412 2328, Jn 216 514 1921
2017. 27, Ac 1015
189 2010,
Rom
1118. 20 1420, 1 Co 727, 1 Tim 523,
Jas 21, 1 Pet 412,
Rev
55. In the following, the mh>
poih<s^j
would be answered
with
"I will avoid doing so":—Mt 613 109 179,
Mk 820
925,
Lk 629 104 (contrast the two prohibitions) 148
218,
Ac
760 938 1628
2321, 1 Tim 51, 2 Tim 18, Rev 66 73
101
(following
h@mellon gra<fein—he had not begun).
Difficulties. It must however be admitted that rather
strong
external pressure is needed to force
the
rule upon Paul. It is not merely that his usage is very
one-sided.
So is that of Jn, and yet (with the doubtful
exception
of 1037) every present he uses fits the canon
completely.
But does mh> a]me<lei in 1 Tim 414 require us to
believe
that Timothy was "neglecting" his "charism"--
mhdeni> e]piti<qei and mhde>
koinw<nei
in 522, that he was warned
to
stop what he was hitherto guilty of? May
we not rather
say
that mh> a]me<lei is equivalent to pa<ntote
mele<ta
or the
like,
a marked durative, with a similar account of mhde>
koinw<nei? If we paraphrase the first clause in 522
"always
be
deliberate in choosing your office-bearers," we see the
iterative1 force of the present
coming in; and this we
recognise
again in typical passages like Lk 107, Rom 613,
Eph.
426, Heb 139, 2 Jn 10, 1 Jn 41. Then in 1 Co 1439 how
are
we to imagine Paul bidding the Corinthians "desist from
forbidding"
the exercise of their darling charism? His
mh> kwlu<ete means "do not
discourage glossolaly, as after
my
previous words you might be inclined to do." In other
words,
we have the conative," which is clearly needed also in
such
passages as Gal 51. Mh>
poi<ei
accordingly needs
various
mental supplements, and not one only. It is "Stop
doing,"
or "Do not (from time to time)," or "Do not
(as
you are in danger of doing)," or "Do not attempt to do."
We
are not justified in excluding, for the purposes of the
present
imperative in prohibitions, the various kinds of
action
which we find attached to the present stem elsewhere.
1 See below, p. 128. In 1
Co l.c. we might also trace the
iterative, if the
meaning
is "Do not repress giossolaly, whenever it breaks out." So Dr
Findlay.
Dr
Abbott (JG 318 ff.) cites Mk 1321
against the "Do not
persist" rule; and
Mr
Naylor points to the e@ti required in 1 Ti 522.
126 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
But
since the simple linear action is by far the commonest
in
the present stem, it naturally follows that mh> poi<ei usually
means
"stop doing," though (as Headlam admits, CR
xix.
31) it does not always mean this. To account for
such
difficulties on the other side as Jn. 37, we may well
pursue
the quotation from the scholar who started us on
this
discussion. "Mh> dra<s^j always, I believe,
means I
warn
you against doing this, I beseech you will not; though
this
is sometimes used when the thing is being done; notably
in
certain cases which may be called colloquial or idiomatic,
with
an effect of impatience, mh> fronti<s^j Oh, never mind!
mh> dei<s^j Never fear! mh> qauma<s^j You mustn’t be surprised."
Why Paul One of my main motives in pursuing
prefers this long discussion has been to solve a
mh> poi<ei question that has consequences
for our
Church
History. What are we to infer
when
we find Paul bidding his converts mh>
mequ<skesqe
(Eph
518), mh> yeu<desqe (Col 39), or
James changing the
logion
of Mt 534. 36 into the suggestive present (512)?
What
has been said will make it clear that such commands
were
very practical indeed, that the apostles
were not
tilting
at windmills, but uttering urgent warnings against
sins
which were sure to reappear in the Christian com-
munity,
or were as yet only imperfectly expelled. The critics
who
make so much of lapses among Christian converts of the
first
generation in modern missions might have damned Paul's
results
with equal reason. Time has shown—time will show.1
Present The
second point in which we shall
Participle. anticipate later discussion concerns the uses
of the
Participle. Like the rest of the verb,
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
of
its principal. But when the participle is isolated by the
addition
of the article, its proper timelessness is free to
come
out. This can hardly happen with the aorist, where
point
action in such a connexion cannot well exist without
the
suggestion of past time: h[ tekou?sa must be rendered
"she
who bore a child," not because tekou?sa is past in
1 See p. 238.
THE VERB:
TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 127
time
like e@teke,
but because the action is not in progress
and
therefore must be past. But h[ ti<ktousa is common
in
tragedy (cf Gal 427) as a practical synonym of h[
mh<thr,
the
title of a continuous relationship. Winer (p. 444) gives
a
good selection of classical exx.: add from the papyri such
as CPR 24 etc. (ii/A.D.) toi?j gamou?si, "the contracting
parties,"
who are called oi[ gegamhko<tej in a similar docu-
ment, CPR 28 (ii/A.D.). So o[ kle<ptwn, Eph 428, is
not "he who
stole"
or "he who steals," but simply "the stealer," differing
from
o[ kle<pthj "the thief" only in being more
closely
associated
with the verb klepte<tw which is coming. If the
Baptist
is called o[ bapti<zwn (Mk 614. 24), "the
baptiser," the
phrase
is less of a technical term than the noun, but is other-
wise
synonymous therewith. An agent-noun
almost neces-
sarily
connotes linear action: there are only a few exceptions,
like
"murderer," "bankrupt," where the title is generally
given
in respect of an act committed in the past. Hence
it
coincides closely with the action of the present participle,
which
with the article (rarely without—see Kuhner-Gerth
i.
266) becomes virtually a noun. We return to the aorist
participle
later, and need not say more on the minute part
of
its field which might be connected with the subject of
this
paragraph. But it must be remarked that the principle
of
a timeless present participle needs very careful application,
since
alternative explanations are often possible, and grammar
speaks
to exegesis here with no decisive voice. In my
Introduction2 (p. 19 9) Mt 2740,
o[ katalu<wn to>n nao<n, "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:
"you
would-be destroyer" gives the meaning more exactly.
Another
ambiguous case may be quoted from Heb 1014: is
tou>j a[giazome<nouj timeless, "the
objects of sanctification," or
iterative,
"those who from time to time receive sanctification,"
or
purely durative, "those who are in process of sanctifica-
tion"?
The last, involving a suggestive
contrast with the
perfect
tetelei<wken--telling (like the unique e]ste>
ses&me<noi
of
Eph 25. 8) of a work which is finished on its Author's
side,
but progressively realised by its objects,—brings the
tense
into relation with the recurrent of oi[
s&zo<menoi
and
oi[ a]pollu<menoi, in which durative
action is conspicuous.
128
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
The
examples will suffice to teach the importance of
caution.
The Imperfect. We 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
augment.
This particle—perhaps a demonstrative base in
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
punctiliar
action. The resultant meaning is naturally various.
We
may have pictorial narrative, as contrasted with the
summary
given by the aorist. Thus the sculptor will some-
times
sign his work o[ dei?na e]poi<ei, sometimes e]poi<hse: the
former
lays the stress on the labour of production, the latter
on
the artist's name. When the difference is a matter of
emphasis,
we naturally find it sometimes evanescent. @Efh,
imperfect
in form, is aorist in meaning, because fa, is a
punctiliar
root. But e@legen often differs very
little from
ei#pen—its pictorial character is largely
rubbed off by time,
and
in MGr the two forms are mere equivalents. In words
less
worn the distinction can hardly ever be ignored. The
categories
to which we were alluding just now, in discussing
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
missed,
is the conative imperfect, for which
we might give the
graph
(______ ). Action going on implies the contingency
of
its failure to reach an end : our linear graph may either
be
produced beyond our vision, or reach a definite terminus
in
view (kath<sqion, perfective, see above, p. 111), or stop
abruptly
in vacuo. How important this is for the NT may
be
seen from some of the passages in which the Revisers have
earned
our gratitude by their careful treatment of the Tenses,
a
specially strong point of their work. Ac 2611 is a notable
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
Now
in itself h]na<gkazon might of course be "I repeatedly
forced,"
the iterative imperfect just referred to. But the
sudden
abandonment of the aorist, used up to this point, gives
a
strong grammatical argument for the alternative "I tried to
force,"
which is made certain by the whole tone of the Apostle
in
his retrospect: we cannot imagine him telling of such a
success
so calmly!a Other typical
exx. are Mt 314, Lk 159,
Ac
726, the RV being right in all: in Ac l.c. the AV curiously
blundered
into the right meaning by mistranslating a wrong
text.
(Their sunh<lasen would naturally mean that he "drove"
them
to shake hands! Did the translators
(Tyndale and
his
successors) mistake this for sunh<llassen, or did they
consciously
emend? The Vulgate reconciliabat may have
encouraged
them.) In Mk 938 the Revisers
unfortunately
corrected
the text without altering the translation: it seems
clear
that the imperfect is conative, the man refusing to be
stopped
in his good work. So also in Heb 1117 prose<feren
appears
to be a conative imperfect, as the RV takes it: the
contrast
between the ideally accomplished sacrifice, as per-
manently
recorded in Scripture (prosenh<noxen), and the
historic
fact that the deed was not finished, makes an
extremely
strong case for this treatment of the word. I
cannot
therefore here agree with Thumb, who says that we
expect
an aorist, and suggests that e@feron had already begun
to
be felt as an aorist as in MGr e@fera, the aorist of fe<rnw
(ThLZ xxviii. 423). He cites no ancient
parallel;1 and of
all
NT writers the author of Heb is the least likely to start
an
innovation of this kind.b (See p. 238.)
The Aorist:-- In the Aorist
indicative, as in the Imper-
feet, we
have past time brought in by the
use
of the augment. To appreciate the essential character of
aorist
action, therefore, we must start with the other moods.
The
contrast of its point action with the linear of the present
stem
is well seen in do>j sh<meron in Mt 611,
against di<dou to>
kaq ] h[me<ran, in Lk 1113:
cf also Mt 542 t&? ai]tou?nti do<j, but
panti> ai]tou?nti di<dou in Lk 630;
and (with respective parts
reversed)
Mt 512 xai<rete, without note of time,
but Lk 623
xa<rhte e]n
e]kei<n^ t^? h[me<r%. The Imperative shows the con-
trast
so well that we may add another example:c Rom 613 gives
us
present parista<nete (see pp. 122 ff.) and parasth<sate to-
1 Fe<rete in Hb P 45 might serve.
So possibly Mk 112. [abc See p. 247.
130 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
gether
in marked antithesis—the daily struggle, always ending
in
surrender, and the once-for-all surrender to God which
brings
deliverance. Note further the delicate nuance
in Ac
1537f.:
Barnabas, with easy forgetfulness of risk, wishes sun-
paralabei?n Mark—Paul refuses sunparalamba<nein, to have
with
them: day by day one who had shown himself unreliable.
Examples
are very numerous, and there are few of the finer
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,1 are not
Classified. always easy to distinguish. Two or even
three of
them may be combined in one verb,
as
we saw above with balei?n (p. 109); for of course this may
be
the summary of ba<llein "throw," as
well as "let fly" and
"hit".
In usage however nearly all verbs keep
to one end
or
other of the action; though the marked growth of the
constative
enlarges the number of cases in which the whole
action
is comprised in one view. Thus from basileu<ein we
have
the ingressive aorist in basileu<saj a]napah<setai," having
come to his throne he shall rest"
(Agraphon, OP 654 and
Clem.
Al.), and the constative in Rev 204 "they reigned
a
thousand years." The ingressive
especially belongs to
verbs
of state or condition (Goodwin MT
16).2 For the
effective
aorist, we may compare durative telei?n "fulfil, bring
to
perfection" (2 Co 129 "my power is being perfected in
weakness")
with the aorist tele<sai "finish" (Lk
239 etc.): for
constative
in Gal 516 see above, p. 118.
Aorist Participle The aorist
participle raises various ques-
of Coincident tions of its own, which must be considered
Action. here in so far as they concern the nature
of
aorist
action. The connotation of past time
has
largely fastened on this participle, through the idiomatic
use
in which it stands before an aorist indicative to qualify
its
action. As point action is always completed action, except
in
the ingressive, the participle naturally came to involve
1 We may express them by
the graph A-->--B, denoting motion from
A
to B. A will be Ingressive, B Effective,
and the Constative would be the
line
reduced to a point by perspective. 2 Thus a]podhmei?n = live abroad;
a]pedh<mhsen= went abroad, Lk 1513, LI P 1
(iii/B.C.) with date of leaving.
THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 131
past
time relative to that of the main verb. Presumably
this
would happen less completely when the participle stood
second.
The assumption of past time must not however be
regarded
as a necessary or an accomplished process. In
many
cases, especially in the NT, the participle and the
main
verb denote coincident or identical action. So a]po-
kriqei>j ei#pen Mt 221 etc.,1
kalw?j e]poi<hsaj parageno<menoj
Ac
1033. The latter puts into
the past a formula constantly
recurring
in the papyri: thus FP 121 (i/ii A.D.) eu# poih<seij
dou<j "you will oblige me by giving"--si dederis in Latin.
In
Jn 1128 we have ei]pou?sa first for past action
and then
ei@pasa (BC*) for coincident: the changed form
is suggestive,
but
is perhaps without conscious significance. One probable
example
of coincident action may be brought in here because
of
its inherent difficulty, though it belongs rather to lexicon
than
to grammar. The participle e]pibalw<n (Mk 1472)--
which
may well have been obscure even to Mt and Lk, who
both
dropped it—has now presented itself in the Ptolemaic
papyrus
Tb P 50, e]pibalw>n sune<xwsen ta> e]n th?i e[autou? gh?i
me<rh tou? shmainome<nou
u[dragwgou?,
which I translate, "he set
to
and dammed up." It is true that in
Tb P 13 e]piba<llw
means
"embankment," as Dr Swete has pointed out to me.2
But
Dr F. G. Kenyon has since observed that if e]piba<llw
were
here used of casting up earth, it would add nothing to
sune<xwsen alone. Moreover, since Mark's phrase has to be
explained
in any case, there is good reason for taking the
word
in the same sense in both places. Many versions
either
take this view of e]pibalw<n (cf Euthymius' gloss
a]rca<menoj), or translate the
paraphrase h@rcato found in D.
Mt
and Lk substitute the ingressive aorist e@klausen. If this
account
is right, e]pibalw<n is the aorist coincident with the
first
point of the linear e@klaien, and the compound phrase
expresses
with peculiar vividness both the initial paroxysm
1 This phrase, except for
Ac 1915 259, occurs in the Semitic atmosphere alone;
so
that we should look at the Hebrew rm,xyo.va Nfaya.va, which suggested it
through the
medium
of the LXX. (It is not Aramaic, Dalman thinks, Words 24 f.) The
form
of the Hebrew prompts Dr Findlay to suggest that a]pokriqei<j is ingressive,
ei#pen consecutive
upon it. It is not fatal that a]pokriqh?nai is generally con-
stative.
We should note here Ac 192, where the coincident aor. ptc. is
doctrin-
ally
important: cf RV. 2
See notes in Expos vi. vii. 113 and
viii. 430.
132 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
and
its long continuance, which the easier but tamer word of
the
other evangelists fails to do.
No Evidence for There are
even cases where the participle
that of Subse- seems to involve subsequent
action. Thus in
quent Action. Pindar Pyth.
iv. 189 we have, "when the
flower
of his sailor-folk came down to Iolcos,
Jason
mustered and thanked them all (le<cato
e]painh<saij)."
This
is really coincident action, as
Gildersleeve notes; but
of
course, 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
much
- discussed a]spasa<menoi in Ac 2513,
though Hort's
suspicions
of "prior corruption" induce timidity. It might
seem
more serious still that Blass (p. 197) pronounces
"the
reading of the majority of the MSS . . . not Greek,"1
for
Blass came as near to an Athenian revenant
as any
modern
could hope to be. But when he says that the
"accompanying
circumstance . . . cannot yet be regarded
as
concluded," may we not reply that in that case Pindar's
e]painh<saij equally needs emending?
The effective aorist
kath<nthsan is very different from
a durative like e]poreu<onto,
which
could only have been followed by a word- describing
the
purpose before them on their journey. But in "they
arrived
on a complimentary visit" I submit that the case is
really
one of identical action. The RV text gives the meaning
adequately.2
There are a good many NT passages in
which
exegesis
has to decide between antecedent and coincident
action,
in places where the participle stands second: Heb 912
will
serve as an example. It would take too much space
1 Blass here slurs over
the fact that not one uncial reads the future. The
paraphrastic
rendering of the Vulgate cannot count, and a reading supported
by
nothing better than the cursive 61 had better be called a conjecture outright.
(Blass's
misquotation kath?lqon, by the way, is not corrected in his
second
edition.)
As little can I share his confidence that Jn 112 "is certainly
an
interpolation"
(p. 198 n.). What difficulty is there in the explanation he
quotes,
"who as is well known did (or,
has done) this"? (See p. 238.)
2 We may quote an example
from the vernacular: OP 530 (ii/A.D.) e]c w$n
dw<seij
Sarapi<wni t&? fi<l& . . . lutrw<sasa< mou ta>
i[ma<tia dr. e[kato<n,
"of
which you will give 'my uncle' Sarapion 100 drachmae and redeem my clothes."
We
should add that Dr Findlay would regard a]sp. in Ac l.c. as denoting the
initial act of kath<nthsan. See further p. 238.
THE
VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 133
to
discuss adequately the alleged examples of subsequent
action
participles for which Ramsay pleads (Paul,
p. 212),
but
a few comments must be ventured. In Ac 166 (WH)
—the
first of a series of passages which Rackham (Acts,
p.
184) regards as "decisive"—we really have nothing to
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
crossed
the Asian frontier. In 2335 (and 2224) it is entirely
arbitrary
to make assumptions as to the order of the items.
The
former is "he said . . meanwhile ordering him . . .,"
which
may perfectly well 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 2224 Lysias presumably said in one sentence,
"Bring
him in and examine him." In 1726
the o[ri<saj is not
"later"
than the e]poi<hsen in time: the determination of
man's
home preceded his creation, in the Divine plan.
Rackham's
other "decisive" exx. are 2422, in which ei@paj
and
diataca<menoj are items in the action described by a]ne-
ba<leto; and 736,
where the constative e]ch<gagen describes
the
Exodus as a whole. Rackham's object is
to justify
the
reading of xBHLP al
in 1225, by translating "they
returned
to J. and fulfilled their ministry and took with
them
John." Now "returned . . . in
fulfilment . . ." is a
good
coincident aorist and quite admissible. But to take
sunparalabo<ntej in this way involves an
unblushing aorist
of
subsequent action, and this I must maintain has not yet
been
paralleled either in the NT or outside. Hort's conjecture
--th>n ei]j ]I.
plhrw<santej diakoni<an—mends this passage
best.
The alternative is so flatly out of agreement with the
normal
use of the aorist participle that the possibility of it
could
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 possumus for Ac 2513,
which entirely
bars
his assent to any interpretation involving more than
coincident
action. All that he says on 2335 is that keleu<saj
= e]ke<leuse<n te, which is not warrant
for Ramsay's inference,
134 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
On
the whole case, we may safely accept the vigorous state-
meat
of Schniedel on Ac 166 (EB
ii. 1599): "It has to
be
maintained that the participle must contain, if not
something
antecedent to 'they went' (dih?lqon), 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."1
Timeless The careful study of the aorist participle
Aorists will
show surviving uses of its original time-
less character, besides
those we have noted
already.
Lk 1018 e]qew<roun (durative) to>n
Satana?n . . . e]k tou?
ou]ranou? peso<nta, which is nearly like
Aeschylus PV 956 f.,
ou]k
e]k tw?nd ] e]gw> [sc.
perga<mwn]
dissou>j
tura<nnouj e]kpeso<ntaj ^]sqo<mhn,2
or
Homer Il. 284 (also, however, with
aorist in the main verb),
ei] kei?no<n ge Fi<doimi katelqo<nt ] !Ai*doj ei@sw—
belongs
to a category of which many exx. are given by
not
appear: cf Monro HG 212, 401. "I
watched him fall"
will
be the meaning, the aorist being constative: pi<ptonta
"falling (cf Vulg. cadentem)
would have been much weaker,
suggesting
the possibility of recovery. The
triumphant
e@pesen e@pesen of Rev 182
(cf next page) is the same action.
We
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
optative
or infinitive aorist took the place of an indicative.
Cases
where an aorist indicative denotes present time, or even
future,
demand some attention. ]Eblh<qh in Jn 156 is
paralleled
by the well-known classical idiom seen in Euripides
Alc. 386, a]pwlo<mhn ei@ me lei<yeij, "I am undone if
you leave
me."3a
Similarly in e]ce<sth, Mk 321,
English again demands the
perfect,
"he has gone out of his mind." Jannaris HG § 1855
notes
that this idiom survives in MGr. In Rom 1423 an
analogous
use of the perfect may be seen. The difficult
aorist
of Mk 111 and parallels, e]n soi>
eu]do<khsa,
is probably "on
thee
I have set the seal of my approval": literally "I set,”
1 Ac 2114 may
be rendered "we ceased, with the words . . ."
2 Suggested by my friend
Mr H. Bisseker.
3 See Giles, Manual2 499. [a
See p. 247.
THE
VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 135
at
a time which is not defined. None of these exx. are
really
in present time, for they only seem to be so through
a
difference in idiom between Greek and English. We have
probably
to do here with one of the most ancient uses of
the
aorist--the ordinary use in Sanskrit—expressing what has
just happened:a cf. Mk 166, Lk 716 1420
1532 2434, Jn 1142
1219
131 (h#lqen) 1331 2110, Rev 148
182, etc., and see p. 140.1
In
two other uses we employ the present, the "epistolary"
(as
Eph 622), and the so-called "gnomic" aorist. Goodwin
(MT § 155) observes that the gnomic
aorist and perfect
"give
a more vivid statement of general truths, by employ-
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
circumstances."
The present is much commoner than the
aorist,2
which generally (Goodwin § 157) refers to "a
single
or a sudden occurrence, while the present (as usual)
implies
duration." The gnomic aorist survives in MGr
(Jannaris
HG § 185 2), and need not have been
denied by
Winer
for Jas 111 and 1 Pet 124: see Hort's note on the
latter.
Jas 124 combines aor. and perf. in a simile, reminding
us
of the closely allied Homeric aorist in similes.
English This
is not, however, the only usage in
Rendering which
the Greek has to be rendered in English
of Aorist idiom by what we call our Perfect
Tense.
Indicative. Our
English Past--historically a syncretic
tense,
mostly built on the Perfect—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 narra-
tive,
where the framework of the story implies the continuous
dating
of the events; and though the Greek aorist has not this
implication,
we may regard the tenses as equivalent in practice.
But
outside narrative we use the periphrastic have tense as an
1 In classical Greek we
may find an aorist of this kind used with a sequence
which
would naturally suggest a foregoing perfect, as Euripides, Medea, 213 f.:
e]ch?lqon do<mwn mh< moi< ti
me<mfhsq ].
See Yerrall's note.
2 In the important
article quoted below (p. 247, additional note upon p. 115),
Prof.
Thumb observes that the perfectivising preposition enabled a present or
imperfect
to replace the gnomic aorist in similes. [a
See p. 217,
136 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
indefinite past; and it thus
becomes the inevitable representa-
tive
of the Greek aorist when no time is clearly designed: e.g
1
Co 156 tine>j e]koimh<qhsan, "fell asleep (at
various times),"
and
so "have fallen asleep." This
has two unfortunate
results.
We have to decide for ourselves whether a Greek
aorist
refers to definite or indefinite time—often no easy
task.
And we have to recognise that our own perfect is
ambiguous:
it is not only the genuine Perfect,
describing action
in
the past with continuance into present time, but also the
simple
indefinite Past. As Dr J. A. Robinson
says (Gospels,
p.
107), on e@kruyaj and a]peka<luyaj in Mt 1125: "If we
render,
'Thou didst hide . . . Thou didst
reveal,' . . . our
minds
are set to search for some specially appropriate
moment
to which reference may be made. The familiar
rendering,
'Thou hast hid . . . Thou hast
revealed,' expresses
the
sense of the Greek far more closely, though we are using
what
we call a 'perfect.' The fact needs to
be recognised
that
our simple past and our perfect tense do not exactly
coincide
in meaning with the Greek aorist and perfect
respectively.
The translation of the aorist into English
must
be determined partly by the context and partly by
considerations
of euphony."1 The use of
the English perfect
to
render the aorist evidently needs careful guarding, lest the
impression
of a true perfect be produced. Take for example
Rom
15. The AV "we have
received" decidedly rings as a
perfect:
it means "I received originally and
still possess."
This
lays the 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.
This
is not an indefinite aorist at all. If a man says to his
friend,
"Through you I got a chance in life," we should
never
question the idiom: "have got"
would convey a
distinct
meaning. Among the paraphrasers of Rom, Moffatt
1 This thesis was
elaborately worked out by Dr R. F. Weymouth in a
pamphlet,
On the Rendering into English of the
Greek Aorist and Perfect (1890:
since
in 2nd ed.). His posthumous NT in Modern
Speech was intended to give
effect
to the thesis of the pamphlet.
some
not very wise language about the RV; but in this one point it may
be
admitted that the Revisers' principles were (very rarely) applied in rather
too
rigid a manner. See however pp. 137 ff.
THE
VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 137
and
the Twentieth Century NT rightly give
the past tense
here
with the RV: Rutherford, Way and
accurately
give the perfect. The limitations of our idiom
are
evident in the contrasted tenses of Mk 166 and 1 Co
154.
]Hge<rqh states simply the past complete fact, the
astounding
news of what had just happened—see above on
this
use of the aorist. ]Egh<gertai, 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
against
the perfect which the sense so strongly demands.
We
must either sacrifice this central thought with the AV
and
the free translators, who had a chance that was denied
to
the literal versions, or we must frankly venture on
"translation
English" with the RV: 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."
AV and RV The subject of the rendering of the
in Mt. Greek aorist is so important that no apology
is needed
for an extended enquiry. We will
examine
the usage of AV and RV 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
RV
alike with the English perfect,1 or in a few cases the
present;
while in 41 the AV is deserted by the RV for the
simple
past.2 These figures alone
are enough to dispose
of
any wholesale criticism. In 11 of the 41
himself
uses the past in his free translation. His criticism
therefore
touches between a quarter and a third of the
1 Including 612,
where the AV would certainly have translated a]fh<kamen as
the
RV has done. In a private memorial which 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 in 66. The figures above for Mt show
that
the appeal took effect; but in Jn 17, which 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 chapter obscures a special feature of the
great
prayer, the tone of detachment with which the Lord contemplates His
earthly
life as a period lying in the past.
2 One passage, 1811,
is only in RVmg.
138 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
passages
which come under our notice in Mt. From which
we
may fairly infer that the Revisers' English was, after
all,
not quite as black as it was painted. In examining the
material,
we will assume in the first instance that the aorist
is
rightly rendered by our perfect (or present) in all the
places
where AV and RV agree. (This is only assumed for
the
sake of argument, as will be seen below.) Our first task
then
is with the 41 passages in which there is a difference.
Of
these
definite aor.—see Hos 111)
531. 33. 38. 43 (here AV was misled
by
its wrong translation of toi?j a]rxai<oij—it is right in
vv.
21. 27) 1034f. (AV came
in one of the three) 1712 2142
2540
We may further deduct 2116 as justified by the AV
in
v. 42, and 2524. 26 as on all fours with the past "I
sowed."
It
remains to discuss the legitimacy of the English past in
the
rest of the exx. Our test shall be sought in idiomatic
sentences,
constructed so as to carry the same grammatical
conditions:
they are purposely assimilated to the colloquial
idiom,
and are therefore generally made parallel in grammar
only
to the passages they illustrate. In each case the pre-
terite
tacitly implies a definite occasion; and the parallel
will
show that this implication is at least a natural under-
standing
of the Greek. Where the perfect is equally idiomatic,
we
may infer that the Greek is indeterminate. Taking them
as
they come, 22 ei@domen seems to me clearly definite: "I
saw
the
news in the paper and came off at once." 37 u[ope<deicen
"has
warned" may be justified, but "Who told you that?"
is
presumably English. We may put together 517 1034f.
(h#lqon) 1524 (a]pesta<lhn). As we have seen, the AV and
are
all on the same footing. "I came
for business, not
for
pleasure" is good enough English, even if "have come"
is
likewise correct and not very different. Or compare
Shakspere's
"Why came I hither
but for that intent?"
In
722 (e]profhteu<samen, e]ceba<lomen,
e]poih<samen)
the perfect
would
be unobjectionable, but the past is quite idiomatic:
cf
such a sentence as "Now then—didn't I make speeches
all
over the country? Didn't I subscribe liberally to the
THE
VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 139
party
funds?" 108 (e]la<bete): cf "What
do you expect
You
paid nothing: you get nothing." 1117 (hu]li<samen,
etc.):
cf "There's no pleasing you. I made small
talk, and
you
were bored: I gave you a lecture, and you went to
sleep." 1125 (a]pe<kruyaj,
a]peka<luyaj—see
above): cf
"I
am very glad you kept me in the dark, and told my
friend."
1317 (e]pequ<mhsan, ei#don, h@kousan): here no better
justification
is needed than
"How blessed are our ears
That hear this joyful sound,
Which kings and prophets waited for,
And sought, but never found."
1344
(e@kruye): the aorist is
almost gnomic, like Jas 124, but
it
would be wrong to obliterate the difference between the
aorist
and the present (historic) which follows.1 1513 e]fu<-
teusen): cf "Every
movement which you didn't start is
wrong."
167 (e]la<bomen): cf "I brought no money away
with
me." 1912 (eu]nou<xisan) is to my mind the only
decided
exception.
Unless Origen's exegesis was right, the third
verb
does not refer to a single event like the other two,
except
so far as may concern a moment of renunciation in
the
past: the perfect therefore would
perhaps be less mis-
leading,
despite apparent inconsistency. 2120 (e]chra<nqh): cf
"How
on earth did that happen?" (AV wrongly joins pw?j
and
paraxrh?ma.) 2142 (e]genh<qh—for e]ge<neto see p. 138) is
ambiguous:
if it is the aorist of an event just
completed,
the
AV is right, but this may well be pure narrative. 2815
(diefhmi<sqh): here the added words "[and
continueth]"
leave
the verb to be a narrative aorist. Finally 2820 (e]neti-
la<mhn) is obviously idiomatic: cf "Mind you attend to
everything
I told you." In all these passages
then, with one
possible
exception, the simple past is proved to be entirely
idiomatic;
and if this is allowed, we may freely concede the
perfect
as permissible in several cases, and occasionally
perhaps
preferable.
Let us go back for a moment to our
lists for Mt, to
1 For this idiom see p.
121 n. above. Wellhausen, on Mk 728 (Einl. 16),
makes
it an Aramaism. In view of the MGr usage, we can only accept this
with
the proviso that it be counted good vernacular Greek as well.
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
mostly
excluded. Parenthetically, we might strike out a few
of
the passages in which AV and RV agree on the English
perfect.
1328 is not indefinite: "You
did that" is quite as
correct
as "You have done it," and seems to me more suitable
where
the emphasis is to lie on the subject. In 196 sune<zeucen
carries
the thought immediately and obviously to the wedding
day:
"those whom God joined together" is on this view
preferable.
Similarly a]fh<kamen (-ken) in 1927. 29
calls up
unmistakably
the day of the sacrifice. In 207
we cannot
object
to rendering "has hired"; but it may be observed
that
"nobody asked you" is not exactly a Graecism. And
surely
h!marton paradou<j (274) is definite enough—"I
sinned
when
I betrayed"? We may end this
section by putting
together
the exx. of two important categories. Under
the
head
of "things just happened " come 918 e]teleu<thsen (with
a@rti); 528 e]moi<xeusen and 1415 parh?lqen and 1712 h#lqe (with
h@dh); 612 a]fh<kamen, 1228 e@fqasen, 142 etc.
h]ge<rqh,
1617 a]pe-
ka<luye, 1815 e]ke<rdhsaj, 2012 e]poi<hsan
–aj, 2610 h]rga<sato
2613 e]poi<hse, 2665 e]blasfh<mhsen,
h]kou<sate, 2625. 64 ei#paj, 2719
e@paqon, 2746 e]gkate<lipej, 287 ei#pon, 2818 e]do<qh (unless 1127
forbids),
and perhaps 2142 e]genh<qh. Some of these may of
course
be otherwise explained. If they rightly belong to this
heading,
the English perfect is the correct rendering. Equally
tied
to the have tense are the aorists of
indefinite time-refer-
ence;
but we must be ready to substitute our preterite as soon
as
we see reason to believe that the time of occurrence is at
all
prominently before the writer's mind. Clear examples of
this
are 521 etc. h]kou<sate, 810 eu$ron, 1025 e]peka<lesan, 123 etc
a]ne<gnwte (ou]de<pote in 2116
brings in the note of time: cf
Shakspere,
"Why dost thou wrong her that did ne'er wrong
thee?),
1315 e]paxu<nqh etc., 156 h]kurw<sate, 1324 1823
222
w[moiw<qh (probably because the
working out of the comparison
included
action partially past: Zahn compares Jn
319), 2116
kathrti<sw, 2323 a]fh<kate, 2445 kate<sthsen, 2520. 22 e]ke<rdhsa,
2723
e]poi<hse.
The Perfect :— Our study of the
English periphrastic
perfect
prepares us for taking up the most
important,
exegetically, of all the Greek Tenses. In Greek, as in
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
that
note of close connexion between past and present which
is
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. A
cursory
reading of the papyri soon shows us how much more
the
vernacular tends to use this tense; and the inference
might
be drawn that the old distinction of aorist and perfect
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 suggested, by the context. It is simply
that
a preference grows in popular speech for the expression
which
links the past act with present consequences.a A casual
Used in place example from the prince of Attic writers
of Aorist. will show that this is not only a feature of late
Greek. Near
the beginning of Plato's Crito,
Socrates
explains his reason for believing that he would not
die
till the third day. "This I
infer," he says in Jowett's
English,
"from a vision which I had last
night, or rather only
just
now." The Greek, however, is tekmai<romai
e@k tinoj
e]nupni<ou, o{ e[w<raka
o]li<gon pro<teron tau<thj th?j nukto<j, where
point
of time in the past would have made ei#don as inevitable
as
the aorist is in English, had not Socrates meant to em-
phasise
the present vividness of the vision. It is for exactly
the
same reason that e]gh<gertai is used with the point
of time
in
1 Co 154 (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 Rom 167 we have
to
say either "who were in Christ before me," or (much better)
"who
have been in Christ longer than I." A typical parallel
from
the papyri may be seen in OP 477 (ii/A.D.) tw?n to>
pe<mpton
e@toj. . . e]fhbeuko<twn—a fusion of "who
came of age in" and
"who
have been of age since the fifth year." Now, if the
tendency
just described grew beyond a certain limit, the
fusion
of aorist and perfect would be complete. But it must
be
observed that it was not the perfect which survived in the
struggle
for existence. In MGr the old perfect
forms only
survive
in the passive participle (with reduplication syllable
a
See pp. 247 f.
142
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
lost),
and in the -ka which was tacked on to the aorist
passive
(e]de<qhka for e]de<qhn): there is also the
isolated eu!rhka
or
brh?ka
(Thumb, Handb. 94), aoristic in
meaning. It does
not
appear that the perfect had at all superseded the aorist
--though
in a fair way to do so—at the epoch when it was
itself
attacked by the weakening of reduplication which
destroyed
all chance of its survival as a distinct form, in
Ultimate decay competition with the simpler formation of
of
the Perfect. the aorist. But these processes do not
fairly
set in for
at least two centuries after the
NT
was complete. It is true that the LXX
and inscrip-
tions
show a few examples of a semi-aoristic perfect in
the
pre-Roman age, which, as Thumb remarks (Hellenismus,
p.
153), disposes of the idea that Latin influence was work-
ing;
cf Jannaris, § 1872. But it is easy to overstate their
number.a
Thus in Ex 321 kexro<nike is not really aoristic
(as
Thumb and Jannaris), for it would be wholly irregular
to
put an aorist in oratio obliqua to
represent the original
present
or perfect "Moses is tarrying" or "has tarried":
its
analogue is rather the xroni<zei, of Mt 2448.
Nor will it
do
to cite the perfects in Heb 1117 al
(see pp. 129, 143 ff.),
where
the use of this tense to describe what "stands written"
in
Scripture is a marked feature of the author's style:b cf
Plato,
Apol. 28C, o!soi e]n Troi<% tetleuth<kasin, as written in
the
Athenians' "Bible." In fact Mt
1346 pe<praken kai> h]go<ra-
sen is the only NT example cited by Jannaris which
makes any
impression.
(I may quote in illustration of this OP 482 (ii/A.D.)
xwri>j w$n a]pegraya<mhn kai>
pe<praka.)
The distinction is very
clearly
seen in papyri for some centuries. Thus th?j genome<nhj
kai> a]popepemme<nhj gunaiko<j NP 19 (ii/A.D.),
"who was my
wife
and is now divorced"; o!lon to>n xalko>n [deda]pa<nhka
ei]j
au]tw< BU 814 (iii/A.D.), where an erased e]-
shows that
the scribe
meant
to write the aorist and then substituted the more appro-
priate
perfect. As may be expected, illiterate documents show
Perfect and confusion most: e.g. OP 528 (ii/A.D.) ou]k
e]lou-
Aorist used sa<mhn ou]k h@lime ( = h@leimmai) me<xrei
ib ]Aqu<r.
together. It is in the combinations of aorist and perfect
that we
naturally look first for the weaken-
ing
of the distinction, but even there it often appears clearly
drawn.
At the same time, we may find a writer like Justin
a b
See p. 248.
THE
VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 143
Martyr
guilty of confusion, as in Apol. i. 2
2 pepoihke<nai . . .
a]negei?rai, 32 e]ka<qise
kai> ei]selh<luqen,
44 noh?sai dedu<nhntai kai>
e]chgh<santo. Other aoristic perfects may be seen in 60 e]ch?lqon
. . . kai> gego<nasi, 62 a]kh<koe
. . . kai> . . . e@labe, ii. 2 pepoi<hke . . .
kai> . . .
e]kola<sato, etc. We may compare from the LXX such
a
mixture as Is 535 e]traumati<sqh. . .
memala<kistai
(aor. in A).
The
NT is not entirely free from such cases: cf Mt 1346 (above).
In
Jn 332 e[w<raken and h@kousen--contrast 1 Jn 13—is
explained
by
Blass as due to the greater stress laid on the seeing.
Mk 519 o!sa . . . soi pepoi<hken kai> h]le<hse<n se shows the
proper
force of both tenses. In Lk 418
it seems best, with
Nestle
and Wellhausen, to put a stop after e@xrise< me, so that
a]pe<stalke is the governing verb
of all the infinitives, and is
not
parallel with e@xrise. Ac 2128, ei]sh<gagen kai> kekoi<nwken,
needs
no explaining. To Rev 33 57
and 85 we must return
later.
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 kai< and with
identical
subject. When the nexus is so close, we
might
fairly
suppose it possible for the tenses to be contaminated by
the
association, even where a perfect would not have been
used
aoristically by itself. But there are evidently no NT
exx.
to place by the side of those from Justin, except Mt 1346
and
the passages from Rev. (See further p. 238.)
Aoristic We
come then to the general question of
Perfects in NT? the existence of aoristic perfects in the NT.
It is a
question which must be settled on its
merits,
without any appeal to the a priori,
for aoristic
perfects
may certainly be found in and even before the epoch
of
the NT writings. We are entirely at liberty to recognise
such
perfects in one writer and deny them to another, or to
allow
them for certain verbs and negative the class as a
whole.
Among the authorities we find Blass (p. 200)
admitting
them for Rev and most sparingly in other places.
Even
less concession is made by W. F. Moulton (WM 340 n.).
confined
to narrow limits in the NT." The extremely small
proportion
of even possible exx. will naturally prevent us
from
accepting any except under very clear necessity. We
begin
by ruling out the alleged exx. from Heb (713 918 1117
144 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
1128),
since they are obviously covered by the author's usus
loquendi described above (p.
142). Some isolated cases may
also
be cleared out of the way. Lk 936 e[w<rakan seems to
be
virtually reported speech: a{ e[wra<kamen takes this form
regularly
in orat. obl., which the form of this
sentence suggests.
In
Jas 124, kateno<hsen kai> a]pelh<luqen
kai> eu]qe<wj e]pela<qeto,
the
aorist expresses two momentary acts, which are thrown
into
narrative form, and the perfect accurately describes the
one
action with continuance.1 In
Ac 735, a]pe<stalken, with
the
forest of aorists all round, is more plausibly conformed
to
them, and it happens that this word is alleged to have
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
liable
to be misled by an unreal parallelism in English.
e]n t&? buq&? pepoi<hka (2 Co 1125)
by the easy comment that
it
"goes quite naturally into English" (Simcox). But it does
not
follow that we have here a mere equivalent for e]poi<hsa.
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
continuity:
in the graph " A. . .
->. . . B,” which leads
from a
past
moment to the moment of speech, the perfect will
tolerate
the company of adjuncts that fasten attention on the
initial
point (as in Rom 167, above) or on some indeterminate
point
in its course (as here), or on several points in its course.
Cf
Lucian Pisc. 6 pou? ga>r e]gw> u[ma?j u!brika;—Plato Theaet.
144B
a]kh<koa me>n tou@noma, mnhmoneu<w d ] ou@ (see Goodwin
MT § 46)—BU 163 (ii/A.D.) fasi> oi[ paro<ntej e]kei?non ma?llon
(?
"often") tou?to pepoihke<nai, kai> ga>r
a@lloi w[j plhge<ntej
u[po> au]tou?
a]nafo<rion dedw<kasi--EP 11 (222 B.C.) pleona<kij
gegra<famen. To this category belong perfects with pw<pote,
as
Jn 118 537 333, and such cases as 2 Co 1217,
w$n a]pe<stalka,
"of
those whom (from time to time) I have sent." The
aorist
is obviously much commoner but the perfect may
still
be used to express a close nexus with present time.
We turn finally to the residuum of
genuinely aoristic
1 Cf. Syll. 80717
kai> a]ne<bleyen kai> e]lh<luqen kai>
hu]xari<sthsen dhmosi<%
t&? qe&? (sc. Asclepios).
THE
VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 145
perfects,
or (those which have a fair claim to be thus regarded.
First,
we may frankly yield those alleged for Rev, viz. 57
In Rev. and
85 ei@lhfen (and by consequence probably
33 1117
and 227), 714 and 193 ei@rhka (-an).
Since
these are without apparent reduplication, they may
well
have been actual aorists in the writer's view: Bousset
remarks
how little Rev uses e@labon. Secondly, we have
@Esxhka e@sxhka in 2 Co 213
19 75, Rom 52a—outside
Paul only in Mk 515.
We must, I think,
treat
all the Pauline passages alike, though Blass believes the
perfect
justifiable except in 2 Co 213. It seems clear that an
aorist
would suit all passages in 2 Co; and in the first of them
it
seems hopeless to squeeze a natural perfect force into the
Greek:1
an aorist would suit Mk l.c. perfectly, but that
matters
less. Now, if we may take them together, we can
see
an excellent reason why e@sxhka should have been used
as
an aorist. There is no Greek for possessed,
the constative
aorist,
since e@sxon
is almost (if not quite) exclusively used
for
the ingressive got, received.b @Esxon occurs only 20
times
in the NT, which is about 3 per cent. of the whole
record
of e@xw.
There is not one place where e@sxon must be
constative:
Jn 418 may be rendered "thou hast espoused"--
as
in Mk 1223, the forming of the tie is the point. The NT
does
not contravene Dr Adam's dictum (p. 49 of his notes on
Plato's
Apology) that "the aorist means got, acquired, not
had."
The similarity of e@sxhka to the aorists e@qhka and
a]fh?ka gave a clear opening for its
appropriation to this
purpose,
and the translation "possessed" will generally suit
the
case. We thus get in the required
aoristic perfects in
Rev
and in Paul without sacrificing a principle. Passing
over
pe<praka (Mt 1346), where the absence of an aorist from
the
same root may have something to do with the usage, we
Pe<praka. come to the perplexing case of ge<gona. Its
Ge<gona affinities would
naturally be with the present,
and there
seems small reason for letting it
do
the work of the common e]geno<mhn. Yet even Josephus
1 Plummer (CGT in loc.) says, "As in 19,
the perfect shows how vividly he
recalls
the feelings of that trying time": so
what
is said above on pepoi<hka in 2 Co 1125. But is this natural, when the
coming
of Titus with good news had produced a@nesij so complete? (See p. 288).
ab See p. 248.
146
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
(c.
Apion. i. 21) has o]li<g&
pro<teron th?j Peisistra<toe
turanni<doj a]nqrw<pou
gegono<toj,
"who flourished a little
before
P." From the papyri we may cite two
exx. (both from
ii/A.D.).
OP 478, "I declare that my son . . . has reached
(prosbebhke<nai) the age of 13 in the
past 16th year of
Hadrian
. . . and that his father was (gegone<nai) an in-
habitant
. . . and is now dead (teteleuthke<nai)." BU 136
diabebaioume<nou
tou? P. mh> gegone<nai
to>n pate<ra th?j
e]kdikoume<nhj o]nhla<thn. Now there are not a few NT passages
in
which it is far from easy to trace the distinct perfect force
of
ge<gona, and exx. like those above make it seem useless to
try.
But aoristic sense is not really proved for any of the
45
NT passages in which ge<gona (indic.) occurs, and in
the
great
majority it has obviously present time. Lk 1036 and
Jn
625 are unpromising for our thesis. But the first has the
vivid
present of story-telling—"seems to have shown himself
neighbour."
The second — inevitably translated "when
camest thou hither?"—is
only another instance of the perfect
with
point of time, dealt with already: it is
the combination
of
"when did you come?" and
"how long have you been
here?"
The aoristic use of ge<gona is said by
general
in Mt: Blass only admits it in 256. Even this last
is
more like 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
prophecy.
In general, it would appear that we can
only
admit
a case of the kind with the utmost caution. K.
Buresch,
in his valuable article "Ge<gonan" (RhM 1891,
pp.
193 ff.), noting an example of aoristic gego<nasi, in Plato (?)
Alcib. 12 4A,1
observes that this is never found in Greek that
is
at all respectable. In later Greek, he
proceeds, the use of
ge<gona greatly increases. "It has present force always where
it
denotes a state of rest, preterite force where it denotes
becoming. Hence in innumerable cases it is quite an
equivalent
of ei]mi<, as with exstiti,
factus or natus sum,
veni, etc." (p. 231
n.). It may be doubted however
whether
this canon will adequately account for the exx.
from
Josephus and the papyri with which we began.2
Since the earliest period of Greek,
certain perfects pos-
1 But see p. 238.
2 Note ge<gona there is constative: e]geno<mhn, is mostly ingressive.
THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 147
sessed
a present meaning, depending upon the mode of
action
belonging to the root, and on that exhibited in the
Perfects with present. Thus the markedly conative present
Present Force.
fect pe<peika and aorist e@peisa to match, kept
its
ancient, perfect pe<poiqa, which is intransitive
(like most
early
perfects—see below, p. 154), with meaning I
trust.
Monro's
account of the Perfect in its Homeric stage of
development
may be quoted: "If we compare the
meaning
of
any Perfect with that of the corresponding Aorist or
Present,
we shall usually find that the Perfect denotes a
permanent
state, the Aor. or Pres. an action which brings
about
or constitutes that state. Thus, . . . w@leto was lost,
o@lwle is undone. . . . Thus the
so-called Perfecta praesentia,
. . . e!sthka, . . . me<mnhmai, pe<poiqa, oi#da, e@oika, ke<kthmai,
etc.,
are merely the commonest instances of the rule. . . .
Verbs
expressing sustained sounds . . . are usually in the
Perfect"
(HG 31). This last remark explains ke<kraga, which
has
survived in Hellenistic, as the LXX seems to show
decisively.
W. F. Moulton (WM 342 n.) says, " In Jn 115
hath cried seems the more probable
meaning," observing that
the
pres. kra<zw is rare in classical writers. It is common
in
NT, a fact which probably weighed with him in making
ke<kragen a normal perfect. But
the LXX, when exx. are
so
numerous and well distributed, must certainly count as
evidence
for the vernacular here; and when we find ke<kraga
14
times, sometimes indisputably present, and never I think
even
probably perfect--cf esp. Ps 141(140)1 pro>j
se> e]ke<kraca
. . . pro<sxej t^? fwn^? th?j
deh<sew<j mou e]n t&? kekrage<nai me
pro>j se< (Heb. yxir;qAB;); and Job 3020,
where ke<kraga translates
the
impf. fUawaxE--, it is difficult to suppose the word used
as
a true perfect in NT. It has not however been "borrowed
from
the literary language in place of the Hellenistic kra<zei"
(Blass
198). Kra<zw has its own distinction
as a durative
—cf
Ps 32(31)3 a]po> tou? kra<zein me o!lhn th>n
h[me<ran;
and
ke<kraga, with kekra<comai and e]ke<kraca, may well have been
differentiated
as expressing a single cry. In any case we
cannot
treat the LXX as evidence for the literary character
of
the survival. One may doubt the necessity of putting
h@lpika and pe<peismai at into this category;
but te<qnhka
148 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
naturally
belongs to it; and h!ghmai in Ac 262 (contr. Phil 37)
is
one of the literary touches characteristic of the speech
before
Agrippa: see Blass in loc. (See
further p. 238.)
The Pluperfect The Pluperfect, which throws the Perfect
into past
time, was never very robust in
Greek.
It must not be regarded as a mere convenience
for
expressing relative time, like the corresponding tense in
English.
The conception of relative time never troubled
the
Greeks; and the aorist, which simply states that the
event
happened, is generally quite enough to describe what
we
like to define more exactly as preceding the time of the
main
verb. A typical case of a pluperfect
easily misunder-
stood
is Lk 829, which we referred to on p. 75 in connexion
with
the concurrent ambiguity of polloi?j xro<noij, and again
(p.
113) in connexion with the perfectivising force of su<n.
Since
vernacular usage so clearly warrants our rendering the
former
"for a long time," we are free to observe that to
render
"oftentimes it had seized him" (RV text) involves a
decided
abnormality. It would have to be classed as the
past
of the "perfect of broken continuity" which we discussed
above
(p. 144) on 2 Co 1125. But it must be admitted that
the
extension of this to the pluperfect is complex, and if there
is
a simple alternative we should take it; RVmg is
tially
right, though "held fast" would be better than "seized."
We
need not examine further the use of this tense, which
may
be interpreted easily from what has been said of Perfect
action.
It should be noted that it appears
sometimes in
conditional
sentences where an aorist would have been pos-
sible:
e.g. 1 Jn 219 memenh<keisan
a@n. The pluperfect expresses
the
continuance of the contingent result to the time of speak-
ing.
In Mt 127 e]gnw<keite is virtually an
imperfect to a
present
e@gnwka, in which the perfect form has the same
rationale
as in oi#da;
and in Jn 1911 e]do<qh I would have only
pictured
the original gift and not the presence of it with
Pilate
at the moment.
The Future :— Last comes the
Future. The nature of
Its Action. its action may be looked at first. This may
be examined
in the history of its form. Its
1 On the periphrastic
pluperfect, h#n dedome<non, see pp. 225 if.
THE
VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 149
close
connexion with the sigmatic aorist 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
subjunctive.1
As such it will naturally share the
point action
of
the aorist. We cannot however decisively
rule out the
possibility
that another formation may have contributed to
the
Greek future, a formation which would be originally
linear
in 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 con-
tiguous
groups before they separated. Greek, geographically
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.
@Acw is either "I shall lead" or "I
shall bring"—the former
durative,
the latter effective. Thus in Mk 1428 proa<cw
u[ma?j
is
probably "I shall go before you," while a@cwn (Ac 225)
"to
bring,"
and a@cei
(1 Th 414) "he will bring," refer to the end of
the
action and not its progress. An ingressive future may
probably
be seen in u[potagh<setai, 1 Co 1528: the to<te seems
to
show that the Parousia is thought of as initiating a new kind
of
subordination of the Son to the Father, and not the per-
petuation
of that which had been conspicuous in the whole of
the
mediatorial aeon. The exposition of this
mystery must
be
taken up by the theologians. We pass on to note
another
example of the ingressive future, to be found in
Jn
832. ]Eleuqerou?n, appears to be always punctiliar in
NT,
but it is not necessarily so: cf
Sophocles OT 706 to< g ]
ei]j e[auto>n pa?n e]leuqeroi?
sto<ma,
"as for himself, he keeps his
lips
wholly pure" (Jebb). (It is true Sir R. Jebb uses "set
free
" in his note, but the durative force of his translation
seems
more suitable.) It is therefore noteworthy that in v. 33
we
have the paraphrase e]leu<qeroi genh<sesqe, to bring out the
(ingressive)
point action of the future that precedes. Some-
times
the possession of two future forms enabled the language
to
differentiate these meanings. Thus e!cw was associated
1 See Giles, Manual2 446-8.
150 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
with
e@xw,
and meant "I shall possess"; sxh<sw with e@sxon,
and
so meant "I shall get."1 There is one possible ex.
in
NT: in 1 Pet 418 fanei?tai may well be durative as
in
Attic—note
the durative s&<zetai preceding it in the
same
clause;
while fanh<setai (Mt 2430) has obviously point
action.
See
the classical evidence marshalled in Kuhner-Gerth i. 114 ff.,
170
ff.: add the note in Giles, Manual2
483 n. Since Hellen-
istic
generally got rid of alternative forms--even sxh<sw is
entirely
obsolete,2—this distinction will not be expected to
play
any real part in NT Greek. Indeed even
those futures
which
by their formation were most intimately connected with
the
aorist, such as fobhqh<somai (for which Attic could use
a
durative
fobh<somai), exercised the double mode of action
which
was attached to the tense as a whole: cf
Heb 136,
where
"be afraid" (durative) seems to be the meaning, rather
than
"become afraid." This question
settled, we next have
Shall and Will. to decide between shall
and will as the
appropriate
translation. The volitive future
involves
action depending on the will of the speaker or of the
subject
of the verb: in I will go, you shall go, it is the former;
in
will you go? it is the latter. Side by side with this
there
is the purely futuristic we shall go,
they will go.
It
is impossible to lay down rules for the rendering of the
Greek
future—the case is almost as complicated as are the
rules
for the use of shall and will in standard English.
Not
only are the volitive and 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
instance,
in such a passage as Mk 1324-27 we have shall
seven
times where in modern English we should undeniably
use
will.3 But in v.18
("the same shall be saved")
the
substitution
of will is not at all certain, for
the words may
be
read as a promise (a volitive use), in which shall is
1 See Brugmann, Kurze vergl. Gramm. 568, for this as
seen in kalw?j sxh<sei
and
kalw?j e!cei: also his Gr. Gram.3
480.
2 It occurs in OGIS 751 (ii/B.C.) a]sqenw?j [sxh<]sete--see note—and in the
archaising
Lp P 41 (iv/A.D.) par[asx]
h<sesqai: both are only ex suppl.
3 The use of shall when prophecy is dealing with
future time is often par-
ticularly
unfortunate. I have heard of an intelligent child who struggled under
perplexity
for years because of the words "Thou shalt deny me thrice": it
could
not therefore be Peter's fault, if Jesus commanded him! The child's
THE
VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 151
correct.
Speaking generally, it may fairly be
claimed that
unless
volitive force is distinctly traceable from the context,
it
would be better to translate by the futuristic form. The
modernising
of our English NT in this respect would involve
the
sacrifice of a very large number of shalls
in the 3rd
person,
for our idiom has changed in many dependent
clauses,
in which neither shall nor will is any longer correct.
In
Mk 1414, for example, we should certainly say, "Follow
him,
and wherever he goes in. . . ." It is one of the points
in
which modernising is possible without sacrificing dignity
—a
sacrifice too palpable in some of the attempts to render
the
NT into twentieth century English.
Moods of the What remains to be said about the
Future. Future will most appropriately come in when
we discuss
categories such as Commands and
Prohibitions,
Conditional Sentences, etc. It will suffice to
remark
here that the moods of the Future have in Hellenistic
Greek
receded mostly into their original non-existence, as
experiments
that proved failures. The imperative and sub-
junctive
never existed: a few lapsus calami
like kauqh<swmai,
or
analogically formed aorist subjunctives like o@yhsqe,
dw<s^
(WH
App2 179), will not be
counted as efforts to supply the
gap.
The optative, which only performed the
function of orat.
obl. substitute for fut.
indic., has disappeared entirely. The
infinitive,
originally limited in the same way, except for the
construction
with me<llw,1 has shrunk very considerably, though
not
obsolete. With me<llw it is only found in the
word
e@sesqai. 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
though
genuine function of its own. The volitive force (here
final
or quasi-final) is the commonest, as Brugmann remarks,2
and
the papyri keep up the classical use; but futuristic forms
are
not wanting—cf 1 Co 1537, Heb 35, Ac 2022.
determinism
is probably more widely shared than we think; and a modernised
version
of many passages like Mk 1430—e.g. "you will be renouncing me
three
times"—would
relieve not a few half-conscious difficulties.
1 Goodwin MT § 75. 2 Gr. Gram.3 498.
CHAPTER VII.
THE
VERB: VOICE.
Voice :— THE phenomena of Voice in Greek present
us with
conditions which are not very easy
for
the modern mind to grasp. Active we know, and Passive
we
know, nor can we easily conceive a language in which
either
is absent. But nothing is more certain than that the
parent
language of our family possessed no Passive, but only
Active
and Middle, the latter originally equal with the
former
in prominence, though unrepresented now in any
language
save by forms which have lost all distinction of
History of the meaning. What the prehistoric distinction
Middle. was,
we can only guess. It is suggestive
that in the
primitive type which is seen
in
the Greek ti<qhmi—ti<qemai, the principle of
vowel-grada-
tion
(Ablaut) will account for -qe- as a weakening of -qh-,
and
-mi
as a weakening of -mai, 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 ti<qemen
tiqe<meqa, nor with lu<w—lu<omai; but if it accounts for
part
of
the variation, we have enough to suggest a tentative inter-
pretation
of the facts. If such be the origin of
the two forms,
we
might assume a difference of emphasis as the starting-
point:
in the active the action was stressed,
in the middle
the
agent. We may illustrate this by the
different emphasis
we
hear in the reading of the sentence in the Anglican liturgy
which
reminds the penitent of the Divine forgiveness. One
reader
says "He pardoneth," wishing to lay all stress on
the
one Source of pardon, another "He pardoneth," the pardon
itself
being the uppermost thought with him. We could easily
suppose
the former represented by a]fi<etai, and the latter
by
a]fi<hsi, in a language in which stress accent is free to
alter
the weight of syllables as it shifts from one to another.1
1 See below, p. 238.
152
THE VERB: VOICE. 153
The Middle in Out of these postulated conditions, which
Sanskrit, are of course the merest conjecture, we could
readily
derive the nuance which meets us in
the
earliest, accessible developments of Indo-Germanic speech.
The
Indian grammarians acutely named the active parasmai-
pada and the middle atmane-pada, "a word for
another" and
"for
oneself" respectively. Thus yajate would be "he sacrifices
for
himself," while yajati, unless
the dat. atmane 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
in
some way closely concerned with the action. The same
and in Latin. characteristic is ultimately found in other
languages.
In Latin the middle has been some-
what
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
“Deponents.” meaning conveyed by the middle, we naturally
start with
the verbs which are found in active
only
or middle only, to both of which classes the unsatisfactory
name
"deponent" should be given, if retained for either.
Typical
words not used in the middle, in the parent language,
are
the originals of our verbs eat, come, am,
and the Greek
di<dwmi, (simplex) and re<w; while no active can be
traced for
ne<omai,
e!pomai (= sequor), mai<nomai, mhti<omai (=
metior),
ka<qhmai, kei?mai.1 The former class will be seen to denote
"an
action, an occurrence, or a state"; as likewise do the
latter,
but "prevailingly such as take place in the sphere of
their
subject, the whole subject being concerned in the action."
Where
the distinction is so fine, it is easily seen that many
cases
must arise in which we can no longer detect it, and are in
danger
of over-refining if we try. Our investigation must take
account
of the rather extensive categories in which one part
of
the verb affects the middle and another the active form. We
1 I quote from Brugmann, Kurze vergl. Gramm. § 799, and mainly
follow
his
account throughout this paragraph.
154 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
have
a number of cases in which the "strong" perfect active
attaches
itself in meaning to the middle, either figuring
Intransitive among the parts of a verb which has no other
Strong active forms, or siding with
the intransitive
Perfects. middle
where the rest of the active is transi-
tive. So
conspicuous is this, that the grammars
in
which we learnt Greek thirty years ago actually gave
"te<tupa"—the product, by
the way, of an inventive imagina-
tion—as
the perfect middle of that highly irregular and defec-
tive
verb which in those days was our model regular.1 As
exx.
of this attachment we may cite ge<gona from gi<nomai and
e]lh<luqa from e@rxomai,2 with a]ne<&ga,
e[sta<nai, a]po<lwla,
se<shpa, and pe<poiqa as intransitive
perfects from transitive
verbs.
Among the few remaining strong perfects occurring
in
the NT, we note a]kh<koa, ke<kraga,3 pe<ponqa,
te<t(e)uxa,
and
ei@lhfa, as from verbs with a future middle. We
have the
defectives
oi#da, e@oika, and ei@wqa; and the two isolated
actives
e]nh<noxa and ge<grafa remain the only real
exceptions to the
rule
which finds some link with the middle in each of the
relatively
few survivors of the primitive perfect active. The
list
might perhaps be slightly extended from other vernacular
Greek:
thus a]gh<oxa (a]gei<oxa,
a]ge<wxa)
is found freely in
papyri,
and belongs to a purely active verb. The conjecture
that
the perfect originally had no distinction of active and
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 universal.
Future Middle Parallel with this peculiarity, but much more
in Active sense extensive, is the category of middle futures
attached to
active verbs. As an abnormality
for
which no reason could be detected, it naturally began to
suffer
from levelling in Hellenistic, but is still prominent. We
have
in NT a]kou<sw as well as a]kou<somai, kra<cw beside kekra<-
comai,
1 In this the grammars
followed ancient authority: thus Dionysius Thrax
says, "meso<thj de> h[ pote> me>n e]ne<rgeian pote> de>
pa<qoj paristw?sa, oi#on pe<poiqa,
die<fqora,
e]poihsa<mhn, e]graya<mhn."
2 The aorist h#lqon is really due to the
influence of a third constituent root in
this
defective verb.
3 Kekra<comai is only formally
passive.
THE VERB: VOICE. 155
xwrh<sw, e]mpai<cw, a[rpa<sw,
kle<yw, a[marth<sw—all
these from
the
selected list of such verbs in
of
Attic Greek, which supplies only about as many exx. of the
preservation
of the old future middle. (Some of these active
futures,
indeed, have warrant in classical Greek of other
dialects
than Attic, even from the Homeric period; but the
list
will sufficiently illustrate the weakening of this anomaly.)
In
spite of this, we still find in NT o@yomai,
-bh<somai,
gnw<somai,
fa<gomai, a]poqanou?mai, komi<somai and komiou?mai,
lh<myomai,
pi<omai, pesou?mai, te<comai, feu<comai,
which are
enough
to show that the phenomenon was anything but
obsolete.
denote
the exercise of the bodily functions" or "intellectual
or
emotional activity"; and he would suggest that "the
notion
of willing implied in the future tense" may be the
reason
of the peculiarity. Brugmann connects it with the
tendency
of the strong aorist to be intransitive. This
would
naturally prompt the transitive use of the sigmatic
aorist
and consequently the future, so that the middle future
attaches
itself to the active intransitive forms. The explana-
tion
is only invoked for cases like bh<somai, and does not
exclude
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.
Use of the What has been
said of the history of
Middle: how the Middle prepares us for the statement
far
is it that this voice is quite inaccurately described
reflexive?
by empiric grammarians as
essentially re-
flexive.
As a matter of fact, the proportion of strictly
reflexive
middles is exceedingly small. In NT we may cite
a]ph<gcato (Mt 275) as
the clearest example, and a survival
from
classical Greek. But even here one may question
whether
the English intransitive choke is not
a truer parallel
than
the reflexive hang oneself. It is curious that in
Winer's
scanty list of exx. (WM 316), presumably selected as
the
most plausible, we have to discount all the rest. Lou<omai
accompanies
its correlate ni<ptomai; and its one decisively
middle
form (u$j lousame<nh, 2 Pet 222) would raise diffi-
culties
if it occurred in a better Hellenist. Certainly, if the
156
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
pig's
ablutions are really reflexive rather than passive, sundry
current
notions need revising. To our author at any rate
lousame<nh did not suggest willing
co-operation.1 In citing
kru<ptomai (Jn 859), bonus dormitat Homerus: e]kru<bh is not
middle
in form, nor does the verb show any distinct middle
in
NT. In paraskeua<setai (1 Co 148) the intransitive
prepare, make
preparations,
gives a better sense than the
reflexive.
We might bring in such an example as mh<
sku<llou Lk 76,
compared with the illiterate contemporary
papyrus
OP 295, mh> sklu<lle e[ath<n. But though no doubt
a
reflexive meaning ultimately accrued to the Middle, and
in
MGr almost drives other uses off the field, it would
be
wrong to suppose that it was originally there. If the
active
is transitive, the middle indicates that the action
goes
no further than the agent himself, a sense which
naturally
comes out of the concentration on the agent
characteristic
of the middle. Thus ni<ptomai, is "I wash,"
with
or without object, but implying that the action stops
with
myself. If then there is no object, ni<ptomai= "I wash
myself":
if there is, ni<ptomai
ta>j xei?raj
="I wash my
Bearing of the hands." This
characteristic produced a passive
Passive upon use of the middle, in Brugmann's opinion,
Theory
of before the dialectic
differentiation of Indo-
Middle. Germanic
speech. Intransitive use is a
natural
development from the fundamental idea of the
middle;
and from intransitive to passive is but a step.
The
well-known classical use of a]poqn^<skei u[po< tinoj, as
correlative
to a]poktei<nei tij, illustrates the development.
It
may seem to us strange that the same form should be
used
indifferently as active or passive in meaning--that,
for
example, e]nergoume<nh in Jas 516 should be translated
"working"
(RV) or "inwrought,"2 with only the context
to
decide. Our own coincident transitive and intransitive,
1 The rhythmical
conclusion of the proverb suggests that it originated in
an
iambic line from comedy. Was 2 Pet citing from memory a verse the
metrical
nature of which he did not realise? If
so, the original would of course
not
admit lousame<nh—it would run leloume<nh
d ] u$j ei]j kulismo>n borbo<rou, or louqei?sa
a!pac u$j, or the like. But see below, p. 238, and
J. B. Mayor, Comm. p. lxii.
2 See Mayor in loc., and J. A. Robinson, Eph. 247. W. F. Moulton strongly
favoured
the second rendering. Why the Revisers did not give it even a
marginal
place, is hard to divine: it was there in their first revision.
THE VERB:
VOICE.
157
however,
is almost equally capable of producing ambiguity,
or
would be if it were not for the studied avoidance of
ambiguity
which is necessarily characteristic of an analytic
language.
"He who hides can find,"
"He who hides is safe,"
exhibit
the same form both as transitive and intransitive;
and
it would be easy to devise a context in which the second
would
become really ambiguous.
The Middle From what has
been said, it is clear that
paraphrased the most practical equivalent of the Middle
by
Reflexive will generally be the
active with the dative
in
Dative case. of the 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,
and
an exaggeration of the differentia. In prose<xete
e[autoi?j (Lk 121), "pay attention
for yourselves," we have a
phrase
differing little from fula<ssesqe (v.15), "be on
your
guard,"
being only rather more emphatic. Mk 1447
spasa<-
menoj th>n ma<xairan is paraphrased by Mt
(2651) a]pe<spasen
t. m. au]tou?: here, as in Ac 1414,
where diarrh<cantej ta> i[ma<tia
e[autw?n replaces the more idiomatic diarrhca<menoi
ta> i[.,
we
see the possessive gen. expressing the same shade of
meaning.
Sometimes we find redundance, as when in Jn 1924
diemeri<santo . . . e[autoi?j stands against the
unaccompanied
Typical
verb in the same quotation Mt
2735. A few
Middles:— typical
illustrations of the general principle
may be
added. Proskalou?mai, "I call to
myself,"
is clear: its opposite a]pwqou?mai, "I thrust away
from
myself," is not really different, since a]pwqw?
e]maut&?
would
show a legitimate dativus commodi. We have in fact
to
vary the exact relation of the reflexive perpetually if we
are
to represent the middle in the form appropriate to
the
particular example. Sunebouleu<santo Mt 264
answers
Reciprocal, to sunebou<leusan e[autoi?j, "they counselled
one
another": here we have the
reciprocal
middle,
as in ma<xesqai.1 ]Ecele<gonto Lk 147 "they picked
out
for themselves," and so "chose": cf the distinction
1 Cf the closeness of a]llh<louj
and e[autou<j. Brugmann has some notes on
this
middle in Indog. Forsch. v. 114. Cf MGr na>
parhgorhqou?me,
"that we
may
comfort one another" (Abbott 228, distich 56).
158
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
of
ai[rw?
and ai[rou?mai. Peiqein "to exercise
suasion"
in
the middle it keeps the action within the sphere of the
agent,
and consequently means "to admit suasion to oneself."
Xrw?mai, from the old noun xrh< "necessity,"
is "I make
for
myself what is necessary with something"—hence the
instrumental,
as with the similar middle utor in
Latin. Less
Dynamic, 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 nh<xw and nh<xomai (not NT) "to
swim."
The
category will include a number of verbs in which it is
useless
to exercise our ingenuity on interpreting the middle,
for
the development never progressed beyond the rudimentary
stage.
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
Mental Action. to physical applications of the idea of the
verb will
often be introduced in this way,
since
mental action is especially confined within the sphere of
the
agent. Thus katalamba<nw "seize, overtake"
(Jn 15 1235),
in
the middle denotes mental "comprehending," as Ac 413.
Hellenistic "On
the whole the conclusion arrived at
Use of the must be that the NT writers were perfectly
Middle. capable
of preserving the distinction between
the active
and middle." Such is the authori-
tative
summary of Blass (p. 186), which makes it superfluous
for
us to labour any proof. Differences between Attic and
Hellenistic
use in details are naturally found, and the un-
classical
substitutions of active for middle or middle for
active
are so numerous as to serve the Abbe Viteau for proof
of
Hebraism on a large scale. As Thumb remarks (Hellen-
ismus 127), a mere glance
into Hatzidakis's Einleitung—an
indispensable
classic, the absence of which from Viteau's list
of
works consulted accounts for a great deal—would have
shown
him that in the Hellenistic period Greeks by birth
were
guilty of many innovations in the use of the voices
which
could never have owed anything to Hebrew. The NT
exx.
which Hatzidakis gives (pp. 195 ff.) are not at all in-
consistent
with the dictum of Blass quoted above. The
sphere
of the middle was, as we have seen, not at all sharply
THE VERB: VOICE. 159
delimited,
and usage inevitably varied in different localities
and
authors. There are plenty of middles in Attic, and
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 sequor and utor, while in other
words
the distinction may have been applied in a dif-
ferent
manner. We can see why gamei?sqai=nubere fell
out
of use in Hellenistic:1 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
distinction was liable to lapse. The accuracy with which
the
middle was used would naturally vary with the writers'
Greek
culture. Note for example how Mt and Lk
correct
the
e]fulaca<mhn (legem
observare) of their source in Mk 1020.
In
Mk 223 they have removed another incorrect use, unless
o[dopoiei?n is to be read there
with B etc. (WHmg); for
o[do>n means "construct a road"
(Gildersleeve Synt.
69),
and the middle should have been used instead. In the
less
educated papyrographers we find blunders of this kind
considerably
earlier than the time when the more subtle
meanings
of the middle disappeared.a As early as 95 B.C.
we
find e]a>n ai[rh?te and e]a>n ai[rh?sqe used side by side for
"if
you
like" (GH 36), and in the preceding century dialu<wmen
appears
in the sense of dialuw<meqa in LPe. These are of
course
sporadic, but some violations of classical usage have
almost
become fixed. This especially applies to the idiom-
atic
use of poiei?sqai, with a noun as substitute for a verb.
Here
the middle sense was not clearly discernible to the
plain
man, and poiei?n invades the province of the middle
very
largely! We still have mnei<an
poiei?sqai,
(as in Eph 116)
BU
632 (ii/A.D.), katafugh>n poiei?sqai TP 5 B.C.),
BU
970 (ii/A.D.), etc. But the recurrent phrase to>
prosku<-
nhma< (sou) poiw? only twice (Letr. 117,
Tb P 412) has the
middle.
Mt 62, p. e]lhmosu<nhn, Mk 151 sumbou<lion
p.,2
Lk
187
p. e]kdi<khsin, etc., will serve as specimens of a fairly
large
1 Speaking generally: it
survives in the legal language of marriage contracts,
as
OP 496 (early ii/A.D.), and even Lp P 41 (iv/A.D.). [a See p. 248.
2 Of the modern phrase sumbou<lio
gia> na> ka<moun
"to consult," of physicians
(Abbott
200). (On poiei?n in such phrases, cf Robinson, Eph. 172).
160 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
class
of usages, in which we cannot accuse the writers of
ignorance,
since the middle could only defend itself by pre-
scription.
So when a new phrase was developed, there might
be
hesitation between the voices: suna?rai lo<gon appears in
Mt
1823 2519, BU 775 (ii/A.D.), but the middle, as in FP 109
(i/A.D.),
OP 113 (ii/A.D.), is more classical in spirit. In places
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 h[rmosa<mhn 2 Co 112
fairly
justifies itself by the profound personal interest the
apostle
took in this spiritual promnhstikh<.
Ai]tw?
and
This is not the place for discussing, or
Ai]tou?mai even cataloguing, all
the verbs which vary
from
classical norm in respect of the middle
voice;
but there is one special case on which we must tarry
a
little longer. The distinction between ai]tw? and ai]tou?mai
claims
attention because of the juxtaposition of the two in
Jas
42f., 1 Jn 515; Mk 622-25 1035. 38
(=Mt 2020. 22). The
grammarian
Ammonius (iv/A.D.) declares that ai]tw? means to
ask
simpliciter, with no thought of
returning, while ai]tou?mai
involves
only request for a loan. This remark serves as an
example
of the indifferent success of late writers in their
efforts
to trace an extinct subtlety. Blass (p. 186) says that
ai]tou?mai, was used in business
transactions, ai]tw? in requests of
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.
"arbitrary";
but it is not easy to understand how a writer like
James
could commit so purposeless a freak as this would be.
Mayor
in his note cites grammarians who made ai]tou?mai =
ask
meq ] i[kesi<aj, or meta> paraklh<sewj, which certainly suits
the
idea of the middle better than Ammonius' unlucky guess.
"When
ai]tei?te is thus opposed to ai]tei?sqe," Mayor proceeds,
"it
implies using the words, without the spirit, of prayer."
If
the middle is really the stronger word, we can, understand
its
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
may
be recalled, that "the daughter of Herodias, after the
king's
declaration, stands in a kind of business relation to
THE VERB: VOICE. 161
him
" (p. 186 n.), so that the differentia of the middle cited
above
will hold.
Middle and The line of demarcation between Middle
Passive Aorists. and Passive is generally drawn by the help
of the
passive aorist, which is supposed to be
a
sound criterion in verbs the voice of which is doubtful.
It
should however be pointed out that historically this
criterion
has little or no value. The "strong" aorist passive
in
-hn
is nothing but a special active formation, as its
endings
show, which became passive by virtue of its pre-
ference
for intransitive force. The -qhn aorist was originally
developed,
according to Wrackernagers practically certain
conjecture,
out of the old aorist middle, which in non-
thematic
formations ran like e]do<mhn—e]do<qhj—e@doto: when
the
thematic -so
displaced the older -qhj (Skt. -thas),
the
form
e]do<qhj was set free to form a new tense on the
analogy
of the -hn
aorist, which was no more necessarily
passive
than the identic formation seen in Latin hakes,
habet.
Compare
e]xa<rhn from xai<rw (later also xai<romai, by formal
levelling),1
where the passive idea remained impercep-
tible
even in NT times: the formally passive e]kru<bh, from
kru<ptw, in Jn 859
(cf Gen 310) will serve as an ex. of a pure
intransitive
aorist from a transitive verb.2 In Homer (cf
Monro
HG 45) the -qhn aorist is very often
indistinguishable
in
use from the aorist middle; and it is unsafe to suppose
that
in later periods of the language the presence of an aorist
in
-qhn
or -hn
is proof of a passive meaning in a "deponent"
verb.
Of course the -qhn forms, with their
derivative future,
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 a]pokri<nomai, "answer," we
have
a]pekrina<mhn in Attic Greek and predominantly in the
papyri,
while a]pekriqhn greatly outnumbers it in the NT;
but
the evidence noted above (p. 39) shows that the two
forms
were used concurrently in the Koinh<, and without
1 So Ac 38 D:
cf Trygaeus in Arist. Pax 291
(Blass).
2 To match these
specimens of formal passives with middle meaning, we may
cite
middles in passive sense. Thus BU 1053, 1055 (i/B.C.) to>
e]n o]fil^>
qhso<menon, "the amount that
shall he charged as due."
162
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
the
slightest difference of sense. W. F. Moulton was inclined
to
see "a faint passive force . . . in most of the instances"
of
e]sta<qhn in NT, though observing that it "is in regular
use
as an intransitive aorist" in MGr1 (WM 315 n.). He
also
suggested the possibility that e]koimh<qhn, in 1 Th 414
might
be a true passive, "was put to sleep," which gives a
strikingly
beautiful sense. A purely middle use of koimhqh?nai,
"fell
asleep," is patent in such phrases as Ch P 3 h[ni<ka
h@mellon
koimhqh?nai e@graya e]pisto<lia (iii/B.C.). The active
koima?n however, though apparently dormant in
classical prose,2
revives
in the LXX, as Gen 2411. We
may also compare the
clear
passive in FP 110 (i/A.D.) i!na ta> pro<bata e]kei?
koimhqh?i,
"may
be folded," as the edd. translate. It seems possible
therefore
to conceive the passive force existing side by side
with
the simple intransitive, as apparently happened in e]sta<-
qhn (see note 1 below); but we cannot speak with
confidence.
Common Perhaps the matter is best summed up
Ground. with
the 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. We have seen how the bulk of the forms
were
indifferently middle or passive, and how even those
which
were appropriated to one voice or the other are
perpetually
crossing the frontier. Common ground between
them
is to be observed in the category for which we use the
translation
"submit to," "let oneself be," etc.3 Thus in Tb P
35
(ii/B.C.) e[auto>n ai]tia<setai, "will get himself accused,"
is
a
middle; but in 1 Co 67 a]dikei?sqe and a]posterei?sqe are
described
as passives by Blass, who says that "'to let' in the
sense
of occasioning some result is expressed by the middle"
(p.
185). The dividing line is a fine one at
best. ]
gra<yasqai in Lk 25
might seem to determine the voice of
the
present in vv. 1. 3, but Blass finds a passive in v.1 Is
1 ]Esta<qhka is used as aor. to ste<kw "stand," and e]sth<qhka
to sth<nw
"place"
(Thumb
Handb. 92).
2
Cf. poreu<ein and fobei?n, which have entirely
given up their active: we
should
hardly care to call proeuqh?nai and fobhqh?nai passive. In MGr we have
some
exx. of the opposite tendency, as daimoni<zw "drive mad"
(Abbott 224,
no.
47): in older Greek this verb is purely middle.
See other exx. in Hatzi-
dakis
198 f. 3
Gal 52 periute<mnhsqe will serve as a good
example.
THE VERB: VOICE. 163
there
adequate evidence for separating them? Formally
a]poko<yontai, Gal 512 (Dt
231), is middle,1 and so are ba<ptisa,
and
a]po<lousai, Ac 2216 (cf 1 Co 611 102);
but if the tense
were
present or perfect, could we decide? The
verb u[pota<ssw
furnishes
us with a rather important application of this
question.
What is the voice of u[potagh<setai in 1 Co 1528?
Is
it passive—"be subjected" by as well as "to him that did
subject
all things to him"? Or is it
middle—"be subject"?
pass.
in Rom 103, in consistency with the initiative ascribed to
Christ
throughout." I incline to this, but
without accepting
the
reflexive "subject himself," which accentuates the differ-
ence
between the identical u[potag^? and u[potagh<setai; the
neutral
"be subject" explains both, and the context must
decide
the interpretation. In Rom 103 the RV renders "did
not
subject themselves," despite the passive; and the reflexive
is
an accurate interpretation, as in u[pota<ssesqe Col 318.
The
question next presents itself whether we are at liberty
to
press the passive force of the aorist and future and perfect
of
e]gei<rw, when applied to the Resurrection of Christ. A
glance
at the concordance will show how often h]ge<rqhn etc.
are
merely intransitive; and we can hardly doubt that h]ge<rqh,
in
Mk 166 and the like, translated Mq (cf Delitzsch). But if
the
context (as in 1 Co 15) strongly emphasises the action of
God,
the passive becomes the right translation. It is in fact
more
for the exegete than for the grammarian to decide
between
rose and was raised, even if the tense is apparently
unambiguous:
one may confess to a grave doubt whether
the
speaker
of Greek really felt the distinction.2
1 The verb must be
similarly treated with reference to its voice, whether we
translate
with text or margin of RV. The various arguments in favour of
the
margin, to which the citation of Dt l.c.
commits us above, are now reinforced
by
Ramsay's advocacy, Expos. for Nov.
1905, pp. 358 ff. He takes the wish
rather
more seriously than I have done (infr.
201); but I should be quite ready
to
go with Mr G. Jackson, in the same Expos., p. 373. See also
(Exp. B 328 f.).
2 On the Passive,
reference should be made to Wellh. 25 f., for exx. showing
how
this voice was largely replaced by other locutions in Aramaic (especially
the
impersonal plural, p. 58 f. above), and consequently in Synoptic translations.
One
or two other problems, in which Voice is concerned, must be reserved. On
bia<zetai in Mt 1112,
Lk 1616, see Expositor,
Oct. 1908, "Lexical Notes," s.c.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE VERB : THE MOODS.
The Moods THE Moods which we have to discuss will be
in general. the Imperative, Subjunctive, and Optative,
and
those uses
of the Indicative which make it
a
"modus irrealis." In this preliminary chapter we shall
aim
at evaluating the primary meanings of the Moods
leaving
to the systematic grammar the exhaustive classi-
fication
of their uses, especially in dependent clauses.
The
moods in question are characterised by a common
subjective
element, representing an attitude of mind on
the
part of the speaker. It is not possible
for us to
determine
with any certainty the primitive root-idea of each
mood.
The Imperative is tolerably clear: it represented
command—prohibition
was not originally associated with it,
and
in Greek only partially elbowed its way in, to be elbowed
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. A possible
unification, on
the
basis of a common mood-sign -a-, was conjectured by the
writer
some years ago (AJP x. 285 f.: see
the summary in
Giles,
Manual2 460 n.). It is at
least a curious coincidence
that
the mood-sign thus obtained for the Subjunctive should
functionally
resemble the –ye- 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.
165
make
nouns of nearly identical function. However clearly
the
Optative may be reduced to a single formation, it gives
us
nevertheless no hope of assigning its meanings to a single
root-idea:
Optative and Potential, may and might in their
various
uses, defy all efforts to reduce them to a unity. In
this
book the discussion of the Potential might almost be
drawn
on the lines of the famous chapter on snakes in
but
for literary survivals in the Lucan writings. (See pp. 197 ff.)
No
language but Greek has preserved both Subjunctive and
Optative
as separate and living elements in speech, and
Hellenistic
Greek took care to abolish this singularity in a
fairly
drastic way. It ought to be added, before we pass
from
this general introduction, that in a historical account
of
the Moods a fourth, the Injunctive,
has to be interpolated,
to
explain certain phenomena which disturb the development
of
the others, and perhaps of the Indicative as well. The
Injunctive
was simply an imperfect or aorist indicative
without the augment. Lu<ou, lu<esqe, lu<sasqe, lu<qhte, lu<ete
lu<sate and sxe<j will suffice as
specimens, enough to illustrate
how
largely it contributed to the formation of the Imperative.
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 its forms, illustrates the syntactical
nearness
of the moods. Since the Optative also
can express
prohibition,
even in the NT (Mk 1114), we see how much
common
ground is shared by all the subjective moods.
Particles affect- Before taking the Moods in detail, we
ing MoodsAv. :— must tarry a little over the consideration
@An. of two important particles which
vitally
affect
their constructions, a@n and mh<. The
former
of these is a very marked peculiarity of Greek. It is
a
kind of leaven in a Greek sentence: itself untranslatable,
it
may transform the meaning of a clause in which it is
inserted.
In Homer we find it side by side with
another
particle,
ke>n or ke (probably Aeolic), which appears to
be
somewhat weaker in force: the later
dialects generally
166
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
select
one or the other for exclusive use. The general
definition
of its meaning is not very easily laid down.
"Under
the circumstances," "in that case," "anyhow," may
express
it pretty well.1 The
idiomatic use of "just," common
in
in
apodosis: e]gw> de< ken
au]to>j e!lwmai,
"I'll jilt tak her mysel'."
(See
p. 239.) It had become stereotyped by
the time we
reach
Hellenistic Greek, and we need not therefore trace its
earlier
development. Two originally connected
usages are
now
sharply distinguished. In one, a@n stands with optative
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 a@n (in the NT period more
often
written
e]a<n—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
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 table2 :—
@An
(e]a<n) with subj. (or indic.) @An conditional, with verb.
joined with relative or With
indic. With opt.
conjunction.
Impf. Aor. Pluperf. Pres. Aor.
Mt 55 1 7 0 0 0
Mk 30 0 1 0 0 0
Lk 28 2 4 0 3 1
Ac . 10 0 1 0 3 2
Jn, 1 Jn, 3 Jn 15 7 7 1 0 0
(incl.
^@deite bis)
Rev 5 0 0 0 0 0
Paul
27 3 3 0 0 0
Heb 1 4 1 0 0 0
Jas 1 0 0 0 0 0
---- --- --- --- --- ---
Total 172 17 24 1 6 3
1 Brugmann Gram.3 499 gives
"allenfalls, eventuell, miter Umstanden."
2 The corresponding
figures for the LXX will be instructive. A rough count
in
HR gives 739 as the total occurrences of a@n (including ka@n), apart from
e]a<n = a@n. Out of these 26 are with aor. opt.; an comes
3 times and e@xomi once
(in
4 Mac, an artificial work which supplies by itself 11 out of the exx. just
noted)
; 22 can be classified as iterative; 41 are with aor. indic., 6 with imperf.
and
1 with pluperf.; and 8 are abnormal (6 with relative and fut. indic., and
1
each with pres. indic. and fut. indic.).
I have included all cases in which
was
read by any of the authorities cited in Swete's manual edition.
THE VERB: THE
MOODS. 167
The
disproportion between these totals--172 and 51—would
be
immensely increased if e]a<n (if) and o!tan were added. We
shall
see later (pp. 198 and 200) that the conditional a@n is
rapidly
decaying. The other use, though
extremely abundant
in
our period, falls away rapidly long before the papyri fail
us;
and even within the NT we notice some writers who
never
show it, or only very seldom. This
prepares us for
the
ultimate disappearance of the particle except in composi-
tion
(MGr a@n
if, from the old a@n;1 sa<n as or when, from w[j
a@n—see below; and ka@n even, used like the NT ka@n=kai<, not
affecting
construction).
We proceed to mention a few
miscellaneous points in
the
NT use of a@n.
There are three places in which the old
Iterative a@n. iterative
force seems to survive: Ac 245 and
435
kaqo<ti a@n tij xrei<an ei#xen, and 1 Co 122
w[j a}n h@gesqe.2 "As
you would be led (from day to day)
translates
the last by an English iterative construction which
coincides
with the conditional, as in Greek:
249
pleads for a historical connexion of these two uses of
a@n. The
aorist no longer appears in this construction as in
w[j a@n. classical Greek. Then we should note the
appearance
of w[j a@n in constructions which
foreshadow
the MGr idiom just mentioned.3 Rom 1524 is
an
interesting case, because of the present subjunctive that
follows:
"when I am on my way"
(durative) transfers into
the
subjunctive the familiar use of present for future. In
1
Co 1134 it has the easier aorist, "whenever I shall have
arrived,"
and so in Phil 223. In 2 Co
109, however, it
means
"as it were."4 MGr
till has gone further, and takes
the
indicative as an ordinary word for when.
The weakening
of
the connexion between compounds of a@n and the sub-
junctive
is seen in the appearance of the indicative with
1 On a@n and e]a<n (if) in NT see above, p. 43 n.
2 Winer (p. 384) would
make all these parallel with the use of o!pou a@n c.
indic.
in Mk 656 and the like. I deal with the question below.
3 For vernacular evidence
see Par P 26 (ii/B.C.—with gen. abs.), 46 (ii/B. C.—
with
aor. subj.); BM 20 (ii/B.C.) sune<tacaj w[j a}n ei]j
Me<mfin;
OGIS 9023
(ii/B.C.—the
Rosetta Stone) w[j a@n . . . sunesthkui<aj, etc. Exx. are
numerous.
4 Both the exx. of a@n c. partic. quoted by
Winer (p. 378) are w[j a@n: add 2 Mac
124.
I have noted one ex. of genuine a@n c. ptc. in a Koinh< inser., IMA iii. 179
dikaio<teron a}n swqe<nta (=Syll. 356, a despatch of Augustus).
168 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
o!tan and e]a<n (if), and other words of the kind. So not
infrequently
in Mk, as 311 o!tan e]qew<roun, 1125 o!tan
sth<kete,
!Otan,
etc. 1119 o!tan
e]ge<neto:
add Rev 49 o!tan dw<sousin,
c. indic. 81 o!tan h@noicen. Parallel
with these are
Mk 656 o!pou
a@n ei]seporeu<eto
and o!soi a@n
h!yanto, Rev 144 o!pou
a}n u[pa<gei,
(where however we are
entirely
free to spell u[pa<g^ if we like). Since these are
in
the least cultured of NT writers, and include presents and
futures
as well as past tenses, we should hardly class them
with
the cases of iterative a@n just given from well-educated
writers
such as Luke and Paul, though there is an obvious
kinship.
If a@n added -ever to the force of a relative or con-
junction,
there seemed no reason to forbid its use with a past
tense
where that meaning was wanted. The
papyri yield
only
a small number of parallels, showing that in general
the
grammatical tradition held. Thus BU 607
(ii/A.D.)
o[po<tan a]nairou?ntai, FP 126 (iv/A.D.) o!s
] a}n pa<sxete,
Par
P 26 (ii/B.C.) o!tan e@bhmen kat ] a]rxa>j ei]j
to> i[ero<n
(
= merely when), BU 424 (Will A.D.) e]pa>n
e]puqo<mhn
(also
.
. .when), BM 331 ii/A.D.) o!sa e]a>n
parelabo<mhn.a The
tendency
to drop the distinction of when and wheneverb may
be
connected with the fact that o[po<te is freely used for when
in
papyri—so the later uncials in Lk 63. ]Ea<n with indica-
tive
is found in 1 Th 38 sth<kete, 1 Jn 515 oi@damen, to mention
only
two cases in which indic. and subj. are not formally
identical
in sound. Winer quotes even e]a>n h#sqa, from Job
223 (^#j A), just as in Hb P 78
(iii/B.c.), where h#sqa is cer-
tainly
subj., and e]a>n h#san in Tb P 333 (iii/A.D.). They are
probably
extensions from the ambiguous e]a>n h#n, which is
normally
to be read ^#:
see CR xv. 38, 436, and above, p. 49.
We
may add a selection from papyri:—Par P 18 e]a>n maxou?sin
met ] e]sou?. 62 (ii/B.C.) e]a<nper
e]kplhrw<sousin.
Tb P 58
(ii/B.C.)
e]a>n dei?. BU 546 (Byz.) e]a>n
oi#den. OP 237 (ii/A.D.)
e]a>n d ]
ei]si<n. AP 93 (ii/A.D.) e]a>n
fai<netai.
@An dropped from The same lesson is taught by conjunctions
its compounds. which still take the subjunctive, though a@n has
been
allowed to fall out. It does not seem to
make
any difference whether e!wj or e!wj a@n is written. So
with
many other compounds. Thus PP i. 13
(Ptol.) o!sa
a See p. 239. b See
p. 248.
THE VERB: THE MOODS 169
o]fei<lwsi<n tinej, CPR 24, 25 (ii/A.D.) e]f
] o{ n ^# xro<non,
237
o!sa au]t&?
proste<khtai, Tb P 6 (ii/B.C.) e!wj me<nwsi, GH 38
(i/B.C.) e!wj katab^?j, OP 34 (ii/A.D.) mh<te dido<tw . . . pri>n au]t&?
e]piste<llhtai, etc., etc. The prevalence of this
omission in
the
papyri with conjunctions meaning until
(a@xri, me<xri,
me<xri ou$, e!wj, pri<n, pro>
tou?,
etc.), is paralleled in the NT:
cf
Mk 1432, 2 Pet 119, Lk 138, etc. see the list in WM 371.
With
pri>n (h@), however, the a@n occurs in the only
place (Lk
226) where it is used with
subjunctive.1
Ei] mh<ti a@n In 1 Co 75 mh>
a]posterei?te a]llh<louj,
ei]
mh<ti a}n [om.
B, probably to ease a diffi-
culty]
e]k sumfw<nou pro>j kairo<n, we have a curious
combina-
tion
which seems to be matched in the papyri.2 So BU 326
(ii/A.D.)
ei@ ti e]a>n a]nqrw<pinon pa<[q^], and ei@
ti e]a>n meta> tau?ta
gegramme<na katali<pw, "if I should
leave a codicil": the
latter
phrase is repeated subsequently without e]a<n in this
rather
illiterate will. OP 105 (ii/A.D.) ei@ ti a@llo
ai]a>n (e@lxw.
FP
130 (iii/A.D.) ei@ tinoj h]a>n xri<a soi<
e]stin. BM
233
(iv/A.D.)
ei@ ti a@n a[pacaplw?j a]nalw<s^j. These documents
are
too illiterate for illustrating Paul: some early scribe is
more
likely to be responsible than the apostle. Note that
Origen
quotes e]a>n mh<ti. This
explanation (Deissmann's) seems
on
the whole preferable to the alternative cited from Buttmann
in
WM 380 n. Winer's editor himself compared the a@n to
that
in ka@n
and w[j a@n which does not affect construction:
cf Tb P 28 (ii/B.C.) ei] ka@n du<natai.
Mh< More important still in its influence on
the moods is
the subjective negative mh<, the
distinction
between which and the objective ne
(replaced in
Greek
by ou])
goes back to the period of Indo-Germanic unity,
and
survives into the Greek of the present day. The history
of
mh<
has been one of continuous aggression. It started in
principal
clauses, to express prohibition. As early as Homer
1 Luke once uses it with
subj. and once with opt., both times correctly with
a
negative clause preceding (Lk 1.c., Ac 2519. The papyrus writers are not so
particular.
Elsewhere in NT the infin. construction is found.
2 See Deissmann BS 204 n.
He quotes BU 326, but will not allow that ei]
mh<ti a@n is a kind of analysis
of e]a>n mh<ti, though this gives the meaning correctly.
Blass2,
p. 321, has not summarised him quite adequately, if I understand Deiss-
mann
correctly. The point is that a@n is added to ei]
mh<ti as
it might be to o!pou
or
o!te,
meaning unless in a given case, unless
perhaps. See further p. 239.
170
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
mh< had established itself in a large and
complex variety of
uses,
to which we have to appeal when we seek to know
the
true nature of the modal constructions as we come to
them.
Since every Greek grammar gives the ordinary rules
distinguishing
the uses of ou] and mh< we need not examine
them
here in their historical relationship: what must be said
will
come up best as we deal with the moods seriatim. But
the
broad differences between Hellenistic and earlier Greek in
this
respect raise questions affecting the moods as a whole,
and
especially the verb infinite. We must therefore sketch
the
subject briefly here.
Blass's Canon. The
difference between ou] and mh< in the
Koinh< of the NT becomes a
very simple
matter
if we accept the rule which Blass lays down (p. 253).
"All
instances," he says, "may practically be brought under
the
single rule, that ou] negatives the indicative, mh< the other
moods,
including the infinitive and participle." In review-
ing
Blass, Thumb makes the important addition that in
MGr
de<n (from ou]de<n, which stepped into the
place of ou]),
as
we can easily understand from many of its adverbial
uses
in NT) belongs to the indicative and mh<(n) to the sub-
junctive.
The classical paper of Gildersleeve in the first
number
of his AJP (1880), on encroachments
of mh<
upon ou]
in
the later Greek, especially in Lucian, makes it very clear
that
the Attic 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
that
the ultimate goal has not been completely reached in
NT
times. Mh< has not been driven away
from the indicative.
Its
use in questions is very distinct from that of ou],1 and is
1 Blass (p. 254 n.)
thinks that mh<ti in Jn 215 "hardly lends itself to the
meaning
'certainly not I suppose.'" But the
tone of this word, introducing a
hesitant
question (as Jn 429), is not really inappropriate. We often hear "I
suppose
you haven't got . . . on you, have you?"
Moreover, the papyri show
us
that prosfa<gion is not so broad a word as "something to
eat." See my note,
Expos.
viii. 437, to which I can now add OP 736 and 738 (cir. A.D. 1). The
apostles
had left even a@rtoi behind them once (Mk 814): they might well have
left
the "relish" on this occasion. It would normally be fish ; cf Mk 638.
(While
speaking of Jn 1.c., I should like to
add that the address Paidi<a,
"Lads!",
may be paralleled in MGr, e.g. in the
Klepht ballad, Abbott 42--
paidi<a mou and paidi<a, to soldiers.) See further p. 239.
THE VERB: THE MOODS. 171
maintained
in NT Greek without real weakening. Mh< re-
mains
after ei]
c. indic. in unfulfilled conditions, except in
Mk
1421 (and Mt). But in simple conditions ei]
ou] is
common
Luke
has 6, Jn 3, Paul 16, Jas 2, and Mt, Heb, 2 Pet, and
Rev
one each. Against this total of 31, we
have 4 exx. of
ei] mh< in simple conditions
with verb expressed, and three of
these
(1 Co 152, 2 Co 135, Gal 17) are anything but
normal:1
1
Tim 63 is more ordinary, according to classical
standards.
Blass
adds ei] de> mh> oi#daj from the agraphon
in D at Lk 64.
Ei] mh< is three times as
common in NT as ei] ou], but we
soon
see that it is restricted to three uses: (1) in protasis
of
unreal conditions; (2) meaning except, much like plh<n;
(3)
with de,< meaning otherwise,
without verb expressed. Lk
913, with a deliberative
subjunctive following, is exceptional.
Such
being the facts, it is difficult to combat the assertion
that
ei] ou] came to be the norm;2 though doubtless
several of
its
exx. were correct according to classical standards, as in
Rom
89, where a single word is negatived rather than a
sentence.
A few survivals of mh< in relative sentences pre-
serve
literary construction; so Ac 1529 D, 1 Jn 43 (unless we
desert
the extant MSS for patristic evidence and read lu<ei,
with
Wiling and Blass), Tit 111, 2 Pet 19. A genuine
example
of the old distinction is traceable in the otherwise
identic
phrases of Jn 318 and 1 Jn 510: the former states
the
charge, quod non crediderit, the
latter the simple fact, quod
non credidit. But it must be allowed that this is an
isolated
case.1 We will leave to the
next chapter the only other excep-
tion
to Blass's canon, the limited use of ou] with the participle.
The First among the Moods we take up the
Imperative :-- Imperative. It is the
simplest possible form
of the verb.
@Age the imperative of a@gw, and
a]ge< the vocative of a]go<j, are both of them
interjections formed
by
isolating the root and adding no suffix—the thematic vowel
e is now generally regarded as a part of the root
rather than
a
suffix. In our own language, where nouns and verbs have
in
hosts of cases reunited through the disappearance of suffixes,
we
can represent this identity easily. "Murder!", in
or
1 See below,
p. 239. 2
See p. 240.
172
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
soldiers
charging a crowd, or the scream of one of the victims.
The
interjection, as we might expect, was indifferently used
for
2nd and 3rd person, as is still shown by the Latin agito,
Skt.
ajatat, (= age + tod, the ablative
of a demonstrative pro-
noun,
"from this (moment)," added to make the command more
peremptory).
How close is the kinship of the
interjection
and
the imperative, is well shown by the demonstrative
adverb
deu?ro,
"hither," which only needs the exclamation
mark
to make it mean "come here": it
even forms a plural
deu?te in this sense. We shall recall this principle when we
describe
the use of the infinitive in commands.
Tone of There being in Greek a considerable
Imperative. variety of forms in which one man may
express to
another a wish that is to control
his
action, it will be necessary to examine the tone of that
mood
which is appropriated to this purpose. As we might
expect
from our own language, the imperative has a very
decided
tone about it. The context will determine how much
stress
it is carrying: this may vary from mere
permission, as
in
Mt 832 (cf e]pe<treyen in the presumed source
Mk 513) or
1
Co 715, to the strongest command. A careful study of the
imperative
in the Attic Orators, by Prof. C. W. E. Miller
(AJP xiii. 3 9 9 ff.), brings out the
essential qualities of the
mood
as used in hortatory literature. The grammarian Her-
mogenes
asserted harshness to be a feature of the imperative;1
and
the sophist Protagoras even blamed Homer for addressing
the
Muse at the beginning of the Iliad
with an imperative.2
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 con-
ciliation
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
that
was unchallenged in rhetoric. If a cursory and limited
observation
may be trusted, the ethos of the
imperative
had
not changed in the age of the papyri. Imperatives
1
Sxh<mata de> traxe<a
ma<lista me>n ta> prostaktika<.
2 Ap. 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 to the NT, we find a very different state
of
things. 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-
over,
even in the language of prayer the imperative is at
home,
and that in its more urgent form, the aorist. Gilder-
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
full
of de<omai, kalw?j poih<seij, and various other
periphrases
whereby
the request may be made palatable. To God we
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.
Tenses of
The distinction between present and
Imperative. aorist imperative has been drawn already,
to some
extent, in the discussion of pro-
hibitions;
for though the subjunctive has to be used in the
aorist,
it is difficult to question that for this purpose the
two
moods hardly differ—the reason for the ban on mh>
poi<hson lies buried in the
prehistoric stage of the language.
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
categories:
see Miller op. cit. 416. The only difference
will
be that the meaning of mh> poih<s^j (above, pp. 122 ff.)
comes
from the future sense inherent in the subjunctive,
while
in estimating the force of poi<hson we have nothing
but
the aorist idea to consider. This, as we
have often
repeated,
lies in the "point action" involved. In the
imperative
therefore the conciseness of the aorist makes it a
decidedly
more sharp and urgent form than the present. The
latter
may of course show any of the characteristics of linear
action.
There is the iterative, as in Lk 113, the conative,
174
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
as
in Mk 939 ("do not try to stop him, as you are
doing"),
Phil
212 ("set to 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
Phil.
In Mt 5-7 the presents (still 2nd pers.)
are 19 to
24,
and in corresponding parts of Lk 21 to 16. In seven
passages
only do the two evangelists use different tenses, and
in
all of them the accompanying variation of phraseology
accounts
for the difference in a way which shows how delicately
the
distinction of tenses was observed. Mt 542 = Lk 630, and
Mt
611= Lk 113, we have dealt with. Mt
512 has continuous
presents,
following o!tan
c. aor. subj.: in Lk 623 a little more
stress
on the ingressive element in these aorists makes the
addition
e]n e]kei<n^ t^> h[me<r% suitable, and this
carries with it
the
aor. imper. In Lk 1258
do<j is
natural with e]n t^? o[d&?:
Mt
523 has i@sqi eu]now?n, which is curious in
view of taxu<.
But
since ei]mi< has no aorist, it is not surprising that its
imperative
is sometimes quasi-ingressive: cf Mk 534, Lk
1917, and the phrase gnwsto>n
e@stw (Ac ter). The punctiliar
stre<yon, turn, in Mt 539 answers well to the linear pa<rexe,
hold out, offer, in Lk 629. The vivid phrase a]gwni<zesqe
ei]selqei?n of Lk 1324
may well preserve more of the original
than
the constative ei]se<lqate of Mt 713. In all these cases
some
would recognise the effects of varying translation from
an
Aramaic original, itself perhaps not wholly fixed in
detail;
but we see no trace of indifference to the force of
the
tenses. The remaining example is in a quotation from
Ps
69, in which Mt 723 preserves the LXX except
in. the verb
a]poxwrei?te, while Lk 1327 modifies the address to
e]rga<tai
a]diki<aj: here it is enough to
say that the perfective a]po-
xwrei?te may have quasi-ingressive sense even in
the present.
Third Person We have so far
discussed only commands
Imperative. and
prohibitions in the 2nd person. Not
much need be
added as to the use of the
3rd.
Here the veto on the aorist in prohibition is with-
drawn:
we need not stay to ask why. Thus in Mt 63 mh>
gnw<tw 2417. 18 mh>
kataba<tw. . . mh> e]pistreya<tw, which
THE VERB: THE MOODS. 175
all
come under ordinary aorist categories. As in classical
Greek,
the 3rd person is naturally much less common than
Expressions the 2nd. Though the
1st person is not
for First formally brought in under the Imperative,
Person. it will be well
to treat it here: a passage
like Mk 1442 e]gei<resqe
a@gwmen
shows that
logically
it is fair to speak of three persons in the imperative
mood,
since a@gwmen only differs from e]gei<resqe in that the
speaker
is included with the objects of the command. That
this
should affect the tone of the command is of course
inevitable;
but indeed all three persons necessarily differ
considerably
in the ethos they severally show. The
closeness
of
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--bhareima,
bharata, bharantu,
like
fe<rwmen, fe<rete, fero<ntwn (Att.). In Hellenistic Greek
the
imperative 1st person is beginning to be differentiated
from
other subjunctives by the addition of a@fej, a@fete, a use
which
has recently appeared in a papyrus of the Roman
period
(OP 413, a@fej e]gw> au]th>n qrhnh<sw), and has become
normal
in MGr (a@j,
with 1st and 3rd subj. making
imperative).
This is always recognised in Mt 74 = Lk 642:
why
not in 2749 Mk 1536 one has never been able
to
see.
To force on Mt a gratuitous deviation
from Mk seems
a
rather purposeless proceeding. Translating both passages
simply
"Let us see," the only difference we have left is in
the
speakers, which is paralleled by several similar variations
(Hawkins
HS 56 ff.). It is possible that Jn 127, a@fej
au]th>n
i!na thrh<s^,1 has the same
construction in the 3rd person, to
be
literally rendered like the rest by our auxiliary, "Let
her
keep it." (So practically RV text.) The alternative is
"Let
her alone: let her keep it," which
is favoured by Mk 146.
The
acc. au]th<n, compared with the e]gw< seen in OP 413, dis-
courages
our treating a@fej, as a mere auxiliary.2 We shall
1 Teth<rhken
(a-text) is
a self-evident correction.
2 If we suppose the ti<
ko<pouj pare<xete;
(durative) to indicate that Judas and
the
rest were trying to stop Mary, the "let her keep it" (thrh<s^
constative)
176
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
be
seeing shortly that i!na c. subj. is an imperative ( i!na
ei@p^j= MGr na> ]p^?j,1
say!). The word had not yet by any
means
developed as far as our let, or its
own MGr derivative
a@j.
Note
that it much more frequently takes the infin.
(8
times in NT):2 other parts of the verb take infin. 7 times
and
i!na
c. subj. once (Mk 1116). Our own word helps us
in
estimating the coexistence of auxiliary and independent
verb
in the same word: in our rendering of Mt 74 "allow
me"
is the meaning, but to substitute "allow" for "let"
in
a phrase like "let us go" would be impossible. @Afej
is
"let" as in "do let me go," while MGr as is the simple
auxiliary.
Perfect The scanty relics of the Perfect Impera-
Imperative. tive need detain us very briefly. In the
active it never
existed, except in verbs whose
perfect
had the force of a present:3 we find kekrage<twsan
in
LXX (Is 1431), but no ex. in NT. In the passive it was
fairly
common in 3rd person (periphrastic form in plural),
expressing
"a command that something just done or about
to
be done shall be decisive and final" (Goodwin). We have
this
in Lk 1235. The rare 2nd person is, Goodwin adds, "a
little
more emphatic than the present or aorist": it shares,
in
fact, the characteristic just noted for the 3rd person.
Cf
pefi<mwso Mk 439 with fimw<qhti 125. The epistolary
e@rrwso in Ac 2330 (a-text), 1529 (passim in papyri), does not
come
in here, as the perfect has present meaning.
Substitutes for We are
ready now to look at the other
Imperative :- forms of Command—we use the word as
including
Prohibition—which supplement the
mood
appropriated to this purpose. We shall find that
forms
of command can be supplied by all six moods of the
verb--acquiescing
for the moment in a convenient misuse
(1) Future of the term "mood," to cover all
the subjects
Indicative; of this chapter and the next. The Future
Indicative
is exceedingly common in this sense.
may
be taken as forbidding interference with an act already begun. That the
h[me<ra tou? e]ntafiasmou? was already come, is
stated as much by the proe<laben of
Mk
148 as by the phrase in Jn. The action of v.3 is narrated completely
(as it
is
by Mk), before the interruption is described.
1 Thumb Handb. 100. 2 So Hb P 41
(iii/B.C.). 3 Goodwin
MT § 108.
THE VERB: THE MOODS. 177
It
seems to come to it by two roads, as may be seen by
the
study of its negatives. A command like ou] foneu<seij,
which
can be seen in earlier Greek and becomes abundant in
the
Hellenistic vernacular, is proved by its ou] to be a purely
futuristic form. Such a future may
have the tone of absolute
indifference,
as in the colloquial su> o@y^, "you will see to
that,"
Mt 274. Or it
may show that the speaker takes the
tone
of one who does not contemplate the bare possibility of
disobedience. Thus in Euripides Med. 1320 xeiri>
d ] ou]
yau<seij pote<, "you will 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
imperative,"
we may set Gildersleeve's emphatic denial. "A
prediction
may imply resistless power or cold indifference,
compulsion
or concession" (Synt. 116). We have also a
rare
form in which the negative mh< proclaims a volitive future,
in
its origin identical with the mh> poih<s^j type already dis-
cussed.
Demosthenes has mh> boulh<sesqe ei]de<nai, and mh>
e@cestai, BU 197 (i/A.D.), mh>
a]fh<sij
BU 814 (iii/A.D.), show
its
sporadic existence in the vernacular Koinh<. Blass adds
mhde<na mish<sete from Clem. Hom. iii.
69.a These
passages
help
to demonstrate the reality of this rare form against
Gildersleeve's
suspicions (Synt. 117).1 Yet another volitive
future
is seen in the imperatival use of the future with ou]
in
a
question: Ac 1310 ou]
pau<s^ diastre<fwn;
Prediction and
Command
approximate in the NT use of ou] mh< (see below,
pp.
187 ff.), which in Mt 155, Lk 115, Jn 138, Gal 430, and
possibly
elsewhere, is most naturally classed as imperatival.
(2) Subjunctive; Next among these forms of command comes
the
subjunctive, already largely dealt with.
So
we have had the 1st person, as Jn 1431 a@gwmen, Gal 526
mh> ginw<meqa. The future and the imperative between
them
carried off the old jussive use of the subjunctive in
positive
commands of 2nd and 3rd person. The old rule
which
in ("Anglicistic") Latin made sileas!
an entirely
grammatical
retort discourteous to the Public Orator's sileam?
1 To this class I should
assign the use of o!pwj c. fut. =imper., as in Plato
337
B o!pwj moi mh> e]rei?j, don't
tell me: owns is merely a
conjunction, "in
which
case." Though common in colloquial
Attic, it is mostly ousted in
Hellenistic
by i!na;
but see Hb P 45, 60, 168 al. (iii/B.C.),
Tb P 414 (ii/A.D.),
BU
625 (ii/iii A.D.). [a
See pp. 240, 243.
178
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
—which
in the dialect of
e]pime<leian poih<atai
Niko<dromor,
"let Nicodromus attend to
it"1—has no place in classical
or later Greek, unless in Soph.
Phil. 300 (see Jebb). Add doubtfully Ll P 1 vs.8 (iii/B.C.),
Tb
P 41426ff. (ii/A.D.). We have dealt already with mh>
poih<s^j,
the
historical equivalent of the Latin ne
feceris. In the 3rd
person
the subjunctive is little used: 1 Co 1611, 2 Co 1116,
2
Th 23 are exx. The tone of these clauses is less peremptory
than
that of the imperative, as may be seen from their closeness
to
the clauses of warning. Such mh< clauses, with subj.--rarely
future
(as in Col 28, Heb 312), which presumably
makes the
warning
somewhat more instant—are often reinforced by o!ra,
ble<pe, or the like. It must not be supposed that the mh<
clause
historically "depends on" this introductory word, so
that
there is an ellipsis when it stands alone. Even where
the
apparent governing verb is a real independent word and
not
a mere auxiliary—e.g. in Mk 1438, proseu<xesqe
i!na mh>
e@lqhte ei]j peirasmo<n—the parataxis was
probably once as
real
as it is in a phrase like Lk 1215 o[ra?te
kai> fula<ssesqe.
In
Rev 1910 229 we find mh< standing alone after
o!ra: of our
colloquial
"Don't!" One important
difference between pro-
hibition
and warning is that in the latter we may have either
present
or aorist subjunctive: Heb 1215 is an ex. of the
present.
But we must return to these sentences
later. An
innovation
in Hellenistic is i!na c. subj. in commands, which
takes
the place of the classical o!pwj c. fut. indic. Whether
it
was independently developed, or merely came in as an
obvious
equivalent, we need not stop to enquire. In any case
it
fell into line with other tendencies which weakened the
telic
force of i!na; and from a very
restricted activity in the
vernacular
of the NT period it advanced to a prominent
position
in MGr syntax (see above, p. 176). In
the papyri we
have
a moderate number of exx., from which may be cited 2
FP
112 (99 A.D.) e]pe<xon (-wn) Zwi<lwi
kai> ei!na au]to>n mh>
duswph<s^j, "attend to Z. and
don't look askance at him."
An
earlier ex. appears in a letter of
1 Cauer 264 (iv/iii B. C.). It must however be noted that Brugmann (Gram.3
500)
calls the connexion of this with the prehistoric jussive 3rd sing. "sehr
zweifeihaft":
he does not give his reasons.
2 Earlier are Tb P 408 (3
A.D. ), BU 1079 (41 A.D.).
THE VERB: THE MOODS. 179
ou#n, prw?ton me<n, i!na pa<nta
s&<zhtai : deu<teron de<, i!na mhde> tw?n
to<kwn o]ligwrh<s^j. Winer (WM 396) would find it "in the
Greek
poets," citing however only Soph. OC 155. W. F.
Moulton,
in setting this aside as solitary and dubious,
observes
that the scholiast took the passage this way—in
his
day of course the usage was common.a An ex. for the 1st
person
may be added: BU 48 A.D.) e]a>n
a]nab^?j t^? e[ort^?,
i!na o[mo<se genw<meqa. In the NT the clearest ex. is Eph 533
h[ de> gunh> i!na fobh?tai
to>n a@ndra,
which is correlated with
a]gapa<tw in the first clause. So 1 Co 729, 2 Co 87, Mk 523:
Gal
210 is the same construction put indirectly. Mk 1051
and
parallels have really the same: qe<lw
i!na more
nearly
coalesce
in Mk 625 1035, Jn 1724. The combination qe<lw
i!na,b which of course is not
confined to quasi-imperative use,
gave
birth ultimately to the MGr auxiliary qa< (qena<, etc.),
(3) Optative; forming the future tense. The Optative can
express
commands through either of its main
constructions,
but its evanescence in the Koinh< naturally
limits
NT illustrations. The Optative proper
(neg. mh<),
however,
does occur in Mk 1114: note that Mt (2119) sub-
stitutes
the familiar construction ou] mh<; c. subj. The Poten-
tial
with a@n
(neg. ou]),
as le<goij a@n, "pray speak," is not
(4) Infinitive; found in NT at all.1 The imperatival
Infinitive
has been needlessly objected to.
It
is unquestionable in Phil 316, Rom 1215, and highly pro-
bable
in Tit 22-10: we must not add Lk 93, which is merely
a
case of mixed. direct and indirect speech. The epistolary
xai<rein, Ac 1523 2326, Jas 11, is the same in origin.
We no
longer
need Winer's reminder (p. 397) that the verbs in
1
Th 311, 2 Th 217 35 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,
without
any MS that counts saying him nay. The infin. for
imper.
was familiar in Greek, especially in laws and in
maxims.
It survives in the Koinh<, as the papyri show;
on
AP 86 (i/A.D.), e]cei?nai, and misqw?sai, cf Radermacher in
RhM lvii. 147, who notes it
as a popular use.c Hatzidakis
1 An ex. perhaps occurs
in Par P 42 (ii/B.C.), xari<zou (?= -oio) d
] a}n kai> tou?
sw<matoj e]pimelo<menoj i!n ]
u[giai<n^j. [a b c
See p. 248.
180
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
shows
(p. 192) that in the Pontic dialect, the only form
of
MGr in 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
rarity
there is the only matter for surprise.1 Last among
(5) Participle. 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 38f., where adjectives and participles
alike
obviously demand the unexpressed e]ste<, gives us the
rationale
of the usage clearly enough. It is a curious fact
that
while i@sqi
occurs 5 times in NT, e@stw (h@tw) 14, and
e@stwsan twice, e]ste<, which we should have
expected to be
common,
does not appear at all. Gi<nesqe occurs and e@sesqe,
but
it seems more idiomatic to drop the copula: compare
the
normal absence of the verb with predicates like
maka<rioj, kata<ratoj,
eu]loghto<j, ou]ai<,
which sometimes raises
doubts
whether an indicative or an imperative (optative) is
understood.
We are accordingly absolved from inventing an
anacoluthon,
or some other grammatical device when we come
to
such a passage as Rom 129-19, where adjectives and parti-
ciples,
positive and negative, in imperative sense are inter-
rupted
by imperatives in vv. 14. 16. 19 and infinitives in v.15.
The
participles are obviously durative in their action: this is
well
seen in v.19, where e]kdikou?ntej, meaning either
"do not
avenge
yourselves (whenever wronged)" iterative
sense—
or
"do not (as your tendency is)" (supr.
p. 125), is strongly
contrasted
with the decisive aorist do<te, "once and for all
make
room for the Wrath2 (which alone can do justice on
wrong)."
The infinitives are appropriate in the concise
maxim
of v.15. Assuming
the cogency of the vernacular
1 See Deissmann BS 344. I do not however think there is
any real ellipsis
of
a verb of command: see below, p. 203.
Historically there is probably no
ellipsis
even in the epistolary xai<rein. It should be stated that Viteau i. 146
claims
this also as a Hebraism! See Thumb, Hellen.
130 f.; also Meisterhans3
244-6,
for its use in decrees.
2 So the RV in the First
Revision, and the American Revisers, beyond all
question
rightly. It is one more example of the baneful effects of the two-
thirds
rule upon the RV.
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
l.c. to adopt other interpretations1 :--1 Pet 31.7 218
48ff.: in this last passage e@xontej might of course be con-
structed
with nh<yate, and at first sight it seems possible in
this
way to avoid an asyndeton. But pro> pa<ntwn only intro-
duces
a series of asyndetic precepts, in which filo<cenoi and
diakonou?ntej must have the same
construction. To supply
the
imperative idea (as in 411) seems simplest, though of
course
vv.8-11 are all still dependent on the imperatives of
v.7. Since Peter is evidently given to this
construction, we
may
take 212 in the same way, though it would pass as an
easy
constr. ad sensum with v. 11: one would be inclined
to add
114, but Hort's alternative
must be noted.2 These
are all the
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
had
to waste his space in refuting. But we may extend the
list
somewhat. Paul was not so fond of this construction as
his
brother apostle: note how in 1 Pet 31, echoing Eph 522,
the
u[potasso<menai is slipped into the 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
already
had are conclusive for Paul's usage. Add
(note
the imperative to be supplied after pa<nta in v.17),
2
Co 911.13 and Eph 42.3 (cf 1 Pet 212).3 In 2 Co 824 e]ndei-
knu<menoi, is read by B (and the d-text
uncials,—presumably
the
reason why WH relegate it to the margin): it is how-
ever
obvious that the e]ndei<casqe of xC and the later uncials
is
not likely to be original as against the participle, which
would
challenge correction. The imper. in
Versions counts
for
little, if we are right in our account of the idiom; but
the
participle ustaiknyandans in Wulfila
is a noteworthy piece
1 We follow Winer's
order, tacitly agreeing with his explanation when we
pass
over a passage cited. The exx. in which the ptc. would be indicatival will
be
dealt with below. (An important ex. is added on p. 240.)
2 I must withdraw 57, cited
in Expos. VI. x. 450: the participle
there goes
closely
with tapeinw<qhte.
Probably 37 was meant—"sed mnhmoniko>n
a[ma<rthma,"
as
182
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
of
evidence on the other side. 2 Co 911 is more simply ex-
plained
this way than by the assumption of a long parenthesis.
Rom
1311 means "and this (do) with knowledge,"
the parti-
ciple
being rather the complement of an understood imperative
than
imperative itself. Heb 135 gives us an ex. outside
Peter
and Paul. With great hesitation, I incline to add
Lk
2447, punctuating with WHmg: "Begin ye from Jeru-
repeated
in v.49, thus marks the contrast between the Twelve,
for
whom
be
raised up soon who would make the world his parish:
the
hint is a preparation for Luke's Book II. There are
difficulties,
but they seem less than the astonishing breach of
concord
which the other punctuation forces on so correct a
writer.
(See p. 240.) On this usage in general
W. F. Moulton
(WM
732 n.) sided with Winer, especially against T. S. Green's
suggestion
that it was an Aramaism; but he ends with
saying
"In Heb 135, Rom 129ff., it must not be
forgotten
that
by the side of the participles stand adjectives, with
which
the imperative of ei#nai is confessedly to be supplied."
This
is, as we have seen, the most probable reason of a use
which
new evidence allows us to accept without the mis-
givings
that held back both Winer and his editor. It is not
however
really inconsistent with Lightfoot's suggestive note
on
Col 316, in which he says, "The absolute
participle, being
(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 75, and frequently), some-
times
imperative (as in the passages quoted [Rom 129f.
16f.,
Eph
42f., Heb 135, 1 Pet 212(?) 31.
7. 9. 15. 16,]),
sometimes opta-
tive
(as [
we
speak of a part of ei#nai being "understood," we are
really
using inexact language, as even English will show.
I
take the index to my hymn-book and note the first line of
three
of Charles Wesley's hymns: "Happy
the souls that
first
believed," "Happy soul that free from harms," "Happy
soul,
thy days are ended." In the first, on this grammatical
principle,
we should supply were, in the second is
(the), while
we
call the third a vocative, that is, an interjection. But
the
very "!"-mark which concludes the stanza in each case
THE VERB: THE MOODS. 183
shows
that all three are on the same footing: "the general
complexion
of the sentence," as Lightfoot says, determines
in
what sense we are to take a grammatical form which is
indeterminate
in itself.
Some Elliptical A few more words are
called for upon
Imperative the subject of defective clauses
made into
Clauses commands,
prayers, imprecations, etc., by the
exclamatory
form in which they are cast, or
by
the nature of their context. In Rom 1311 and Col 317 we
have
already met with imperatives needing to be supplied
from
the context: Mt 2719.25, Col 46, Gal 15 (see Lightfoot)
and
Jn 2019 are interjectional clauses, and there is
nothing
conclusive
to show whether imperative or optative, or in
some
like clauses (e.g. Lk 128) indicative, of ei#nai would be
inserted
if the sentence were expressed in full logical form.
Other
exx. may be seen in WM 732 But there is one
case
of heaped-up ellipses on which we must tarry a little,
that
of Rom 126-8. There
is much to attract, despite all the
weight
of contrary authority, in the punctuation which
places
only a comma at end of v.5, or—what comes to nearly
the
same thing—the treatment of e@xontej as virtually equi-
valent
to e@xomen: "But we have
grace-gifts which differ
according
to the grace that was given us, whether that of
prophecy
(differing) according to the measure of our faith, or
that
of service (differing) in the sphere of the service, or he
that
teaches (exercising—e@xwn—his gift) in his teaching, or
he
that exhorts in his exhorting, he who gives (exercising this
charism)
in si gleness of purpose, he who holds office in a
deep
sense of responsibility, he who shows compassion in
cheerfulness."
In this way we have dia<foron supplied with
profhtei<an an diakoni<an, and then the e@xontej
xari<smata
is
taken up in each successive clause, in nearly the same
sense
throughout: the durative sense of e@xw, hold and so
exercise,
must be once more remembered. But as by
advanc-
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-
fication
for dealing with this well-known crux here. The
imperatival
idea, which on the usual view is understood in
the
several classes, must be derived from the fact that the
184
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
prepositional
phrases are successively thrown out as inter-
jections.
If we put into words the sense thus created,
perhaps
e@stw
will express as much as we have the right to
express:
we may have to change it to w#men, with e]n
t^?
diakoni<%, ("let us be
wrapped up in," like e]n tou<toij i@sqi
1
Ti 415). In
this way we arrive at the meaning given in
paraphrase
by the RV.
The We take next the most live of the
Subjunctive. Moods, the only one which has actually
increased
its activities during the thirty-two
centuries
of the history of the Greek language.1 According to
the
classification adopted by Brugmann,2 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 mh< as its negative, while
the
latter
originally had ou]. But the question may well be
asked
whether the first two are radically separable. Prof.
Sonnenschein
well points out (CR xvi. 16 6) that
the "deli-
berative"
is only "a question as to what is or was to be done."
A
command may easily be put in to the interrogative tone:
witness oi#sq ] ou]#n o{ dra?son; quin redeamus? (= why should
we not? answering to redeamus = let us), and our own "Have
some?" 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 deli-
berative
subjunctives; cf such a sentence as ei@pwmen h}
sigw?men;
h} ti< dra<somen;3 With the caveat already suggested, we may
(1) Volitive; outline the triple division. The Volitive has
been treated
largely under the substitutes for
the
imperative. We must add the use with mh< in warning,
which
lies near that in prohibition; cf Mt 259. Intro-
ductory
words like fobou?mai, sko<
1 So if we start from the
mention of the Achaians on an Egyptian monu-
ment
of 1275 B. C.—
]Akaiwasa= ]AxaiFw?j, the prehistoric form
of ]Axaioi<. See
Hess
and Streitberg in Indog. Forsch. vi.
123 ff.
2 Gram.3 490 ff.
3 Eurip. Ion 771. On the subjunctive element in
the Greek future see
above,
p. 149. Lat. ero, faxo, Greek pi<omai,
fa<gomai (Hellenistic
mixture of
e@domai and e@fagon), xe<w, are clear subjunctive
forms, to name only a few.
THE VERB: THE MOODS. 185
determine
the construction: thus Heb 41 was really "Let us
fear!
haply one of you may . . !"a out of the Volitive
arose
the great class of dependent clauses of Purpose, also
paratactic
in origin. The closeness of relation
between
future
and subjunctive is seen in the fact that final clauses
with
o!pwj
c. fut. were negatived with mh<: the future did not
by
any means restrict itself to the futuristic use of the mood
which
it pillaged. On the so-called Deliberative we have
(2) Deliberative; already said nearly enough for our purpose.
It
is seen in questions, as Mk 1214 dw?men
h}
mh> dw?men; Mt, 2333 pw?j
fu<ghte;
Rom 1014 pw?j
e]pikale<swntai;
The
question may be dependent, as Lk 954 qe<leij
ei@pwmen;1
ib. 58, with cf Marcus
viii. 50, e@xousi pou? au]ta> r[i<ywsi.
We
see it both with and without i!na in Lk 1841.
In the
form
of the future we meet it in sentences like Lk 2249 ei]
pata<comen e]n maxei<r^; The present subjunctive may possibly
be
recognised in Mt 113 e!teron prsdokw?men; Finally, the
(3) Futuristic. Futuristic is seen still separate from the
future
tense in the Homeric kai> pote< tij
Fei<p^si, and in isolated relics
in Attic Greek, like ti< pa<qw;
Its
primitive use reappears in the Koinh<, 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
3324 a]feq^? ga>r
au]toij h[ a[marti<a.2 So Ac 734 (LXX).
From
the futuristic subjunctive the dependent clauses with
e]a<n and o!tan sprang: the negative mh<, originally excluded
from
this division of the subjunctive, has trespassed here
from
the earliest times. There is one passage where the
old
use of the subjunctive in comparisons seems to outcrop,
Mk
426 w[j
a@nqrwpoj ba<l^ to>n spo<ron . . . kai> kaqeu<d^ (etc.,
all
pres. subj).3b Mr Thackeray quotes Is 72 1711 314. To
place
this use is hard—note Brugmann's remarks on the impossi-
bility
of determining the classification of dependent clauses in
general,—but
perhaps the futuristic suits best: cf
our "as a man
will sow," etc. The
survival of this out-of-the-way subjunc-
tive
in the artless Greek of LXX and Mk is somewhat curious;
1 MGr. qa>
ei]pou?me;
is simple future, shall we say? 2 See p. 240.
3 It must be noted that
Blass2 (p. 321) calls this impossible, and inserts e]a<n.
But
xBDLD and the best cursives
agree on this reading: why should they
agree
on
the lectio ardua? [Wj e]a<n (AC) has all the signs
of an obvious correction.
a
See p. 248. b See p. 249.
186 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
it
is indeed hardly likely, in the absence of evidence from the
intermediate
period, that there is any real continuity of
usage.
But the root-ideas of the subjunctive changed
remarkably
little in the millennium or so separating Homer
from
the Gospels; and the mood which was more and more
winning
back its old domain from the future tense may well
have
come to be used again as a "gnomic future" without
any
knowledge of the antiquity of such a usage. Other
examples
of this encroachment will occur as we go on.
Tenses. The kind of action found in the present,
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-
tive,
temporal or conditional clauses introduced by pronoun or
conjunction
with a@n
(often e]a<n in NT, see pp. 42f). The verbs
are
all futuristic, and the a@n ties them up to particular occur-
rences.
The present accordingly is conative or
continuous or
iterative:
Mt 62 o!tan
poi^?j e]lehmosu<nhn
"whenever thou art
for doing alms," o!tan
nhsteu<hte
"whenever ye are fasting,"
Jn
25 o!ti a}n le<g^ "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
future-perfect
sense in this class of sentence; and it will be
found
most important to note this before we admit the less
rigid
translation. Thus Mt 521 o!j
a}n foneu<s^ "the
man who
has
committed murder," 547 e]a>n
a]spa<shsqe
"if you have only
saluted,"
Mk 918 o!pou e]a>n au]to>n katala<b^ "wherever it has
seized
him:" the cast of the sentence allows us to abbreviate
the
future-perfect in these cases. Mt 531 at first sight raises
some
difficulty, but a]polu<s^ denotes not so much the
carrying
into
effect as the determination. We may quote a passage
from
the Meidias of Demosthenes (p. 525)
which exhibits
the
difference of present and aorist in this connexion very
neatly:
xrh> de> o!tan
me>n tiqh?sqe tou>j no<mouj o[poi?oi< tine<j ei]sin
skopei?n, e]peida>n de> qh?sqe,
fula<ttein kai> xrh?sqai—tiqh?sqe
applies
to bills, qh?sqe 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. 187
any
systematic treatment of this large subject must be left
for
our second volume. The difference between ei] and
Conditional e]a<n has been considerably
lessened in Hellen-
Sentences, istic as compared with earlier Greek. We
Simple, have
seen that e]a<n can even take the indi-
General
and cative; while (as rarely
in classical Greek)
Future. ei] can be found with the
subjunctive. The
latter
occurs only in 1 Co 145, where the peculiar phrase
accounts
for it: cf the inscription cited by Deissmann
(BS
118), e]kto>j ei] mh> e]a>n1 . . . qelh<s^. We should hardly
care
to build much on Rev 115. In
Lk 913 and Phil 311f. we
probably
have deliberative subjunctive, "unless we are to go
and
buy," "if after all I am to attain . . . to apprehend."
The
subjunctive with ei] is rare in early papyri: cf OP 496
(ii/A.D.)
ei] de> h#n (=^#)
o[ gamw?n pro<teroj teteleuthkw<j, e]xe<tw
ktl. The differentiation of construction remains at
present
stereotyped:
ei] goes with indicative,
is used exclusively when
past
tenses come in (e.g. Mk 326), and uses ou] as its negative;
while
e]a<n, retaining mh< exclusively, takes the
subjunctive
almost
invariably, unless the practically synonymous future
indicative
is used. ]Ea<n and ei] are both used, however,
to
express
future conditions. This is not only the
case with ei]
c.
fut.—in which the NT does not preserve the "minatory or
monitory"
connotation2 which Gildersleeve discovered for
classical
Greek--but even with ei] c. pres. in such documents
as
BU 326, quoted above, p. 59. The immense
majority
of
conditional sentences in the NT belong to these heads.
We
deal with the unfulfilled condition below, pp. 200 f., and
with
the relics of ei] c. opt., p. 196.
Some Uses of
Leaving the Dependent Clauses for sub-
the Negatives :— sequent treatment, let us turn now to some
Ou] mh< aspects of the negative mh< mainly though
not
exclusively concerning the Subjunctive.
Into
the vexed question of the origin of the ou] mh< con-
struction
we must not enter with any detail. The
classical
discussion
of it in
serious
difficulties, though it has advanced our knowledge.
Goodwin's
insistence that denial and prohibition must be
1 Cf above (p. 169), on ei]
mh<ti a@n. 2 But 1 Co 314f.
cf Hb P 59 (iii/B.C.).
188
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
dealt
with together touches a weak spot in Prof. Sonnen-
schein's
otherwise very attractive account of the prohibitory
use,
in a paper already quoted (CR xvi 165
ff.). Sonnen-
schein
would make ou] mh> poih<s^j the interrogative of the
prohibition
mh> poih<s^j, "won't you abstain from doing?"
Similarly
in Latin quin noli facere? is
"why not refuse to
do?"
The theory is greatly weakened by its
having no
obvious
application to denial. Gildersleeve (AJP iii. 202 ff.)
suggests
that the ou]
may be separate: ou@: mh> skw<y^j = no!
don't
jeer, ou@: mh> ge<nhtai = no! let
it never be!a Brugmann
(Gram.3 502) practically
follows Goodwin, whom he does not
name.
We start from mh< in cautious assertion,
to which we
must
return presently: mh> ge<nhtai = it may perchance happen,
mh> skw<y^j = you will perhaps jeer, mh> e]rei?j
tou?to = you will
perhaps say this. Then the ou] negatives the whole, so
that
ou] mh< becomes, as Brugmann
says, "certainly not." Non
nostrum est tantas
componere lites:
these questions go back
upon
origins, and we are dealing with the language in a late
development,
in which it is antecedently possible enough that
the
rationale of the usage may have been totally obscured.
The use of ou]
mh< in
the Greek Bible calls for special com-
ment,
and we may take for our text some remarks of Gilder-
sleeve's
from the brief article just cited. "This emphatic
form
of negative (ou] mh<) is far more common in
the LXX and
the
NT than it is in the classic Greek. This
tendency to
exaggeration
in the use of an adopted language is natural."
And
again, "The combination has evidently worked its way
up
from familiar language. So it occurs in
the mouth of
the
Scythian archer, Ar. Thesmoph. 1108 ou]ki>
mh> lalh?si
su<;" Our previous inquiries have prepared us for
some
modifications
of this statement. "The NT" is
not a phrase
we
can allow; nor will "adopted language" pass muster
without
qualification. In Exp T xiv. 429 n. the writer
ventured
on a preliminary note suggested by NP 51,
a
Christian letter about coeval with x and B, in which
Mt
1042 or Mk 941 is loosely cited from
memory and ours
a]polli?, (sic)
substituted for ou] mh> a]pole<s^. Cf Didache
15
quoting
Mt 526. Ou]
mh< is
rare, and very emphatic, in
the
non-literary papyri. On the other hand,
we find it
13
times in OT citations in NT, and abundantly in the
a
See D. 249.
THE VERB: THE MOODS. 189
Gospels,
almost exclusively in Logia. In all of these we have
certain
or probable Semitic originals. Apart
from these, and
the
special case of Rev, it occurs only four times in Paul and
once
in 2 Pet. It will be seen therefore that if "translation
Greek"
is put aside, we have no difference between papyri
and
NT. Paul's few exx. are eminently capable of bearing
emphasis
in the classical manner. The frequency
of ou] mh< in
Rev
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
to
work for their reproduction of the words of Jesus. The
question
then arises whether in places outside the free Greek
of
Paul we are to regard ou] mh< as bearing any special
emphasis.
The analysis of W. G. Ballantine (AJP
xviii.
453
ff.), seems to show that it is impossible to assert this. In
the
LXX, xlo is
translated ou] or
ou] mh< indifferently within a
single
verse, as in Is 527. The
Revisers have made it emphatic
in
a good many passages in which the AV had an ordinary
negative;
but they have left over fifty places unaltered, and
do
not seem to have discovered any general principle to
guide
their decision. Prof. Ballantine seems
to be justified in
claiming
(1) that it is not natural for a form of special
emphasis
to be used in the majority of places where a negative
prediction
occurs, and (2) that in relative clauses, and questions
which
amount to positive assertions, an emphatic negative is
wholly
out of place: he instances Mk 132 and Jn 1811—Mt
259 is decidedly more
striking. In commenting on this article,
Gildersleeve
cites other examples of the "blunting . . .
of
pointed idioms in the transfer from classic Greek": he
mentions
the disproportionate use of " the more pungent
aorist"
as against the "quieter present imperative"—the
tendency
of Josephus to "overdo the participle"—the con-
spicuous
appearance in narrative of the "articular infinitive,
which
belongs to argument." So here, he
says, "the stress"
of
ou] mh< "has been lost
by over-familiarity." One is inclined
to
call in the survival among uneducated people of the older
English
double negatives—"He didn't say nothing to nobody,"
190
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
and
the like—which resemble ou] mh< in so far as they are
old
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 ou] mh< was capable of being used by a cultured
writer
like Paul with its full classical emphasis.1
Let us now tabulate NT statistics.
In WH text, ou]
mh<
occurs
in all 96 times. Of these 71 exx. are with aor. subj.
in
2, the verb is ambiguous, ending in -w; and 15 more, ending
in
–ei]j
(-ei)
or -^j (-^), might be regarded as
equally indetermin-
ate,
as far as the evidence of the MSS readings is concerned.
There
remain 8 futures. Four of these—Mt 1622 e@stai, with
Lk
2133 and Rev 96 1814 (see below)—are
unambiguous: the
rest
only involve the change of o to w, or at worst that of ou
to
w,
to make them aor. subj. The passages are:—Mt 2635
(-somai, xBCD) = Mk 1431 (-somai ABCD, against x and the
mob).
(The attestation in Mt is a strong confirmation of the
future
for the Petrine tradition in its earliest Greek form.)
Lk
2133 (-sontai xBDL) answers to the
Marcan ou] pareleu<-
sontai (1331 BD: the insertion of mh< by xACL etc. means
a
mere assimilation to Lk), while Mt has ou] mh>
pare<lqwsin
(2435): it is at least possible that our Lucan text is
only
a
fusion of Mk and Mt. In Jn 105 ABD al. support
a]kolouqh<sousin. In Heb 1017 (from LXX) we have the
mnhsqh<somai of xACD 17 and the
Oxyrhynchus papyrus
emended
to mnhsqw? (following the LXX) in correctors of x
and
D and all the later MSS. There remains eu[rh<sousin
in
Rev 96 (AP eu!rwsin, against xB2) 1814. We need
not
hesitate to accept the future as a possible, though
moribund,
construction: the later MSS in trying to get rid
of
it bear witness to the levelling tendency. There is no
apparent
difference in meaning. We may pass on to note
1 Winer (p. 634) refers
to "the prevailing opinion of philologers" in his own
time
(and later), that of ou] mh> poih<s^j originates in an
ellipsis—"no fear that he
will
do it." It is advisable therefore
to note that this view has been abandoned
by
modern philology. To give full reasons would detain us too long. But it
may
be observed that the dropping 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 prohibitions.
THE VERB: THE MOODS. 191
the
distribution of ou] mh< in NT. It occurs 13 times in
LXX
citations. Apart from these, there are no exx. in Ac,
Heb,
or the "General Epp", except 2 Pet 110. Rev has it
16
times. Paul's use is limited to 1 Th 415 (v. infr.) 53, 1
Co
813,
Gal 516. Only 21 exx. in all
come from these sources,
leaving
64 for the Gospels. Of the latter 57 are
from actual
words
of Christ (Mt 17, Mk 8 [Mk] 1, Lk 17, Jn 14): of
the
remaining 7, Mt 1622 and 2635 (= Mk 1431), Jn
138
2025
have most obvious emphasis, and so may Lk 115 (from the
special
nativity-sources) and Jn 1156. That the locution was
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 way of contribution to the minutia of
the
Synoptic problem. If we go through the
exx. of ou] mh< in
Mk,
we find that Mt has faithfully taken over every one, 8 in
all.
Lk has 5 of these logia, once (Mk 132 = Lk 216) dropping
the
mh<.
Mt introduces ou]
mh< into
Mk 712, and Lk into Mk 422
and
1029, both Mt and Lk into Mk 1331 (see above).2
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 1259, Mt
2339
Lk 1335) in which the evangelists agree in using ou]
mh<.
Mt
uses it in 518 (Lk 2133 has a certain resemblance, but
1617
is the parallel), and Lk in 637 bis
(contrast Mt 71).
Finally,
in the logia peculiar to Mt or Lk, the presence of
which
in "Q" is therefore a matter of speculation, we find of
mh< 4 times in Mt and 7 in Lk. When the testimony of Jn
is
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
which
they seem to have used. Going outside the Gospels,
we
find ou] mh< in the fragment of Aristion (?) ([Mk] 1618); in
1
Th 415 (regarded by Ropes, DB
v. 345, as an Agraphon); and
in
the Oxyrhynchus "Sayings"—no. 2 of the first series, and
the
preface of the second. The coincidence
of all these separate
1 It comes from the LXX
of 1 Sam 111, if A is right there, with pi<etai
changed
to the aor. subj. But A of course may show a reading conformed to
the
NT.
2 As to Mk 411,
note that in the doublet from "Q" neither Mt (1026) nor Lk
(122)
has ou] mh<: the new Oxyrhynchus
"Saying," no. 4, has also simple ou].
192 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
witnesses
certainly is suggestive. Moreover in
Rev, the only
NT
Book outside the Gospels which has ou] mh<; with any fre-
quency,
4 exx. are from the Epp. to the Churches, where
Christ
is speaker; and all of the rest, except 1814 (which is
very
emphatic), are strongly reminiscent of the OT, though
not
according to the LXX except in 1822 ( = Ezek 2613). It
follows
that ou] mh< is quite as rare in the NT as it is in the
papyri,
when we have put aside (a) passages coming from the
OT,
and (b) sayings of Christ, these two classes accounting
for
nearly 90 per cent. of the whole. Since these are just
the
two elements which made up "Scripture" in the first age
of
Christianity, one is tempted to put it down to the same
cause
in both a feeling that inspired language
was fitly
rendered
by words of a peculiarly decisive tone.
Mh< in
Cautious In connexion with this use of negatives,
Assertions. we may well pursue here the later develop-
ments
of that construction of mh< from which
the
use of ou] mh<; originally sprang, according to the theory
that
for the present holds the field. It is
obvious, whatever
be
its antecedent history, that mh< is often equivalent to
our
"perhaps."
A well-known sentence from Plato's Apology
will
illustrate it as well as anything: Socrates says (p. 39A)
a]lla> mh> ou] tou?t ] ^# xalepo<n, qa<naton e]krufei?n," perhaps it
is
not this which is hard, to escape death." This is exactly
like
Mt 259 as it stands in xALZ: the ou]
mh<
which replaces
ou] in BCD does not affect the principle. The
subjunctive
has
its futuristic sense, it would seem, and starts most
naturally
in Greek from the use of mh< in questions: how
this
developed from the original use of mh< in prohibition
(whence
comes the final sentence), and how far we are to
call
in the sentences of fearing, which are certainly not
widely
separable, it would not be relevant for us to discuss
in
this treatise. Mh> tou?t ] ^# xalepo<n, if originally a
question,
meant
"will this possibly be difficult?" So in the indicative,
as
Plato Protag. 312A a]ll
] a@ra mh> ou]x u[polamba<neij, "but
perhaps
then you do not suppose " (Riddell 140). We have
both
these forms abundantly before us in the NT:—thus
Lk
1135 sko<
the
light . . . is darkness"; Col 28 bele<pete
mh< tij e@stai o[
sulagwgw?n, "Take heed!
perhaps there will be someone who
THE VERB: THE
MOODS. 193
.
. . " (cf Heb 312); Gal 411 fobou?mai
u[ma?j mh< pwj ei]kh?
kekopi<aka, "I am afraid
about you: perhaps I have toiled in
vain."
So in the papyri, as Par P 49 (ii/B.C.) a]gwni<w
mh<pote
a]rrwstei? to> paida<rion, NP 17 (iii/A.D.) u[fwrou?me . . . mh>
a@ra e]nqwskwn e@laqen u!dati, "I suspect he may
have jumped
into
the water unnoticed": so Tb P 333 (216 A.D.) u[forw?mai
ou#n mh>
e@paqa<n ti a]nqrw<pinon. In all these cases the prohibi-
tive
force of mh<
is more or less latent, producing a strong
deprecatory
tone, just as in a direct question mh< either
demands
the answer No (as Mt 79
etc.), or puts a suggestion
in
the most tentative and hesitating way (Jn 429). The
fineness
of the distinction between this category and the
purpose
clause may be illustrated by 2 Co 27, where the
paratactic
original might equally well be "Perhaps he will
be
overwhelmed" or "Let him not be overwhelmed." In
Gal
22 the purpose clause (if such it be), goes back to the
former
type--"Can it be that I am running, or ran, in
vain?"1
So 1 Th 35. The warning of Ac 539 might
similarly
start
from either "Perhaps you will be found," or "Do not
be
found": the former suits the pote< 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 o!ra, ble<pete,
prose<xete,
etc.:
see above, p. 124. One very difficult
case under this
head
should be mentioned here, that of 2 Tim 225. We have
already
(p. 55) expressed the conviction that dwh is really
dw>^, subjunctive. Not only would the
optative clash with
a]nanh<ywsin, but it cannot be
justified in itself by any clear
syntactic
rule. The difficulty felt by WH (App2
175), that
"its
use for two different moods in the same Epistle would
be
strange," really comes to very little; and the survival of
the
epic dw<^ is better supported than they suggest. There
is
an apparent case of gnw<^ subj. in Clement Paed. iii. 1,
e[auto>n ga<r tij e]a>n
gnw<^. A respectable number
of
quotations for dw<^ is given from early Christian litera-
1 Tre<xw would be subjunctive,
since the sentence as it stands is felt as final.
This
interpretation as a whole has to reckon with the alternative rendering,
"Am
I running (said I), or have I run, in vain?"—a decidedly simpler and
more
probable view: see
194 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
ture
in Reinhold 90 f. Phrynichus (
456)
may fairly be called as evidence not only for the
Hellenistic
d&<h and did&<h (which he and his
editor regard
as
"utterly ridiculous") but for the feeling that there is
a
subjunctive dw<^, though he only quotes Homer. But
we
must not press this, only citing from
statement
that some MSS read "d&<h" for d&? in Plato
Gorg. 481A, where the
optative would be most obviously
out
of place. If we read the opt. in 2 Tim l.c.,
we can
only
assume that the writer misused an obsolete idiom,
correctly
used in Lk 315 in past sequence. Against this
stands
the absence of evidence that Paul (or the auctor
ad
Timotheum, if the critics demur)
concerned himself with
literary
archaisms, like his friends the authors of Lk, Ac,
and
Heb. Taking dw<^ and a]nanh<ywsin, together, we make
the
mh<pote
introduce a hesitating question, "to try whether
haply
God may give": cf the well-known idiom with ei],
"to
see if," as in Ac 2712, Rom 110, Lk 1428,
Phil 311f. See in
favour
of dw<^ the careful note in WS 120, also Blass 50.2
The Optative :— We take next the
Optative, which makes
Optative so poor a figure in the NT that we are tempted
Proper; to hurry on. In MGr its only relic3 is the
phrase mh>
ge<noito,
which appears in Lk 2016
and
14 times in Rom (10), 1 Co (1) and Gal (3). This is
of
course the Optative proper, distinguished by the absence
of
a@n
and the presence (if negative) of mh<.
cites
354 proper optatives from the NT, which come down to
1 Note OP 743 o!loj
diaponou?mai ei] !E. xalkou?j a]po<lesen, where Witkowski
says
(p. 57) "idem quad frequentius a]gwniw? mh<." Aliter
G. and H.
2 Unfortunately we cannot
call the LXX in aid: there are a good many
exx.
of d&<h, but they all seem optative. Ti<j d&<h . . . ; in Num 1129,
Judg 929,
2
Sam 1833, Job 3133, Ca 81, Jer 92,
might well seem deliberative subj., but
Ps
120(119)3 ti< doqei<h soi kai> ti<
prosteqei<h soi;
is unfortunately quite free from
ambiguity. 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 Ruth 19 d&? . . . eu!rhte), which accords with
the faint distinction
between
them. In Dt 2824ff. we have opt. and fut. indic. alternating, with
same
Hebrew. A more surprising fusion
still—worse than 2 Tim l.c. with
d&<h—is seen in 2 Mac 924
e]a<n ti
para<docon a]pobai<h kai> prosape<lq^.
3 But see p. 240. 4 Read 38: I correct the remaining figures.
THE VERB: THE MOODS. 195
23
when we drop mh> ge<noito. Of these Paul claims 15
(Rom
155. 13, Philem 20, 2 Tim 116. 18 416,
the rest in 1 and
2
Th), while Mk, Lk, Ac, Heb, 1 Pet and 2 Pet have one
apiece,
and Jude two. ]Onai<mhn in Philem 20 is the only
proper
optative in the NT which is not 3rd person.1 Note
that
though the use is rare it is well distributed: even Mk has
it
(p. 179), and Lk 138 and Ac 820 come from the Palestinian
stratum
of Luke's writing. We may bring in here
a com-
parison
from our own language, which will help us for the
Hellenistic
optative as a whole.2 The
optative be still keeps a
real
though diminishing place in our educated colloquial: "be
it
so" or "so be it," is preserved as a formula, like mh>
ge<noito,
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 it never so
humble," or "If she
be
not fair to me": on the other hand, "If I were you"
is
the only correct form. "God bless
you!" "Come what
may,"
"I wish I were at home," are further examples of
optatives
still surviving. But a somewhat archaic style is
recognisable
in
"Were the whole
realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small."
We
shall see later that a Hellenist would equally avoid in
colloquial
speech a construction like
ei]
kai> ta> pa<nt ] e@m ] ei@h
ta>
pa<nta moi ge<noit ] a}n
e@lasson h} w!ste dou?nai
The
Hellenist used the optative in wishes and prayers very
much
as we use our subjunctive. It is at home in formuhe,
as in oaths passim:
eu]orkou?nti me<m moi eu# ei@h,
e]fiorkou?nti de> ta>
e]nanti<a (OP 240—i/A.D.), h}
e]noxoi ei@hmen tw?i o!rkwi (OP 715
—ii/A.D.),
. . . paradw<sw . . . h} e]nsxeqei<hn t&?
o!rk&
(BM
301—ii/A.D.),
etc. But it is also in free use, as OP
526
(ii/A.D.)
xai<roij, Kalo<kaire, LPb (ii/B.C.) o{j
didoi<h soi,
LPw
(ii/iii
A.D.), mhdei<j me katabia<saito and ei]se<lqoij
kai> poih<saij,
1 Some support for the
persistence of this optative in the Koinh< may be found
in
its appearance in a curse of iii/B.C., coming from the Tauric Chersonese, and
showing
two Ionic forms (Audollent 144, no. 92).
2 Cf Sweet, New English Grammar: Syntax 107 ff.
196
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
BU 741 (ii/A.D.) o{ mh> gei<noito, BM 21 (ii/B.C.) soi> de> ge<noito
eu]hmerei?n, BCH 1902, p. 217, kexolwme<non e@xoito Mh?na
kataxqo<nion, Hl P 6 (iii/iv A.D.) e]rrwme<non
se h[ qi<a pro<noia
fula<cai. In hypotaxis the optative of wish appears in
in Hypothesis, clauses with ei], as is shown by the
negative's
being
mh<,
as well as by the fact that we can
add
ei],
si, if, to a wish, or express a
hypothesis without a
conjunction,
by a clause of jussive or optative character. Ei]
with
the optative in the NT occurs in 11 passages, of which
4
must be put aside as indirect questions and accordingly
falling
under the next head. The three exx. in
Ac are all in
or. obl.: 2016
("I want if I can to . . . "), and 2739 ("We
will
beach her if we can"), are future conditions; and 2419
puts
into the past (unfulfilled) form the assertion " They
ought
to bring their accusation, if they have any" (e@xousi).
The
remainder include ei] tu<xoi, in 1 Co 1410
1537, the only
exx.
in Paul, and two in 1 Pet, ei] kai> pa<sxoite 314 and ei]
qe<loi 317. The examination of these we may defer till
we
take up Conditional Sentences together. We only note
here
that HR give no more than 13 exx. from LXX of ei]
c.
opt. (apart from 4 Mac and one passage omitted in uncials):
about
2 of these are wishes, and 5 are cases of w!s(per)
ei@ tij, while 2 seem to be direct or indirect
questions.
Neither
in LXX nor in NT is there an ex. of ei] c. opt.
answered
with opt. c. a@n, nor has one been quoted from the
papyri.1
To the optative proper belongs also that
after final
particles,
as we infer from the negative mh< and from its being
an
alternative for the (jussive) subjunctive. It does not how-
in Final clauses ever call for any treatment in a NT grammar.
We
have seen already (p. 55) that i!na doi?
and
i!na gnoi? are unmistakably subjunctives: if i!na d&<h be read
(ib. and pp. 193 f.) in Eph 117
it will have to be a virtual wish
clause,
i!na serving merely to link it to the previous
verb; but
dw<^ is preferable. This banishment of the final optative only
means
that the NT writers were averse to bringing in a
1 Meanwhile we may
observe that Blass's dictum (p. 213) that the ei] c. opt.
form
is used "if I wish to represent anything as generally possible, without
regard
to the general or actual situation at the moment," suits the 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. 197
construction
which was artificial, though not quite obsolete.
The
obsolescence of the optative had progressed since the
time
of the LXX, and we will only compare the writers
and
papyri of i/A.D. and ii/A.D. Diel in his program De
enuntiatis finalibus, pp. 20 f., gives
Josephus (1/A.D.) 32
per
cent. of optatives after i!na, o!pwj and w[j, Plutarch
Lives
(i/A.D.) 49, Arrian (ii/A.D.) 82, and Appian (ii/A.D.) 87,
while
Herodian (iii/A.D.) has 75. It is very
clear that the
final
optative was the hall-mark of a pretty Attic style. The
Atticisers
were not particular however to restrict the optative
to
past sequence, as any random dip into Lucian himself will
show.
We may contrast the more natural
Polybius (ii/B.c.),
whose
percentage of optatives is only 7,1 or Diodorus (i/B.C.),
who
falls to 5. The writer of 4 Mac (i/A.D.)
outdoes all
his
predecessors with 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
observed:
OP 237 (late ii/A.D.) i!na . . . dunhqei<hn. A
little
later we have LPw (ii/iii A.D.) i!n ] eu@odon a@rti
moi
ei@hi, in primary sequence; and before long,
in the Byzantine
age,
there is a riot of optatives, after e]a<n or anything else.
The
deadness of the construction even in the Ptolemaic
period
may be well shown from TP 1 (ii/B.C.) h]ci<wsa i!na
xrhmatisqh<soito — future optative! Perhaps these facts
and
citations will suffice to show why the NT does not
attempt
to rival the litterateurs in the use
of this resuscitated
elegance.
Potential We turn to the other main division of
Optative. the
Optative, that of which ou] and a@n are
frequent
attendants. With a@n the Potential
answers
to our own I should, you or he would, generally
following
a condition. It was used to express a
future in
a
milder form, and to express a request in deferential style.
But
it is unnecessary to dwell upon this here, for the table
given
above (p. 166) shows that it was no longer a really
living
form in NT times. It was literary, but not artificial,
as
Luke's use proves. It figures 30 times
in LXX, or
19
times when 4 Mac is excluded, and its occurrences are
1 See Kalker's
observations, Quaest. 288 f.
198 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
tolerably
well distributed and not abnormal in form. We
should
note however the omission of a@n, which was previously
cited
in one phrase (p. 194 n.).1 We shall see that a@n tends
to
be dropped with the indicative; the general weakening of
the
particle is probably responsible for its omission with the
optative
as well. Ti<j a}n
d&<h,
Job 3131 al, does not
differ
from
ti<j d&<h elsewhere; and no distinction of meaning is
conveyed
by such an omission as appears in 4 Mac 513
suggnwmonh<seien, "even if there is
(e]sti<) [a God], he would
forgive."
In other ways we become aware how little
differ-
ence
a@n
makes in this age of its senescence. Thus in Par
P
35 (ii/B.C.) e]ch<negken
o[po<s ] a}n e]reun[&?]to,2 the
dropping
of
a@n
would affect the meaning hardly at all, the contingent
force
being practically nil. So when Luke says in 162
e]ne<neuon . . . to> ti< a}n
qe<loi,
"how he would like,"—cf
Ac
1017, Lk 1526 1836 (D) 946,--there
is a minimum of
difference
as compared with Ac 2133 e]punqa<neto
ti<j ei@h "who
he
might be," or Lk 1836 xAB ti<
ei@h tou?to.
Not that a@n
c.
opt. in an indirect question is always as near as in this case
to
the unaccompanied optative which we treat next. Thus in
the
inscr. Magn. 215 (i/A.D.) e]perwt%?
. . . ti< au]t&? shmai<nei h}
ti< a}n poih<saj a]dew?j diateloi<h represents the
conditional sen-
tence,
"If I were to do what, should I be secure?" i.e. "what
must
I do that I may . . . ?" So in Lk 611
ti< a}n poih<saien
is
the hesitating substitute for the direct ti<
poih<somen;
Ac 524
ti< a}n ge<noito tou?to answers to "What will this come to?"
Cf
Esth 133 puqome<nou . . .pw?j a}n a]xqei<h. . . . "how this
might
be brought to pass" (RV). In direct
question we
have
Ac 1718 ti< a}n qe<loi . . . le<gein; The idiomatic opt. c.
4
in a softened assertion meets us in Ac 2629 xcAB, eu]cai<mhn
a@n "I could pray." Among all the exx. of a@n c. opt. in Luke
there
is only one which has a protasis, Ac 831 pw?j
ga>r a}n
dunai<mhn, e]a>n mh< tij
o[dhgh<sei me;--a
familiar case of future
1 Par P 63 (ii/B.C.) has
a dropped de in a place where it is needed badly:
a@lla me>n
ou]qe<na e]pei<paimi plh>n o!ti e!lkesqai bebou<leutai. But I would read
ou]qe>n a}<n>—if one may
conjecture without seeing the papyrus. (So Mahaffy
now
reads: he also substitutes a]lla>, and kakw?j
for e!lkesqai.)
2 It is unfortunate that
this crucial 43 is missing, for e]reuna?to (an unaug-
mented
form) is quite possible, though less likely. The papyrus has another
optative,
in indirect question, ei@hsan ei]sporeusa<menoi.
THE VERB: THE
MOODS. 199
condition
with the less vivid form in the apodosis.1 No
more
need be said of this use; nor need we add 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
the
tense of the main verb. Greek never admitted ti<j
ei@hn
=
quis sim into primary sequence, and
even after past tenses
the
optative was a refinement which Hellenistic vernacular
made
small effort to preserve. On Luke's occasional use of it
we
need not tarry, unless it be to repeat Winer's remark
(p.
375) on Ac 2133, 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 com-
mitted
some crime. The tone of remoteness and uncertainty
given
by the optative is well seen in such a reported question
as
Lk 315 mh<pote au]to>j ei@h o[ Xristo<j, or 2223 to>
ti<j a@ra ei@h
. . . o[ tau?ta
me<llwn pra<ssein.
It
will be noted that Luke
observes
the rule of sequence, as he does in the use of pri<n
(p.
169).2
"Unreal" The
Indicative—apart from its Future,
Indicative. which
we have seen was originally a sub-
junctive in
the main is suited by its whole
character
only to positive and negative statements, and not
to
the expression of contingencies, wishes, commands, or other
subjective
conceptions. We are not concerned here with the
forces
which produced what is called the "unreal" use of the
indicative,
since Hellenistic Greek received it from the earlier
age
as a fully grown and normal usage, which it proceeded to
limit
in sundry directions. Its most prominent
use is in the
two
parts of the unfulfilled conditional statement. We must
1 It is sentences of this
kind to which Goodwin's "less vivid form "does
apply:
his extension of this to be the rule for the whole class I should ven-
ture
to dissent from—see above, p. 196 n.
2 On the general question
of the obsolescence of the optative, reference may
be
made to F. G. Allinson's paper in Gildersleeve
Studies 353 ff., where itacism
is
alleged to be a contributory cause. Cf OP 60 (iv/A.D.) i!n
] ou#n e@xoite . . . kai>
katasth<shtai (=-e), where e@xhte
is meant;
OP 71 (ib) where ei] soi> dokoi? is
similarly
a misspelt subj. (or indic.). When oi had become the complete
equivalent
of h,
^,
ei,
and ai
of e,
the optative forms could no longer preserve
phonetic
distinctness. Prof. Thumb dissents: see p. 240.
200 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
take
this up among the other Conditional Sentences, in
vol.
ii., only dealing here with that which affects the study of
the
indicative as a modus irrealis. This includes the cases of
omitted
a@n,1
and those of ou] instead of mh<. It happens that
the
only NT example of the latter has the former character-
istic
as well: Mk 1421 ( = Mt 2624) kalo>n
au]t&? ei] ou]k
e]gennh<qh—Mt improves the Greek
by adding h#n.
It is only
the
ultimate sense which makes this "unreal" at all: as far
as
form goes, the protasis is like Heb 1225 ei]
e]kei?noi ou]k
e]ce<fugon, "if they failed
to escape" (as they did). There,
"it
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 of some villain of tragedy, e.g. "A good
thing
if (nearly = that) there never was such a man." Trans-
ferred
as it is to a man who is actually present, the saying
gains
in poignancy by the absence of the contingent form.
Ei] ou] occurs fairly often with the indicative,
but elsewhere
always
in simple conditions: see above, p. 171. The dropping
of
a@n
in the apodosis of unfulfilled conditions was classical with
phrases
like e@dei, e]xrh?n, kalo>n h#n. Such sentences as "If he
did
it, it was the right thing," may be regarded as the
starting-point
of the use of the indicative in unfulfilled
condition,
since usage can easily supply the connotation "but
he
did not do it." The addition of a@n to an indicative
apodosis
produced much the same effect as we can express in
writing
by italicising "if": "if he had anything, he gave
it,"
or "if he had anything, in that case (a@n) he gave it,"
alike
suggest by their emphasis that the condition was not
realised.
We further note the familiar fact that the imper-
fect
in all "unreal" indicatives generally denotes present
time:2
cf the use with o@felon in Rev 315 and 2 Co 111.
(These
are the sole NT examples of this kind of unreal
indicative.
The sentences of unrealised wish resemble
those
of unfulfilled condition further in using the aorist
(1
Co 48) in reference to past time; but this could
1 Cf OP 526 (ii/A.D.) ei]
kai> mh> a]ne<bene, e]gw> to>n lo<gon mou ou] pare<benon,
OP 5:30 (ii/A.D.) ei] plei?on de< moi pare<keito, pa<lin soi a]pesta<lein, Rein P 7
(ii/B.C.) ou]k a]pe<sthi ei] mh>
h]na<gkase seshmeiw?sqai . . . suggrafh<n,
al.
2 In Lk 176
note present, in protasis. Cf Par P 47 (ii/B.C.,=Witk.
p. 641
mh> mikro<n ti e]ntre<pomai,
ou]k a@n me i#dej,
“but for the fact that I am."
THE VERB: THE
MOODS. 201
hardly
have been otherwise.1 The
difference of time in
the
real and unreal imperfect will be seen when we drop
the
a@n
in the stock sentence ei@ ti ei#xon, e]di<doun a@n, "if I
had
anything (now), I should give it," which by eliminating
the
a@n
becomes "if (i.e. whenever) I had anything, I used to
give
it." Goodwin (MT § 399, 410 ff.)
shows that this use
of
the imperf. for present time is post-Homeric, and that it is
not
invariable in Attic—see his exx. For the NT we may
cite
Mt 2330 2443 (^@dei). Lk 1239, Jn 410 1121.
32, 1 Jn 219
as
places where ei] with imperf. decidedly denotes a past
condition;
but since all these exx. contain either h@mhn or ^@dein,
which
have no aorist, they prove nothing as to the survival
of
the classical ambiguity—we have to decide by the context
here,
as in all cases in the older literature, as to whether
present
or past time is meant. The distribution of tenses in
the
apodosis (when a@n is present) may be seen in the table on
p.
166. The solitary pluperf. is in 1 Jn 219. It need only
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, but the sen-
tence
itself only makes it untrue "under the circumstances"
(a@n), since the condition
is unsatisfied. The time of the
apodosis
generally determines itself, the imperfect regularly
denoting
present action, except in Mt 2330 (h@meqa).
Unrealised purpose makes a minute addition to the tale of
unreal
indicatives in the NT. The afterthought e@dramon in
Gal
22, with which stands 1 Th 35, has plenty of classical
parallels
(see
found
in NT writers, and (as we saw above, p. 193 n.) the
former
ex. is far from certain. Such sentences
often depend
on
unfulfilled conditions with a@n, and the decadence of
these
carries
with it that of a still more subtle and less practical
form
of language.
1 There is one ex. of o@felon c. fut., Gal 512,
and there also the associations of
the
particle (as it now is) help to mark an expression never meant to he taken
seriously.
The dropping of augment in w@felon may be Ionic, as it is
found
in
Herodotus; its application to 2nd or 3rd pers. is probably due to its being
felt
to mean "I would" instead of "thou shouldst," etc. Note among the
late
exx. in LS (p. 1099) that with me . . . o]le<sqai, a first step in this develop,
ment.
Grimm-Thayer gives LXX parallels. See
also Schwyzer Perg. 173.
CHAPTER IX.
THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE.
Nominal Verbs THE mention of "The Verb" has been omitted
and Verbal in the heading of this chapter, in deference to
Nouns. the susceptibilities of grammarians who wax
warm
when lu<ein or lu<saj is attached to the
Verb
instead of the Noun. But having thus done homage
to
orthodoxy, we proceed to treat these two categories almost
exclusively
as if they were mere verbal moods, as for most
practical
purposes they are. Every schoolboy knows
that
in
origin and in part of their use they belong to the
noun;
but on this side they have been sufficiently treated
in
chapters iv. and v., and nearly all that is distinctive is
verbal.
The Infinitive:— The Greek
Infinitive is historically either
Its Origin. a locative (as lu<ein) or a dative (as lu?sai,
ei@nai, etc.) from a noun base
closely connected
with
a verb.1 We can see this fact
best from a glance at
Latin,
where regere is obviously the
locative of a noun like
genus, reigi, the dative of a noun
much like rex except in
quantity,
and rectum, -tut, -tu the accusative,
dative, and loca-
tive,
respectively, of an action-noun of the 4th declension. In
Plautus
we even find the abstract noun tactio
in the nomi-
native
governing its case just as if it were tangere.
Classical
Greek
has a few well-known exx. of a noun or adjective
governing
the case appropriate to the verb with which it is
closely
connected. Thus Plato Apol. 18B ta>
mete<wra fronti-
sth<j, Sophocles Ant. 789 se> fu<cimoj: see Jebb's note. Vedic
1 On the morphology of
the Infinitive see Giles Manual2=
468 ff. It should be
noted
that no syntactical difference survives in Greek between forms originally
dative
and those which started in the locative.
202
THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE. 203
Sanskrit
would show us yet more clearly that the so-called
infinitive
is nothing but a case—any case—of a noun which
had
enough verbal consciousness in it to "govern" an object.
The
isolation and stereotyping of a few of these forms produces
the
infinitive of Greek, Latin, or English. It will be easily
seen
in our own language that what we call the infinitive is
only
the dative of a noun: Middle English had
a locative with
at. In such a sentence as
"He went out to work again," how
shall
we parse work? Make it "hard work," and the Noun claims
it:
substitute "work hard," and
the Verb comes to its own.
One
clear inference from all this is that there was originally
No voice no
voice for the infinitive. Dunato>j qauma<-
distinction. sai, "capable for wondering," and a@cioj,
qauma<sai, "worthy for
wondering," use the
verbal
noun in the same way; but one means "able to
wonder,"
and the other "deserving to be wondered at." The
middle
and passive infinitives in Greek and Latin are merely
adaptations
of certain forms, out of a mass of units which
had
lost their individuality, to express a relation made
prominent
by the closer connexion of such nouns with
the
verb.
Survivals of There are
comparatively few uses of the
Case force. Greek Infinitive in which we cannot still
trace the
construction by restoring the dative
or
locative case from whence it started. Indeed the very
fact
that when the form had become petrified the genius of the
language
took it up afresh and declined it by prefixing the
article,
shows us how persistent was the noun idea. The
imperative
use, the survival of which we have noticed above
(pp.
179 f.), is instructive if we are right in interpreting it in
close
connexion with the origins of the infinitive. A dative
of
purpose used as an exclamation conveys at once the
imperatival
idea. The frequent identity of noun and verb
forms
in English enables us to cite in illustration two lines of
a
popular hymn :—
“So now to watch, to
work, to war,
And then to rest for ever!”
A
schoolmaster entering his classroom might say either "Now
then,
to work!" or "at work!"—dative or locative, express-
204
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
ing
imperative 2nd person, as the hymn lines express 1st
person.
Among the NT exx., Phil 316 has the 1st,1 and the
rest
the 2nd person. The noun-case is equally
traceable in
many
other uses of the infinitive. Thus the infinitive of
purpose,
as in Jn 213 a[lieu<ein a-fishing, or Mt 22
proskunh?sai
for
worshipping, —of consequence, as Heb 610 e]pilaqe<sqai, to
the extent of forgetting,—and other
"complementary" infini-
tives,
as Heb 1115 kairo>n a]naka<myai opportunity for returning,
2
Tim 112 dunato>j fula<cai competent for guarding. The
force
of
such infinitives is always best reached by thus going back
to
the original dative or locative noun.
Tenses. From the account just given of the
genesis of
the infinitive it follows that it
was
originally destitute of tense as much as of voice. In
classical
Sanskrit the infinitive is formed without reference
to
the conjugation or conjugations in which a verb forms its
present
stem: thus Ö cru (klu<w), inf. crotum, pres. crnomi--
Ö yuj (iungo), yoktum, yunajmi—Ö bhu
(fu<w, fui, be), bhavi-
tum, bhavami. We can see this almost as clearly in Latin,
where
action-nouns like sonitum, positum,
tactum and tactio,
etc.,
have no formal connexion with the present stem seen
in
sonat, penit, tangit. The s in lu?sai has only accidental
similarity
to link it with that in –e@lusa. But when once
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.2
1 Brugmann, Gram.3 517 n., regards w[j
e@poj ei]pei?n
as being for ei@pwmen, and
coming
therefore under this head. It is a literary phrase, found only in Heb
79:
cf the would-be literary papyrus, OP 67 (iv/A.D.). On this and other exx.
of
the "limitative infin." see
Grunewald in Schanz Beitrage II. iii.
22 ff.,
where
it is shown to be generally used to qualify pa?j or ou]dei<j, and not as here.
2 The Hellenistic
weakening of the Future infinitive, which in the papyri
is
very frequently used for aorist or even present, would claim attention here
if
we were dealing with the Koinh< as a whole. See Kalker 281, Hatzidakis
190
f., 142 f. The NT hardly shows this
form: apart from e@sesqai, I
THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE. 205
Infinitive of Some important
questions arise from the
Purpose, etc. free use in NT of the infinitive which is
equivalent
to i!na
c. subj. In ThLZ, 1903,
p.
421, Prof. Thumb has some suggestive remarks on this
subject.
He shows that this infinitive is decidedly more
prominent
in the Koinh< than in Attic, and is perhaps an
Ionic
element, as also may be the infin. with tou?, of which the
same
is true. In the Pontic dialect of MGr—as mentioned
above,
pp. 40 f.—the old infin. survives, while it vanished
in
favour of na<
c. subj. in European MGr, where the infin.
was
less prominent in ancient times.a Now the use of the
infin.
in Pontic is restricted to certain syntactical sequences.
To
these belong verbs of movement, like come,
go up (cf Lk
1810,
Par P 49—ii/B.C., = Witk. 29—e]a>n a]nabw? ka]gw>
pros-
kunh?sai), turn,
go over, run, rise up, incline, etc. The NT (and
LXX)
use generally agrees with this; and we find a similar
correspondence
with Politic in the NT use of the infinitive
after
such verbs as bou<lomai, e]piqumw?, spouda<zw,
peira<zw,
e]pixeirw?,
ai]sxu<nomai, fobou?mai, a]ciw?, parainw?, keleu<w, ta<ssw,
e]w?,
e]pitre<pw, du<namai, e@xw, a@rxomai. With other verbs, as
parakalw?, the i!na construction prevails. This correspondence
between
ancient and modern vernacular in
suggests,
is best explained by assuming two tendencies within
the
Koinh<, one towards the universalising of i!na, the other
towards
the establishment of the old infinitive in a definite
province:
the former prevailed throughout the larger, western
portion
of Hellenism, and issued in the language of modern
sway
in the eastern territory, exemplifying itself as we should
expect
in the NT, and showing its characteristic in the dialect
spoken
to-day in the same country. Prof. Thumb does not
pretend
to urge more than the provisional acceptance of this
theory,
which indeed can only be decisively accepted or rejected
when
we have ransacked all the available inscriptions of
Minor
for their evidence on the use of the infinitive. But it
can
only cite He 318, Ac 267 (WH mg). Jn 212 has xwrh<sein (xBC), replaced
by
xwrh?sai in the later MSS; but the future is wanted here. The aorist may
be
due to the loss of future meaning in xwrh<sein by the time when the
late
scribes
wrote. The obsoleteness of fut. infin. with me<llw in NT and papyri has
been
remarked already (p. 114 n.). [a
See p. 249.
206 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
is
certainly very plausible, and opens out hints of exceedingly
fruitful
research on lines as yet unworked.
“Ecbatic" i!na The long debated question of " i!na
e]k-
batiko<n" 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 i!na 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
of
Greek language-history the infinitive has yielded all its
functions
to the locution thus jealously kept apart from it.
That
i!na normally meant "in
order that" is beyond ques-
tion.
It is perpetually used in the full final sense in the
papyri,
having gained greatly on the Attic o!pwj. 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
prerogative
of the verbal noun. "And this is
life eternal,
that
they should know thee" (Jn 173), in English as in
the
Greek, exhibits a form which under other circum-
stances
would make a final clause. Are we to insist on
recognising
the ghost of a purpose clause here?a Westcott
says
that i!na
here "expresses an aim, an end, and not only
a
fact." The i!na clause then, as
compared with (to>) ginw<-
skein, adds the idea of effort or aim at
acquiring knowledge of
God.
I will not deny it, having indeed
committed myself
to
the assumption as sufficiently established to be set down
in
an elementary grammar.1 But I
have to confess myself
troubled
with unsettling doubts; and I should be sorry now
to
commend that i!na 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 Kalker's often quoted monograph on the
language
of Polybius, pp. 290 ff., we have a careful presenta-
tion
of i!na as it appears in the
earliest of the Koinh< writers,
who
came much nearer to the dialect of common life than
the
Atticists who followed him. We see at once that i!na
has
made great strides since the Attic golden age. It has
invaded
the territory of o!pwj, as with fronti<zein and spou-
1 Introd.2
217. [a
See p. 249,
THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE. 207
da<zein, to mention only two
verbs found in the NT. The
former
occurs only in Tit 38; the latter eleven times. And
instead
of Attic o!pwj,
or Polybian i!na, behold the infinitive
in
every occurrence of the two! Under
Kalker's next head
Polybius
is brought into an equally significant agreement
with
the NT. He shows how the historian favours i!na after
words
of commanding, etc., such as diasafei?n, ai]te?sqai,
gra<fein, paragge<llein, and the like. One ex. should be
quoted:
suneta<cato pro<j te Tauri<wna paraskeua<zein
i[ppei?j
penth<konta kai> pezou>j
pentakosi<ouj, kai> pro>j Messhni<ouj,
i!na tou>j i@souj tou<toij
i[ppei?j kai> pezou>j e]capostei<lwsi.
The
equivalence of infin. and i!na c. subj. here is very
plain.
In
the later Koinh< of the NT, which is less affected by
literary
standards than Polybius is, we are not surprised to
find
i!na
used more freely still; and the resultant idiom in
MGr
takes away the last excuse for doubting our natural
conclusions.
There is an eminently sensible note in
SH on
Rom
1111, in which the laxer use of i!na is defended by the
demands
of exegesis, without reference to the linguistic
evidence. The editors also (p. 143) cite Chrysostom on
520:
to> de> i!na e]ntau?qa ou]k ai]tiologi<aj pa<lin
a]ll ] e]kba<sew<j
e]stin. It will be seen that what is said of the
weakening
of
final force in i!na applies also to other final constructions,
such
as tou?
c. infin. And on the other side we note that
w!ste in passages like Mt 271 has
lost its consecutive force
and
expresses a purpose.a It is
indeed a repetition after
many
centuries of a development which took place in the
simple
infinitive before our contemporary records begin. In
the
time when the dative do<menai, and the locative do<men
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 of the new "infinitive mood" over
many
various uses, involved a process essentially like the
vanishing
of the exclusively final force in the normally final
constructions
of Greek, Latin, and English. The burden of
making
purpose clear is in all these cases thrown on the
context;
and it cannot be said that any difficulty results,
except
in a minimum of places. And even in these the diffi-
culty
is probably due only to the fact that we necessarily
a
See p. 249.
208 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
read
an ancient language as foreigners: no difficulty ever
arises
in analogous phrases in our own tongue.
Latinism? The suggestion of Latin influence in this
development
has not unnaturally been made
by
some very good authorities;1 but the usage was deeply
rooted
in the vernacular, in fields which Latin cannot have
touched
to the extent which so far-reaching a change
involves.
A few exx. from papyri may be cited :—OP
744
(i/B.C.)
e]rwtw? se i!na mh> a]gwnia<s^j. NP 7 (i/A.D. ) e@graya
i!na soi
fulaxqw?si (cf BU 19 (ii/A.D.)).
BU
531 (ii/A.D.)
parakalw? se i!na kata<sx^j. 625 (ii/iii A.D.) e]dh<lwsa
Log-
gi<n& ei!na eptuma<s^. OP 121 (iii/A.D.) ei#pa< soi ei!na dw<swsin.
BM 21 (ii/B.C.) h]ci<wsa< se o!pwj a]podoq^?; a@ciw? c. infin.
occurs
in the same papyrus. Par P 51 (ii/B.C.) le<gw . . .
i!na proskunh<s^j au]to<n. In such clauses, which remind us
immediately
of Mt 43 1620, Mk 510 39 etc., the
naturalness
of
the development is obvious from the simple fact that the
purpose
clause with i!na is merely a use of the jussive sub-
junctive
(above, pp. 177 f.), which makes its appearance after
a
verb of commanding or wishing entirely reasonable. The
infinitive
construction was not superseded: cf AP 135 (ii/A.D.)
e]rwtw? se mh> a]melei?n mou. We need add nothing to Winer's
remarks
(WM 422 f.) on qe<lw and poiw? c. i!na. 1 Co 145
is
a particularly good ex. under this head, in that qe<lw
has
both constructions: we may trace a greater urgency
in
that with i!na,
as the meaning demands. From such
sentences,
in which 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
object
clauses in which the jussive idea was absent. The
careful
study of typical sentences like Mt 1025 88 (contrast
311)
186, Jn. 127 (contr. Lk 1519) 434
158. 13, Lk 143 (for which
Winer
quotes a close parallel from Epictetus), will show
anyone
who is free from predisposition that i!na can lose the
last
shred of purposive meaning.2 If
the recognition of a
purpose
conception will suit the context better than the denial
1 So Gotzeler De Polybi elocutione 17 ff. for prose<xein
i!na and parakalei?n
i!na
mh<: also Kalker op. cit., and Viereck SG
67. Against these see Radermacher
RhM lvi. 203 and Thumb Hellen. 159. 2 See
further pp. 240 f.
THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE. 209
of
it, we remain entirely free to assume it; but the day is
past
for 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 i!na
construction ousted the infinitive after
particular
expressions, to observe the relative frequency of
these
usages in different authors, and to test the reality of
Thumb's
proposed test (above, p. 205) for the geographical
distribution
of what may be to some extent a dialectic
difference.
Consequence. The consecutive
infin. with w!ste has
been already
alluded to as admitting some-
thing
very much like a purely final meaning. The total
occurrences
of w!ste
in the NT amount to 83, in 51 of which
it
takes the infin. A considerable number
of the rest,
however,
are not by any means exx. of what we should call
w!ste consecutive with the indicative: the
conjunction be-
comes
(as in classical Greek) little more than "and so" or
"therefore,"
and is accordingly found with subj. or imper.
several
times. Of the strict consecutive w!ste c. indic. there
are
very few exx. Gal 213 and Jn 316 are about the clearest,
but
the line is not easy to draw. The indicative puts the
result
merely as a new fact, co-ordinate with that of the
main
verb; the infinitive subordinates the result clause so
much
as to lay all the stress on the dependence of the result
upon
its cause. 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. "In
Gal 213 there is at
any
rate a v.l. with the infin."—we find in Ti "ascr sunupaxqh-
nai"--,"while in Jn 316 the correct reading in place of w!ste
is
o!ti
which is doubly attested by Chrys. (in many passages)
and
Nonnus."a Those of us
who are not impressed by such
evidence
might plead that the text as it stands in both places
entirely
fits the classical usage. It is just "the importance
attaching
to the result"—to quote one of Blass's criteria
which
he says would have demanded the indic. in Ac 1539 in
a
classical writer—which accounts for the use of the indica-
tive:
in Jn 316, "had the other construction—w!ste
dou?nai,
so much as to give—been used, some stress
would have been
a
See p. 249.
210 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
taken
off the fact of the gift and laid on
the connexion
between
the love and the gift."1 Even if the indicative
construction
was obsolete in the vernacular—which the
evidence
hardly suffices to prove—, it was easy to bring in the
indicative
for a special purpose, as it differed so little from
the
independent w!ste = and
so. The infinitives without
w!ste in consecutive sense were explained above
(p. 204),
upon
Heb 610. So in OP 526 (ii/A.D.), ou]k h@mhn
a]paqh>j
a]lo<gwj se a]polei<pin, "so unfeeling as
to leave you," etc.
Sometimes
we meet with rather strained examples, as those in
the
Lucan hymns, 154.72 especially. The substitution of i!na
c.
subj. for the infin. occasionally makes i!na consecutive, just
as
we saw that w!ste could be final: so 1 Jn 19,
Rev 920,
Jn
92—where Blass's "better reading" o!ti has no authority
earlier
than his own, unless Ti needs to be supplemented.
Blass
quotes a good ex. from Arrian, ou!tw mwro<j h#n i!na mh>
i@d^. We
should not however follow him in making i!na con-
secutive
in Lk 945, for the thought of a purpose of
seems
demanded by parakekalumme<non. 1 Th 54 we can
concede,
but 2 Co 117 is better treated as final: Paul is
disclaiming
the mundane virtue of unsettled convictions,
which
aims at saying yes and no in one breath. See p. 249.
The infinitive when used as subject or
Infinitive as object of a verb has travelled somewhat
subject or further away from its original
syntax. We
object. may see the original idea if we
resolve
humanum est errare into "there is
something human in
erring."
But the locative had ceased to be felt
when the
construction
acquired its commanding prevalence, and the
indeclinable
verbal noun could become nom. or acc. without
difficulty.
The i!na 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
178
f.). Thus we have Mt 529 al sumfe<rei, Mt 1025 a]rketo<n,
Jn
1839 sunh<qeia< e]stin, 1 Co 43 ei]j
e]la<xeisto<n e]stin, Jn 434
e]mo>n brw?ma< e]stin, all with iva in a
subject clause. See Blass's
full
list, p. 228, and note his citation from "Barnabas" 513,
e@dei i!na pa<q^: still more marked are such exx. (p. 229) as
1 I quote from my Introduction 218, written before Blass's
book.
THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE. 211
Lk
143, 1 Jn. 53, Jn 1513, etc. The prevalence of
the i!na
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]mo<j is a
characteristic
of
It
would be worth while for some patient scholar to take up
this
point exhaustively, examining the vernacular documents
among
the papyri and inscriptions and in the NT, with care-
ful
discrimination of date and locality where ascertainable.
Even
the Atticists will yield unwilling testimony here; for a
"wrong"
use of i!na,
if normal in the writer's daily speech,
could
hardly be kept out of his literary style there was a
very
manifest dearth of trained composition lecturers to correct
the
prose of these painful litterateurs
of the olden time!
Schmid,
Atticismus iv. 81, shows how this
"Infinitivsurrogat"
made
its way from Aristotle onwards. Only by such an inquiry
could
we make sure that the dialectic distribution of these
alternative
constructions was a real fact in the age of the
NT.
Tentatively I should suggest--for time for such an
investigation
lies wholly below my own horizon--that the
preference
was not yet decisively fixed on geographical lines,
so
that individuals had still their choice open. The strong
volitive
flavour which clung to i!na would perhaps commend
it
as a mannerism to a writer of John's temperament; but one
would
be sorry to indulge in exegetical subtleties when he
substitutes
it for the infinitive which other writers prefer.
The Accusative
We might dwell on the relation of
and Infinitive the accus. c. infin. (after verbs of saying,
and substitutes. believing, and the like) to the periphrasis
with
o!ti
which has superseded it in nearly
all
the NT writers. But no real question as to difference
of
meaning arises here; and it will suffice to cite Blass's
summary
(pp. 230 ff.) 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
(Hebrews),
being a 'remnant of the literary language'
(Viteau
[i.] 52)." So with other verbs akin to these: Luke
is
indeed "the only writer who uses [the acC. and infinitive]
at
any length, and even he very quickly passes over into the
direct
form." The use of w[j instead of o!ti is limited, and
tends
to be encroached upon by pw?j: of Hatzidakis 19, who
212 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
(might
not however to have cited Ac 421 in this connexion
The
combination w[j o!ti in 2 Co 519 1121,
2 Th 22, is taken
by
Blass (Gr.2 321 f.) as
equivalent to Attic w[j c. gen. abs.,
the
Vulgate quasi representing it
correctly. It must be
noted
that in the vernacular at a rather later stage it meant
merely
"that": thus CPR 19 (iv/A.D.) prw<hn
bi<blia e]pi-
de<dwka t^? s^? e]pimelei<% w[j
o!ti e]boulh<qhn tina> u[pa<rxonta<
mou a]podo<sqai. Wessely notes there, "w[j
o!ti seem
to be
combined
where the single word would be adequate." He
quotes
another papyrus, w[j o!ti xreostei?tai e]c au]tou? o[
ku<rij
]Iano<j. Two
Attic inscriptions of i/B.C. show w[j o!ti c. superl.
in
the sense of w[j or o!ti alone: see
Roberts-Gardner 179.
Winer
(p. 771) cites Xenophon, Hellen. III.
ii. 14, ei]pw>n
w[j o!ti o]knoi<h, and Lightfoot (on 2 Th
22) and Plummer
repeat
the reference; but the editors have agreed to eject
o!ti from the text at that place. Its isolation in earlier
Greek
seems adequate reason for flouting the MSS here.
Winer's
citation from the Argument to the Busiris
of Isocrates,
kathgo<roun aui]tou? w[j o!ti
kaina> daimo<nia ei]sfe<rei, will hardly
dispose
of Blass's "unclassical" (as Plummer supposes), since
the
argument is obviously late.1 We may follow Lightfoot
and
Blass without much hesitation.
Nominative for In
classical Greek, as any fifth-form boy
Accusative. forgets at his peril, the nominative is used
regularly
instead of the accusative as subject
to
the infinitive when the subject of the main verb is the
same:
e@fh ou]k au]to>j
a]lla> Kle<wna strathgei?n. This
rule
is
by no means obsolete in NT Greek, as passages like 2 Co
102,
Rom 93, Jn 74 (WH text), serve to show; but the ten-
dency
towards uniformity has produced a number of violations
of
it. Heb 724 has a superfluous au]to<n, and so has Lk 24:
Mt
2632 inserts me, Phil 313 e]mauto<n, and so on. Blass,
p.
238 f., gives instances, and remarks that translations
from
Latin (Viereck, SG 68) exhibit this
feature.a Kalker
(p.
280) anticipates Viereck in regarding this as a case of
propter hoc as well as post hoc. But the development of
1 Dr J. E. Sandys (Aristotle's Constitution of Athens, p.
xxviii) makes the
author
of the u[po<qesij to the Areopagitieus
"a Christian writer of perhaps the
sixth
century." He kindly informs me that
we may assume the same age for
that
to the Busiris.
[a See p. 249
THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE. 213
Greek
in regions untouched by Latin shows that no outside
influence
was needed to account for this levelling, which
was
perfectly natural.
Mixed The accus. c. inf. and the o!ti construction
Construction. have been mixed in Ac 2710, by an inadvert-
ence to
which the best Attic writers were
liable.
See the parallels quoted by Winer (p. 426), and add
from
humbler Greek OP 237 (ii/A.D.) dhlw?n o!ti ei] ta> a]lhqh?
fanei<h mhde> kri<sewj
dei?sqai to> pra?gma.
Also see Wellh. 23.
The Articular We will
proceed to speak of the most
Infinitive. characteristic
feature of the Greek infinitive
in
post-Homeric language. "By the sub-
stantial
loss of its dative force," says Gildersleeve (AJP iii.
195),
"the infinitive became verbalised; by the assumption of
the
article it was substantivised again with a decided increment
of
its power." Goodwin, who cites this
dictum (MT 315),
develops
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
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 those for classical authors cited from Gilder-
sleeve
on the same page of Goodwin's MT. The highest
frequency
is found in Demosthenes, who shows an average of
1
25 per Teubner page, while he and his fellow orators
developed
the powers of the construction for taking dependent
clauses
to an extent unknown in the earlier period. In the
NT,
if my calculation is right, there is an average of 68 per
Teubner
page—not much less than that which Birklein gives
for
Plato. The fragmentary and miscellaneous character of
the
papyri make it impossible to apply this kind of test, but
no
reader can fail to observe how perpetual the construction
is.
I have noted 41 exx. in vol. i of BU (361 papyri), which
will
serve to illustrate the statement. An interesting line
of
inquiry, which we may not at present pursue very far,
concerns
the appearance of the articular infinitive in the
dialects.
Since it is manifestly developed to a high degree
in
the Attic orators, we should naturally attribute its fre-
214 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
quency
in the Hellenistic vernacular to Attic elements in
the
Koinh<; and this will be rather a strong point to make
against
Kretschmer's view (p. 33), that Attic contributed
no
more than other dialects to the resultant language. To
test
this adequately, we ought to go through the whole
Sammlung of Greek
dialect-inscriptions. I have had to
content
myself with a search through Cauer's representative
Delectus, which contains 557
inscriptions of all dialects except
Attic.
It will be worth while to set down the
scanty
results.
First comes a Laconian inscr. of ii/B.C.,
32 (= Michel
182)
e]pi> to> kalw?j . . . diecagnhke<nai. Then the Messenian
"Mysteries"
inscr., no. 47 (= M. 694, Syll. 653,
91 B.C.), which
has
four or five instances, all with prepositions. Four Cretan
exx.
follow, all from ii/B.C., and all in the same formula, peri>
tw?
(once
tou?)
gene<sqai with accus. subject (Nos. 122-5 = M. 55,
56,
54, 60). (The Gortyn Code (Michel 1333, v/B.C.) has no
ex.,
for all its length.) Then 148 ( = M. 1001, the Will of
Epikteta),
dated cir. 200 BC., in which we find pro> tou?
ta>n
su<nodon h#men. No. 157 (M. 417), from Calymnus, dated
end
of iv/B.C., is with one exception the oldest ex. we have:
parageno<menoi pa?san spouda>n
e]poih<santo tou?
taj tou>j poli<taj ta> pot ]
au[tou>j politeu<esqai met ] o[monoi<aj.
No.
171, from Carpathus, Michel (436) assigns to ii/B.C.: it
has
pro> tou? misqwqh<mein. No. 179 (not in M.), from Priene,
apparently
iii/B.C., has [peri> t]ou?
parori<zesqai ta>g xw<ran.
The
Delphian inscr. no. 220 has pro> tou? paramei?nai.
contributes
one ex., no. 264 ( = M. 197), dated by Michel in
the
middle of iv/B.C., and so the oldest quoted: peri> de> t&?
a]postala?men . . . to> . . . ya<gisma. Finally
us
(no. 431 = M. 357), from ii/B.C., e]pi> tw?i
pragmateuqh?nai.
I
have looked through Larfeld's special collection of Boeotian
inscriptions,
and find not a single example. Unless the
selections
examined are curiously unrepresentative in this
one
point, it would seem clear that the articular infinitive
only
invaded the Greek dialects when the Koinh< was already
arising,
and that its invasion was extremely limited in extent.
To
judge from the silence of Meisterhans, the Attic popular
speech
was little affected by it. It would seem to have been
mainly
a literary use, starting in Pindar, Herodotus, and the
tragedians,
and matured by Attic rhetoric. The statistics of
THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE. 215
Birklein
(in Schanz Beitr., Heft 7) show how
it extends during
the
lives of the great writers, though evidently a matter of
personal
taste. Thus Sophocles has 94 examples per 100
lines,
Aeschylus 63, and Euripides only 37. Aristophanes
has
42; but if we left out his lyrics, the frequency would be
about
the same as in Euripides. This is eloquent testimony
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. Turning to
prose,
we find Herodotus showing only 07 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 he
has twice as many
as
this. The figures for the orators have already been alluded
to.
The conclusion of the whole
matter—subject to correction
from
the more thorough investigation which is needed for
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. If this is true,
it
is enough by itself to show how commanding was the part
taken
by Attic, and that the literary Attic, in the evolution
of
the Koinh<.
The application of the articular
infin. in NT Greek does
not
in principle go beyond what is found in Attic writers.
We
have already dealt with the imputation of Hebraism which
the
frequency of e]n t&? c. inf. has raised. It is used 6 times
in
Thucydides, 26 times in Plato, and 16 in Xenophon; and
the
fact that it exactly translates the Hebrew infin. with b
does
not make it any worse Greek, though this naturally in-
creases
its frequency.a Only one
classical development failed
to
maintain itself, viz. the rare employment of the infin. as a
full
noun, capable of a dependent genitive: thus in Demos-
thenes,
to< g ] eu# fronei?n au]tw?n, "their good
sense"; or in Plato,
dia> panto>j
tou? ei#nai. Heb 215 dia>
panto>j tou? zh?n
is an exact
parallel
to this last, but it stands alone in NT Greek, though
Ignatius,
as Gildersleeve notes, has to> a]dia<kriton h[mw?n
zh?n.
The
fact that zh?n
was by this time an entirely isolated
infinitive
form may account for its peculiar treatment.b A
a
b See D. 249.
216 A
GRAMMA.R OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
similar
cause may possibly contribute to the common verna-
cular
(not NT) phrase ei]j
(p.
81) to the Herodotean a]nti< c. anarthrous infin. The
prepositions
which Birklein (p. 104) notes as 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 infini-
tive
in NT books. Jas has (7 =) 108 per WH page;
Heb
(23 =) 109; Lk (71 =) nearly 99; Paul (106 = )
89
(in Pastorals not at all); Ac (49 =) 7 (73 in cc. 1-12,
68
in cc. 13-28); 1 Pet (4 =) 59; Mt (24 =) 35; Mk
(13
=) 32; Jn (4 =) 076; Rev (1 =) 027. [Mk] 169-20
has
one ex., which makes this writer's figure stand at
143:
the other NT books have none. It will be found
that
Mt and Mk are about level with the Rosetta Stone.2
Tou? c. inf. The general blurring of
the expressions
which were
once appropriated for purpose,
has
infected two varieties of the articular infinitive. That
with
tou?
started as a pure adnominal genitive, and still
remains
such in many places, as 1 Co 164, a@cion tou?
poreu<esqai. But though the tou? may be forced into one
of
the ordinary genitive categories in a fair proportion of
its
occurrences, the correspondence seems generally to be
accidental:
the extension which began in the
classical period
makes
in later Greek a locution retaining its genitive force
almost
as little as the genitive absolute. The normal use of
tou? c. inf. is telic. With this force it was
specially developed
by
Thucydides, and in the NT this remains its principal
use.
We will analyse the exx. given in the
concordance,
omitting
those in which tou?, is governed by a preposition,
and
those which are due to the LXX. Mt has 6 exx.:
in
one of them, 2132, tou? pisteu?sai gives rather the content
than
the purpose of metemelh<qhte. Luke supplies two-thirds
of
the total for the NT. In Lk we have 23 exx., of which
5
may be due to dependence on a noun, and about one-half
1 But not to ei]j
ba<yai,
OP 736 (cir. A.D. 1). Winer (413) cites two exx.
from
Theodoret. See Kuhner3 § 479. 2. Add an ex. with a@xri from Plutarch
p.
256 D. An inscription of iii/B.C. (OGIS
41, Michel 370) has a]postalei>j . . .
e]pi> ta>j parabola>j tw?n
dikw?n lamba<nein: Dittenberger emends. 2 See p. 241.
THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE. 217
seem
clearly final; in Ac there are 21, with 2 adnominal,
and
less than half final. Paul shows 13
(only in Rom, Gal,
1
and 2 Co, Phil), but there is not one in which purpose is
unmistakable.
In Heb there is one adnominal, one (115)
final
or quasi-final. Jas 517 (object clause), 1 Pet 417
(adnominal),
and the peculiar1 Rev 127 supply the remainder.
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 271
("We"-document)
with 1520 203, Lk 2122 with Ac 915,
Ac 2027
("We"-document)
with 1418. Note also the
uniform pro-
portion
of final tou?,
and the equality of total occurrences.
When
we observe that only Paul makes any marked use of
tou? c. inf., outside Lk and Ac (the two writers
together
accounting
for five-sixths of the NT total), and that his use
differs
notably in the absence of the telic force, we can
hardly
deny weight to the facts as a contribution to the
evidence
on the Lucan question. In classifying the uses of
this
tou?,
we note how closely it runs parallel with i!na. Thus
Lk
171 a]ne<ndekto<n e]stin tou? . . .
mh> e]lqei?n,
and Ac 1025
e]ge<neto tou? ei]selqei?n (cf 312),
where the tou?
clause represents
a
pure noun sentence, in which to< would have been more
correct,
may be paralleled at once by Lk 143, po<qen
moi
tou?to i!na e@lq^; After verbs of commanding we may have
tou? or i!na. We find the simple infin. used side by side
with
it
in Lk 176f.. (purpose) and 179. It is not worth while to
labour
any proof that purpose is not to be pressed into
any
example of tou?
where the context does not demand
it;
but we must justify our assertion about Paul. It is
not
meant that there are no possible or even plausible
cases
of final tou?,
but only that when Paul wishes to express
purpose
he uses other means. In the majority of cases tou?
c.
inf. is epexegetic (Rom 124 73 812, 1 Co 1013),
adnominal
(Rom
1523, 1 Co 910 164, 2 Co 811, Phil
321) or in a regular
ablative
construction (Rom 1522, 2 Co 18). The rendering
1 WH make this a
quotation from Dan 1013.20:
the former verse names
Michael,
who in the latter says e]pistre<yw tou? polemh?sai meta>
ktl (Theodotion).
See
below.
218 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
"so
as to" will generally express it. The nearest to pure final
force
are Rom 66 and Phil 310; but in both it would be
quite
as natural to recognise result as purpose—the main
purpose
is expressed by a clause with i!na in each case, and
the
tou?
c. infin. comes in to expound what is involved in
the
purpose stated. An extreme case of
explanatory infin.
is
that in Rev 127, where po<lemoj is explained by tou?
polemh?sai with subject in the
nominative. The construction
is
loose even for the author of Rev, but the meaning is clear:
we
might illustrate the apposition by Vergil's "et cer ta-
men
erat, Corydon cum Thyrside,
magnum;" or more closely
still—if
we may pursue our former plan of selecting English
sentences
of similar grammar and widely different sense—
by
such a construction as "There will be a cricket match,
the
champions to play the rest."
Pro>j to<
and Two other modes of expressing purpose
ei]j to<
c. infin. have
been, to a more limited extent, infected
by
the same general tendency. Pro>j to<
c.
infin. occurs 5 times in Mt and once in Mk, with clearly
final
force, except perhaps in Mt 528, where it might rather
seem
to explain ble<pwn than to state purpose. Lk 181
and
Ac 319 stand alone in Luke, and the former is hardly
final:
we go back to a more neutral force of pro<j—"with
reference
to the duty" (Winer). Paul has it 4
times,
and
always to express the "subjective purpose" in the
agent's
mind, as W. F. Moulton observes (WM 414 n., after
Meyer
and Alford). This then is a locution in which the
final
sense has been very little invaded. Ei]j
to< c.
infin.
is
almost exclusively Pauline. It occurs
thrice in Mt, in
very
similar phrases, all final; Mk, Lk and Ac have it once
each,
with final force fairly certain. Jas and 1 Pet have
two
exx. each, also final; and the same may probably be
said
of the 8 exx. in Heb. The remaining 44
exx. are evenly
distributed
in Paul, esp. Rom, Th, and Co--none in
Philem
and the Pastorals. Westcott on Heb 51
distinguishes
between
i!na
and ei]j to<, which he notes as occurring in
close
connexion in a considerable number of passages: " i!na
appears
to mark in each case the direct and immediate
end,
while ei]j to< indicates the more remote result aimed
at
or reached." This seems to be true of both tou? and
THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE. 219
ei] to>. Since we have seen that i!na itself has largely lost
its
appropriation to telic force, it would naturally follow
that
ei]j to< would lose it more easily: on the whole,
however,
this is hardly the case. On Heb 113, Moulton
and
Westcott, independently, insist on the perseverance of
the
final meaning, in view of the writer's usage elsewhere.
The
ei]j to> gegone<nai (mark the perfect) will in this case
depend
on kathrti<sqai, and describe a contemplated effect
of
the fiat in Gen 1. Paul's usage is not so uniform. It is
difficult
to dispute
Rom
123, 2 Co 86, Gal 317 (not, I think,1
in 1 Th 216) ei]j to<
"expresses
tendency, measure of effect, or result, conceived
or
actual." Add (with WM 414 n.) exx. of ei]j to< expressing
the
content of a command or entreaty (as 1 Th 212), or
acting
for the epexegetic inf. (1 Th 49). Purpose
is so
remote
here as to be practically evanescent. We must
however
agree with SH in rejecting
to
Rom 120; for this belongs to the category of passages
dealing
with Divine action, in which contemplated and actual
results,
final and consecutive clauses, necessarily lose their
differentia. It has been often asserted--cf especially a
paper
by Mr A. Carr on "The Exclusion of Chance from the
Bible,"
in Expos. v. viii. 181 ff.--that Hebrew teleology is
responsible
for the blurring of the distinction between pur-
pose
and consequence: it is a "subtle
influence of Hebrew
thought
on the grammar of Hellenistic Greek." This might
be
allowed—as a Hebraism of thought, not language--in
passages
like that last mentioned, where the action of God
is
described. But the idea that "Hebrew teleology" can
have
much to do with these phenomena as a whole is put
out
of court by the appearance of the same things in lan-
guage
which Semitic influences could not have touched. We
Evidence of the have already shown this for i!na. A few exx.
Papyri, etc. may be cited for 70 from vernacular
witnesses:—BU
665 (1/A.D.) a]melei?n tou?
gra<fein. BU 830 (i/A.D.) xrh> ou#n e[toima<sein kai> proairei?n,
i!n ] e@xi tou? pwlei?n: cf Mt 1825, Jn 57, for
parallel construe-
1 See Findlay CGT in loc., where strong reasons are given
for accepting
Ellicott's
interpretation, seeing here the purpose
of God.
220
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
Lions
with e@xw.
BU 1031 (ii/A.D.) fro<nhson
tou? poih?sai.
JHS, 1902, 369 (Lycaonian
inscr., iii/A.D. or earlier) t&?
dixotomh<santi< me tou? to>
loepo>n zh?n ei$j
(cause). NP 16
(iii/A.D.)
kwlu<ontej tou? mh> spei<rein: cf Lk 442, Ac 1418,
etc.
BU
36 (ii/iii A.D.) tou? zh?n metasth?sai: cf 2 Co 18.
BU
164 (ii/iii A.D.) parakalw? se . . . pei?sai au]to>n tou? e]lqei?n.
BM 23 (ii/B.C.) prosdeome<nou mou tou? peripoih?sai.
BU 595
(i/A.D.)
tou? se> mh>i eu[reqh?nai, apparently meaning
"because
of
your not being found," as if t&?:1 the document is illiterate
and
naturally ejects the dative. OP 86 (iv/A.D.) e@qoj
e]sti>n
tou? parasxeqh?nai. OP 2'75 (i/A.D.) tou? a]pospaqh?nai
e]pi<teimon. CPR 156 e]cousi<an . . .
tou? . . . qe<sqai:
cf
1
Co 96. BU
46 (ii/A.D.) eu]kairi<aj . .
. tou? eu[rei?n: cf
Lk 226. BU 625 (ii/iii A.D.) pa?n poi<hson tou? se> a]pene<gke:
so
845 (ii/A.D.). The usage is not common
in the papyri.
Winer's
plentiful testimony from LXX, Apocrypha, and
Byzantine
writers (WM 411) illustrates what the NT
statistics
suggest, that it belongs to the higher stratum of
education
in the main. For ei]j to< we may quote the re-
current
formula ei]j to> e]n mhdeni> memfqh?nai, which is decidedly
telic:
as PFi 2 (iii/A.D.) quater, OP 82
(iii/A.D.). Miscel-
laneous
exx. may be seen in OP 69 (ii/A.D.), BU 18 (ii/A.D.),
195
(ii/A.D.), 243 (ii/A.D.), 321 (iii/A.D.), 457 (ii/A.D.), 651
(ii/A.D.),
731 (ii/A.D.), and 747 (ii/A.D.). Like
the rather
commoner
pro>j to<, it seems to carry the thought of a remoter
purpose,
the tendency towards an end. This is well shown by
the
cases in which the main purpose is represented by i!na or
o!pwj, and an ultimate object is tacked on
with the articular
infinitive. Thus BU 226 (i/A.D.) o!pwj
ei]d^? pare<sestai
(
=-qai)
au]to<n . . .
o!tan ktl . . . pro>j to> tuxi?n me th?j a]po>
sou? bohqei<aj. OP 237 (ii/A.D.) o!pwj
fronti<s^j a]ko<louqa
pra?cai . . . pro>j to> mh> peri> tw?n au]tw?n
pa<lin au]to>n
e]ntugxa<nein. ib. [ i!na] d ] ou#n . . . diame<n^ . . . h[
xrh?seij
pro>j to> mh> pa<lin
a]pografh?j dehqh?nai.
This kind of final
force
is just what we have seen in nearly all the NT exx.;
nor
do those in which the purpose is least evident go beyond
what
we see in these other illustrations.
Before dealing with the Participle
proper, we may
1 Cf 2 Co 213; LPb (ii/B.C.) a@llwj de> t&? mhqen ] e@xein plh>n tou? Ptolemai<ou.
THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE. 221
briefly
touch on another category closely connected with it.
Brugmann
has shown (Idg. Forsch. v. 89 ff.),
that the
The Participle Greek participle, formed with the suffixes
and the Verbal -
Adjectives.
proethnic participle,
which was intimately
connected
with the tense system; while
there
are primitive verbal adjectives, notably that in -to-,
which
in other languages--Latin and English are obvious
examples—have
become associated more intimately with the
verb.
The –to<j form in Greek has never
come into the
verb
system; and its freedom from tense connexions may
be
seen from the single fact that "amatus
est" and "he is
loved"
represent different tenses, while "scriptum est" and
"it
is written" agree.1 Even
in Latin, a word like tacitus
illustrates
the absence of both tense and voice from the
adjective
in its primary use. Brugmann's paper mainly
concerns
Latin and the Italic dialects, and we shall only
pursue
the subject just as far as the interpretation of the
Greek
–to<j calls us. The absence of voice has just been
remarked
on. This is well shown by the ambiguity
of a]du<na-
ton in Rom 83: is it "incapable," as in Ac 148,
Rom 151,
or
"impossible," as in the other NT occurrences? Grammar
cannot
tell us: it is a purely lexical problem. As to
absence
of tense, we may note that both in
Greek and
English
this adjective is wholly independent of time and of
"Aktionsart."
Both a]gaphto<j and beloved may answer
indifferently
to a]gapw<menoj, h]gaphme<noj, and a]gaphqei<j.
This
fact has some exegetical importance. Thus in Mt 2541
the
timeless adjective "cursed" would answer to the Greek
kata<ratoi. The perfect kathrame<noi has the full perfect
force,
"having become the subjects of a curse"; I and this
makes
the predicate translation (RVmg "under a curse")
decidedly
more probable. That our -d (-n) participle has no
tense
force in itself, and that consequently we have no exact
representative
of either present, aorist or perfect participle
passive
in Greek, is a point that will often need to be borne
in
mind. The very word just used, borne,
translates the
1 The verbal adjective in
-no- stands parallel with that in -to- from primitive
times.
222
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
present
ai]ro<menon in Mk 23, while its punctiliar
equivalent
brought
represents (RVmg) the aorist e]nexqei?san in 2 Pet 118,
and
the similar taken away stands for h]rme<non in Jn 201;
and
yet all these are called "past participle" in English
grammars.
Having cleared the way for a lexical
treatment
of
the verbals in –to<j, 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. Suneto<j is a good example
of
an ambiguous word: it is always active,
"intelligent," in
NT,
but in earlier writers it is also passive.
LS cite
Euripides IT
1092 eu]cu<netoj
cunetoi?si boa< as combining
the
two. ]Asu<netoj in Rom 131
is also active, but the next
word
a]su<nqetoj, combined with it by paronomasia, gets its
meaning
from the middle sunqe<sqai, "not
covenanting." An
example
of the passive, and at the same time of the free use
of
these adjectives in composition, is qeodi<daktoj "God-
taught."
Intransitive verbs naturally cannot show
passive
meaning.
Thus zesto<j fervidus, from ze<(s)w "to boil." But
when
we examine qnhto<j, we see it does not mean "dying "
but
"mortal"; paqhto<j is probably not
"suffering" but
"capable
of suffering," patibilis. So often with transitive
verbs.
"The 'invincible' Armada" would be rendered o[
a]h<tthtoj dh> sto<loj: invictus
would be similarly used in
Latin,
and "unconquered" can be read in that sense in
English.
A considerable number of these
adjectives answer
thus
to Latin words in -bilis, as will be
seen from the lexicon:
we
need cite no more here. It will be
enough merely to
mention
the gerundive in –te<oj, as it is only found in Lk 538,
blhte<on "one must
put." It is not unknown in the
papyri,
but
can hardly have belonged to the genuine popular speech.
Participle for A
considerable proportion of what we
Indicative. have to say about the Participle has been
anticipated.
One Hellenistic use, already
adumbrated
in the discussion of the Imperative (pp. 180 ff.),
may
be finished off at this point, before we go on to describe
subordinate
participial clauses. That the participle can be
used
for indicative or imperative seems to be fairly estab-
lished
now by the papyri. Let us present our evidence
before
applying it to the NT exx., which we have already
THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE. 223
given
so far as the imperative is concerned. For indicative
the
following may be cited :--Tb P 14 (ii/B.C.) tw?i ou#n
shmainome<nwi [Hra?ti parhggelko<tej e]nw<pion, "I gave notice
in
person" (no verb follows). Tb P 42
(ib.) h]dikhme<noj (no
verb
follows). AP 78 (ii/A.D.) bi<an
pa<sxwn e[ka<stote,
etc.
(no
verb). Tb P 58 (ii/B.C.) gra<yaj
o!pwj ei]d^?j, kai> su>
a]nagwni<atoj i@sqei. NP 49 (iii/A.D.) o!ti ". . . e]cagrh<santej
. . . kai> . .
. sfeteri<santej, kai> a]pa<nthka au]toi?j . . . " On
GH 26 (ii/B.C.), o{ sunepikeleuou<shj th?j tou<twn mhtro>j Qrh?rij
th?j Paw?toj suneudokou?ntej tw?n
progegra(mme<nwn),
the edd.
remark:
"The construction is hopeless; one
of the participles
sunepik. or suneud. must be emended to the
indicative, and
the
cases altered accordingly." The writer of the papyrus
uses
his cases in a way which would have convicted him of
Semitic
birth before any jury of NT grammarians not very
long
ago; but if suneudokou?men is meant by the suneu-
dokou?ntej, we may perhaps
translate without emendation,
taking
tw?n p. as partitive gen. like Ac 2116 (supr., p. 73).
In
Par P 63 (ii/B.C.) e@nteucin h[mi?n profero<menoi comes in so
long
a sentence that the absence of finite verb may be mere
anacoluthon. OP 725
(ii/A.D.) o[ de> [H. eu]dokw?n tou<toij pa?si
kai> e]kdeida<cein, "H. agrees to all this, and to
teach," etc. In
CPR
4 (i/A.D.), kai> mhde<na kwlu<onta, for kwlu<ein, seems to be
the
same thing in orat. obl., but more
clearly due to anaco-
luthon.
For the imperative there is the formula
seen in
G
35 (i/B.C.) e[autw?n de> a]pimelomenoi i!n ]
u[giai<nhte
(1st person
plural
precedes): so Par P 63, G 30, Path P 1,
Tb P 12
(all
Ptolemaic), etc. FP 112 (i/A.D.,
translated above,
p.
178) e]pe<xon (=-wn) Zwi<lwi kai> ei!na au]to>n
mh> duswph<s^j
Tb
P 59 (i/B.C.=Witk. p. 88) e]n oi$j e]a>n
prosde<hsqe< mou e]pita<s-
sonte<j moi proqumo<teron--following a gen. abs.1
The writer
is
"an official of some importance" (G. & H.) who bears a
Greek
name. We may observe that the
participial use we
are
discussing is in the papyri not at all a mark of inferior
education.
Though fairly certain, it was not very common.
It
may be recalled that in a prehistoric stage Latin used the
participle
for an indicative, where the 2nd plur. middle for
some
reason became unpopular; and sequimini
= e[po<menoi, not
only
established itself in the present, but even produced
1 Add PP ii. 19
a]ciw? se. . . dou>j ktl (q.v.), and G 30 (=Witk. p. 83).
224
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
analogy-formations
in future and imperfect, and in the subjunc-
tive.1
Cf the constant ellipsis of est in perfect indic. passive. If
further
analogies may be permitted, we might refer to the plaus-
ible
connexion claimed between the 3rd plural indicative and
the
participle in all languages of our family: bheronti (ferunt,
fe<rousi, Gothic bairand, etc.), and bheront- (ferens, fe<rwn,
bairands). These analogies are only adduced to show that
the
use
of the 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
cause
set aside. In D we find this use
apparently arising
from
the literal translation of Aramaic: see
Wellh. 21.
We
may proceed to give some NT passages in which the
participle
appears to stand for an indicative: those where
the
imperative is needed were even on pp. 180 ff. As before,
we
shall begin with those from Winer's list (p. 441 f.) in which
we
may now reject his alternative construction. Rom 511
kauxw<menoi is most naturally taken
this way: Winer's explana-
tion
seems forced. The a-text MSS correctly
glossed the true
reading
with their kauxw<meqa. In Heb
72 we might have to
take
refuge in explaining e[rmhneuo<menoj as an indicative, if we
felt
ourselves tied to o{j sunanth<saj in v.1, which is read
by
xABC2DEK 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
gunai?kaj (xAD and the new Oxyrhynchus papyrus) and
114 au]tou? t&? Qe&? (where Hort's au]t&? tou? Qeou?) is now found
in
the papyrus, as well as in Clement): this is an excellent
witness
to the scrupulous accuracy of the b-text in preserving
even
errors in its ancient source. In Heb 810 1016 didou<j
is
parallel to e]pigra<yw, if the order of
thought is to be
maintained:
the LXX had didou>j dw<sw, but AQ and Heb
omit
dw<sw (because there was only the simple Qal in the
Hebrew?),
leaving didou<j to do the work of an indicative.
Winer
(p. 717) would make e]pigra<yw a substitute for parti-
ciple,
as in Col 126, 1 Co 737, etc. In
Ac 245 eu[ro<ntej arrives
at
the goal by the way of anacoluthon--Luke cruelly reports
1 Sequimini imperative has a different history: cf the old infinitive
e[pe<menai,
sacamane. See p. 241.
THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE. 225
the
orator verbatim. In 2 Co 75 qlebo<menoi is most simply
taken
in this way: perhaps pareklh<qhmen was in mind for
the
main verb. ]Apagge<llwn in the a-text (HLP and cur-
sives)
of Ac 2620 would be explained thus, though the influence
of
e]geno<mhn is still consciously present: were this a marked
irregularity,
the Syrian revisers would hardly have admitted
it.
In Rom 126 e@xontej is I think for e@xomen: see above,
p.
183. In Rev 102 e@xwn is for ei#xen: Winer allows that
"
e]sti<, [rather h#n] may be supplied."
So 2112.14. A different
class
of participle altogether is that coming under the head
of
"hanging nominative," which our own nominative absolute
translates
so exactly that we forget the genitive presumed in
the
Greek. Heb 101 will be a case in point
if the text is
sound—Westcott
and Peake accept du<natai, which is strongly
supported
by the combination DH boh vg: the RV (so W. F.
Moulton,
Comm. in loc.) follows the
construction expressly
vouched
for by Theophylact, reading e@xwn as an "absolute
clause."
In Phil 130 e@xontej similarly takes the
place of a gen.
abs.
(or dat. agreeing with u[mi?n) the construction is taken up
as
if e]la<bete had preceded.1 The idiom in fact is due merely
to
anacoluthon: see other exx. in WM 716
and Jannaris
HG 500. Answering Viteau,
who as usual sees Hebraism
here,
Thumb observes (Hellenismus 131) that
the usage is
found
in classical Greek, and in Hellenistic both in and
outside
Biblical Greek, "and is the precursor of the process
which
ends in MGr with the disappearance of the old
participial
constructions, only an absolute for in -ontaj
being
left." This construction is
identical, to be sure, with
the nom. pendens unaccompanied by the
participle: it is as
common
in English as in Greek, and just as "Hebraistic" in
the
one as in the other.2
Participles We saw when we
first introduced the
with ei#nai. participial substitute for indicative or impera-
tive (p.
182), that its rationale was practically
the
suppression of the substantive verb. Our next subject
will
therefore naturally be the use of the participle in peri-
1 Lightfoot rejects the
alternative punctuation (WH) which. would treat
h!tij . . . pa<sxein as a parenthesis. So Kennedy (EGT in loc).—rightly, it
seems
to me. 2
Add 1 Th 211: see Dr G. Milligan
in loc.
226
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
phrastic
tenses. Since the question of Semitism is rather
acute
here, we will deal with it first. Blass (pp. 202 ff.)
discovers
the influence of Aramaic especially in the peri-
phrastic
imperfect: in the case of Mt, Mk, Lk and
Ac 1-12
"this
is no doubt due to their bring direct translations from
Aramaic
originals"---"based on direct translations," would be
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 Koinh<, 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
with “the extraordinary abundance of the participial
periphrasis
in NT . . ., one can of avoid separating the NT
use
from that of the Koinh<, and deriving it from the Heb. and
Syr.
application of the participle.” We can
of course have no
objection
to this, within limits. In translated Greek, as we
have
seen again and again, we expect to find over-literal
renderings,
— still more to find an overdoing of correct
idioms
which answer exactly to locutions characteristic of the
language
rendered. The latter is the case here. No one
denies
that periphrasis is thoroughly Greek: see the page
and
a half of classical exx. in Kuhner-Gerth i. 38 ff. It is
only
that where Aramaic sources underlie the Greek, there
is
inordinate frequency of a use which Hellenistic has not
conspicuously
developed. Cf Wellh. 25. The exx. in
Jn
(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 corre-
spondence
with Aramaic is close enough to justify much of a
case
for dependence. No less a authority than Wellhausen
warns
us not to carry the thesis into the imperative: " @Isqi
in
imperative before participle or adjective often occurs
(Mk
534, Lk 1917), and in consideration
of Prov 35 LXX is
not
to be treated as an Aramaism" (Comm.
on Mt 525). Then
we
note the papyrus usage. '' @Exwn e]sti< and de<on e]sti<, (with
other
impersonal verbs) are both classical and vernacular.
The
future e@somai c. perf. part. s well kept up in the papyri,
and
so is the periphrastic pluperfect: thus, OP 285 (i/A.D.)
o{n h@mhn
e]ndedume<noj xitw?na, Par 8 (ii/B.C.) w$n h@mhn di ] au]tw?n
paramemetrhkui?a. There can be no
thought of Aramaisms
THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE. 227
here.1 But BU 183 (i/A.D.), e]f
] o{n xro<non zw?sa ^#,
is rather
limited
illustration for the present participle in this usage.
Winer
however cites Lucian, observing that its common appear-
ance
in the LXX "was but seldom suggested by the Hebrew."
In
classical Greek Rutherford showed (CR
xvii. 49) that the
idiom
imparts a special emphasis. So in Thuc.
i . 54 h#san de
tinej kai>
geno<menoi t&? Niki<% lo<goi," some proposals
were even
actually
made to N." Antiphon (Fr. M. 3. 67)
h#n o[ gri?foj
e]ntau?qa r[e<pwn, "the puzzle did
indeed mean as much."
Aristoph.
Ach. 484 e!sthkaj; ou]k
ei# katapiw>n Eu]ripi<dhn;
"afraid
to go! not effectually saturated with
Euripides!" May
we
not apply this in the originally Greek parts of NT—e.g.
Gal
122f., "I was entirely unknown only they had
been hear-
ing"?
(Cf Lightfoot.) Paul has only one other ex. in imperfect,
Phil
220, where e]pipoqw?n and a]dhmonw?n seem decidedly adjec-
tival,
and not at all improved by reading them as imperfect.
(No
one would cite 2 Co 519.) Blass well remarks that in
Jn
"in most passages" h#n 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
fail,
except in 2219, in a speech delivered in Aramaic. The
total
number of exx. of pres. partic. with imperf. of ei#nai is
for
Mt 3 (only 729 possibly Aramaising), Mk 16, Lk 30,
Ac
(1-12) 17, (13-28) 7, Jn 10, Paul 3, 1 Pet 1.2 Large
deductions
would have to be made from these figures, on any
theory,
to get the maximum of exx. for the supposed literal
translation
of an Aramaic periphrastic imperfect. Even in
Mk
and Luke the h#n is generally very distinct from the
participle;
and whatever was the Aramaic original, we may
be
quite sure that such expressions as we find in Mk 1032 or
Lk
433 owe nothing to it in this way. See p. 249.
The participle as a whole has
diverged so little from
earlier
usage that we have not very much more to say.
The
tenses need no further discussion in
this volume; and
for
our present purpose little need be added to what was
said
about the articular participle on pp. 126 f. An
1 Three papyri of
iii/A.D. have aor. ptc. with in fut. perf. sense. Note
Syll.
92852 (ii/B. C.) a]pokekrime<nhj ou@shj: Arist. Ran.
721 shows this in colloquial
Attic.
So
2 I count e[stw<j as a present, but omit e]co>n
h#n, and
give Jn 19, but not Lk 323
228 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
idiomatic
use of o[ w@n
may be noted in Ac 131 kata> th>n
ou#san e]kklhsi<an "the local church," 1413 D tou?
o@ntoj Dio>j
Articular Propo<lewj (or pro>
po<lewj).1 Cf Ramsay's
Participle. remark (Ch.
in Rom. Emp. 52, quoting J. A.
Robinson),
that in Ac o[ w@n
"introduces some
technical
phrase, or some term which it marks out as having
a
technical sense (cf 517 131 2817) and is almost
equivalent
to
tou? o]nomazome<nou." An ingenious person might apply
this
in Eph 11 to the text with e]n ]Efe<s& absent; but
the
usual view needs no defence against such an alternative.
With
ai[ ou#sai, in Rom 131 we may compare Par P 5
(ii/B.C.)
e]f ] i[ere<wn kai> i[ereiw?n
tw?n o@ntwn kai> ou]sw?n. On the crucial
passage
Rom 95 see SH p. 235 f., with whom I agree, though
the
argument that "He who is God over all," would have
to
be o[ e]pi> p. q. might perhaps be met by applying the
idiom
noted above for Ac, with a different nuance. Qeo<j,
may
still be subject, not predicate, without making w@n
otiose:
the consciousness of Ex 314 might fairly account
for
its insertion. It is exegesis rather
than grammar which
makes
the reference to Christ probable. One other Pauline
passage
claims a brief note, Col 28, where the natural o{j
sulagwgh<sei, is replaced by o[
sulagwgw?n,
to give "direct-
ness
and individuality to the reference" (Lightfoot). Rela-
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 parti-
ciple
with verbs like tugxa<nw, a@rxomai, lanqa<nw,
fai<nomai,
Participle as etc. But this was, partly at any rate, mere
Complement. accident, for tugxa<nw c. part. is exceedingly
common
in the papyri: "I happen to be"
is
a phrase NT writers would instinctively avoid. Kalw?j
poih<seij c. aor. part.
(sometimes infin., or even indic., but the
participle
greatly predominates) is the normal way of saying
"please"
in the papyri, and is classical. So 3 Jn
6, and
in
the past Ac 1033, Phil 414: cf 2 Pet 119. I cannot agree
with
Blass's "incorrectly eu# pra<ssein in Ac 1529 (p. 245)
1 Cf respectively BM p.
136 (18 A.D.) e]pi> tai?j ou@saij geitni<aij, Tb P 309
(ii/A.
D. ), a]po> tou? o@ntoj e]n kw<mhi [tou?
i[erou ?]
qeou? mega<lou Kro<nou—also such phrases
as
tou? o@ntoj mhno>j Xoia<k, NP 49 (iii/A.D.),
"the current month."
THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE. 229
except
in the query he attaches to the remark. Surely this
is
an ordinary conditional sentence, "If you keep yourselves
free
from these things, you will prosper"? Eu# poih<sete, from
vernacular
usage, would suggest "you will oblige us"; but
Blass
can hardly mean this. With verbs like oi#da, o[mologw?,
manqa<nw, the participle is
being encroached upon: it appears
regularly
in 2 Co 122, 1 Jn 42 (not B), 2 Jn 7, Lk 846,
Ac
2410, but is generally replaced by acc. and inf. or
a o!ti
clause.
So Par P 44 (ii/B.C., Witk. p. 58) gi<nwske<
me pepo-
reu?sqai, and the recurrent ginw<skein
se qe<lw o!ti:
for the
participle
cf BU 151 (Christian period—i@sqi), TP 1 (ii/B.C.
--o[mo<logoj), NP 1 (ii/A.D.—
ei] ma<qoimi,
the optative of which
suggests
culture), al. Of course Phil 411, e@maqon
. . . ei#nai,
" I
have
learned how to be," is classically correct: 1 Tim 513 is
in
any case no ex. of manqa<nw c. part., for this
could only mean
"learn
that they are going about." (The RV rendering is
supported
by Winer with Plato Euthyd. 276B of oi[
a]maqei?j a@ra
sofoi> manqa<nousi, and the parallel
phrase dida<skein tina>
sofo<n: Field adds from Chrysostom ei]
i]atro>j me<lleij
manqa<nein, with other parallels. The construction—manqa<nw
as
passive of dida<skw—is not unnatural in itself. Despite
Weiss,
the absolute manq. seems intolerable, and there is no
real
alternative, unless with Blass we boldly insert ei#nai.)
Participial We
come then to the manifold uses of
Clauses. the participle as forming an additional clause
in the
sentence. This is one of the great
resources
of Greek, in which the poverty of Latin shows
markedly
by contrast. Our own language comes much
nearer,
but even with the help of auxiliaries we cannot
match
the wealth of Greek: thus, we cannot by our participle
distinguish
lelukw<j and lu<saj. The elasticity of Greek
however
has its disadvantages, such as the possibility of
supplying
in translation particles as widely apart as because
and
although. But it seldom happens that serious ambiguity
arises
from this absence of strict logical differentiation.
We need spend little space in
classifying participial
usages.
We have already seen (pp. 170 f.) that
one important
criterion
has disappeared in Hellenistic, by the encroachments
In Conditional of mh< over the whole field, when in classical
Greek it was
essentially conditional. We
230 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
return
to this point presently. The participle
in conditional
clauses
is still found very freely. It stands for e]a<n c.
aor.
subj. in Lk 925 compared With Mt 1626; for ei] c. pres.
indic.
in 1 Co 1129. There
seem to be no exx. of its sub-
stitution
for ei]
c. opt., or ei] c. indic.
irreal.; but this is an
accident,
due to the relatively small number of sentences of
“Conjunctive,” the kind. Another class is called by Blass
“conjunctive”:
1 Tim 113 a]gnow?n
e]poi<hsa
(cf
Ac 317) is his ex. In Mt 627 we have a
choice—"Who
can
by worrying," or "even if he does worry, add a span to his
Concessive, life?" Concessive clauses are often expressed
with the
participle
alone: Rom 132 "though
they
know," Jas 34 "big though they are," 1 Co 919 "free
though
I am," Jude 5 (not causal, as Winer), etc. Where
ambiguity
is possible, we sometimes find the meaning fixed by
kai<per, as Phil 34, 2 Pet 112, and Heb ter; once by kai<toi,
Heb 43, kai> tau?ta Heb 1112, or kai< ge Ac 1727--note
Causal, the
ou]
there surviving, with characteristic
emphasis. The opposite causal sense is ex-
ceedingly
common: so Ac 421, Heb 66 (unless temporal), Jas
225, Mt 119, etc. Purpose
is less often expressed by the parti-
Final, ciple,
as the future was decaying:1 we have
however
Mt 2749, and two or three in Luke.
The
present sometimes fulfils this function, as in Ac 1527.
Finally
come the temporal clauses, or those
which describe
Temporal and the attendant circumstances of an action: e.g.
Attendant Mt 132 w!ste au]to>n ei]j ploi?on e]mba<nta ka-
Circumstances qh?sqai, "when he had
entered, he sat down."2
Clauses.
We should not usually
put a temporal
clause
to represent these, as it would overdo the emphasis:
in
comparatively few cases, like Ac 171 and similar narra-
tive
passages, we might replace with e]
English
participle is generally the best representative, unless
we
change it to the indicative with and:
Latin, unless the
ablative
absolute can be used, necessarily has recourse to
cum c. subj., its normal
method of expressing attendant;
circumstances. The pleonastic participles labw<n,
a]nasta<j,
1 It was not however by
any means dead: cf the string of final
fut. parti-
ciples
in OP 727 (ii/A.D.); BU 98 (iii/A.D.), Ch P 4 (ii/B.C., =Witk. p. 70), etc.
2 Sec p. 241.
THE INFINITIVE AND PARTICIPLE. 231
poreuqei<j, a]pelqw<n, 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 27 lalei? blasfhmei?, (without stop) liter-
ally
translates two Aramaic participles, the second of which
should
in Greek appear as a participle. In Lk
2265 we find
blasfhmou?ntej e@legon correctly. But it must be noted that
with
the RV punctuation Mk l.c. is
perfectly good Greek, so
that
we have no breach of principle if we do allow this
account
of the passage.
The large use of participles in
narrative, both in gramma-
tical
connexion with the sentence and in the gen. abs. con-
struction
(p. 74), is more a matter of style than of grammar,
and
calls for no special examination here.
Ou] with We may
close our discussion with some
Participle notes
on the places in which the ordinary
rule,
that mh<
goes with the participle, is set
aside.
The number of passages is not large, and
they may
well
be brought together.1 Mt (2211) and Jn (1012) have one
each;
Luke (Lk 642, Ac 75 2622 2817.19) five; and there are
two
each in Heb (111. 35) and 1 Pet (18 210--quotation).
Paul
has Rom 925 and Gal 427 bis (quoted), 1 Co 26, 2 Co 48.
9
quciter,
Gal 48, Phil 32,
. . . a]lla<. Before discussing them, let us cite score
papyrus
exx.
for ou].
OP 471 (ii./A.D.) to>n ou]k e]n leukai?j e]sqh?sin e]n
qeatr&? peplhrwko<twn: cf Mt l.c. OP 491 (ii/A.D.) e]a>n
teleuth<sw
ou]de<pw peplhrwko<twn (when they are not yet
25). AP 78
(ii/A.D.)
ou] duna<menoj e]gkarterei?n e]pidi<dwmi: contrast 1 Th 31.
OP
726 (ii/A.D.) ou] duna<menoj di ] a]sqe<neian
pleu<sai
since he
cannot):
so 727 (ii/A.D.). Tb
P 41 (ii/B.C.) ou] stoxasa<-
menoj (= -ou) w$n
e@xomen . . . pi<stewn
(in a long gen. abs.
succession):
so Par P 40 ou@te tou? i[erou? stoxasa<menoi
ou@te
tou? kalw?j e@xontoj. Par P 13 kratou?sin ou]k a]napem-
yantej th>n fernhn. Tb P 34 (ii/B.C.) mh>
paranoxlei<qw
(sic)
u[p ] ou]deno<j. BIT 361 (ii/A.D.) xw<ran ou]k e@xei, ou]k e]pista<-
menoj ti< e]kei?noj a]pekrei<nato. See also Par P 4, OP
286
TP
1 (ii/B.C.), 3 and 8 (ii/B.C.). In many
of these
1 I omit ou]k
e]co<n,
used for indic., and the common vernacular phrase ou]x
tuxw<n.
In the exx. of ou]. . . a]lla> . . . the negative
tinges the whole sentence.
232 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
exx.
we can distinctly recognise, it seems, the lingering con-
sciousness
that the proper negative for a statement of a
downright
fact is ou].
The same feeling may have made ou]
rise
to the lips when an emphatic phrase was wanted, as in
the
illiterate Tb P 34 above. The closeness
of the participle
to
the indicative in the kinds of sentence found in this list
makes
the survival of ou], natural. 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
educated
man, which left some of the old idioms even where
mh< had generally swept them away. In two
passages we
have
ou]
and mh<
in close contact. Mt 2211 (see parallel
above)
is followed in the king's question by pw?j ei]sh?lqej
w$de mh> e@xwn. . . ; The distinction is very natural: the
first
is a plain fact, the second an application of it. The
emphasis
would have been lost by substituting mh<. In
Pallis's
MGr version of the Gospels the two phrases are alike
translated
with de<n and indic. (The completeness of MGr
levelling
is well illustrated by his version of Lk and Jn ll.cc.
The
former becomes kai> . . . de>n c. indic.; the latter is
kai> bosko>j mh>n o@natj, followed by pou>
de>n ei#nai ta> pro<bata
dika< tou, "whose own the
sheep are not." Outside the
indicative
de<n is not found.) 1 Pet 18 is best left to Hort:
"The
change of negative participles . . . is not capricious.
The
first is a direct statement of historical fact; the second
is
introduced as it were hypothetically, merely to bring out
the
full force of pisteu<ontej." Though Blass thinks it arti-
ficial
to distinguish, it is hard to believe that any but a slovenly
writer
would have brought in so rapid a change without any
reason.
The principles already sketched may be applied to
the
remaining passages without difficulty, in so far as they
are
original Greek. In the quotations from the LXX we
have,
as Blass notes, merely the fact that xlo c. partic. was
regularly
translated with ou]. The
passages in question
would
also come very obviously under the rule which admits
ou] when negativing a single word and not a
sentence.
ADDITIONAL
NOTES.
P.
2.—Thumb points out (Hellen. 125)
that Josephus has only been con-
victed
of one Hebraism, the use of prosti<qesqai c. inf. = "to go
on to do"
(l;
Jysiho, i.e. "to do again"). (For this, cf Wellh. 28.) He refers to
Schmidt
Jos. 514-7, and Deissmann BS 67 n. That the solitary Hebraism in
the Pales-
tinian
writer should be a lexical one, not a grammatical, is suggestive.
P. 7.—In the Expositor for September 1905, Prof. Ramsay says that the
earlier
tombs at Lystra show Latin inscriptions, while at Iconium Greek is
normal.
This may involve our substituting Latin as the language of Paul's
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 Dalman
(Words 44) in arguing against Resch's
theory of a primitive Hebrew Gospel.
P. 10.—Lightfoot (on Gal 46)
prefers to regard ]Abba< o[ path<r in Mk 1436
as
spoken
by our Lord in this form. He cites from Schottgen the address yryk
yrm,
in
which the second element (ku<rie) emphasises the first
by repetition; and he
compares
Rev 911 129 202. Thus understood, the phrase would be a Most
emphatic
"testimony
to that fusion of Jew and Greek which prepared the way for the
preaching
of the Gospel to the heathen." But
Lightfoot's first alternative
(practically
that of the text) seems on the whole more probable.
P. 16.—In Ac 21 D, Blass
puts a full stop at the end of the verse. 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
lo!
there was . . ." This is the (b) form, with kai<
i]dou<,
so that it comes
near
(a). This punctuation helps us to give adequate force to the durative infin.
sumplhrou?sqai. On this view D gives us one ex. of the (a)
forth, and one of
the
(b), to reinforce the more or less doubtful ex. of (b) in the ordinary text of
Ac
57. Those who accept Blass's theory of Luke's two editions might say
that
the
author had not quite given up the (a) and (5) constructions when he wrote
his
first draft of Ac: before sending the revised edition to Theophilus, he
corrected
what remained of these (like a modern writer going over his proofs to
expunge
"split infinitives"), but overlooked 57. I am not
commending that
view
here; but I may suggest a systematic study of the gramnar of the D
text
in Luke as a probably fruitful field for those who would contribute to the
greatest
of all textual problems in the NT.
P. 23.—We might have expected to
find a specimen of Cretn Tit 112 ;
but
if Epimenides the Cretan was really the author of this unflattering descrip-
tion
of his countrymen, he waited till he came to
advantages
for this composition) he could write a aei< and disyllabic a]rgai<.
Plato
makes
him reach
P. 30.—It may be worth while to add
a note illustrating the early date at
which
some characteristic MGr elements began to appear in the vernacular,
233
234 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
On
a Galatian tombstone of vi/A.D.(BCH
1903, 335) the word a]na<pausij is
written
a]n<a]p>ayij, showing the fully
developed result of the pronunciation of
au as au: cf MGr e@paya, from pau<w. Ramsay (C. and B. ii. 537) notes kates-
ske<basa (BCH 1888, 202), which is an ex. of the same phenomenon. He also
gives
a Christian inscription of iii/A.D. from
e]pithdeu<soun, and "an
anticipation of the modern periphrastic future" in
boulhq^? a]noi<ci, noted by Mordtmann. We
may add the gen. e]sou? from ii/A. D.,
as
OP 119, 528, 531, al. But Thumb (in BZ ix. 234) cites a yet earlier ex.,
e@xousej for nom. or acc. pl. fem., from an
inscription of i/A.D. Cod L reads
sara<konta, in Jn 857.
P. 43.—S. Langdon (AJP xxiv. 4 47 ff.) examines the history
of e]a<n for a@n,
and
agrees with Winer, who thinks it a peculiarity of the popular language
(WM
390). Mr Langdon attributes it to
"the effort to emphasise the abstract
conditional
aspect of the relative clause. This would of course occur much
more
frequently with relatives without antecedent than when they were defined
by
an antecedent. . . . This popular idiom met the necessity which the LXX
translators
felt in their effort to distinguish between the complete and in-
complete
relative clauses when translating from Hebrew. . . . In the NT
the
rule of using e]a<n, 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 can hardly be shared; and
before
we can feel sure that the LXX translators themselves used this e]a<n, and
meant
anything by the distinction, we should at least have examined the early
papyri
very carefully. The earliest exx. quotable are Hb P 96 and 51, PP iii.
43,
of iii/B.C., and BM 220 bis, G 18,1Th
P 12 bis, 105, 107, from ii/B.C.. A
sug-
gestive
ex. is Tb P 59 (99 B. C.), where the sentence is translatable with either
interpretation
of e]a<n. It may be noted
that the rarity of antecedent in these
relative
sentences makes it easy to misinterpret statistics. See Mayser, p. 152.
P. 44.— ]Efiorkei?n, banned by WH as "Western,"
occurs frequently in
inscriptions
and papyri. See Schwyzer Perg. 118
for exx. and au explanation
(Thumb's).
P. 55.—A more peculiar produc is [e]pika]le<ome (=-ai) in Audollent no.
189
(
(
from
Epic dialect) is very improbable.
P. 58.—"Pindaric
Construction," when the verb follows,
is hardly ana-
coluthic: 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.) u[pa<rxi de> au]t^? e]n t^? kw<m^ oi]ki<ai
du<o kai> ktl. So also 537.
P. 60.—Meisterhans 3203 (§ 84) cites
a number of exx. from Attic inscrip-
tions
of v/ and iv/B.C., where in a continued enumeration there is a relapse
into
the nominative. Gildersleeve adds
Gardner no. 97) ta<de pare<dosan . . .ste<fanoj . . . fia<lai etc.
P. 63.—To discuss this
large question for individual exx. would take us too
long.
Blass in § 39. 3 states this fairly: he notes that the misuse of ei]j
was
still a provincialism, which in respect of the local signification of ei]j and
e]n is not present in the Epistles nor strangely
enough) in Rev, though found in
all
the narrative writers of the NT. Hatzidakis 210 f. illustrates both the use
of
ei]j
for e]n
and that of e]n for ei]j: for the latter, add
the early Par P 10
a]nakexw<rhken e]n ]Alecandrei<%. (He should not have
cited 2 Tim 111, where ei]j is
perfectly
normal.) We need not accept all Blass's
exx.: thus Jn 1723 is
surely
"perfected into one." But it must be confessed that our evidence
now
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
235
makes
it impossible to see in Jn 118 (o[ w}n ei]j to>n
ko<lpon)
"the combination . . .
of
rest and motion, of a continuous relation with a realisation of it"
(Westcott).
Without
further remark we will reserve discussion till the time comes for
treating
the prepositions systematically, only noting that in D there are
suggestive
substitutions of e]n for ei]j in Ac 712 823
(the latter however probably
involving
an entirely different sense—see p. 71), and ei]j for e]n in Ac 1125 (e]sti>n
ei]j Ta<rson). On this of Wellh. 12.
P. 65.—D often, as Wellhausen notes
(p. 13), shows acc. with a]kou<ein,
kathgorei?n, and kratei?n, where the other texts
have gen.
P. 67.—Both in Ac 1634
and in 188, D alters the dat. to e]pi< (ei]j) c. acc.;
but
in the latter a clause is added containing pisteu<ein
t&? qe&?.
P. 69.—Blass's objection to recognising
the noun ]Elaiw<n, Ac 112 and
Josephus,
rests upon the fact that assimilation of case is generally practised,
and
that in to> o@roj tw?n e]laiw?n the genitive is unmistakable. But the
nom. is
frequent
in LXX (Thackeray): thus Gen 320, Num 2114. See also
Deissmann
BS 210. Blass rightly, I think, regards Jn 1333
as a vocative and not as
equivalent
to fwnei?te< me to>n dida<skalon; but Winer's 1 Sam 99
is a clear ex. to
put
by Rev 911 and Blass's own Mk 310 (as found in D and the Latt.. It is
note-
worthy
that both Luke and Josephus (
menon
]Elaiwn,
the
unambiguous genitive –w?noj (
put
the anarthrous e]laiwn in combination with the word called.
This seems to
show
that the name was not yet fixed in the Greek speech of
residents,
and that the halfway-house to the full proper name wanted some
apology.
To> o@roj tw?n e]laiw?n will thus be a translation of the native
name.
The
new name for the hill would spring from two sources, the vernacular word
for
oliveyard, and the impulse to decline
the stereotyped e]laiw?n.
An exact
parallel
for the latter was quoted in Expos.
vi. vii. 111. In the Ptolemaic
papyri
Tb P 62, 64, 82, 98 the noun i]bi<wn is found, which the
editors connect
closely
with i]bi<wn (trofh?j) "for the feeding of ibises,"
the word being treated
as
nom. sing. instead of gen. pl.: they
observe that "the declension of the
village
called ]Ibi<wn probably contributed to
the use of this curious form."
In
both words then we see a gen. pl. made into a new nominative which
coincides
with a noun of slightly different meaning already existing.
P. 70.—Prof. Thumb tells me that the
construction (parenthetic nomina-
tive)
survives in MGT: thus (a]p ]) e]dw> kai>
pe<nte me<rej
[nom.]= "heute vor 5
Tagen."
E. W. Hopkins (AJP xxiv. 1) cites a
rare use from Skt.: "a year
(nom.)
almost, I have not gone out from the hermitage." Contra, I Wellh. 29.
Ib.—
Ei]ko<nej
perhaps should be translated: it is the name given in BU 1059
(i/B.C.)
to the personal descriptions which accompany an IOU, receipt, bill of
sale,
census paper, etc.
Ib.—The
vocative h[ pai?j, as Dr Rendel Harris reminds me, literally trans-
lates
the Aramaic absolute xtAyliF; (as Dalman gives it, Gramm. 118 n). I should
have
remarked that the usage is commonest where there is translation from
Semitic.
The author of Heb does not use it except in OT citations, nor does
Luke
in Ac 13-28 (though we may note that in the three 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.—See Kuhner-Gerth 401 n. 5. 6,
for these genitives after a negative
adjective. Typical exx. are Tb P 105 (ii/B.C.) al, a]ki<ndunoj
panto>j kindu<nou,
a]nupo<logon
pa<shj fqora?j, and a]nupeu<qunoi panto>j e]piti<mou. Tb P 124 (ii/B.C.)
a]dista<stouj o@ntaj pa<shj ai]ti<aj. BU 970 (ii/A.D.) th?j ei]j
a!pantaj eu]ergesi<aj . . .
236
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT
GREEK.
aboh<qhtoj. They illustrate a@nomoj
qeou?; in I
Co 921 =a@neu no<mou qeou?, which
differs
only in that the genitive is subjective, while the rest are either objective
genitives
or pure ablatives.
Ib.—One
or two parallels may be added for the free use of the gen. abs.
For
the substitution of gen. for the case in construction, cf Tb P 41 (ii/B.C.),
i[kanw?n h[mw?n u[po<ptwj
e]xo<ntwn a]nekexwrh<kamen; BU 1040 (ii/A.D.) xai<rw
o!ti moi
tau?ta e]poi<hsaj, e]mou?
metamelome<nou peri> mhdeno<j. Other exx. will be seen in
CR xv. 437. For gen. abs.
without expressed subjects, cf BU 925 (iii/A.D.?)
a]nagnwsqe<ntwn, 970 (ii/A.D.)
dhlwqe<ntoj di ] h#j proei<qh moi a]sfalei<aj, etc.
P. 78.—Elative comparatives may be
seen in D in Ac 416, fanero<tero<n (sic)
e]stin, and 1028 be<ltion
e]fi<stasqe (=e]p.—cf. 44, and WH App2 151). It
substitutes
plei?stoi for plei<ouj in 1932, and
adds an elative h!dista in 138. On
1028
Blass compares 2422 2510 in the ordinary text, and 2 Tim
118, Jn 1327. As to
xei<rwn, we should add that xei<ristoj is found in Tb P 72
(ii/B.C.), al.
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
superlative.
Beside the regular form e]la<xistoj, which is predominantly
super-
lative
in Mt, but elative in Lk (ter, and 1226
doubtful) and Jas, Paul uses e]la-
xisto<teroj in Eph 38,
whether as comparative or true superlative the sentence
leaves
uncertain. He uses e]la<xistoj as superl. in 1 Co 159,
and as elative in 43
62.
The double comparative meizo<teroj occurs in 3 Jn 4:
of our lesser, which is
equally
due to the absence of clear comparative form in a word whose meaning
is
clear. See Jannaris HG 147 for a list
of these forms: add meizo<teroj, Archiv
iii.
173 (iv/A.D.) al, megisto<tatoj BM 130 (i/ii A.D.), presbuterwte<ra BM 177
(i/A.D.),
prw<tista BU 665 (i/A.D.). Exx. are found even in Homer (prw<tistoj).
On the Aramaising use of positive c.
h@ or
para< for compar., see Wellh. 28.
P. 81.—Wellhausen (p. 26) finds in
the Synoptists some traces of insertion
of
the article through literal translation of Semitic idiom: here again D is con-
spicuous.
Thus Mt 1029 tou? a]ssari<ou. Note also his exx. of Semitism arising
from
the rule which drops the article with a noun in construct state preceding
a
definite noun: so Mt 1242 "the Queen of the South."
P. 82.—Westcott translates e]n
sunagwg^?
(Jn 659 1820) “in time of solemn
assembly.”
Our own use of "in church," "in or out of school," etc., is
enough
to
illustrate this phrase, which must be explained on the lines described in the
text
above: Westcott seems to be somewhat overpressing it.
P. 84.—On the presence or absence of
the article when a prepositional clause
has
to be added as an epithet, cf J. Ap Robinson, Ephes. 149. For its presence
may
be cited such passages as Eph 115, for its omission, Eph 211
41, Phil 15,
It is only very seldom that we find
in Greek of the NT types the complex
arrangement
by which the classical language will wrap up a whole series of ad-
juncts
between the article and its noun. 1 Pet 33 will serve as an
exceptionally
good
example. The simplicity of NT style naturally causes less involved forms
to
be generally preferred.
One more paralipomenon under the Article may be brought in. In Prof.
Cooke's
North Semitic Inscriptions, no. 110
(ii/A.D.), there is a bilingual
inscription,
Palmyrene-Aramaic and Greek, containing within its compass a
good
parallel to the genealogy in Lk 323-38: ]Aaila<mein Ai[ra<nou tou? Moki<mou
tou?
Ai[ra<nou tou? Maqqa? (Wadd. 2586). There are
one or two other specimens: in
113
the article is dropped for the last two steps, as in the first step in 110.
P. 85.—In Mt 617 note
that D reads a@leiyon, rejecting the middle in view of
ADDITIONAL
NOTES. 237
the
presence of sou. In Ac 52
e@qeto
and 21 sugkalesa<menoi, D makes the
opposite
change, which in the former case, at any rate, is no improvement.
P. 88.—Cf Wellh. 30: "i@dioj in Mt and Lk is
sometimes 3rd pers.
possessive."
P. 89.—Prof. Thumb notes how accent may differentiate words capable
of
full
or attenuated meaning: "God is," but "God is Almighty!"
P. 94.—To the exx. cited from Blass
(top of p. 95) add from Hawkins Jn 127
(taken
like Lk 316 from the original source in Mk 17), Ac 1517
(LXX), Rev 38
72.9
138. 12 208, and I Pet 224 (Ti with x*LP, against ABCK). The
idiom is in
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 copy their
source.
Since the Greek of 1 Pet is remarkably good, it does hot seem likely
that
ou$ t&? mw<lwpi au]tou?, is due to the autograph: the LXX au]tou? may well
have
been added by a glossator who did not notice that the or made it needless.
This
consideration may fairly be set against the
a priori argument of Ti in
favour
of the reading of x. See p. 249.
P. 96.—Cf Josephus Ant. i. 29, au!th
me>n a@n ei@h prw<th h[me<ra, Mwush?j d ]
au]th>n mi<an ei#pe (quoted by Schmidt).
Note in Gen 813 the variation mhno>j tou?
prw<tou, mi%? tou? mhno<j, which had adequate
motive in the different words of the
Hebrew.
Prof. Thumb has traced the history of the Greek names for the days
of
the week in Zeitschrift fur deutsche
Wortforschung i. 163-173 (1901).
P. 102.—The importance of Heb 1324
in critical questions justifies our adding
one
more note on a]po<. In Theol.
Bundschau v. 64 Deissmann writes two
"marginalia"
upon Harnack's famous article in ZNTW
i. 16 ff. He notes the
masculine dihgou<menon in 1132—not,
I presume, as a difficulty likely to give
Harnack
much trouble; and observes that oi[ a]po< ]Itali<aj are "can, according
to
the late Greek use of a]po<, describe very easily the greetings of
the brethren
to
be found in
Krit., 1898, pp. 351-360, on
a]po< in 1 Co 1123. Brose examines a]po<,
para<, u[po<,
and
e]k,
showing that in daily speech these prepositions were used without exact-
ness
of distinction. The argument is designed to show that a]po>
tou? Kuri<ou
in
1
Co l.c. does not mean by tradition,
but by revelation from the Lord. Deiss-
mann
observes that Brose could have made his treatment of a]po< still more
illuminating,
if he had gone outside the NT: he refers to a "stop-gap" of his
own
in Hermes xxxiii. 344, which touches
on. the passage from Heb.
P. 105.—On u[pe<r we may cite TP 8
(ii/B.C.) u[pe>r e[auto>n fronw?n: of Rom 123.
P. 112.—A very good ex. in Greek is
2 Co 48, where perfective e]c shows the
a]
P. 116.—In the Dream of Nectonebus,
the last Egyptian king of the old
dynasties
(LPu, ii/B.C.), there occurs the
phrase diateth<rhka th>n xw<ran a]me<mptwj,
which
gives a striking parallel to 2 Tim 47. The perfective in the king's
words
emphasises the fact that the watchful care has been successful; the
simplex
in Paul lays the stress on the speaker's own action, "I have guarded
my
trust."
P. 118.—Hawkins, HS 142, gives the number of compound
verbs for the
several
parts of the NT. His figures work out thus:—Heb has 7 · 8 per WH
page,
Ac 6 · 4, Lk 6 · 0, Mk 5 · 7, Paul 3 · 8, Mt 3 · 6, Cath. Epp. and Rev 3 · 1,
and
Jn
2 · 1. The high figure of Mk in this table may be illustrated by the large
use
of compounds in many uneducated papyri (e.g.
Tb P 413, of A. D. —see
my
notes in CQ ii. 140). 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 expect.
P. 126.—Since writing this, I have
noticed Prof. Ramsay's suggestive
238
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT
GREEK.
language
on the early Christians of the average type in C. and B. ii. 485: see
also
his Paul 208 f.
Pp. 126 and 129.—On the biblical use
of present and aorist imperative, cf
F.
W. Mozley in JTS iv. 279 ff. Prof.
Thumb notes that Mozley independently
confirms
his judgement on the aoristic prose<feren in Heb 1117,
by the observa-
tion
that fe<re and a@ge are aoristic in meaning. Were the author Mark or the
John
of Rev, and the context less clamant for an imperfect, I should readily
yield.
P. 132.—See now D. Smith, In the Days of His Flesh, p. 208.
Ib.—In
OGIS 219 (iii/B.C.) there is an ex.
of coincident a]spasa<menoi
which
may
be worth quoting:— e[le<sqai de> kai>
presbeuta>j . . . [oi!tinej] a]spasa<menoi
ai]to>n
para> t[ou?
dh<mou prw?ton me>n keleu<sousin u[]giai<nein . . . [e@peita
d ] a]pagge-
lou?sin au]tw?i th>n ti]mh<n. The "salutation" seems to consist
in the double
message: it is difficult anyhow to make it precede the
wish for good health.
P. 143.—In Mt 2524 we
find o[ ei]lhfw<j in a phrase otherwise parallel with
v.20,
o[ labw<n. The intervening
space supplies an excuse for the change which
takes
it out of the category described in the paragraph above. Both tenses
were
entirely justifiable, and the rather more emphatic perfect suits the situation
of
v.25 better.
P. 145.—I must make it clear that in
this tentative account of e@sxhka—which
is
propounded with great hesitation, and with a full appreciation of its diffi-
culties—there
is no suggestion that the aoristic meaning proposed was more
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
IOU, o[mologw? e]sxhke<nai para> sou? dia> xeiro>j e]c oi@kou xrh?sin
e@ntokon (BR 1015—
early
iii/A.D.), "to have received and still possess." But in AP 30
(ii/B.C.),
prosemartu<roun to>n M.
katesxhke<nai to>n oi]ki<an pro> tou? pole<mou, the aoristic
possessed
seems to be recognisable, in an early illiterate document. See p. 248.
P. 146.— Oi#mai de> ka}n Lampidw<, th>n Lewtuxi<dou
me>n qugate<ra, ]Arxida<mou
de>
gunai?ka, @Agidoj de> mhte<ra, oi
hard
to see why this should be cited as aoristic: Agis was on the throne at the
supposed
time of the dialogue.
P. 148.—In connexion with this
paragraph should be mentioned the birth
of
the new present sth<kw (MGr ste<kw) from the perfect e!sthka, with the same
meaning.
P. 152.—On this view of the
prehistoric relations of act. and mid., cf Hirt,
Indog. Forsch. xvii. 70. The theory
had been restated in terms of the
new
school of philology, in Osthoff and Brugmann's pioneer Morphologische
Untersuchungen iv. 282 n. (1881).
There H. Osthoff conjectures that "Skt.
dves-ti and dvis-te depend on one and the same
proethnic basis-form [dueistai],
which
was differentiated by the accent, according as one wished to say
‘hates for himself’ or 'hates for himself.' "I had overlooked this passage,
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
P. 156.—The proverb in 2 Pet 222
is acutely treated by Dr Rendel Harris,
as
I ought to have remembered, in The Story
of Ahikar, p. lxvii. He cites as
the
probable original words appearing in some texts of Ahikar: "My son, thou
hast
behaved like the swine which went to the
bath with people of quality, and
when
he came out, saw a stinking drain, and went and rolled himself in it.'
ADDITIONAL
NOTES 239
If,
as seems extremely likely, this is the source of the paroimi<a to which
2
Pet refers, of course lousame<nh is used in its correct
sense. That a Greek
iambic
verse may have been the medium of its
transmission had been antici-
pated: see Mayor
in loc. I leave my note unaltered in
view of the measure of
uncertainty
attaching in Dr Harris's judgement to the account he proposes.
P. 166.—Dr P. Giles, in a letter
endorsing and improving my Scotch trans-
lotion
of Homer R. i. 137, says, "I agree that a@n is very like jist, and if you
had
added like at the end you would have
got your subjunctive also. This like
does
for many dialects what the subjunctive did for Greek, putting a state-
ment
in a polite, inoffensive way asserting only verisimilitude." It is found
elsewhere.
P. 168.—Add to this list the curious
anti-Christian inscription in Ramsay,
C. and B. ii. 477 (no. 343) ou#toj
o[ bi<oj moi ge<gonen (aoristic!) o!tan e@zwn
e]gw<.
P. 169.—Since writing the paragraph
on ei] mh<ti a@n, I have observed several
other
exx. of ei]
. . . a@n
in illiterate Greek of a century or two later than the
NT.
An inscription from Cyzicus, lately published by Mr F. W. Hasluck
in
JHS xxv. 63, has i@
tij d ] a}n tolmh<si, mete<lq^ au]to>n o[ qeo<j. (The second
subjunctive
here is the itacistic equivalent of the optative which would have
been
used in earlier Greek: cf p. 199n.). In
Ramsay's C. and B. vol. ii. I
note
the following:--No. 210 (p. 380) ei] de< tij a}n
fanei<h . . . e@stai. . . ,
where
the optative shows the writer a bit of an Atticist, but not very successful.
No.
377 (p. 530) kateskeu<asen to> h[r&?on
e[aut^? kai> t&? a]ndri> au]th?j Eu]tu<x^ kai> ei]
tini a}n zw?sa sunxwrh<sei: ei]
de> meta> th>n teleuth<n mou e]a<n tij e]pixirh<sei ktl. No.
273
(p. 394) ei] de> [e!teroj] a}n e]pixeirh<[sei,
qh<]sei
ktl. Add PFi 50113 (iii/A.D.)
ei@ ti de>
e]a>n o]fi<l^, Tb P 391n (99 A. D.) i@ tij de> h[mw?n . . . e]a>n parab^?.
P. 170.—On mh< in questions see J. E.
Harry, Gildersleeve Studies, 430.
He
shows it was absent from orators and historians, and from the later writers
Aristotle,
Polybills, and Diodorus. Plato uses it 24 times; but the 69 occur-
rences
in NT outnumber those in all the prose and poetry of ten previous
centuries. The inference is that it was a feature of
everyday language. In
nearly
half the exx. the verb is be, can, or have; three-fourths of the total comes
from
Jn and Paul (only Rom and Co).
P. 171.—For e]kto>j
ei] mh<
see Deissmann, BS 118. Cf also
Ramsay, C. and B.
ii.
391 (no. 254) xwri>j ei] mh< ti pa<q^.
Ib.—On
the encroachments of mh<, especially as to o!ti
mh< and mh< c. inf. after
verba dicendi et
cogitandi,
see E. L. Green in Gildersleeve Studies,
471 ff. Green
shows
how mh< intrudes increasingly
in the Koinh< literature. Considering the
extent
of this intrusion in the time of the NT, there are fewer exx. of mh<
wrongly
used than would be expected, except that mh< holds almost undisputed
sway
over the participle. There are 6 exx. of mh< c. inf. after a verb of
saying
or
denying [Lk 2234 must however be struck off (WH, following xBLT)];
2
with verbs of thinking (2 Co 115, Ac 2525); one case of
causal o!ti mh<, Jn 318;
3
of mh<
after relatives. (In excluding Col 218 because an imper. precedes,
Green
ignores
a yet more decisive reason—that mh< is indisputably
spurious.) The
participle
with mh<
in orat. obl. occurs only in Ac 2329
286; in causal, concessive,
and
temporal clauses it abounds. The comparison of Plutarch with the NT
shows
a great advance in the use of o!ti mh<. The whole paper
deserves study.
A few papyrus passages may be cited
in illustration of the subjects of Green's
paper.
For mh<
in relative clauses:—BU 114 (ii/A.D.) prooi?ka h{n
a]pode<dwken
au]t&?
mh<te du<natai labei?n, CPR 19 (iv/A.D.) e]nta<caj . . . a{ mh> sunefw<nhsa. For
verba
dic. et cog.:—MP 25 (iii/B.C.) mh> o]fei<lein o]mo<saj moi, BM 401 (ii/B.C.)
kategnwkw>j mh> du<nasqai, OP 266 (i/A.D.) o[mologei?
mh> e]nkalei?n
(classical, as o[m.=
240
A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT
GREEK.
undertakes), OP 237 (ii/A.D.) a]pekrei<nato
mh> c.
inf., and several cases with
dhlou?n (BR 5, 11, etc.). For e]
a]nte<grayaj
au]t^? (the charge, like the
ex. in Jn l.c.).
On ei] ou], Blass notes (Hermes xxiv. 312) its identity with a}m
mh< in
the
illiterate
OP 119 (see p. 28).
A note may be added mh>
o!ti; for
though the NT only uses ou]x o!ti, the
syntax
is identical with that in mh<tige, 1 Co 63
("not to speak of mere affairs
of
daily life"). It occurs in BM 42
(ii/B.C.,= Witk. p. 40) mh> o!ti ge tosou<tou
xro<nou e]pigegono<toj, "not to speak of
so much time having gone by."
P. 177.—In Mt 619 D reads
mh> qhsauri<setai (=-e), which may just
possibly
be
added to the list. But it is more likely to be a mere mistake. An earlier
ex.
of mh<
c. fut. than those cited in the text is Par P 15 (ii/B.C.) mh>
gou?n kai>
krath<seij—but this may be aor.
subj.
P. 181.—Essentially the same
principle must be traced in i@lew<j soi (Mt 1622),
"[God
be] merciful to thee." The
interjectional adjective and participle are on
the
same footing, and must be explained in the same way. In CR xv. 436 are
quoted
inscriptional parallels for this phrase (Gen 4323, 2 Sam 2020,
1 Chr 1115):
—Letronne
221 (iv/A.D.) i!lewj h[mi?n Pla<twn kai>
e]nta?qa,
and without subject
557
i!lew<j soi,
[Efmei<aj . . . kai>
[Hra<kleioj a]delfo<j. Letronne also quotes
another
inscription (ii. 286) i!lew<j soi a]lupi< (leg. ]Alu<pi), "[Sarapis] help thee,
Alypius,"
as I read it. With the development of a deprecatory force in such
phrases
we may compare that in our vernacular expression, "Mercy on us!"
P. 182.—Dr Rendel Harris thinks the u[mei?j may be only translation
Greek.
The
suggested allusion to Paul is in any case only propounded tentatively.
It
is curious that a]rca<menoj gives us trouble
elsewhere in Luke. Ac 1037 is fairly
hopeless
as it stands, and Blass thinks a]rc. a]po> t. G. interpolated from Lk 235.
It
is conceivable that a]rca<menoj ga<r in AD vg may preserve
the relics of a better
text,
in which a new sentence beginning I there was continued with ]Ihsou?j o[ a]po>
N., o{n (D) e@xrisen . . . , ou$toj (D). The change needed to
make the D reading
grammatical
is but small. (See Wellh. 12.) A quasi-adverbial use of a]rca<menoj
may
be seen in Syll. 5375, 5385,
540152, 5494, and with pres. ptc. in Tb P 526 (ii/A. D.).
P. 185.—The practically complete
equivalence of subjunctive and future is
quite
as evident in Phrygian inscriptions as in the Alexandrian Greek Bible or
late
Egyptian papyri. Thus we have in JHS
xxiii. 85 ei] de< tij a]nu<caj e!teron
ba<l^, and in Ramsay C. and B. ii. 392 (no. 260) ei@ tina a@llon
boulhq^?,
559
(no.
445, iii/A.D.) ei@ tij de> e!teroj e]pisene<nkei (so nos. 448, 449). In nos.
317,
391,
395, 399 al (pp. 472, 535-8) we have ou]
teq^? for
the ou] teqh<setai, found
elsewhere.
The progressive disappearance of the Future prepares us for MGr,
where
the tense is a periphrastic one. For the papyri, cf BU 303 (vi/A.D.)
para<sxw "I will
furnish," AP 144 (v/A. D. ) e@lqw "I will
come." Innumerable
exx.
of verbs in -sei and the like, in locutions requiring
subjunctives, could be
cited
from various sources; but these being itacistic prove less—see p. 35.
P. 194.—Prof. Thumb tells me that
MGr mh> ge<noito seems to him a phrase
of
learned origin. (I notice that Pallis retains it in Lk 2016.) See p.
249.
P. 199 n. 2.—Prof. Thumb observes
that he does not believe in itacism as
contributory
to the obsolescence of the optative, "since the coincidence of oi
and
^
took place very late." It has been
made clear in the text that the
optative
was doomed from the very birth of the Koinh<, while oi (and u) did not
become
simple i for several centuries.
P. 208.—By way of adding to our illustrations
from the Bezan text of Ac,
we
may note that in 1217 D substitutes i!na sig[ . . . ]
sin for siga?n, and in 1618
i!na e]ce<lq^j for e]celqei?n, both after words of
commanding. In 1731 however
the
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 241
omission
of e]n ^$ me<llei adds to the tale of quasi-final infinitives.
Were this
tendency
to use i!na
more marked, it might help us to fix the provenance
of D, by
the
use of Thumb's canon (p. 205).
P. 216.—Some further exx. are noted
by Votaw (p. 18) from the LXX.
He
gives on p. 19 the totals for the articular infin. in OT, Apocrypha, and NT:
there
are 1161 occurrences with a preposition, and 1614 without. The anar-
throus
infin. occurs 6190 times in all. In the statistics of the articular infin.
1
have checked my count (based on MG) by Votaw's: they differ slightly where
I
have omitted passages which WH 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.
P. 224.—To the footnote it should be
added that Hirt and Sommer make
sequimini imperative the original
form, supposing it simply transferred to the
indicative
at a later stage (Indog. Forsch,.
xvii. 64).
P. 230.—The phrase in Mt 132
is quoted here purely as it stands in Greek;
exx.
of this participle could be cited from almost any page of narrative in the
NT
or other Greek writing. It happens however, as Dr Rendel Harris tells
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
expression.
Sometimes you get 'Bit in the sea' for 'embark'" (Mk 41, the
original
here). This superfluous kaqh?sqai is rather like the pleonasms quoted
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 e]mba<nta.
Since I have not given a chapter to
Conjunctions, I may put at the end
of
these addenda a note upon a use of a]lla< which has excited much
discussion.
In
Mt 2023 some have translated a]lla<. "except," as
if=ei] mh< or plh<n.
Against
this
both Winer and his editor (p. 566) speak very decisively: thus, the latter
says,"
Even in Mk 422 a[lla< is simply but (but rather), not save, except." I have
a
draft letter of his to a fellow-Reviser (dated 1871), in which he argues at
length
against
the lax use of a]lla<, which in Mt l.c. "would be equivalent to supplying
e]mo<n e]sti dou?nai in the second clause." Blass does not allude to the latter
passage,
but on Mk 1.c. (p. 269) he says a]ll
] =ei] mh< "save that." It is certainly
difficult
here to separate the a]lla< from the e]a<n mh< which stands in the
parallel
clause. I am very unwilling to challenge an opinion
held so strongly after
careful
study; but the discovery of Tb P 104 (i/B.C.) makes me ready to
believe
that the note in WM might have been altered under stress of new
evidence.
Kai> mh> e]ce<stw Fili<skwi gunai?ka a@llhn
e]pagage<sqai a]lla>
]Apollwni<an
must
call for a sense of a]lla< very near to ei]
mh<. That supplements may be
contrived
we may allow, though they are often far from simple but is there
adequate
motive for straining the natural meaning of the phrase? In Gen 2126
ou]de> e]gw> h@kousa a]lla>
sh<meron,
the a]lla< actually translates yTil;Bi, except. In Mt
l. c., it may well be that
the AV or RV supplement is correct. But
I cannot feel
at
all sure of this; and it seems moreover that the meaning need not be affected
by
reading a]lla< as ei] mh<. In Jn 154,
Lk 426f., Ac 2722, Gal 216, Rev 2127,
etc.,
we
are familiar with the brachylogy—essentially akin to zeugma–which makes
ei] mh< and the like= but only: why not apply this to a]lla<? This would mean
that
only the thought of dou?nai was carried on, and not that of e]mo<n
as well.
(Cf
now Wellh. 24 in support of my position: also cf Kuhring, p. 149.)
The study of Wellhausen's
illuminating forty pages increases my regret that
I
can only refer to them generally in notes inserted at the last revision. My
argument
in chapter i. is not affected by Wellhausen's exposition; but had his
242 A
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
book
come into my hands earlier, I should have taken care to emphasise more
clearly
what is said above concerning "translation Greek," and the tendency
to
over-use a correct vernacular idiom where it exactly or nearly translates an
Aramaic
original. Wellhausen rightly warns us against denying Aramaism
because
we can scrape together one or two parallels from holes and corners of
Greek
writing. That was the error of the old Purists, and we must be on our
guard.
But if we neo-Hellenists need to be careful, Wellhausen's criticisms of
Dalman
show that the neo-Semitists want watching as well. It is necessary in
studying
Wellhausen to remember that he only professes to speak from the
Semitist's
side: his fraggelou?n (bis) on P. 10
and e[auto<j and a]llh<loi on p. 30
illustrate his limitation—non omnia vossumus omnes! Space forbids our
mentioning
more than one further feature of his work, the great importance of
his
treatment of the Bezan text. He shows that D in a large number of places
stands
distinctly nearer the Aramaic which underlies the Synoptic records. If
this
is proved, we have manifestly taken a large step towards the solution of our
great
textual question. Let me finally quote
his dictum that Mk is tolerably
free
from Hebraisms, i.e. pieces of translation Greek due to the LXX: Mk is
however
richest in Aramaisms, which Mt and Lk have largely pruned away
Of
course Wellhausen's argument has not 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
large
Jewish settlements in Egypt from an early date is indisputable: see
for
example Mahaffy's and Th. Reinach's contributions to Melanges Nicole
(pp.
619 ff., 451 ff.). Mahaffy speaks of Aramaic trade documents in Upper
Egypt
from the time of Xerxes down. So far, however, no "Hebraist" has
tried
to use this fact to discount the deductions of Deissmaun from the papyri;
and
I need not meet the argument before it arises. (See Preface, p. xvi. f.)
Ib.—The
Rev. J. Pulliblank sends me an interesting extract from his notes
of
Bishop Lightfoot's lectures in 1863. Speaking of some NT word which had
its
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,
we
should have the greatest possible help for the understanding of the language
of
the NT generally."
P. 5.—A very striking testimony may
be cited from Cicero, Pro Archia,
23:—Nam si quis minorem gloriae frustum putat ex Graecis
versibus percipi
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]j
a]pa<nthsin,
c. gen. may be added two (one of them
ei]j sunant.) from the Pelagia
stories (Legenden der hl. Pelagia,
ed. Usener),
pp.
19, 22. The documents are written in excellent vernacular, which does not
seem
open to the charge of being merely modelled ou the biblical Greek.
ADDITIONAL NOTES TO THE SECOND
EDITION. 243
P. 19.—Dr Marcus Dods finds a weak
spot in my parallel, in that Greek
was
generally "not the vernacular, but a second language acquired for com-
mercial
or social purposes. The real parallel would therefore be the English-
speaking
Hindu, or semi-Americanised German or Pole, or the pidgin-English-
speaking
Chinaman, or bilingual Highlander or Welshman." So Dr Nestle.
I
have modified the form of the parallel accordingly, and I think it will now
stand.
The Hindu and the Welshman, "granted a tolerable primary education"
in
English, will not show much difference in their written dialect.
P. 22.—A reviewer in the Athenaeum, to whom I am greatly
indebted,
criticises
my attitude towards the translation of Pallis. (So far from " strongly
objecting,"
Mr Pallis prefers to be so styled, and not as Palli.) I cannot go
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
"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
for
the modern Greeks' national pride in their language. But whether Greek
artisans
can repeat the NT Greek by heart or no, it is abundantly proved that
they
cannot understand it; and that is sufficient justification for a popular
version.
(3) The general question of the Purist movement tempts discussion;
but
it has only one side which is relevant for this book. If the movement only
concerned
the abolition of foreign words, the
NT grammarian could quote Purist
as
readily as popular Greek. But the kaqareu<ousa is an artificial
language in its
grammar, and it is therefore
obviously useless when we are seeking scientific
evidence
bearing on ancient Hellenistic. The strongest sympathiser with
Purism
as a national movement would have to admit that for such purposes
as
ours the faintest suspicion of artificiality makes MGr valueless: nothing but
the
unschooled speech of the people can help us here.
P. 23.—On the use of the term Koinh< Prof. Thumb observes
that the
grammarians
were far from consistent with themselves. A definition like koinh<
dia<lektoj ^$ pa<ntej xrw<meqa is not far from our
present use; and even if the term
be
historically incorrect it is a pity to banish from science so well-established
and
pregnant
a word (Neue Jahrbucher f. d. klass.
Altertum, 1906, p. 262).
P. 32.—Dr W. H. D. Rouse, who has an
exceptionally intimate first-hand
knowledge
of modern
he
thinks it too sweeping an assertion to say that the old dialects died out com-
pletely,
except for what they contributed to the Koinh<. He has heard the broad ā.
in
Calymnos, and kia< po<ka in
p.
256), Prof. Thumb gives some interesting survivals of old dialectic forms in
fact
to remember that the dialects existing within the Koinh< were partly or even
mainly
characterised by the survivals from the old local dialect which the
levelling
process failed to destroy.
P. 34.—A good illustration of my
point that dialectic differences very largely
lay
in pronunciation is found in Dr Rouse's remark that "a [modern] Athenian,
a
Lesbian and an Astypaliote all will write kai<, while they pronounce
it respect-
ively
kye, ce, tse."
P. 36.—The case of te<ssarej. acc. ought not to be
left without remarking
that
this is isolated, as the only early cardinal which ever had a separate acc.
form. In the first 900 of Wilcken's ostraka I find
42 exx. of the indeclinable,
and
29 of te<ssaraj, which shows how this form predominated in business
244 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
language
before 200 A.D. In the same documents I
find te<sseraj and tessera<-
konta only once each (both ii/A.D.): cf p. 46
above.
Ib.—A
"probably Ptolemaic" ostrakon in Melanges
Nicole, p. 185 (E. J.
Goodspeed),
has filanqropi<% and do<sij (=dw<seij) to add for the early
confusion
of
o and w;
kata> mh?nan (see p. 49) and mhdeni>
doi?j (p.
55 n.3) evidence the writer's
scanty
culture. Earlier still is logeuw<ntwn HbP 77 (249 B.C. ), and
cf Par P 40
(ii/B.C.).
See Mayser, pp. 98 f., 139.
P. 38.—The point about Koinh< needs perhaps to be
stated less concisely.
Brugmann
makes it probable that in early Attic, as in its sister dialect Ionic, it
became
n universally, but that in Attic ih and rh (u[gih?,
prh<ttw)
broadened into
ia, ra, whenever the h did not arise from a pre-Greek
ē: this ē long maintained
a
different quality. But this specially Attic power of r became obsolete while
ko<rFh was still pronounced
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
that
of e and i sounds in Asia Minor and
P. 44.—Among the irregular
aspirations might have been given ou]x
]Ioudai*kw?j (Gal 214 x*ACP 17 37). Here the ou]xi< of BD* al probably helps
us;
a repetition of the i after ou]k would lead to the
correction of ou]xi< and this to
ou]x by the dropping of the same letter. This seems
simpler than Lightfoot's
explanation
from the Hebrew initial which would not explain ou]x
idou< (B
decies in 3 K, says Mr
Thackeray).
P. 48.—Usener, Pelagia, p. 50,
quotes h[ [Ieroso<luma from two MSS of
xi/A.D. In the same book we find the vocative ku<ri twice (p. 14—see
Usener's
note,
p. 34). An additional early ex. of this shortening of -io- nouns may be
found
in a Ptolemaic ostrakon in Melanges Nicole, p. 184, sunye<lein (i.e. -ion).
(The
document has the word kra<batoj, ao spelt.) See Mayser
260.
P. 49.—The NT forms suggeni<j and suggeneu?si. (WH App2 165) are both
cited
by Thumb from
Mayser
cites suggene<a: per contra suggene<si occurs Tb P 61
(ii/B.C.) al. So we
have
double forms, e]sqh?sin OP 466 and e]sqh<sesi
(as NT) BU
16, both ii/A.D.
P. 59.—An apparent false concord in
B, peri> pa<ntwn w$n ei#den duna<mewn
(Lk
1937), is corrected by Prof. Burkitt from the Old Syriac, which
shows
that
duna<mewn is a mere gloss. B accordingly shows the first stage of
corrup-
tion,
while D (geinome<nwn) shows an independent gloss, and the other MSS
present
a completely regularised text. (The textual phenomena here are most
instructive:
cf what is quoted from Wellhausen about B and D, p. 242.) Note
that
in MGr pa?sa
survived pa?j,
as pa?sa e!naj "every one."
Ib.—For indeclinable ti Dr Rouse reminds me of
the MGr ka@ti,
as ka@ti
h[suxi<a, "a little
rest."
P. 60.—Mr Ottley calls my attention
to Is 3738, where it is very hard to
resist
the impression that an accusative stands for a genitive in apposition to
an
indeclinable.
Ib.—A better account of h[
qeo<j in
Ac 1937 is given by G. Thieme, Die
Inschriften von Magnesia
am Maeander and das NT (
He
notes that the classical h[ qeo<j often appears in
Magnesian inscriptions to
describe
the great goddess of the city, while other people's goddesses were Beat,
the
usual Koinh< term. The town clerk is accordingly using the technical
term,
as we might expect. Plentiful quotations are given by Nachmanson,
p.
126. We may therefore keep Blass's comment on Luke's accuracy, but
apply
it in a different way.
ADDITIONAL NOTES TO THE SECOND EDITION. 245
P. 63.—It might be added that before
e]n
disappeared it was often used for
ei]j, just as ei]j was for e]n. Thus in the late gloss at Jn 54;
alsi four times in Tob,
as
Mr Thackeray notes, adding that it is a feature of the LXX in Jd--4 K. Cf
in
Pelagia, a]nh<lqomen e]n t&? kelli<& (i. 4), a]ph<lqamen
e]n t^? mega<l^ e]kklhsi<% (i. 5),
e@fugon e]n
toi?j o@resi
(ii. 1). Some
further quotations for late uses of e]n will be
found
in Kuhring, pp. 43
Ib.—On
w!ran
(Jn 452, Au 1030 al) see Usener, Pelagia 50, and Abbott JG
75,
Who
suggests that the change from vernacular ace. to dat., Jn 452f., is
brought
in
to denote exact time.
P. 64.—For xra?sqai c. acc. add Wis 714
(B—so RV), and Syll. 65362
(kataxr.). The Purist Kontos (Glwssikai>
Parathrh<seij,
Athens, 1882, p. 420)
complains
of writers who used kataxra?sqai (and even e!pesqai!) with gen. As
early
as ii/A. D. we find a chiliarch of a Thracian cohort writing [Wri<wnoj (i.e.
-i)
xai<rein (Wilcken, Ostr. ii. 927): so su>n
Mhnofi<lou ib. 240 (same date). See
Ramsay
CR iii. 332.
P. 66.—On the construction of a]kou<w,
geu<omai,
and proskunw?, see Abbott,
JG 76-78.
P. 70.—Dr Rouse compares with this
nominative in ime - expressions
Aeschines'
nu>c e]n me<s& kai> parh?men (In Ctes. 71).
P. 71.—On the threefold path<r in Jn 17, see Abbott JG
96 f.
P. 72.—A full study of prepositions
replacing the simple gen. may be found
in
Kuhring, Praepos. 11 ff., 20. Dr
Rouse notes that a]po< is regularly used
in
partitive sense now: dw?se mou a]po> tou?to, "give me some of
that."
P. 75.—For e@rxomai<
soi am I
should have quoted the well-known line of Aeschy-
lus (PV 358), a]ll ] h#lqen au]t&? Zhno>j a@grupnon be<loj.
P. 76.—Reference should have been
made to Eph 55, i@ste ginw<skontej, where
Dean
Robinson assumes Hebraism, comparing 1 Sam 203, ginw<skwn
oi#den, Jer
42
(49)22,
i@ste (imper.)
ginw<skontej o!ti (Symmachus).
So RV. If this be so, we
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
quoting.
(It may be noted that if lore is indic. it is a purely literary word,
such
as Paul is not very likely to have used: it would be less improbable in
Heb
1217. But in these places and Jas 119 the imper. seems
better, somewhat in
the
sense of the common classical eu# i@sq ] o!ti, "you may be
sure": see LS s.v.
oi#da 7.)
It is, however, at least as probable that we are to separate the verbs
and
read "For you must be assured of this (the following), recognising for
yourselves
that . . . " So E. Haupt, Salmond, and T. K. Abbott.
P. 79.—Dr E. A. Abbott (Joh. Gram. 510) makes it seem probable
that the
Chief." See pp. 11-14 for his exposition, which
brings in several harmonics
beside
the main note. I am not yet disposed to
give up the view defended
in
the text. If Dr Abbott takes away one
parallel, he gives me two new ones
instead,
in the quotations from scholiasts on Euripides; and his exegesis seems
open
to the charge of over-subtlety.
Moreover, the Aelian passage, oi[ prw?toi<
mou tau?ta
a]nixneu<antej (N. A. viii. 12), is closely parallel for Jn 1518;
and the
doubts
as to the reading expressed by the Thesaurus editor here and in Plutarch,
Cato Minor § 18 (ou@te
prw?to<j tij a]ne<bh . . . Katw?noj ou@te u!steroj a]ph?lqe), only
mean
that a modern scholar thought prw?toj incorrect, which is
undeniable.
I
am tempted to claim that Dr Abbott has proved my point for 'me.
P. 80.—I must confess to a rather
serious oversight in omitting to discuss
the
"Hebraistic" use of pa?j with negative in the
seise of ou]dei<j. In CR
xv.
442, xviii. 155, I quote a number of exx, of pa?j with prepositions and
246 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
adjectives
of negative meaning: thus a@neu or xwri>j
pa<shj u[perqesewj,
a recurrent
formula, a]nupeu<qunoi panto>j e]piti<mou Tb
P 103 (ii/B.C.), di<xa pa<shj
e]cousi<aj
Plutarch
Cons. ad Uxor. 1 (cf Heb 77). Closely allied to this is the Koinh< use of
tij with negative, as mhdemia?j
krath<sewj mhde> kuriei<aj tino>j e]ggai<ou periginome<nhj
au]tw?i TP 1 (ii/B.C.), which has analogues in
MGr (Jannaris HG § 1 449 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 1320, but in Paul, as Eph 55.
Ib.—Mr
J. B. Shipley sends me an ingenious suggestion that e[pta<, arose
from
a gloss, Skeua?=
fbw=
e[pta<.
Ib.—
In Gal 16f. Ramsay maintains against Lightfoot that e!teroj when
definitely
contrasted with a@lloj denotes specific difference against
generic,
"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. Abbott JG
611 supports him against Blass.
P. 86.—Add Hb P 44 (253 B.c.), o[rw?ntej
. . . w@mhn as
an early ex.
P. 87.—The reciprocal ei$j
to>n e!na
(1 Th 511) may be noted, with the MGr
o[ e!naj to>n a@llon. (Dr Rouse tells me the
Purists say e@sface o[ me>n to>n de<!)
Ib.—On
"exhausted i@dioj" see new Kuhring, Praep. 13.
P. 89.—Dr Marcus Dods criticises my
treatment of e]n t&? i]di<& noi~, remark-
ing
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 simply lays stress on the personal pronoun—"let each man be
fully
assured for himself."
P. 96.—Note that dw<deka greatly predominates
over de<ka du<o in ostraka.
P. 102.—In Kuhring's account of a]po< (Praep. 35 ff., 52 ff.) there is striking
evidence
of the encroachments of this preposition. The common commercial
e@sxon a]po> (for para>
) sou? may save us from
over-refining in 1 Co 1123.
The
note
as to the perplexing rarity in the papyri of a]po< with the agent after
passive
verbs
will prevent us from assuming it too readily in the NT, though its occa-
sional
presence is undoubted. For ou]ai> . . . a]po> tw?n
skanda<lwn
(Mt 187) I
may
quote excellent parallels from Pelagia,
w} bi<a a]po> tou? . . . lh<rou tou<tou
(Usener,
pp. 11 bis, 27), and w}
a]po> tw?n Xristianw?n
(p. 28): the difference in the
interjection
shows that this was not imitation.
Usener (p. 44) notes w} bi<a
"Murder!"
as a vernacular phrase. So Acta Thomae, p. 224, o}
a]po> tou? doli<ou. It
is
simply the classical w@ c. gen. (cf Ep.
Diogn. 9 w}
th?j u[perballou<shj filanqrwpi<aj),
with
the gen. strengthened, as so often. ]Ek of material (as Mt 2729) Kuhring
only
finds once, AP 99 (ii/A.D.): add Mel. Nicole
p. 281, peritraxhli<dion e]k
kaqormi<wn liqnw?n, "a necklace made
of strings of stones " (iii/B.C.).
As to the
survival
of e]k
to-day authorities differ: the Athenaeum
reviewer cites among
others
Psichari, who says of e]k to<n, "C'est bel et
bien une forme vivante."
P. 103.—There seem to be places
where ei]j
actually stands for the posses-
sive
genitive, as Deissmann BS 117 f.
shows it does for the dative: TbP 16 ou]
lh<gontej th?i (for th?j!) [ei]j] au]tou>j
au]qadi<%,
"not desisting from their violent
behaviour
" (ii/B.C.); xwri>j tou? ei]j au]th>n oi@kon (=ou) Par P 5, "her
house "
(ib.). It is tempting to seek help here
for 1 Pet 111 ln, but the illiteracy of the
documents
must be remembered.
P. 106.—One more quotation should be
made from Kuhring, whose pamphlet
must
be constantly in our hands a we study the NT prepositions. He seems
to
demolish even the solitary Hebraism I had left to Aterct, that in Lk 158.
AP
135 (ii/A.D.) has ti< de> h[mei?n sune<bh
meta> tw?n a]rxo<ntwn; " What befell us
in
connexion with the magistrates?" (G. and H.). So also BU 798 (Byz.).
ADDITIONAL NOTES TO THE SECOND
EDITION 247
Kontos
(Parathrh<seij 409 ff.) fiercely attacks polemw?
meta< tinoj
“fight with,"
i.e. “against”; but he is
at least eighteen centuries late.
Ib.—One
force of para< in composition is noted by Thumb (Neue Jahrb. '06,
p.
249), with reference to parh?lqen in Mt 1415. He parallels Welhausen's
“vorgeruckt” (our "advanced ") by citing MGr parapa<nw, " far over,"
paraka<tw,
"far
under," parame<sa, "far
in." Another force is exemplified
in parapi<ptw,
which
Wilcken (Ostraka, i. 78 f.)
illustrates as a commercial word, giving Momm-
sen's
"ungultig werden, etwa wegen eines Formfehlers." He compares Xen.
Hell. i. 6. 4, and Polybius,
xviii. 36. 6, where it is co-ordinated with a]gnoei?n,
=parapi<ptein
th?j a]lhqei<aj.
P. 110.—Th the weighty authorities
for e@xomen in Rom 51 is now added
Prof.
H. A. A. Kennedy: see ExpT for July 1906, p. 451. I still
agree with SH.
P. 112.—Usener (Pelagia, 49) remarks on a]pe<rxomai that in later Greek it
is
transferred to the thought of the goal.
Thus a]ph<lqamen e]n t^? mega<l^
e]kklhsi<% = "we arrived at the great church." ]Afiknou?mai was much earlier in
showing
this result of perfective a]po<.
P. 115.—In Neue Jahrb. 1906, pp. 254 ff., Prof. Thumb justifies his view
that
Miss Purdie's general position is right, though pure Koinh< texts like the
NT
and the papyri would have served better than a writer like Polybius,
belonging
to a transition period of the language.
He points out that by this
development
of the prepositions Hellenistic gains the means lof expressing
aoristic
Aktionsart in present time. Thus “a]pe<xousi (Mt 62. 5. 16)
is in its
Aktionsart identical with e@labon
or e@sxon, that is, it is an aorist-present,
which
denotes
the present answering to labei?n or sxei?n." The recognition of punctiliar
force
in this commercial word (see Deissmann BS
229 and Licht v. Osten 74 ff.)
makes
it very vivid in Mt l.c. . the
hypocrites have as it were their money
down,
as soon as their trumpet has sounded.
P. 122.—Mr H. D. Naylor sends me
some additional notes as to the mh>
poi<ei canon.
Some of his classical exx. against Dr Headlam are very good:
note
Aristoph. Av. 1534, where the
conative present seems clear, and Ran.
618-622. Mr Naylor remarks, "I venture to hold
the view that the distinction
is
a growth. It was beginning in classical
times; it was nearly crystallised in
NT
Greek; and it is completely so in the modern language." In other words,
usage
progressively restricted the various possible forces of voiet in this locution,
till
only one was left. Mullach treated the matter well (pp. 345 f.), as the
Athenaeum reviewer notes. Add to my papyrus refl. HbP 45 (iii/B.C.)
real
ta> loipa> peira?sqe suna<gein
kai> mh> u[polimpa<nesqe.
P. 129.—The present of this conative
h]na<gkazon is well seen in Gal 612:
of
also Jn 1032. With reference
to Thumb's argument on prosfe<rw, I find
it
easier to deny him Heb 1117, as I can give him a good ex. in a less
literary
writer:
pro<sfere to> dw?ron in Mt 524 is very probably
aorist in action.
Ib.—The
differentia of the aorist may be effectively brought in to decide
the
famous difficulty in 1 Co 721. If Paul meant "go on in youll
slavery," he
must
have said xrw?: the aorist xrh?sai can only be "seize
the opportunity."
We
can now see that Origen took the passage this way: see JTS ix. 508.
P. 134.—For Jn 156
Epictetus iv. 1. 39, a}n me>n strateu<swmai,
a]phlla<ghn
pa<ntwn tw?n kakw?n. 1 Co 728 and Gal 54 may
be noted. See Abbott JG 586 for other
exx.
P. 135.—An idiomatic old aorist
belonging to this category still survives:
a
traveller in
the
waiter cry @Efqasa."
P. 141.—In a discussion of aorist
and perfect (Am. Journ. Theol. x. 102
f.),
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 formula with the verb diagra<fw,
"pay,"
in receipts. The Ptolemaic do uments have diage<grafen, the early
Roman
diagegra<fhken. Then in twelve years, towards the end of
i/A.D., the
aorist
suddenly and completely ousts he perfect, having previously only
appeared
once, cir. 40 A.D., and the hange occurs simultaneously in Ele-
phantine
and
unchanged.
P. 142.—Mr Ottley has noted no case
of aoristic perfect in Isaiah except in
the
category of aorist and perfect standin together, joined by kai<.
Ib.—Gal 318 423
are Pauline exx. of the perfect for what "stands written."
P. 145.—The constative "we
possessed" clearly will not suit e]sxh<kamen in
Rom
52. Can it have been a mannerism which Paul dropped between the
writing
of "3 Corinthians" and Romans?
On the other hand, another papyrus
can
be quoted where "possessed" suits he sense well, and the perfect
stands
in
close connexion with the aorist: BU 97 (end of ii/A.D.), toi?j
dikai<an ai]ti<an
e]sxhko<si kai> a@neu tino>j
a]mfisbhth<sewj e]n t^? nom^? genome<nouj (= -oij).
Ib.—I venture to question the
rendering "began to amend " in Ju 452. The
idiomatic
English "got better" suits the punctiliar e@sxen, and the comparative
does
not differ from the positive in e]a<n komyw?j
sxw?, TbP
414 (ii/A.D.), more
than
"got better" differs from "got well." The father does not suggest a
gradual recovery.
P. 159.—On the verb pare<xw= pay, Wileken observes
(Ostraka, i. 107) that
even
in RL (iii/B.C.)—e.g. 51—the word occurs often both in act. and in mid.
without
apparent distinction. These sporadic exx. of irregular middles occur in
the
earliest period of the Koinh<, but they do not invalidate the general
rule.
P. 168.—The papyrus exx. of o!tan=when make it an open question whether
in
Mk 1119 we are not to translate "when evening fell," that
is the evening
before
the prwi~
of v.20. In such a writer as
Mk this is at least possible, and
the
other rendering produces an awkward sequence. The impf. e]ceporeu<onto
may
be pictorial quite as well as iterative.
P. 177.—Prof. W. Rhys Roberts
suggests to me another ex. of c. fut.
in
Eurip.
Med. 822, le<ceij
de> mhde<n . . ., were
the change to le<c^j (especially in
that
order) has always seemed to him a bitrary. "Probably there are other
similar
cases in which the MS reading should be carefully weighed."
P. 179.—Add Epict. iv. 1. 41, i!na
mh> mwro>j ^, a]ll ] i!na ma<q^, "let him not be
a
fool, but learn. . . ." Dr J. 0. F. Murray suggests to me that this la may
be
seen in Rev 1413. Since the
jussive Requiescant falls from Divine
lips, it has
no
bearing on controverted questions. Its superior fitness in the grammatical
structure
of the verse is undeniable. In I Co 145 we have a good ex. of qe>;w
i!na and qe<lw c. inf. side by side with no eal difference.
Ib.—Prof. Burkitt (Evang. da-Mepharr. ii. 252 f.) reads in M. 2323
tau?ta
de> poih?sai ka]kei?na mh>
a]fei?nai,
after the Lewis, supposing the MSS readings to
be
corrections. In 2 Co 121 he
would follow x in reading kauxa?sqai—ou]
sumfe<ron
me>n—e]leu<somai
de> k.tl.,
which is presumably "Now to boast!—it is not ex-
pedient,
but I shall be coming," etc. There
seems no special difficulty about
infin.
for imper. here, and Aramaism is entirely out of court. Prof. Burkitt's
reading
in Mt i.e. is “translation Greek” no doubt, but perfectly allowable.
P. 185.—The use of mh< in warning retains
still the consciousness of its
paratactic
origin. Dr. Rouse quotes fobou?mai mh<pwj a]pe<qane (of Gal 411,
2 Co
113)
with the independent mh<pwj in quest ons expressing surprise or
indignation
(mh<pwj
ei#mai lo<rdoj;
"do you suppose I'm millionaire?") (Mullach, pp. 395 f.).
Ib.—In
Gal 610 WH read w[j kairo>n e@xwmen (xB*17). As we have seen on
Rom
51, the MSS can hardly perhaps be egarded as decisive between o and w;
ADDITIONAL NOTES TO THE SECOND EDITION. 249
but
the subj. is justifiable with the sense "as long as we have opportunity,
let
us
continue to work." (
[Wj
in MGr takes the meaning of e!wj as well as its own.)
In
classical Greek this futuristic subj. would demand a@n, but words meaning
until
constantly drop it in Hellenistic.
P. 188.—Dr Giles tells me that
Gildersleeve's suggestion of an independent
ou] in ou] mh< was anticipated in the Middle Ages: in one if
not both of the best
MSS
of Aristophanes it is regularly punctuated ou@ mh< . .
.
P. 205.—Prof. Thumb (Neue Jahrb. '06, p. 259) observes that
the infin. of
purpose
is commoner 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
would
press the telic force of i!na in Jn.
We might cite such passages as 1513
as
affording scope for exegetical ingenuity on these lines. If we had no evidence
from
Hellenistic and MGr as to the loss of this force in i!na, 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 need much stronger evidence
to
prove that Jn differed so greatly from his contemporaries.
P. 207.—Prof. Burkitt notes (Ev. da-Meph. ii. 183) that Tatian took w!ste
as
consecutive in Lk 429, "so that they cast him down."
P. 209.—The consecutive o!ti which Blass would read
in Jn 316 does appear
in
later Greek, e.g. Pelagia, 20, ti<
didoi?j toi?j a]mnoi?j sou, o!ti zwh>n ai]w<nion e@xousin;
See
Abbott JG 534.
P. 210.—The consecutive use of i!na was recognised by
Lightfoot in Gal 517,
1
Th 54: see his notes, and cf what he says on ei]j
to> c. inf. in 1 Th 216.
P. 212.—For classical exx. of acc.
and infin. where no. would 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.
P. 215.—Dr Abbott touches a weak
spot in my treatment of e]n t&? c. inf.
He
reminds me that, to prove the Biblical use free from Semitism, we must find
classical
parallels for it with the sense "during." Birklein's statistics un-
fortunately
do not give us the opportunity of testing this, and in the face of
Blass's
dictum (p. 239) it is not worth while to try.
I should transfer this
"Hebraism"
to the category of "possible but unidiomatic" Greek (supra, p. 76).
Ib.— Zh?n, like
nacular.
Thus BM iii. p. 131 (a poor weaver's petition, 140 A.D.) misqou?
zontoj to> zh?n TbP 283 (illiterate,
i/B.C.) kinduneu<wi tw?i
zh?n, al.
P. 227.—The periphrastic imperf.
occurs several times in Pelagia, as
p. 14,
h@mhn a]perxo<menoj; h#n
a]kou<sasa:
note also p. 26, e@so ginw<skwn, like i@sqi
eu]now?n,
in
Mt 521. Cf Usener's note p.
50. That this is pure vernacular, untainted by
Hebraism,
is beyond question. Dr Rouse observes
that it is used now in
Zaconian,
as forou?nter e@me=e]forou?men,
o[rou<mener e@mi=o[rw?mai.
P. 237.—A further addition to the
list on p. 95 is given by Prof. Burkitt in
Mt
1011 D and 28, h[ po<lij ei]j h}n a}n
ei]se<lqhte ei]j au]th<n (Ev. da-Meph. ii.
75).
This
goes with the passages supporting Wellhausen's thesis (above, p. 242).
P. 240.—If mh>
ge<noito
is "a phrase of learned origin," it is presumably
parallel
with some other survivals in idiomatic phrases, fo which Dr Rouse
instances meta> xara?j, a]po> broxh?j, te<loj pa<ntwn, t&? o@nti,
panta<pasi. Dr
Rouse
himself
has never heard mh> ge<noito, for which the people
say o[ qeo>j na> fula<ch.
1. INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.
(a) NEW
TESTAMENT.
MATTHEW MATTHEW--continued MATTHEW--continued
PAGE PAGE PAGE
1.18 74
6. 17 85, 236 12.
28 140
1. 19 230 6. 19 58,
240 12.
42 236
1. 20 124
6. 27 239 13.
2 230, 241
1. 21 69, 86 6. 28 117 13.
5-8 79
1. 22 106 7. 1 191 13.
14 75
2. 1 48 7. 4 175,
176 13. 15 140
2. 2 138,
204 7. 9 193 13.
17 139
2. 3 48 7. 13 174 13. 24 140
2. 4 120 7. 16 59 13.
28 140
2.10 117 7. 22 138 13.
30 97
2. 15 138 7. 23 174 13.
32 53
2. 20 58 8. 1 74 13. 44 139.
2. 23 17 8. 8 208 13.
46
142, 143, 145
3. 4 91,
102 8. 10 140 14. 2 140
3. 7 116,
138 8. 19 97 14. 15 140, 247
3. 9 15, 124 8. 25 114 14. 19 107
3. 11 208 8. 32 172 15.
5 177
3. 14 208 8. 34 14 15.
6 140
3. 17 104 9. 1 90 15.
13 139
4. 3 208 9. 8 58 15.
24 138
5. 12 129,
174 9. 10 16, 17 15. 32 70
5. 17 138 9. 18 74, 140 16.
7 139
5. 18 58,
191 9. 34 104 16. 17 140
5. 21, etc. 138,
140, 186 10. 5 138 16.
20 208
5. 25 174,
226 10. 8 139 16. 22 190, 191, 240
5. 26 191 10. 9 125 16.
26 230
5. 27 138 10. 10 38 17.
9 125
5. 28 65, 140,
218 10. 19 93 17. 12
138, 140
5. 29 210 10. 25 140 208, 210 17. 14 74
5. 31 136, 186 10. 26 191 18. 1 78
5. 33 138 10. 28 102 18. 6 236
5. 34, 36 126 10. 29 236 18.
11 137
5. 38 138 10. 32 104 18. 13 137
5. 39 79,
174 10.34 f.. 138 18. 15 140
5. 40 69 10. 42 188 18. 22 98
5. 42 129,
174 11. 1 17 18. 23 140, 160
5. 43 138 11. 3 185 18.
25 219
5. 47 186 11. 6 104 19.6 140
6. 2 159,
186 11.17 139 19. 12 139
6. 3 174 11. 20 79 19.
27 140
6. 11 129,
174 11. 25 91, 136, 139 19. 29 140
6. 12 137,
140 11. 27 140 20.7 140
6. 13 125 12. 3, etc. 140 20. 12 140
6. 16 186 12. 7 148 20.
20, 22 160
250
INDEX TO QUOTATIONS. 251
MATTHEW-
continued MATTHEW
--continued MARK-continued
PAGE PAGE Page
20. 22 45
27. 44 58 8.7 52
20. 23 241 27. 16 140 8. 14 170
20. 28 105
27. 49 175, 230 8.
19 50
21. 16 138, 140 27.
62 91 8. 24 91
21. 19 179
28. 1 72. 73 8.
26 125
21. 20 139 28. 7 140 8. 36 87
21. 32 216 28. 15 139 9. 18 186
21. 42 59,
138, 139, 140 28. 18 140 9. 25 125
22. 1 131 28. 20 139 9. 38 129
22. 2 140 9.
39 125, 174
22. 5 88,
90 MARK 9.
41 100,
188
22. 11 231,
232 10.
7 91
23. 21 104 1. 7 96,
237 10. 13 59
23. 23 140,
185, 248 1.11 134 10. 20 159
23. 30 201 1. 15 67 10. 29 191
23. 33 116, 185 1.
17 45 10. 32 227
23. 39 191 1. 25 176 10. 35, 38. 160
24. 17, 18 174 1. 36 116 10. 35 179
24. 23 124 1. 44 124 10. 45 105
24. 30 150 2. 1 82 10. 51 179
24. 35 190 2. 3 222. 11.11 72
24. 43 201
2. 5 119 11. 14
165, 179
24. 45 140 2. 7 231 11. 16 176
24. 48 142 2. 15 16, 17 11. 19 168, 248
25. 6 14, 146 2.
23 16, 17, 159 11.
25 168
25. 9 181,
189, 192 3. 9 208 12.11 59
25. 16 116 3. 11 168 12. 14 185
25. 19 160 3. 16 69, 235 12.
23 145
25. 20 140 3. 21 106, 134 12. 40 50
25. 20, 24. 238 3. 26 187 13.1 74
25. 22 140 4. 1 241 13.2
189, 191
25. 24, 25 238
4. 5-8 79 13.6 175
25. 24, 26 138 4. 8 103 13. 11 91
25. 40 138 4. 22 191, 241 13.
13 150
25. 41 221 4. 26 185 13. 19 95
26. 2 120
4. 28 46, 50 13. 24-27 150
26. 4 157 4. 32 53 13. 31
190, 191
26. 10 116, 140 4.
39 176 14. 3 55, 176
26. 13 140 4. 41 58 14. 6 175
26. 24 200 5. 10 208 14.8 176
26. 25 140 5. 13 172 14. 10 97
26. 32 212 5. 15 145 14. 14 151
26. 35 190, 191 5.
19 143 14.
18 111
26. 50 93 5. 23 179 14. 19 105
26. 51 157 5. 34 174, 226 14.
21 171, 200
26. 53 50 5. 36 124 14. 28 149
26. 64 86, 140 6.
14, 24 127 14. 30 151
26. 65 140 6. 17 f.. 94 14. 31 190, 191
27.
1 207 6. 22-25 160 14. 32 169
27.
4 149, 177 6.
25 179 14. 36 93, 233
27.5 155 6. 26 51 14. 38 178
27.11 86 6. 38 170 14. 42 175
27.
19 140 6. 39 f. 97, 107, 14. 47 157
27.
19, 25 183 6. 56 167, 168 14. 63 38
27.
21 77, 102 7.
12 191 14. 72 131
27.
23 140 7. 25 13, 94, 95 15. 1 159
27.
24 90 7. 26 75 15. 2 86
27.
32 14 7. 28 20 15. 15 20
27.
35 157 8.
2 139 15. 18 71
27.
40 127 8. 3 53 15. 25 12
252 INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.
MARK--continued
LUKE-
conitinued LUKE--continued
PAGE PAGE PAGE
15. 36 175 8. 6-8 79 15. 14 60
15. 42 51 8. 27 75 15. 17 114
16.6 135, 137, 163 8. 29 75, 113, 148 15.
19 208
[16.] 9-20 . 216 8. 38 54 15. 26 198
[16.] 18 191 8. 42 114 15. 32 135
8.
43 102 16. 17 191
8.
46 229 16. 22 16
LUKE 8.
49 121, 125 17. 1 217
1. 7 75,
103 8. 52 125 17. 8 93
1. 15 177, 191 8.
54 70 17. 23 59
1. 18 75 9. 3. 179 18. 1 218
1. 20 92 9. 13 171, 187 18. 2 65
1. 28 183 9. 25 87, 230 18. 7 159
1. 38 195 9. 28 70 18. 10 205
1. 43 208, 211, 217 9. 31 53 18. 16 124
1. 54, 72 210 9. 36 . 52, 144 18.
36 198
1. 58 106, 246 9. 45 210 18. 41 185
1. 59 129 9. 46 198 19. 2 86
1. 62 198 9. 54 185 19. 13 35, 118
1. 76 f.. 217 10.
1 97 19.
17 174, 226
1.
79 217 10.
4 125 19.
29 69
2.
1 47 10.
7 91, 125 20. 16 194, 240
2.
1, 3 162 10.
18 134 20.
23 117
2.
4 91, 212 10. 20 125 20.
36 114
2.
5 162 10. 21 91 21.6 69, 191
2.
26 169 10.
36 146 21.
8 125
2.
36 75 10.
42 92 21.
22 217
2.
39 130 11.
3 129, 173, 174. 21.
33 190, 191
2.
49 103 11.
4 119 21.
37 69
3.
8 15 11.
7 125 22.
6 220
3.
15 194, 199 11. 35 192 22.
23 199
3.
16 95, 237 11. 41 f. 15
22. 34 239
3.
23 227 11.
46 56
22. 44 51
3.
23 ff.. 236
12. 1 102, 157 22. 49 12, 185
4.
10 116 12.
2 191 22.
65 231
4.
18 143 12.
4 102 22.
70 86
4.
25 60 12.
8 104 23.
3 86
4.
26 f. 241 12.
12 91 23.
5 45, 240
4.
33 227 12.
15 157, 178 23. 28 125
4.
42 220 12.
20 58 24.
22 51
5.
19 73 12.
24, 27 117 24. 34
135
5.
23 119 12.
26 236 24.
47, 49 182
5.
38 222 12.
32 70
6.
1 17 12.
35 176
6.
3 168 12. 36 74 JOHN
6.
4 171 12. 39 201
6.
11 198 12.
58 . 174 1.
5 158
6.
13 65 12.
59 55, 191 1. 6 70
6.
23 129, 174 13. 8 169 1.
9 227
6.
29 79, 125, 174 13. 16 11 1.
11 90
6.
30 119, 129, 174 13. 24 174 1.
12 115
6.
35 65 13.
27 174 1.
14 50, 82, 83
6.
37 191 13.
34 45 1.
15 79, 147, 245
6.
41 90 13.
35 191 1.
16 100
6.
42 175, 231, 232 14. 7 157 1.
18 144, 235
7.
6 156 14. 8 125 1. 27 208, 237
7.
13 125 14.
12 125 1. 41 90
7.
16 135 14.
18 90 2. 5 186
7.
19 f.. . 80 14. 20 135 2. 16 125
7.
32 82 14.
28 194 3.
7 124, 126
INDEX TO QUOTATIONS. 253
JOHN-continued JOHN-continued ACTS-
continued
PAGE PAGE PAGE
3.
16 209 15.
6 59, 134, 247 5. 2 237
3.
18 171, 239 15. 8,
13 208 5.
7 16, 70, 233
3.
19 140 15.
13 211 5.
14 67, 68
3
32 143 15. 16 55 5.
15 35
4.10
201 15.
18 79, 245 5. 17 228
4.
18 145 15.
22, 24 52 5.
21 237
4.
23 66 15.
27 119 5.
24 198
4.
29 170, 193 16. 17 102 5.
39 193
4,
34 208, 210 16. 23 66 6. 3 50
4.
35 12 17.
3 113, 206 6. 5 50
4.
52 63 17.
23 234 7.
5 232
5.
7 219 17. 24 179 7. 11 107
5.13
210 17.
25 113 7.
12 235
5.
14 125 18.
20 236 7. 14 103
5.
18 90 18.
34 87 7. 20 104
5.
24 67 18.
37 86
7. 26 129
5.
36 49 18.
39 210 7.
31 117
5.
37 144 19.3 70 7.
35 144
5.
38 67 19.
11 148 7.
36 133
6.
10
63, 75 19.
21 125 7. 40 69
6.
25 146 . 19.
24 157 7. 60 125
6.
57 105 19.
25 106 8.
16 107
6.
59 236 20.
1 222
8.20 195
6.
68 83 20.
2 59
8. 23 71, 235
7.
4 212 20.
17, 27 125 8. 31 198
[8.
9] 105 20.
19 183 9.
7 66
8.
31 67 20.
25 49, 204 9. 15 217
8.
32, 33 149
21. 3 204 9. 34 119
8.
33 144 21.
5 170 9.
38 125
8.
38 85 21.8 102 10.
15 125
8.
57 234
21. 10 135 10.
17 198
8.
59 156, 161 21. 23 114 10.
25 16, 217
9.
2 210
21. 24 9 10.
28 236
9.
17 94 21. 25 205 10.
33 131, 228
10.
5 190 10.
37 240
10.
12 231, 232 11.
25 235
10.
29 50 ACTS 11.
28 60, 92
10.
37 125 12.
6 114
11.2
132 1.
1 79 12.
17 240
11.
17 36 1.
5 21 12. 25 133
11.
18 102 1.
12 49, 69, 235 13. 1 228
11.
21, 32 201 1.
15 107 13.8 236
11.
28 131 1.
25 90 13.
9 83
11.
42 135 2.
1 233 13.
10 177 .
11.
55 12 2.
8 88 13. 22 71
11.56
191 2.
17, 21 16 13.
25 93
12.
1 100, 101 2. 45 167 14.
6, 8 48
12.
7 175 2.
47 107 14.
8 221
12.
9 84 3.
8 161 14. 13 228
12.
13 14 3.
12 217 14.
14 157
12.
19 135 3. 17 230 14.
18 217, 220
12.
35 158 3.
19 237 15. 17 237
12.
40 117 3. 23 . 16 15. 20 217
13.
1 90, 135 4. 5 16 15.
23 179
13.8 177, 191 4. 13 158 15.
27 230
13.
13 235 4.
16 236 15.
29 171, 176, 228
13.
27 236 4. 21 212, 230 15. 37 f. 130
13.
31 135 4.
23 90 15.
39 209
14.
31 177 4. 35 167 16.
6 133, 134
15.
4 103, 241 4. 36 75 16.13 82
254 INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.
ACTS-continued ACTS-continued ROMANS-continued
PAGE PAGE PAGE
16. 18 119, 240 25. 25 239 12.
6-8 183
16. 28 125 26.
2 148 12.
6 225
16. 34 67, 235 26. 5 78 12.
9 ff. 182
16. 36 52 26. 7 70 12. 9-19 180
17. 1 230 26. 11 128 12. 14, 15, 16, 19 180
17. 9 20 26. 20 225 12. 15 179, 180
17. 18 198 26. 22 231, 232 12. 16 f. 182
17.
26 133 26.
29 198 13.
1 228
17.
27 230 27.
1 69, 217 13. 9 87
17.
28 81 27.
10 151
13. 1 1
182, 183
17.
31 240 27.
12 211 14. 5 89
18.
8 67, 235 27. 22 241 14.
20 125
18.
9 125 27.
29 36 14. 23 134
19.
14 80, 246 27. 34 106 15.
1 221
19.
15 131 27.
39 117, 196 15. 4 115
19.
16 80 28.6 239 15.
5, 13 195
19.
26 73 28.
15 14 15.
22 217
19.
27 60 28
17 228 15.
23 217
19.
28 50 28.
17, 19 231, 232 15. 24 167
19.
32 236 16.
7 52, 141, 144
20.
3 217 16.
25 75
20.
10 125 ROMANS
20.
16 17, 63, 196
20.
18 56 1.
5 136
1 CORINTHIANS
20.
22 151 1. 9 68
20.
27 217 1. 10 194 1. 18 114
20.
28 117, 219 1.
20 117, 219 3. 8. 90
20.
29 26
21.
14 134 1. 31 222 4. 3 210, 236
21.
16 73, 223 1. 32 230 4.
8 200
21.
22 52 3.
13 52 4. 21 12
21.
28 143 5.
1 35, 110, 247,
248 6. 2. 103, 236
21.
31 74 5.
2 145 6. 3 240
21.
33 198, 199 5. 11 224 6.
5 . 99
21.
40 7 5.
12 107 6.7 162
22.
2 7 5. 20 207 6.
11 163
22.5 149 6. 4 83 7.
2 89
22.
9 66 6.
6 218 7. 5 169
22.
16 163 6.
11 103 7.
15 172
22.
17 74 6.
13 125, 129 7. 27 125
22.
19 227 7.
3 217 7.
31 64
22.
24 133 8.
3 221 7. 37 . 224
23.
8 80 8.
9 171 8. 6 106
23.
21 125 8.
12 217 8.
13 191
23.
26 179 8. 15 10 9. 6 220
23.
27 117 8.
18 114 9.
10 217
23.
29 239 8.
20 105
9. 19 230
23.
30 74, 176 8. 28 65
9. 21 236
23.
35 133 9.
3 212 9.
26 231
24.
2 106 9.
5 228 10. 2 163
24.
5 224 9. 25 231 10.
13 217
24.
10 229 9.
26 16 10.
29 87
24.
19 196 10.3 163 11.
23 237, 246
24.
22 133 236 10.6 124 11. 29 87
24.
23 90 10.
14 124 11.
29 230
24.
24 88, 90 11.
4 59 11. 34 167
25.
9 131 11.
11 207 12. 2 115, 167
25.
10 236 11.
I8. 20 125 13.
13 58, 78
25.
13 132, 133 12. 3 219, 227 14. 5
187, 208, 248
25.
16 169 12. 5 105, 183 14. 8 156
INDEX TO QUOTATIONS. 255
CORINTHIANS-Contd. GALATIANS PHILIPPIANS-continued
PAGE PAGE PAGE
14.
10 196
14.
11 103, 104 1. 6f. 80, 246 2.
30 64
14.
27 79 1.
7 171 3. 3 231
14.
39 125 1.
22 f. 227 3.
4 230
15
. 2 171 2.
2 193, 201 3.
5 10, 102
15.
4 137, 141 2. 10
179 3.
7 148
15.
6 136 2.
13 209 3.
10 218
15.
9 79, 236 3. 17 117 3.
11f. 187, 194
15.
22 114 3.
17 219. 212 3. 13 212
15.
28 149, 163 3. 23 114 3.
16 179, 204
15.
29 58 4.
6 10, 233 3.
19 50
15.
31, 32 114 4. 8. 217 3. 21 217
15.
32 120 4.
11 193, 248 4.
11 229
15.
33 45 4.
13 106 4.
14 228
15.
37 151, 196 4. 27 127, 231
15.
50 58 4.
30 177
16.
2 54 5. 1 61, 125 COLOSSIANS
16.
3 58 5.
12 163, 201
16.1
4 216, 217 5. 14 87 1.
4. 8 236
16.
5 120 5.
15 124 1.
26 224
16.
6 74 5.
16 118, 130, 191 2.
1 52
16.
11 178 5.
26 177 2.
2 182
6.
5 90 2.
8 178, 192, 228
2 CORINTHIANS 2.
18 239
2.
19 231
1.
4 93
EPHESIANS 2. 21 124
1.
8 217, 220 3.
9 126
1.
9 145 1. 1 228 3.
16 181, 182
1.
17 210 1.
6 93 3. 17 181, 183
2.
7 193 1.
10 107 3.
18 163
2.
13 145, 220 1. 13 67,68 4. 6 183
4.
8 237 1. 15 236 4. 15 48
4.
8, 9 231 1. 16 159
5.
3 115 1. 17
55, 196
5.
4 107 2. 5, 8 127 1 THESSALONTIANS
5.
19 212, 227 2. 11 84, 236
6.
9 114
2. 15 103 2.4 231
7.
5 145, 182, 225 3. 4 117 2.
12 219
8.
6 219 3. 8 236 2.
16 219
8.
7 179 3. 16 55 3.
1 231
8.
11 217 3.
17 182 3.2 68
8.
18 68
4. 1 84, 93, 236 3.
5 163, 201
8.
23 105 4.2, 3 181 3. 8 168
8.
24 181
4. 2 f 182 3.
11 179
9.
11 182 4. 26 125 4.
9 219
9.
11, 13 181 4.
28 127 4.
14 149, 162
10.
2 212
5. 18 126 4.
15 191
10.
9 167 5. 22 181 4.
17 14
10.
14
68 5. 33 179 5.
3 191
11.
1 200 6.
13 115 5.
4 210
11.
2 160 6. 22 135
11.
5 239 2 THESSALONIANS
11.
16 178
11.
21 212 PHILIPPIANS
11.
25 144, 145, 148 1.5 236 2. 2 212
12.
2 101, 229 1. 5 178 2.3 178
12.
9 130 1.
30 179 2. 17 179
12.
17 144 2.
1 59 3. 5 179
12.
19 119 2.
12 174 3.
6 52
3.
5 171 2. 23 167 3.
13 124
256 INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.
1 TIMOTHY HEBREWS-continued 1
PETER-continued
PAGE PAGE PAGE
1. 13 230 7. 27 90 2.
15 53
2. 6 105 8. 6 56 2.
18 181
4. 14 125 8. 9 74 2.
24 237
4. 15 184 8. 10 107, 224 3. 1, 7 181
5. 1 124, 125 9. 12 51, 132 3. 1, 7, 9, 15, 16 182
5. 13 229 9. 18 143 3. 3 236
5. 22 125 10. 1 58, 225 3. 7 181
5. 23 125 10. 14 127 3. 8 f. 180
6. 3 171 10. 16 107, 224 3. 14 196
10.
17 190 3. 17 196
10.
28 114 4. 3 11
2
TIMOTHY 10. 35 124 4.
7 181
11.
1 231 4.
8 ff. 181
1.
8 124, 125 11. 3 219 4.
11 181
1.
11 234 11.4 224 4.
12 125
1.
12 204 11.
5 217 4.
17 217
1.
16, 18 195 11.
12 230 4.
18 150
1.
18 78, 236 11. 15 204 5.
7 181
2.
19 113 11.
17 129, 142, 143, 238
2.
25 55, 193, 194 11. 21 114
11.
28 144 2 PETER
11.
32 237
TITUS 11.
33 116 1.
1 84
11.
34 116 1.
9 171
1.
11 171 11.
35 224, 231 1.
10 191
1.
12 88, 233 12. 7 82 1.
12 230
2.
2-10 179 12.
15 178 1.
18 222
2.
13 84 12.
25 124, 200 1.
19 47, 169, 228
3.
8 207 13. 5 182 2.
5 97
13.
6 150 2.
14 47, 74
13.
9 125 2. 22 155, 156, 238
PHILEMON 13.
24 237 3. 16
88
20
195
JAMES 1
JOHN
HEBREWS 1.
1 179 1. 3 143
1.
11 135 1.
9 210
1.1 107 1.
13 74 2.
19 148, 201
2.
10 106 1.
24 135, 139, 144 2. 24 69
2.
15 215 2.
1 125 4. 1 125
3-
5 151 2. 25 230 4. 2 229
3.
8, 15 124 3.
4 230 4. 3 171
3.
12 74, 178, 193 3. 13 93 4.
16 68
3.
16 36 4.
2f. 160 5.
3 211
4.
1 185 5. 16 156 5.10 171
4.
3 230 5. 17 217 5.
15 160, 168
4.
7 124
5.
1 218
5.
7 102 1 PETER 2
JOHN
6.
41 66
6.
6 230 1.
2 82 7 229
6.
10 204, 210 1. 8 231. 232 8 . 50,
116
7.
1 224 1. 10 f. 115 10 125
7.
2 224 1. 14 181
7.
5 53 1.
18 84 3
JOHN
7.
8 114 1. 24 135
7.
9 204 2. 10 231 4 236
7.
13 143 2.
11 91, 181 , 5 116
7
24 212 2.
12 181, 182 6 228
INDEX TO QUOTATIONS. 257
JUDE REVELATION-continued
REVELATION-Continued
PAGE PAGE PAGE
1 103
3.16 114 11. 18 118
5 230 4. 4 36 12.
4 114
4.
9 168 12.6 59
5.
5 125 12.
7 106, 217. 218
5.
7 143, 145 12. 9 233
REVELATION 6. 6 125 13. 8,
12 237
7
. 1 36 14.4 168
1. 4 9 7. 2 237 14.8 135
I. 5 9, 12 7. 3 125 14.
13 114, 248
1.
16 36 7.
9 237 14.
20 102
1.
20 9 7.
14 145 17.3 65
2.
2 56 8. 1 168 18.
2 134, 135
2.
3, 5 52 8.
4 75 18. 14 190, 192
2.
4 52 8.
5 143, 145 18.
22 192
2.
5, 16 75 8.
6 190 19. 3 145
2.
7 85 9. 11 69, 233, 235 19.
10 178
2.
13 12 9.
12 58 20.
2 233
2.
26 69 9.
14 36 20.
4 130
2.
27 145 9.
20 210 20.
8 237
3.
2 114 10. 2 225 21.
12, 14. 225
3.
3 63, 143, 145 10.4 125 21.13. 73
3.
5 104 10. 10 111, 115 21.
21 105
3.
8 237 11. 5 187 21. 27 241
3.
15 200 11. 17 52, 145 22.9 178
(b) OLD
TESTAMENT.
N.B.-The numbering of the
chapters is according to the English Ilible ; where
the
LXX differs, the numbers are added in brackets. So with titles of
Books.
PAGE PAGE PAGE
Gen. 1. 10 46
1 Sam. (1 K.) 1.11 191 Ca. 8. 1 194
“ 3.
10 161 “ 9.
9 235 Isai.
5. 27 189
“ 4. 24 98
“
13. 15 14 “ 14. 31 176
“ 6.
17 49 2 Sam. (2 K.) 18. 33
194 “ 28. 16 68
“ 8.
13 237 “
20. 20 240 “
33. 24 185
“ 21.
26 241 “
21. 24 50 “
53.5 143
“ 24. 11 162 1
Chr. 11. 19 240 Jer. 9. 2 194
“ 43. 16 63 Job
22. 3 168 “
31 (38). 33. 107
“ 43. 23 240 “ 24. 12 . 88 Ezek. 26. 131 192
“ 45. 8 94 “ 30. 20 147 Dan. 10.
13, 20 217
Ex. 1. 16 54 “ 31. 31 198 Hos.
11. 1 138
“ 3. 14 228 “ 31. 35 194
“ 32. 1 142 Ps.
6. 9 174
Num. 11. 29 194 “ 32 (31). 3 147 APOCRYPHA
Deut. 23. 1 163 “ 120 (119). 3 194
“ 28.
24 ff. 194 “ 141 (140). 1 147 Esth. 13. 3 198
Jos.
1. 11 70 Prov.
3. 5 226 “ 14.
3 54
“ 17.
13 76 “ 9.
12 . 88, 89 2
Mac. 3. 16 16
Judg.
9. 29 194 “ 22.
7 88 “ 9. 24 194
“ 9.
53 112 “ 27.
15 88 “ 12.
4 167
Ruth
1. 9 194 Eccles.
2. 16 70 4 Mac.
5. 13 198
258 INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.
(c) INSCRIPTIONS.
Archiv
Archiv fur Papyrusforschung, ed. U Wilcken.
PAGE PAGE PAGE
iii. 129 14
Audollent
Defixionum Tabellae, ed. AudollentParis, 1904).
no.
15 234 no. 92 195 I no. 189 234
BCH
Bulletin de Correspondance
Hellenique.
1888,
p. 202 234 1902, p. 21 196 1903, p. 335 234
Cauer
Delectus inscriptionum Graecarum, proper dialectum memorabilium2,
ed.
P. Cauer (
no.
32 214 no. 157 214 no. 220. 214
47 214 171 214 264. 178, 214
122-5 214 179 214 431 214
148 214
Cooke
North Semitic Inscriptions, by G. A. Cooke (
no.
110 236 no. 113 236
IMA
Inscriptiones Maris Aegaei, ed. von artringen and Paton.
iii.
174 167 iii. 325 100 iii. 1119 61
JHS
Journal of Hellenic Studies (Hellenic
Society).
xix.
92 . 86 xxii.
369 7, 220 xxv.
63 239
xix.
299 93
xxiii. 85 240
Letronne
(or Letr.)
Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines
de l'Egypte, ed. Letronne
(1842).
no.
117 159 no.
198 102 no.
557 240
149 60 221 240 vol.
ii. p. 286 240
190 102
Magn.
Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander, ed. 0. Kern (
no.
47 52 no. 114 64 no. 215 198
Michel
Recueil d'inscriptions grecques, ed. C. Michel (Brussels,
1900).
no.
32 64 no. 357 214 no. 694. 46, 101, 214
41 32
370 216 1001 101, 214
54-6 214 417 214 1333 214
60 214
416 214 1409 55
182. 214
565 38 1411 55
197 214
INDEX TO QUOTATIONS. 259
OGIS
Orientis Graeci Inscriptrones Sel ectae,
ed. Dittenberger (Leipzig, 1903-5).
PAGE PAGE PAGE
no.
17 64 no. 87 64 no.
435 101
41 216 90 102, 167, 216 665 121
54 105 219 238 710 76
56 73 383 21 751 150
Ramsay, C. and B.
Cities and Bishoprics of
ii.
380 239 ii. 472 240 ii. 535-8 240
391 239 477 239 537 234
392 240 485 238 559 f. 240
394 239 497 48 565 56
530 239
Roberts-Gardner
Introduction to Greek Epigraphy, vol. The Inscriptions of
E. S. Roberts
and E. A. Gardner (
p.
179 212 p. 258 (no. 97) 234
Viereck SG
Sermo Graecus quo Senatus Populusque Romanus . . . usi sunt, by P.
Viereck (
pp.
12, 13, 21 101
(d)
PAPYRI.
Archiv (see under (c) above)
iii.
60 17 iii. 173 236
BM
Addenda.)
Vol.
i. nos. 1-138.
no.
18 52 no. 23 220 no. 42 240
20 167 41 52 130 236
21 196,
208
Vol. ii. nos. 139 fr.
no.
177 236 no.239 93 no. 401 239
220 234 301 195 417 70
233 169 336 80 970 17
BU
Griechische Urkunden, from the
Vol. i. nos.
1-361 (1895).
no.
16 244 no. 114 239 no. 225 234
18 220 136 146 226. 220
31 60 151. 229 243 220
36 220 163 144 297 248
46 220 164 220 303 240
48 179 183 227 321 220
69 75 195 220 326. 59, 169, 187
98 230 197 177 361 231
260 INDEX TO
QUOTATIONS.
BU-continued.
Vol.
ii. nos. 362-696 (1898).
PAGE PAGE PAGE
no.
362. 14 no. 457 220 no. 607 36, 168
366 84 531 208 623 96
368 84 537 234 625 177, 208, 220
371 84 546 168 632 159
395 84 577 60 651 220
424 168 592 101 665. 219, 236
449 86 595 220
Vol. iii. nos. 697-1012 (1903).
no.
731 220 no. 830 219 no.
948 11
741. 196 836 101 970 103, 159, 235, 236
747 220 845 220 997 60
775 160 887 75 998 107
814 142, 177 925 236 1002 60
822. 93 926 54
Vol. iv. nos. 1013 ff. (in
progress).
no.
1013 60 no. 1040 236 no. 1053 161
1015 238 1041 75 1055 161
1031 220 1044 97 1057 80
1033 51 1050 103 1059 235
1036 . 60 1052 91 1079 107, 178
Ch P
Greek Papyri from the
no.
3 162 no. 4 230 no. 15 101
CPR
Corpus Papyrorum Raineri, ed. C. W ssely (
no.
4 223 no.
25 169 no. 156 220
19 212, 239 28 127 237 169
24 127, 169
Eudoxus
Papyrus of the astronomer Eudoxus,
ed. Blass 78, 91
PFi
Florence Papyri, ed. Vitelli and
Co paretti (
no.
2 76, 220 no. 5 106 no.
24 53
50 239
HI P
Heidelberg Papyri (mainly LXX),
ed. G. A. Deissmann (1905).
no.
6 196
KP
Papyri from Karanis, ed. E. J. Goodspeed (
no.
37 60 no. 46 72
LP
Papyri graeci Musei antiquarii publici Lugdunai - Batavi, ed. C.
Leemans
(1843).
B 195, 220 E 159 U 60, 237
C . 50 G 45 W 79, 195, 197, 245
INDEX TO QUOTATIONS. 261
MP
Papyri from Magdola, in BCH 1902 ff., ed Lefebvre.
PAGE PAGE PAGE
no.
16 105 no. 20 105
1
no. 25 100, 239
Mithras Liturgy
Eine Mithrasliturgie, by A. Dieterich (
p.
12 54 p. 17 40
NP
Geneva Papyri, ed. J. Nicole, 2
vols. (1896-1906).
no.
1 229 no. 19 142 no. 53 55
7 208 47 101 67 80
16 220 49 228 69 80
17 193 51 188
Par P
Paris
Papyri, in Notices et Extraits,
xviii. part 2, ed. Brunet
de Presle (1865).
no.
5 228, 246 no. 26 60, 167, 168 no. 46 167
8 226 28 62
47 200
10 234 35 72 48 6,
53
13 231 36 107 49 17, 103, 193, 205
14 231 37 72 51 85, 121, 208
15 59, 73, 240 40 231, 244 60 46,
84
18 12, 168 42 179 62 46,
168
22 60, 62, 110 44 229 63 14, 61, 99, 198, 223
Path P
Papyri from Pathyris, in Archiv ii. 514 ff., ed. de Ricci.
no.
1 223
PP
Flinders Petrie Papyri, ed. J.
P. IVIahaffy (in Proc. Royal Irish Acad., 3 vols.,
1891-1905). (See
Addenda.)
i.
no. 13 168 ii. no. 19 223
ii.
no. 37 93
TP
no.
I
75, 103, 197, no. 3 231 no.
8 231, 237
229, 231, 246
5 159
The following collections are
(with one exception) from the publications of
the
Egypt Exploration Fund ; the papyri were discovered and mainly edited
by
B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt :—
RL
Revenue Laws of Ptolemy and Philadelphus, ed. Grenfell and Mahaffy
(
col.
29 93 col. 38 103 col. 51 248
G
An Alexandrian, Erotic. Fragment, agul other Greek Papyri, chiefly
Ptolemaic,
ed. Grenfell
(1896).
no.
18 234 no. 30 223
no.
35 223
262 INDEX TO
QUOTATIONS.
GH
Greek Papyri, series II. (1897).
PAGE PAGE PAGE
no.
14 54 no. 26 91,
223 no.
38 169
15 84
36 106, 159 46 48
OP
Oxyrhynchus
Papyri.
Vol.
i. nos. 1-207 (1898).
no.
6 70 no. 67 204 no. 99 84
34 169 69 220 105 169
41 106 71 199 113 160
60 199 82 220 119
28, 64, 234, 240
86 220 121 97,
208
Vol. ii. nos. 2.08-400 (1899).
no.
237 168, 197, 213, no. 265 45, 64 no. 286 231
220, 240 266 239 292. 54, 79
240 195 275 220 295 123, 156
261 106 285 226 299 85
Vol. iii. nos. 401-653 (1903).
no.
413 175 no. 486 99 no. 526
195, 200, 210
471 231 488 104 527 60
477 63, 141 491 231 528 99, 142, 234
478 146 492 101 530 132, 200
482 142 496 159, 187 531
234
523 103
Vol. iv. nos. 654-839 (1904),
no.
654 130 no. 717 121 no. 738 170
658 99 724
103
742. 76
708 105 725
223
744 123, 208
715 195 726 106, 231 745 91
716 78 727 230, 231 811 . 64
736 170, 216
FP
Fayum Towns and their Papyri (1900).
no.
109 160 no. 118 101 no.
124 73
110 162 121 131 126 168
112 123, 178, 223 122 101 130 169
AP
Amherst Papyri, part ii. (1901].
no.
30 97, 238 no. 93 168
no.
130 86
78 223, 231 99 246 135 17, 77, 208, 246 f.
86 179 113 60 144 240
Tb P
Tebtunis Papyri (
no.
6 123, 169 no.
35 162 no. 64 235
12 103, 223, 234 38 46 69 107
13 131 41 231, 236 72 103, 236
14 99, 223 42 223 82 235
24 79 43 14 98 235
26 86 50 131 104 64, 241
27 78,
103 bis 58 86, 168, 223 105 79, 234, 235, 246
28 169 59 223, 234 107 234
33 78 62 235 124.
235
34 231, 232 63 97 230 72
INDEX TO QUOTATIONS. 263
(e) GREEK LITERATURE.
i.
Classical.
Homer (? x/viii B. C. )
PAGE PAGE PAGE
Iliad i. 1 172 Iliad vi. 284 134 Iliad
xxii. 349 98
i. 137 166, 239 vi. 459
185 xxiv.
38 xvii
i. 587 xvii Odyssey i. 337 55
Pindar (v/B. C. )
Pyth. iv. 189 132
Aeschylus ( v/B. C. )
Prom.
Vinct. 268 f. 249 Prom. Vinct . 447 f. 76 Persae 981 97
358 245
956 f. 134
Sophocles (v/B. C. )
Antigone 114 74 Oedipus Tyrannus Oedipus Tyrannus
542 93 236 73 1068 93
789 202 533 74 1199 84
Oedipus Coloneus 706 149
Philoctetes 300 178
155 179 1141 93
Eris 201 (Dindorf) 97
Euripides (v/B.C.)
Alcestis 386 134 Ion
771 184 Medea 213 f. 135
Bacchae 1065 115 Iph. Taur. 1092 222 822 248
Hecuba 1163 113 1359 58 1320 177
Aristophanes (v/B.C.)
Acharn. 484 227 Ranae 521 70 Thesmophor.1108 188
Pax
291 161 618-622 247
Ayes
1534 247
721 . .
227
Hippocrates (1/B. C. )
Epidem. vii. 51
. 101
Herodotus (v/B. C. )
vi. 32 81 vi. 46 101
Antiphon (v/B.C.)
Frag. M. 3. 67
227
Thucydides (v/B. C.)
iv. 54 227
[Xenophon]
(v/B.C.)
De Republ. Athen.
II.
3 31
Xenophon (iv/B. C. )
Plato (iv/B.C.)
Alcibiades 124A 146, Apologia 280 142 Euthydemus
276B 229
238 36B 249
Euthyphro 14E 93
Apologia 18B 202 39A 192
Theaetetus 144B 144
20E 122 Crito
52A 71 Protagoras 312A 192
2 IA 122 44A 141
Republic i. 337B 177
Gorgias
481A 194
Aeschines (iv/B.C.)
In Ctes. 71 245
Demosthenes (iv/B.C.)
Aristocrates 659 177 Meidias 525 186
264
INDEX. TO QUOTATIONS
[Demosthenes]
(?)
PAGE PAGE PAGE
Aristogeiton 797 76
Aristotle
(iv/B.C.)
Poetics 19 172
ii. Hellenistic.
[For the main
writers in this section see also Index III.]
Pseudo-Aristeas (iii/ii B.C.?)
(Wendland's sections)
215 87
Polybius (ii/B.C.) (Hultsch's pages)
50 (i. 41) 85
11004 (xviii. 36) 247 1270 (xxxii. 12) 76
516 (v. 92) 207 1270 (xxxii. I0) 87
Ad Att. vi. 5 178 f.
Dionysius
Halicarnassensis
(i/B. C.)
x. 10 65
Philo
Judaeus (1/A.D.)
De Posteritate De
Opificio Mundi,
Caini, §
145 100
§ 62 96
Flavius
Josephus (1/A.D. ) (Niese's sections)
Antiq. i. 29 237 Antiq. xiv. 317 . 101 c.
Apion. 21 146
ii.
18 26 xx. 169 235 Bell.
ii. 262 235
vii.
202 235
Dionysius Thrax (1/A.D.)
154
Plutarch (1/A.D.)
p. 256D 216
p. 6o8B 246 p. 767 245
[Barnabas] (V/A. D. )
ii. 28 74 v. 13 210
Clement of
ad Cor. 17 38
ad Cor. 21 95
Ignatius (ii./A. D. )
Bph, cc. 3 and 11 215
Justin Martyr (ii/A.D.)
44, 60, 62, ii. 2 143
Epistle to Diognetus (ii/A.D. ?)
c. 7 76
c. 9 246
Aelian (ii/A.D. )
N.A. viii. 12 79, 245
Arrian (ii/A.D.)
Epictetus ii. 2. 16 210 iv. I. 39 247 iv. 1. 41
Lucian (ii/A.D.)
Dialogi
Marini, Dialog:
Mortuorum, Pisator
6 144
iv.3
76, 87
xxiii. 3 xvii
Marcus
Aurelius (ii/A. D. xxiii,
3
vi. 42 76 vii. 13 87 viii.
50 185
265 INDEX TO
QUOTATIONS
Ascensio
Isaiae (ii/A.D.)
PAGE PAGE PAGE
12 59
Aquila (ii/A. D.)
Gen. i. 1 13
Clement of
Paedagogus 193
Doctrina Apostolorum (ii/A.D. ?)
i. 5 188
[Clement] (iii/A.D. ?)
Homilies
iii. 69 177 Homilies xv. 8 80
John Chrysostom (iv/A.D.)
ix. 259B 229
on Ro 520 207
Isocrates (Argument to—vi/A.D.)
Busiris 212
Areopagiticus 212
Pelagia
Legende der hl.
Pelagia, ed.
Usener . 242, 244,
245, 246, 247, 249
Apocrypha
in
Preuschen's Antilegomena (ed. 1)
Gosp. acc. to He- Ebionite Gospel Gospel of Peter 35
brews, no. 4 no. 2b (p. 9) 17 (p. 16) 97
(p. 4) 17
in Tischendorf's Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha
Acts
of Philip 36 Acts of Thomas 41
(p. 92) 97 (p. 224)
246
iii. Modern.
Abbott
Songs
of Modern
p. 22, 26 121 p. 70 12 p. 222 119
42 85,
170 128 f. 102 224. 162
44
106, 121 184 91 228 157
56 38 200 169
Pallis (see p. 30 n1.)
title 102 Mt 2211 232
Lk 2016 240
Mt 111 17
Lk 642 232 Jn 1012 232
(f) LATIN.
Pro
Archia 23 242
Vergil
Eclogues vii. 16 218 Aepeid
vii. 125 13
Livy
ix. I 58
Juvenal
iii. 6o f. 5
II. INDEX OF GREEK WORDS
AND FORMS.
a : for au 47-a to h in Koinh<-pure in the circumstances" or "in that
Attic 33, 38, 244-a in MGr dialects case" 166, 201-in protases= e]a<n 43,
32, 243-a in Vocative 48 n. 167-dropped in compounds 168, 249
]Abba< 10, 233 --in compounds meaning -soever
a]gaphto<j 221 166, 168-with indic. 168--with o!j
a]ggareu<w written e]gg- 46 43, 240-with subjunctive 166, 168,
a@gein: 1st aor. 56, 76--action in future 186-w[j a@n 167, 169—ei]
mh<ti a@n
169,
149—a@gwmen 175, 177—a@ge 171, 238
239-distinction of pres. and aor.
--a]gh<oxa, etc. 154 subj. 186
]Agou?stoj. 47 a@n: in apodoses 166-tends to drop out
a]gwni<zesqai: perfective compound
116 167, 198, 200 f.-esp. with e@dei et
--pres. imper. 174 sim.
200-with indic. 106-with opt.
a]dikei?n voices 162 166, 198--in LXX 197--Potential
a]du<natoj 221 Opt. with a@n not found thus in NT
a]ei< 233 179, 197
ai, e: identity of sound 34, 51, 56, a@n: in questions with
optative 198 f.
199--caused vv. 11. 35 a]na<: frequency 98, 100--distributive
ai]rei?n voices 158 f. 100, 105—a]na> me<son 99, 100—a]na>
ai@rein pres. and perf. ptc. 222 me<roj. 100
ai]sxu<nesqai c. infin. 205 a]nabai<nein with infin. 205
ai]tei?n: voices 160—with
i!na 207--and
a]nagka<zein in imperf. 129, 247
e]rwta?n
66 a]na<qema 46
ai]fni<dioj or e]fnid. 35 a]nasi?
for –sei<ei 45
a]kata<pastoj 47, 74 a]nasta<j pleonastic 14, 230
a]kh<koa 154 a]nastre<fesqai in ethical sense, no
Heb-
a]kou<ein: c. e]ko^? 14, 75-c. accus. and raism 11
gen. 66, 235, 245--future forms 154 a]ne<&ga 154
--perfect 154 a]nq
] e$n 100
a[leei?j spelling 45 a]noi<gein: h]noi<ghn 2 aor. 56-intransi-
a]lei<fein voice 236 tive perfect of 154
a]lla< and ei] mh< 241 a@nomoj c. gen. 236
a]llh<louj and e[autou<j 87, 157 n. a]nti<: meaning 100--frequency
98, 100
a@lloj and e!teroj 79 f., 246 --with anarthrous infin. 81, 216-
a!ma 99
compared with u[pe<r 105
a[marta<nein future 155 ]Anti<paj flexion of 12
a[mei<nwn 78 a@cioj: with anarthrous infin.
203-with
a]mfi< disappearance of 100 tou? c. infin. 216
a]mfo<teroi: supplants a@mfw 57--of more a]ciou?n: with infin. 205, 208 --with
than two 80 o!pwj in papyri 208
-an accus. ending 49 a@cai 1st aor. of a@gw 56, 76
-an: in 2nd aor. 51-in
perfect 37, 52 a]pa<gxesqai reflexive 155
--in imperfect 52 a]panta?n: c. dat. 64-future 154
-a?n
(not %?n) in infin. 53 a]pa<nthsij 14, 242
a@n: history 165 f., 239--statistics for a]pekatesta<qhn double augur. 51
LXX and NT 166 f.--replaced by a]pelpi<zein c. acc. 65
e]a<n
42, 166, 186, 234 a]pe<rxesqai: meaning
"arrive" 247--
a@n: iterative 167 f.--moaning "under a]pelqw<n
266
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND
FORMS. 267
a]pe<xein action 247 a@fide et sim, 44
a]po<: frequency 98--outnumbers e]k 102 a]fie<nai: aoristic or iterative present
--partitive 72, 102, 245--with ad- 119-a]fe<wntai history of form 38--
verbs 99--relations with e]k,
para<, relation to a]fi<entai 119—a]fei<j pleo-
576 237--agent after pass. 102, 246 nastic 14—a@fej independent and
enlargement of use 102, 237, 246- auxiliary 175 f.--c. i!na 175 f.-c.
with kaqaro<j 102--with fobei?sqai inf. 176--c. imper. 1st pers. 175--
102-forces in composition 112, 247 a]fi<etai, a]fi<hsi 152 –a]fh?ka 119,
c. nom. (o[ w@n) 9, (12) 137 n., 140, 145
a]pogra<fesqai voice 162 a]fiknei?sqai function of perfective a]po<
a]podhmei?n pres. and aor. 130 in 247
a]poqn^<skein: perfective 112, 114,
120 a@ficij later meaning of 26
--u[po< tinoj 156--future 155--for ]Axaioi< prehistoric form of 184
future 114, 120--action in pres. and a@xri 169
aor. 112, 114—te<qnhka
114, 147 -a<w verbs: relations with –e<w 33, 37 (bis),
a]pokalu<ptein 136, 139 f. 53--subj. of 54--2 s. mid. –a?sai 53
a]poko<ptesqai voice and meaning 163
a]pokri<nesqai aorist 39, 161-a]pokriqei>j , b pronunciation 33
ei#pe 14, 131 Ba<al gender of 59
a]pokru<ptein: force of aorist 136,
139 -bai<nein: aorist 110--future mid.
155
a]poktei<nein 114, 156 ba<llein: action in pres. and
aor. 109,
a]po<llusqai: perfective in present
114
130—e]blh<qh timeless aor. 134-
-intrans. perf. act. 154—o[
a]]pollu<- blhte<on 222
menoi 114 (bis), 127 bapti<zesqai: voice 163—o[ bapti<zwn
a]polou<esqai voice 163 127
a]posterei?sqai voice 162 basileu<ein action in pres. and aor.
109,
a]poxwrei?n, ingressive force in
present 130
174 basta<zein flexion 56
a]pwqei?sqai voice 157 belti<wn, 78, 236
-ar- = vocalic r 119 n. bia<zesqai voice 163
a]riqm&? = "carefully
counted" 76 ble<pein: b. a]po< 107-b.
mh< 124,
178,
a@risto<j 78 f. 193—ble<pontej
ble<yete
14, 76
a]rketo<n c. i!na 210 blhte<on 222
a]rmo<zesqai voice 160 bou<lesqai c. inf. 205
a[pra<zein: flexion 56--future 155--per-
bou?j 48
fective in sun- 113
a]rrabw<n spelling 45 g pronunciation 33
a@rxesqai: pleonastic use of h@rcato 14 f. gamei?n voices 159
--present stem an old aorist? 119-- ge<gona: aoristic 145, 238, 239-
c. inf. 205--c. partic. 228—a]rca<menoj =ei]mi? 146—ge<gonan 52 n.
240--no perfective compounds 117 ge<grafa 154
-arxoj and -hj 48
-a?j
as nouns in,
with gen. –a?doj
or a?,
38 ge<nhma spelling 45
-a?sai in 2 s. pres. mid. 53 f. genna?sqai 120
-asi 3 pl. perf. yielding to
-an
52 f.-- geu<esqai c. gen. and ace. 66, 245
h!kasi
53 gi<nesqai: orthography 47 –gi<netai,
a]spa<zesqai: aoristic use of pres.
119 futural 120 (bis)--original action of
--action of a]spasa<menoj 132, 238 pres. and aor. 109 f.--its imper. 180
a]ste<rej as accus. 36 --development of constr. with e]ge-
a]su<netoj 222 neto 14, 16 f.—e]ge<neto with ludic.
a]su<nqetoj 222 16 f.-with kai< and indic. 16 f., 70-
a]sfalh?n accus. 49 e]ge<nteo o~te 16—e]ge<neto
h#lqe 12, 16
a]to<j for au]to<j 47 --e]ge<neto c. inf. 16 f.—e]genh<qh 139 f.
au: pronounced au in late Greek 234-- --mh>
ge<noito
194, 240, 249—gena<-
changed to a 47 menoj 51—ge<gona 52-intrans. perf.
au]to<j: emphatic in nom. 85 f.--replac- act.
154-aoristic 145, 238, 239-
ing e]kei?noj 86--with article,
weaken- = ei#nai? 146
ing of, 91—au]to>j
o[, o[ au]to<j
91- ginw<skein: orthography 47--action
of
au]tou?, gen. of place 73 pres. and aor. 113--of perfect 148--
au[tou<j 87 future mid. 155-forms gnoi? aor.
a(u])xmhro<j subj. 55, 196—gnw<^ 193--relation to
a]feirhme<noj 35 e]piginw<skein 113
268 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND FORMS.
gra<fein: form of root
110-perfect 154 e]a?n c. inf. 205
--c. i!na in Polybius and NT 207 f. e]auto<n: reciprocal in plural
87-re-
gunh< survival of vocative 71 placed by yuxh< 87, 105 n.—e[autou?
and i@dioj 87, 89—e[aut&? (-oi?j) c. act.
d pronunciation of 33 compared with middle 157—e[autou<j
de< with article as demonstrative 81 and a]llh<louj 87, 157 n.
dei?sqai, in petitions 173 e@bhn 110
de<on e]sti< 226 e]ggareu<w 46
deu?ro, deu?te 172 e]ggu<j c. gen. and dat. 99
deu<teroj 96 e]gei<rein: with ei]j 71 f.-perfect and
dhlou?n c. i!na in papyri 208 aor. 137, 141—e]gerqei<j pleonastic
dia<: frequency 98, 104 f.--with acc. 14—e]gh<gertai 137, 141--voices 163
and gen. 105 f.--with accus. only in e@gnwka 148-e@gnwn 113
MGr 106--with gen. contrasted with e@gw<: emphasis in nom. 85-replaced
e]k, u[po< 106--perfective action
in by h[mei?j 86 f., 246
composition 112 f., 115 f.,
118 e]de<eto 54
diagra<fein aor. and perf. 247 f. e@dei: with dropped a@n 200-c.
i!na 210
dialu<ein voices confused 159 --app. replaced by h#n 16
diameri<zesqai voice 157 -e<deto 55
diaporeu<esqai 113 e]do<qhj, history of suff. 161
diapragmateu<sasqai 118 e]doliou?san 52
diarrhgnu<nai voices 157 -e<doto 55, 161
diasafei?n c. i!na in Polybius 207 e@qhka 145
diathrei?n 116 ei,
i, h, ^, oi:
approximating sounds
dife<rein c. gen. 65 34, 41, 46 f., 51, 199 n.--caused
diafugei?n 112, 116 vv.ll.
35
diafula<cai 116 ei]: relations with e]a<n, 187-with indic.
dido<nai: not used in middle 153--forms 187-replaced by participial clause
after -w and –o<w verbs 55-doi?j,
doi? 230-with
imperf. indic. 201--with
aor. subj. 55, 196--dwh 55, 193 f., future 187--with pres. indic. to
196, 198-in LXX 194 n.—d&? 55-- express future conditions 187--with
dw<s^ 151--action in pres. and
aor. past indic. 187--with subj. 187--
129-do<menai and do<men 207 ei] . . . a@n in illiterate Greek 239--
die<rxesqai pres. used for future 120 with optative
196--expressing a wish
diw<kein: compared with
perfective 112, 196--in questions 194--"to see if"
116--action of aor. 116--future in 194—ei] ou] with indic. 171, 187,
200,
act. form 154 240- ei] mh< 171, 241—ei]
mh<ti a@n 169,
dokei?n 15 239
do<ca -hj 48 ei#don: aor. 109, 111, 138 f.,
141--
dra<ssesqai c. acc. 65 edited i@don 47
du<nasqai: flexion 55—du<n^ 54--c. inf. ei]dui<hj 38
205 ei]ka<j 96
dunato<j c. infin. 203 f. ei]ko<nej, 70, 235
du<nein no perfective 117 ei@lhfa aoristic ? 145, 154, 238
du<o: flexion 57—de<ka du<o 96, 246-- ei#mi. Attic use as future 120
--ordinal 96-(a]na>) du<o du<o 21, 97 -ein in pluperfect 53
dusba<staktoj 56 ei#
mh<n, 46
dw<deka 96, 246 ei#nai flexion 55 f.--middle
forms 33,
36 f., 55 f.--imperf.: h#n (lst s.) 56,
e thematic vowel 171 h@mhn, 56, 201—h#n for ^# 49, 168, 187
e- augment 128, 129 -h#sqa and h#san as subjunctive--
e and ai: sounded alike 34, 51,
56,
no aorist 110, 174, 201--future 16,
199-caused vv.ll. 35 180-inf. c. me<llein 151, 204-im-
e]a<n for a@n after o!j, etc. 42 E, 49 n., per. forms: i@sqi 174, 180, 226-
166, 186, 234--history of 234-c. e@stw (h@tw) e@stwsan 180—este<
indic. 168, 187 (bis)--with futuristic 180-infin. a dative 202.-Action
subj. 185-with dependent clauses 110—ei#nai ei]j 71--use of o[
w@n 228,
185--with mh< as negative 185, 187- cp. 9 n.--imperf. and imper. in para-
relations with ei] 187--replaced by phrases with participle 14 f., 225-
ei] . . . a@n in illiterate Greek 169, 227, 249 -- as copula understood
239--replaced by participial clause 183 E. 225--with adjectives 180, 182
229 f. --perhaps used for e@dei 16
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND FORMS. 269
ei[[
51—su> ei#paj 86—ei#pen and e@legen e]ntre<pesqai c. accus. 65
128 e]nw<pion 99
ei@rhka aoristic 145 e]cai<fnhj, e]ce<fnhj 35
ei]j: frequency 62, 98--meaning 66, e]cista<nai action of aorist 134
72—ei]j to> o@noma 100--with a]pa<nthsin e]co<n: accus. abs. 74—e]co>n
h#n 227—ou]k
14, 242-- forming predicate with e]co<n 231 n.
ei#nai,
etc. 71 f., 76--in place of gen. e]couqenein and e]coudenou?n 56
and dat. 246--encroaches on e]n 62 f., e@cw. See e@xein
66, 234 f., 245--replaced by e]n 245 e@oika 154
--relation with e]pi< 68--with infin. e]pa<nw, 99
anarthrous 81, 216—ei]j
to< c.
infin. e]
218-220 e]pe<rxesqai c. dat. 65
ei$j: as ordinal 95 f., 237--as indef. e!pesqai: deponent 153--late use
c. gen.
art. 96 f.—o[ ei$j 97—ei$j and tij 97-- 245
distributive use 105—ei$j
to>n e!na re-
e]pi<: with three cases 63, 107--fre-
ciprocal 246 quency 63 n., 98, 107-with adverbs
ei#ten 46 99—e]f ] a!pac 99—e]f
] &$,
107—e]pi> to>
ei@wqa 52 au]to< 107--perfectivising 113--with
ei@wqa 154 articular inf. in inscriptions 214--
e]k: frequency 98--survival into MGr relation with ei]j 68
102, 246--partitive 72, 102--of e]pibalw<n 131
material 246--joined with adverbs e]piginw<skein 113
99—swqei>j e]k and qeo>j
e]k qeou? 102-- e]piqumei?n: aorist 139-c. acc. and
gen.
perfectivising 237--relations with 65-c. inf. 205.
arb 102, 237--with dia< (gen.) 106-- e]pitre<pein c. inf. 205.
with para< and u[po<
102, 237 e]pifa<neia 102 n.
e]kaqeri<sqh, 56. e]pixeirei?n c. inf. 205
e]kato<ntarxoj and -hj 48 e]poi<hsen and e]poi<ei, in sculptors' sig-
e]kdikei?n action in pres. 180 natures, 109, 128
e]kei?noj sometimes replaced by au]to<j 91 e@poj 111
e]kle<gesqai voice 157 e[pta<: for e[pta<kij 98, 107--arising from
e]kdikei?n 162 a gloss on Ircevas? 246
e]kru<bh 156, 161 e]rauna?n, orthography 46
e]kto>j ei] mh< 187, 239 e]rga<zesqai: perfective 113--pres.
and
e@labon 139 (bis),
145, 247 aor. 116
e]laiw<n or e]laiwn, 49, 69, 235 e]rre<qhn 111
e]la<sswn 79 e@rrwso (-sqe) 176
e]la<xistoj 79, 236—e]laxisto<teroj 236 e@rxesqai: voice forms 154—h#lqon 154 n.
e@leoj flexion 60 --e]lh<luqa 154--possible relation
to
e]leuqerou ?n action 149 a@rxesqai 119--followed by dat. in-
e]lh<luqa 154 commodi
75, 245
e]lqw<n, pleonastic 14-16 e]rwta?n: meaning 66-c. inf. or i !na 208
e]lpi<j 44 -ej accus. pl. in 33, 36, 37
e]mo<j and mou 40 f., 211 -ej in perf. and 1st aor. 52
e]mpai<zein fut. 155 -esai in 2 s. mid. 54
e]mptu<ein fut. 154 e@sesqai: c. me<llein 114 n., 151, 205 n.
e]n: statistics 62,
98-instrumental 12, --c. perf. part. 226
61, 104--of time 16-added to dative e]sqh<j flexion 244
75, 104--in anarthrous prepositional e]sqi<ein: flexion 54--why
defective 111
phrases 82, 236--miscellaneous uses --its perfective 111, 116 --future
103 f., 107,
245- = para< (c. dat.) (fa<gomai) 155, 184
103--late Greek use of xvii, 103-- e]sta<qhn, 162 (bis)
e]n Xrist&? 68, 103—e]n e]moi< 103-e]n e@stai 56
toi ?j in the house of 103—e]n
t&? c. e[sta<nai 154—e!staka 55—e!sthka 147
infin. 14, 215, 249--relations
with
154, 238
ei]j 62 f. 66 f., 76, 234 f.,
245 e@stw, e@stwsan 56, 180
e@ndhmoj 105 e[stw<j pleonastic 14
e]negkei?n action 110. See fe<rein e@sxhka. See e@xein
e]nedreu<ein c. accus. 64 e@sxon a 'point' word 110, 145,
247 f.
e]nergei?n: c. accus. 65--voices
156
See e@xein
e]nh<noxa 154 e!teroj 77-and a@lloj
79 f.. 246
270 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND FORMS.
e@ti in a pres. imper. prohibition 125 h[li<koj
93
e@toj 44 h@lpika perf. with pres. force ?
147
eu# poiei?n 228 f.—eu# poih<seij "please" h[mei?j for e]gw< 86, 246
131—eu# pra<ssein 228 f. h[me<ra
Hebraistic
locution 81
eu]dokei?n: c. accus. 64—eu]do<khsa 134 h@mhn, h@meqa 56, 201
eu]lo<ghtoj predicate without ei#nai 180 h#
mh<n 46
eu]odw?tai 54 h@misu indeclinable 50
e[ra<menoj 51 h#n for h@mhn 56
e@fagon 184 n. See e]sqi<ein ^#(n), h#sqa, h#san quasi - subjunctive
e]f ] e[lpi<di 44 49 n., 168, 187
e@fhn 110, 128 -hn ending
"strong" nor. pass. 161
e]fiorkei?n 234 h]noi<ghn, 56
e]fni<dioj 35 h]ciou?san 52
e@fugon, e@feugon 116, 119 h@rcato
use of 14,
15
e]fulaca<mhn 159 h[rpa<ghn,
h[rpa<sqhn
56
e]f ] &$ 107 h#sqa,
h#san
quasi-subj. 168, 187
e]xa<rhn 161 h@tw 56, 180
e@xein: action in pres. 110, 183-ques- h#xoj 60
tion between e@xomen and e@xwmen 35, -h<w verbs almost disappeared
from
110, 247, 249—ei#xan 3 pl. imperf. Koinh< 54
52--action in aorist 110, 247 f.--
e@sxon ingressive in NT 145—e@sxon -q- and -t- interchanged 38
a]po< (para<) sou 110, 246—e@sxhka -qai and -qe pronounced alike 35
aoristic or genuine perfect 145, 238, qauma<sai as ex. of voiceless inf.
203
248-future 150--c. infin. 205—e@sxhka qea?sqai 117
e]sti< 226--relation with a]pe<xein 247 qewrei?n 117
e]xrh?n without a@n 200 qe<lein: c. i!na 179, 208, 248--c. subj.
-e<w and –a<w verbs confused 33, 37 (bis), without i!na 185-c. inf. 248
53 qeodi<daktoj 222
e!wka 38 n. qeo<j and qea<, 60, 244
e[w<raka relations with aorist
141, 143 f. -qhn aorist forms in 161
e!wj: prep. 99—e!wj o!tou 91—e!wj
po<te qn^<skein: action in pres. and aor. 114
107--conjunction c. subj. with de --perfective 112-simplex obsolete
dropped 168 f. except
in perf. te<qnhka 114 (bis)-
qnhto<j 222
F : in Theban Fi<ttw 23—ko<rFh 244-- quga<thr and qu<gater as voc. 71
effect surviving in Attic 38, 244-
nothing to do with phenomena of i sounds, two successive
coalesce 45
irregular aspiration 44 -- dropped i,
h, ^, ei, oi
of approximating sounds 34,
between vowels 47--in Fe<poj and 46 f., 199, 240
Frh?ma 111--in prehistoric form
of -i- reduplicative, verbs
with 109
]Axaioi< 184 -i irrational final 49
i]a?sqai aoristic present 119
-zein verbs in, 33, 56 i]dei?n 116, 117--has no pres.
111--aor.
zesto<j 222 (see ei#don) punctiliar or
constative
zhlou?te subj. 54 116 f., 138
zh?n: flexion 54--infin. used as in- i@dioj: relation to e[autou? 87-90, 237,
declinable noun 215, 249. 246—o[ i@dioj 90 f.—kaq
] i]di<an
44
Zmu<rna 45 i@don orthography 47
i]dou<: statistics 11 n.--"Hebraic"
use
h from a. 33, 38, 244 of 11—kai> i]dou< 17, 233—ou]x
i]dou<,
244
h, ^, ei, i, oi: approximating pro- ]Ieroso<luma fem. and neut. 48, 244
nunciation 34, 41, 199 n., 240-- ]Ihsou?j flexion 49
caused vv. 11. 35 i[
h@: after positive adjective 236--after i!lewj 240
comparatives 101 n. i!na: enlarged sphere in
h]ge<rqhn: tense 137--voice 163 lenistic 41, 205, 211--in Polybius
h@gnmai perf. with pres. force 148 206 f.-in papyri 206, 208--in John
^@dein 55, 201 206, 211, 249--c. indic. fut. 35--c.
h!dista elative 236 subjunctive:
ecbatic use 206-209,
h!kamen, h!kasi 53 249--replaces o!pwj 206--consecutive
h#lqon 138, 140, 154 n. 210, 249--as subject-clause 210 (bis)
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND FORMS. 271
--with nouns and adject. 210-after katamaqei?n 117
verbs of commanding 178, 207 f., 217, kataneoi?n –qnoh?sai 117 (bis)
240-c. parakalei?n 205--after poiei?n, katanta?n effective aor. 132
208—qe<lein 179, 185, 208, 248-a@fej kataponei?n passive 65
175--as a form of imper. 176, 178 f., kata<ratoj: predicate without ei#nai 180
210, 248--with delib. subj. 185-c. --relation with Kar77pa,LGE7/03 221
optative
196 f.--relations with in- katafagei?n: perfective 111, 116--con-
finitive
205 f., 240 f., 248--with tinned by fagei?n 111 n., 115
articular infin. 220—tou?
inf. 217-- katafeu<gein perfective in pres. and
aor.
ei]j to< inf. 218 f. 114, 116
-ij,
-in for –ioj,
-ion 48 f.,
244 kataxei?n: aor. kate<xeen 55
i@sqi: frequency 180--with adject. or kataxra?sqai c. gen. 245
partic. 226 kate<nanti 99
-i<skw inceptive force of 120 katerga<zesqai 113, 116
i[sta<nai: orig. iterative 109--new
pre- katesqi<ein: perfective 111--action
of
sents i[sta<nein and sta<nein 55--voice pres. stem 128-compound continued
forms 154, 162—e!staka 55—e!sthka by simplex 111 n., 115
147, 238—e!sthka and sth<kein 238 kathgorei?n c. accus. in D 235
i@ste indic. or imper. 245 kathrame<noj compared with kata<ratoj
i@stw 23 221
katisxu<ein c. gen. 65
k, x, interchanged 38 kat
] oi#
-ka: aoristic perfects in,
145, 238, 248 kauqh<swmai 151
--relation to strong perfect 154-- kauxa?sai 53
added to passive aor. in MGr 142 ke<kthma 147—kektw?mai 54 n.
kaqareu<ousa. See Index III keleu<ein c. infin. 205
kaqaro>j a]po< 102 ken,
ke< in
Homer 165 f.
kaq
] ei$
105 kefalh< 85
kaq
] e!toj
44 kiqw<n Ionic for xitw<n 38
kaqe<zesqai action 118 kinduneu<ein without perfective in NT
117
kaqh?sqai: apparently pleonastic 241-- klai<ein ingressive aorist 131
no active 153 klei<j flexion 49
kaq
] i]di<an
44 kle<ptein: future 155—o[
kle<ptwn
and
kaqi<zein: action 118—kaqi<sai118-- o[ kle<pthj. 127
kaqi<saj
pleonastic 14 klhronomei?n c. accus. 65
kaqora?n 117 koima?n: survival of true
passive? 162
kaqo<ti with iterative a@n 167 --force of aorist 136, 162
kai<: pronunciation in MGr 243 -- in Koinh<.
See Index III
place of hypotaxis 12—kai>
e]ge<neto komi<zein future 155
14, 16—kai< ge with participle 230-- komyw?j and comparative 248
replaced by ka@n 167 ko<rh history of the Attic
form 38, 244
kai<per with participle 230 kra<batoj spelling 244
kai<toi with participle 230 kra<zein: action of pres. and
perf. stems
kalo>n h#n with a@n dropped 200 147--voice forms 154--perf. imper.
kalw?j poiei?n: c. partic. 131—k.
poih<- in LXX 176
seij
173, 228 katei?n c. accus. and gen. 65,
235
ka@n 167, 169 kra<tistoj as a title 78
kata<: a. gen. and aeons. 104--fre-- krei<ttwn
(krei<sswn) 78
quency 98, 104 f.-- perfectivising kri<ma 46
compounds 111 f., 115, 117--in com- kru<ptein: voices 156, 161
pounds dropped in repetition 115--
in combination with adverbs 99,-- lamba<nein: flexion 56--future 155--
distributive 105—kaq
] ei$j 105—kaq ] ei@lhfa aoristic 145, 238--action of
e!toj
44—kaq ] i]di<an 44 e@labon 247--pleonastic labw<n 230--
katabai<nein 113 voice forms 154
katabarei?n c. accus. 65 lalei?n: "Hebraic"
locution e]la<lhsen
katagwni<sasqai perfective 116 lalw?n 14
katadiw<kein perfective aor. 112, 116 lanqa<nein c. participle 228
katalalei?n c. gen. or in pass. 65 le<gein: action of pres. stem
compared
katalamba<nein act. and mid. 158 with aor. ei]
katalipw<n pleonastic 14 cognate nouns 111—le<gei ]Ihsou? 121
katalu<wn pres. partic. conative
127 --relation of e@legen and ei#pen 128--
272 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND FORMS.
ei]pou?sa and ei@pasa in one verse 131 188--with volitive or deliberative
--ei@rhka possibly aoristic in Rev
145 subj. 184--in
questions with deli-
-le<gein i!na in papyri 208 berative subj. 185--in cautious asset.-
limo<j gender 60 tions (aor.) 188--after e[a<n 185, 181,
logi<zesqai no perfective in NT 117 241--after i!na 178--after o!ra, ble<pe,
lo<go<j compared with durative
stem in etc. 124, 178--in commands after i!na
le<gein 111 in papyri 178 f.—ei]
mh<ti a@n
169, 229
loipou? gen. of time 73 mh<: with optative 179, 193
f., 196-
lou<ein voices 155 f., 238 f. mh<pote 199—mh>
ge<noito
194 f., 240,
lu<ein: injunctive forms 165—lu?sai 202, 249
204 mh<: with infix. 170, 239--after
verbs
Lu<stra flexion 48 cog.
et dic. 239
mh<: with panic. 25, 170,
184, 229,
-qm in lh<myomai 56 232 f., 239-imperatively 180-in
-ma nouns 46 orat. obl. 239
maka<rioj predicate without ei#nai 180 mh>
o!ti, mh> o!ti ge
in papyri 240
manqa<nein: action in pres. and
aor. 117 mh<pote: c. indic. 193--c. opt.
199--
--its perfective 117--c. ptc. or inf. subj. 194
229--c. o!ti clause 229 mh<pwj c. indic. 248
ma<xaira flexion 48 mh<ti. c. indic. in questions
170—mh<tige
ma<xesqai reciprocal middle 157 240
me<gistoj nearly obsolete 78 -mi verbs in, invaded by -w forms 33,
mei<zwn: flexion 49, 50--as
superlative
38, 55 f.
78—meizo<teroj 236 misgein,
mignu<nai,
no perfective in NT
me<llein: no perfective in NT
117--c.
117
pres. and aor.
infin. 114--c. fut. Mu<ra flexion 48
infin. 114, 157, 205 n.
me<n with article as demonstrative 81 -n: movable 45--irrational
final 49—
meta<: c. gen. and accus. only 104-106-- added to 3rd deal. accus. sing. 49
frequency 98, 105--a Semitism in nau?j obsolete in vernacular
25 f.
poiei?n
and megalu<nein e@leoj meta<? ni<ptesqai force of middle 155, 156
xvii, 106, 246 f.--in polemei?n
meta<? noei?n and katanoei?n 117
106, 247--reglations with su<n 106-- nou?j flexion 48
meta> xara?j 249 nukto<j gen. of time 73
metrei?n: perfect 248 Nu<mfan accus. of Nu<fa, not Numfa?j
me<xri and xe<xri ou$ as conjunction with 48
a@n dropped
169
mh<: history of 169-171, 239--differ- ceni<zesqai c. dative 64
ence from ou] 169 f.- ou] mh< see ou]--
often="perhaps" 188, 192 f.--in o,
w:
pronounced alike 35 (quater)-
questions 170, 185, 192 f., 194, 239 confusion of o, co 35 n., 244, 248
--in warnings 178, 184, 248--ex- o[
kai< with
alternative name 83
presses prohibition 169, 192 f., 247 o]duna?sai 53
--in relative sentences 171, 239 oi,
^, i, u, ei
approximating sounds 34
mh<: with Indic.
170 f.--pres. and perf. 199 n., 240
192 f.--future 177 f., 185, 188, 193, oi#da: flexion 55--relation to
ei#don
109
240, 248--after ei] in protases 171, --absence of aorist 201--a "present
241--after o!pwj with fut. [not in perfect"
147 f.--strong perfect 154
NT] 185--after ble<pete 193--after --i@ste indic. or imper.? 245--c.
causal 57--t. 171, 239--p. 7)T-ore 193--in partic. or infin. 229--c. o!ti--clause
questions 170-mh<ti in questions 170 229
--with indic. irrealis
200—e]
in papyri 240--in cautious assertions oi]kodomhme<nh 51
192 f. oi#koj: e]n
oi@k& 82—kat
] oi#kon 81
mh<: with imperative,
pres. 2 p. in -oi?n in infin. 53
prohibitions 122-126, 247--after o!ra oi$oj double use of; 93
124--aorist 3 p. (not with 2 p.) 173, o]li<goj 44
174 o]llu<nai aor. and perfect 147
mh<: with subjunctive,
pres. 1st p. pl. o[mologei?n: with iv 104--with ptc.
or
177--after e]kto>j ei] 187, 239--aorist acc. and inf. 229-with o!ti-clause
2 p. in prohibitions 122-126, 173, 229
178, 185, 188 (bis)--3 p. 178, 184, o]nai<mhn 195
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND
FORMS. 273
o@noma: c. e]n and e]pi<. 68--c. ei]j 100 emphatic negative? 39, 188-190, 192
o]pi<sw 99 --in LXX translating xlo 189--is ou]
o[poi?oj double use of 93 in ou] mh< separate from mh<? 188, 249
o[po<te "when" 168 --in questions 189--c. future 190--
o!pou with a@n 167, 168, 186 c. aor. subj. 190--in relative clauses
o!pwpa 111 189
o!pwj: representing main purpose, fol- ou]ai<: without verb 180--with a]po< 246
lowed by artic. inf. 220--with future ou]de<n replacing ou] 170
imperativally 177--c. fut. with mh< ou]de<n and ou]dei<j 56
for ou] 185--with optative in
Atticists -ou?n infin. 53
197--replaced by i!na with subj. -ou?j –ou?doj nouns 38
177 h.,
178, 206 f. -ou?san 3 pl. imperf. 52
o[ra?n: why defective 110 f.--has no -ou?sqe
and –ou?te subj. 54
aorist 111 (see i]dei?n)--perfect (e[w<raka) ou]x before words with smooth
breath-
durative 111--future mid. (o@yomai) ing 44, 244
155--its compound with kata< 117-- ou]x
o!ti 240
o!ra
mh< 124,
178, 193 o@felon 200 f.
o]rgi<zesqai: no perfective 117, 118--
o]fqalmo<j Hebraistic locution with
81
constative aor. not in NT 118 o]ye< c. gen. 72 f.
o@rnic
45 o@yhsqe 151
o@rqrou baqe<wj gen. of time 73 o@yomai 155
o!j: replaced by ti<j 21, 93--for o!stij -o<w verbs: infin. 53--3 pl.
imperf. 52
91 f.--in indirect question 93-- --pres. subj. 54
attraction 93--reinforced with de-
monstrative 13, 94 f., 237, 249—o!j paqhto<j 222
e]a<n, 42, 234-63 o!j
a@n with aor.
subj. paidi<on: illiterate paidi<n 48—qpaidi<a
186--with future? 240 meaning 170 n.
-osan imperf. and 2nd aor. 52
n. pai?j use of voc. 235
o!soj: double use of 93--c. a@n, 16 pa<lai with present rendered by
our
o!sper 92
perf. 119
o]ste<wn 33, 48 para<: with gen. dat. acc. 63,
106-
o!stij: limited use of 91 f.--use by frequency 98, 106 --with dative
Luke and Matt. 92--for classical almost entirely of persons 103, 106
o!sper 92--replaced by ti<j 93—e!wj --with accus. after positive for com-
o!tou 91 parison 236--with gen. oi[ par ] au]tou?
o!tan: "when" instead of
"whenever" 106 f.-close to a]po<,
e]k, u[po< 237-
168, 248--c. indic. 168, 239--c. encroached upon by a][po< 102, 246-
subj. originally futuristic 185--c. force in composition 247
pres. and aor. subj. 186 paraboleu<esqai c. dative 64
o!ti: for ti< in direct question 94--with
parage<llein: aoristic pres. 119--c.
finite verb replacing accus. and infin. i!na 207
211, 213--replacing
participle 229-- parainei?n c. infin. 205
like w!ste? 209 f.--consecutive
249-- parakalei?n c. infin. and i!na c. subj.
replaced by w[j and pw?j 211—o!ti
mh< 205, 208 n.
171, 239—o!ti ou] 171—mh< o!ti 240-- parapi<ptein 247
ou]x o!ti 240—w[j o!ti 57--c 212 paraplh<sion 99
ou], ou]k, ou]x: relation to mh< 169-171-- paraskeua<zesqai force of middle 156
negatives a fact 232--or a single parela<bosan 52
word 171, 232--in LXX translating pare<xein irreg. middle 248
xlo 189, 232--in questions
170, 177 parista<nein pres. and aor. 129
--with futuristic subj. originally 184 pa?j: "Hebraistic"
245 f.--after a@neu,
--c. indic. 170—ei] ou] in simple con- xwri<j 246
ditions 171 (ter), 187, 200, 240--in pa<sxein voice forms 154
unfulfilled conditions (indic. irrealis) path<r: anarthrous 82 f.--vocative
71,
200 -- with future 177 -- impera- 245
tival use in questions 177--c. optative, peiqarxei?n c. dat. and gen. 64
197--c. participle 25, 171, 230-232
--in relative sentences 171 -voice forms 154—pe<peismai as a
ou] mh<: statistics 35, 187-192--weakened perfectum praesens? 147--active and
force
of 39--connected with " trans- middle 158
lation Greek" 39, 188 f., 191 f.-in pei?n: for piei?n, 44, 45-as indeclinable
words of Christ 191 f.-is it an noun with ei]j 81, 216 249
274 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND FORMS.
peira<zein c. infin. 205 statistics 218--in papyri 220--final
pi<esai 54 force 218, 220
pe<poiqa 147 (bis), 154 prose<xein: c. dative 157--introducing
pe<ponqa, 154 a prohibition 193--c. i!na 208 n.--c.
pe<ponqa aoristic 145 a]po< 102 n.
peri<: c. gen. and accus. 104 f.--no proskalei?sqai force of middle 157
longer with dative 105 f.--frequency proskunei??n c. dat. and accus. 64,
66, 245
98, 104 f.--relations with a]mfi<. 100 prosti<qesqai: c. dat. 67--c. infin.
282
--with u[pe<r 105--with articular prosfa<gion meaning 170 n.
infin. in inscriptions 214 prosfe<rein: alleged aoristic action
of
peripatei?n translating jlh in ethical pres. stem 129, 238, 247-- perfect
sense 11 and imperf. 129
perou?mai, 155 prosfwnei?n c. dat. and accus. 65
pefi<mwso 176 pro<swpon Hebraic 14, 81, 99 f.
pi<nein: pei?n 44 f., 81, 216—pi<esai 54 pro<teroj relations with prw?toj 79, 107
--future an old subj. 184 --fut. prw?toj: with gen. for pro<teroj 79, 245--
middle 155 as ordinal partly replaced by ei$j 95 f:,
pipra<skein aoristic perfect, 145 237--in LXX 107—prw<tista 236
pi<ptein: action in aorist 134--fut. pw<pote with perfect 144
middle 155 pw?j: encroaches upon (w[j 211-used for
pisteu<ein constructions 67 f., 235 o!ti 211
plei?stoj: generally dative 79--used
for comparative in D 236 -ra- =vocalic r 119 n.
plei<w indecl. 50 -ra nouns in, 38, 48
pleonektei?n c. accus. 65 r[ei?n: not used in middle 153--fut.
plh<n, 171, 241 mid. replaced by active 154
plh<rhj indecl. 50, 244 r[h?ma 111
plhou?toj flexion 60 -rr, -rs-, 45
podh<rhn accus. 49
poi<aj gen. of place 73 -s- in infin. and indic.
aorist 204
poiei?n: imperfect and aorist action 109, -ss- and -tt- 25, 45
128
(sec e]poi<hsen)--with noun instead -sai in 2 s. mid. pres. and
fut. 53 f.
of middle 159—mh>
poi<ei
124-126, 247 -san 3rd plural in, 33, 37 (ter), 52
--mh> poih<s^j 125, 173, 177 f.--c. i!na sh<pein: voice forms 154—se<shpa 154
208—kalw?j poiei?n c. partic. 131, 173, -sqwsan, in imper. 53
228 f. Skeua?j 246
poi?oj with ti<j 95 sko<
polemei?n: case government 64--with sku<llein: meaning 89--voices 156
meta< 106, 247 -so 2 pers. ending 161
poreu<esqai: active obsolete 162—poreu- spa?n voices 157
qei<j pleonastic
231--in ethical sense spei<rhj 38, 48
11 n. spouda<zein: future 154--c. infin. 205 f.
potapo<j meaning and history 95 --c. i!na in Polybius 206
po<teroj replaced by ti<j 77 sth<kein: from e!sthka. 238
pou? gen. of place 73 stoixei?n 11
pragmateu<esqai with its perfective sto<ma in "Hebraic"
locutions 99
pra<ssein: ss or tt 25, (45)--no per- su<: emphasis in nom. 85 f.—su>
ei#paj
fective in NT
117—eu# pra<ssein 228
f. et sim. 86
pri<n: with and without a@n
169--re- suggenh<j flexion 49, 244
placed by pro> tou? c. infin. 100--c. sugkalei?n voice 237
infin. 169
n.--c. subj. 169--c.
opta- sumbouleu<esqai
force of
middle 157
tive 169, 199 sumparalamba<nein: pres. and aorist
pri>n h@: c. optative 169 n.—pro>n
h} a@n c. action 130-aorist ptc. 133
subj. 169--c.
infin. 169
n. sumplhrou?sqai durative pres. 233
pro<: frequency 98, 100—pro>
tou? c. sumpo<sia
sumpo<sia
97
infin. 100, 214--without a@n 169-- sumfe<rei with subject i!na-clause 210,
a seeming Latinism 100 f.—pro>
e]tw?n su<n: frequency 98--relations
with
dekatessa<rwn
101 f. meta< 106--c. accus. by
pro<j: with gen., dat. accus. 106-- with gen. in papyri 64--perfectivs-
almost confined to accus. in NT 63. ing compounds 112 f., 115 f., 148
106--frequency 63, 98, 106--in LXX sunai<rein act. and middle with lo<gon,
106—pro>j to< c. infin. 218, 220- 1 160
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND FORMS. 275
sunalla<ssein 129 tuxo<n "perhnps" 74
suna<nthsij 14 n., 242 -twsan in imper. 53
sunarpa<zein 113
sune<bh constr. 17, 110 u
(F) dropped between vowels 47
sunergei?n. accus. 65 u, h, ^, i, oi, ei approximating sounds
sune<rxesqai 113 34, 240
sunqe<sqai 222 u[gei<a, u[gi<a. 38, 45
sunp- 222 -ui?a,
flexion of perf. ptc. in 38, 48
suntelei?n. See sump- u[me<teroj 40 n.
sunthlei?n 118 u[mw?n: position of 40 n.,--ousts u[me<te-
sunthrei ?n 113, 116 roj 40 n.
su<stema 46 u[panta?n c. dat. 64
sfuri<j 45 u[pa<nthsij 14 n.
sxh<sw 150 (bis) u[pe<r: frequency 98, 104 f. --predomi-
s&<zesqai: tenses 127--durative
127, nantly gen. 105--often= "about"
150—oi[ s&zo<menoi
127 105--in commercial "to" 105--rela-
swth<r 84 tions with peri< and a]nti< 105--with
accus. 105, 237--in compound
tamei?on 44 f. adverbs 99
ta<ssein c. infin. 205 u[pera<nw 99
-tatoj superl. ending 78 u[po<: c. dative 63, 105 f.--frequency
te<qnhka perfect of a]poqn^<skein 114 n., 98, 104 f.--compared with dia<, (gen.)
147 106--encroached upon by a]po< 102-
telei?n : action 118 -- pres.
and aorist
relations with a]po<,
e]k, para<
237-
action 130--its perfective suntelei?n a]poqn^<skein u[po< tinoj 156--in com-
118 pound adverbs 99
teleuta?n: "registering" present 120-- u[poka<tw 99
aor. with a@rti 140 u[pota<ssesqai: middle
or pass. 163-
te<comai fut. mid. 155 future 149, 163
-te<oj verbal in 222 u[potre<xein c. accus. 65
tessara<konta 45 f., 244
te<ssarej : orthography 45 f., 56,
244- fagei?n see e]sqi<ein--as indecl. noun 249
accus. 33, 36, 55, 243 fa<gesai 54
tessareskaide<katoj 96 fa<gomai 155, 184 n.
te<t(e)uxa, 56, 154 fai<nesqai: action in future 150--with
threi?n perfective 113, 116 ptc. 228
tiqe<nai voices 237--relation of ti<qhmi fa<nai: punctiliar 128—e@fh
110, 128
and ti<qemai
152 fe<rein: why defective 110--no aorist
ti<ktein: pres. and aorist 126
f.-future
action 110--in imperf. 129, 238-
155 aoristic (?) use of pres. stem 129, 238
ti<nej,
tine<j 36 --force of perfect e]nh<noxa, 154-
ti<j : replaces po<teroj 77--become ti< relation between fe<rousi and fe<rwn
(indecl.) 95, 244--used as relative 224
21, 93 feu<gein: and its perfective 112, 116-
tij: supplanted by ei$j
97 f.--with pres. and aorist action 115 f., 119-
negative 246 future middle 155
-toj
verbal in 221 f. fimou?sqai perfect and aorist imper. 176
tou ?: c. infin., perhaps
Ionic 205--an fobei?sqai: active obsolete 102 n., 162
adnominal gen. 216-- statistics of --action in future 150-with a7r 6
216 f.--normal use telic 216--so fre- 102, 104 n.-with mh<, 184 f., 193-
quently by Luke 216 f.--purpose with mh<pwj
248--with infin. 205
rare or absent in Paul 217--use in fronti<zein c. i!na or
infin. 206 f.
papyri 219 f.--after verbs of com- fula<ssein: action in aorist 116--its
manding 217--final force weakened perfective 116--force of middle 157,
207--use parallel with i!na
207, 217
159
-- "so as to" in. Paul 218 fusiou?sqe subj. 54
tou? loipou? gen. of time 73
tre<pein,
trepei?n
110, 119 n. xai<rein: pres. and aor. action 129--
-tt
- and -ss-- 25, 45 voice 161--pronunciation of xaipet
tugxa<nein: flexion 56--voice forms
154 34--epistolary
use 179 f., 245
-tuxo<n accus. abs. 74—ou]x o[ tuxw<n flexion 49
231 n.--c.
partic. 228 xei?n, future 184
276 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND FORM&
xeimw?noj gem of time 73 -w
and –w? verbs, from -mi
33, 38
xei<r: accus. xei?ran 49—dia>
xeiro<j 100
w#
in classical and Hellenistic Greek
—in " Hebraic " locutions 99 f. 71
xei<ristoj : in papyri 236—not in
NT 78 w!ran point of time 63, 245
xei<rwn strictly comparative in
NT 78 w[j :
c. indic., with a@n 167—with o!ti
xorhgei?n c. accus. 65 212—in papyri 212—for o!ti
replaced
xra?sqai: flexion 54—voice
158—action by pw?j 211—c.
subj. 185, 249--
in aorist 247—c. accus. 64, 245—c. with a@n 167
— without a@n 249 — c.
instrumental 64, 158 optative, in LXX 196—in Josephus
Xristo<j Paul's phrase e]n X. 68 etc. 197—c. infin., w[j e@poj ei]pei?n
xro<noj instrumental dat. of
duration
204 n.
75, 148 w !ste : statistics 209— "and so" or
xrusou?j flexion 33, 48 "therefore" 209 f. — difference
be-
-xu<nnein 45 tween indic. and infin. 209—with
xwrei?n : future 155—infin.,
future and
indic. consecutive rare 209, 210—
aor. 205 n. c. imperative 209—c. subj. 209—c.
infin. 209—expresses purpose 207,
yuxh< periphrasis for e[auto<n 87, 105 n. 210 — Tatian's misreading of it
249
w, o pronounced alike 35 (bis), 244, 249 w@fqhn
111. See o[ra?n
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND FORMS. 277
MODERN GREEK.
PAGE PAGE
a@n if 167
kaqei<j, kaqe<naj each 105
a]po< c. acc. 102, 245 kai<, ki ] 12
a]pokri<qhka. 39 ka<mnw (aor. e@kama)
make 159
a@j=a@fej 175, 176 ka@n 167
-a?j
gen. a?doj, nouns in. 38 ka@ti 244
au]to<j, Pontic a]to<j 47, 91
a]x (Epirot)= e]c 102 me<=meta< 106
me<ra=h[me<ra 235
ba<qrakoj 38 mh<(n) c. subj. 122,
170
brh?ka=eu!rhka 142 mh> ge<noito 194, 240, 249
mh<pwj 248
gena<menoj 51
gia> na< in order that 159 na<=i!na 157, 159, 176, 205
daimoni<zw 162 o]rni<x=o@rnij (Pontic) 45
de<n=ou]de<n 170, 232 -ou?j
gen. –ou?doj, nouns in 38
de<nontaj indecl. pres. partic. 60
o]x
(Epirot) = e]c 102
dia< c. acc 106
paidia< (p1. of paidi<
child) 170
e]ba<staca 56 para<, compounded 247
e]de<qhka 142 pa?sa 244
ei]pou?me 1. pl. subj. of ei#pa 185 p^?j=ei@p^j 176
e]k 102, 246 poio<j interrogative . . 95
e@lege and ei#pe 128 polemw? me< 106, 247
e!naj= ei$j 96 pou?
relative (indeclinable) 94
e@paya=e@pausa 234
e@reuna 46 sa<n (=w[j a@n) when, as 17, 167
e]sta<qhka,
e]sth<qhka 162 sara<nta (sera<nta) forty 46,
234
e]su< =su< 234 ste<kw=sth<kw 162, 238
eu!rhka 142 sth<nw=i!sta<nw 55, 162
e@fera aor. of fe<rnw= fe<rw 129 sto<(n) dat. of o[ (=ei]j to<n) 63
(e])fe<to=e]f ] e !toj 44 sune<bhke=sune<bh 17
e@fqasa 247
tera<dh Wednesday 96
h#rqa=h#lqa 12 fe<rnw 129
qa<, qena< auxil. forming future 179,
185 xu<nnw (Cypriote) 45
i@dioj 91 w[j=e!wj 249
-ij,
-in nouns in 48
f., 244 w[j po<te 107
III. INDEX OF
SUBJECTS.
x—see Sinaiticus Aeschylus
215-see Index I (e), p. 263
A-see Alexandrinus Agent
: a]po< for u[po< expressing102, 246
Ablative
case: lost in prehistoric Greek Agent-nouns
127
61-as a part of the genitive 72- Agrapha
130, 171, 191
alleged Latinisms 101 f. Ahikar,
Story of 238 f.
Ablaut 152 Aktionsart-see Action form
Absolute:
genitive 12, 74, 236--accu- Alexander
the Great 7, 30
sative 74 Alexandrian
Greek 40, 52
Accent
(stress): differentiating voices Alexandrinus,
Codex 36, 47, 54, 76,
152, 238--distinguishing words 237 191, 194, 240 al
Accusative:
and infinitive 16 f., 211 f., Alkman,
24
229--p1. in -ej 36--sg.
in -n
49--3rd a-text
42, 53, 175, 176, 190, 225
decl. and mixed 49--terminal 61-- American RV 180
with prepositions, compared with dat. Ammonius 160
and gen. 62--with ei]j,
encroaching Anabasis,
effect of the expedition on
on e]n c. dat. 62 f., 234
f.--with other Greek dialects 31
preps. supplanting dat. 63--for point Anacoluthon 58, 69,
95, 180, 223, 224,
of time 63--specification 63=-en- 225,
234
croaching on other cases as object Analogy-formations
37, 38, 44, 48, 49,
case with verbs-on dat. 64, 65=-on 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56
gen. 64 f., 235--with verbs formerly Anaphoric article
83
intransitive 65--internal or adverbial Anarthrous:
infinitive with preposi-
65, 93--how far the old distinctions tions 81, 216--prepositional phrases
of cases still hold here 66--constr. 81 f., 236-nouns in "headings" 82
of pisteu<w, 67 f., 235--with
ei]j re- --use of nouns with qualitative force
placing a predicate 71 f.--absolute 82 f.--proper names 83--adjective
74--substituted for nominative c. clauses 83 f., 236--infin., statistics
inf. 212-mixed with tirt construe- 241
tion 213 Aorist:
subjunctive c. ou] mh< 5 35, 190-
Achaian-Dorian
Koinh<; 37 endings 51 f.--action--form 109-111,
Action-foam,
verbal 108-118, 221 al- 113, 115-118, 129 f., 132, 238-
see Aorist,
Perfect, Present, Future; subjunctive, closely connected with
Linear,
Punctiliar, Perfective, Con- fut. ludic. 120, 149, 240--indicative,
stative, Iterative, Ingressive, Effective. compared with imperfect 128 f.--
Active Voice
152 ff.--see Middle partic. 130-134, 227, 238--timeless
Acts: relations
of first and second part uses 134-as past indefinite 134 f.,
11, 216, 235--unity with Lk 14, 217 135-140-expressing immediate past
--the "We"-document 217--see 134 f., 139, 140-epistolary 135-
Luke gnomic 135--English rendering 135-
Adjectives: pronominal 40, 79 f., 87- 140--compared with perfect 141-146
91--indeclinables 50--"Duality" --passive and middle 161 f.--subjulic-
77 f.--comparison 78 f.--position, tive after compounds of a@n
166, 186
with article and noun 84--interjec- --no longer used with a@n
iterative
tional 181 f., 240--verbal 221 f. 167--imperative, tone of 173, 189-
Adverbs:
prepositions kata< and a]na< 3rd person in prohibition 174 f.--con-
used as 105--in composition 112 trasted with imperatival pres. partic.
Aelian 25, 79 180--in unrealised condition, wish,
Aeolic 37,
38, 44, 214--cf Lesbian or purpose 200 c.
278
INDEX. OF
SUBJECTS. 279
Aoristic:
presents 119, 247--fe<rw 129, Greek
213, 215-for NT 213, 216 -
238, 247-perfects 141-146, 238, 248 for Greek Bible 241-citations from
Apocalypse:
grammatical level 9--use dialect inscriptions 214-essentially
of cases and neglect of concord 9, 60 literary, specially Attic 214 f.--use
--bearing of grammar here on criti- with dependent gen., as if a full
cism 9 f.--use of i]dou< 11--possible noun 215-tou ? c. inf., without pre-
acc. pl. in -ej
36, and sg. 3rd decl. position, its original adnominal use
in -an 49 --
person -- endings 52- 216--telic force in Tliucydides and
nominative 69--prohibitions 124- in NT 216--usage of the several NT
aoristic perfects 145—ou] mh< 191, 192 writers in this respect 217--Paul's
--tou ?
c. inf. 217, 218--does not tendency to drop telic force 217-
confuse ei]j
and e]n in local sense 234 parallelism with i!na
217--explana-
--small
use of compound verbs 237 tory infin. 218—pro>j to< and ei]j to<,
Apocrypha,
RV of 198 how far remaining telic 218 f.-
Apotheosis
84 papyrus citations for 705, ei]j to<,
Appian:
dative 63--optative 197 pro>j to<
c. inf. 219 f.--belongs mainly
Aramaic:
influences on Greek in NT Articular
Nominative in address 70,
3, 13, 14, 15, 18, 75, 95, 103, 104, 235
124, 174, 189, 224, 226 f., 230 f., Articular
Participle 126 f., 228
235, 236, 240, 242 -periphrastic
imperfect 14, 226 f.--speech of Paul 38, 40 f., 205, 211
7--of Jesus 8--of John 9--diction Aspiration
44, 234, 236, 244
in Luke 14-18--ordinals 96--tenses Assimilation
of Cases: after verbs of
139 -- participle 182—periphrastic naming 69,
235--omitted with gen.
imperative 226 f.--see under Hebra- abs. 74, 236
ism
and Over-use Asyndeton
17, 181
Arcadian
38 Attendant
Circumstances, participle of
Archimedes
51 230
Aristophanes
215 --see Index I (e), Attic:
literary supremacy 24 --its
p. 263 earliest use in prose 25--grammar of
Arrian,
optative in 197--see Index I inscriptions 29--Xenophon 31--lan-
(e), p. 264 guage of the lower classes in
Article:
use by foreigners 21, 236 31--the basis of literary Koinh< 32-
--general "correctness" of NT how much did it contribute to the
Greek
81--as relative and as de- vernacular Koinh<? 33 f., 41, 214 f.-
monstrative 81--dropped between nom. pl. as accus. 37—kektw?mai and
preposition and infin. 81, 216- memnw?mai
54—kate<xea 55--revival of
these three Ionic uses absent from the dual 57--parenthetic nominative
NT 81--alleged Hebraisms 81 f., 70--use of vocative, divergent from
236--correlation 81 f.--anarthrous Hellenistic 71--historic present 121
prepositional phrases 82, 236- --the Orators, forms of prohibition
dropped in sentences having the 124, use of imperative 172-alleged
nature of headings 82-words spe- ex. of aoristic perfect 146, 238-
cially affecting anarthrous form 82 linear and punctiliar futures 150-
--qualitative
force of anarthrous active verbs with future middle
words 82 f.-with proper names 83- 154 f.—a]pekrina<mhn 161--optative in
used with the parent's name in gen. conditional sentences 196 f.--imper-
83, 236--with names of slaves and fect in unfulfilled condition 201-
animals 83—o[ kai>
loquial style drops art. before ad- articular infin. mainly due to Orators
jective adjuncts 83 f., 236-mis- 213-215--nom. for acc. in long
placement of adjective 84--tou? qeou? enumerations 234--see under the
kai> swth?roj h[mw?n, papyrus parallels Attic writers' names and in Index I
84--complex adjectival clause be- (e), p. 256
tween art. and noun 236 Atticism
5, 22, 24 f., 26, 170, 197, 206,
Articular
Infinitive: e]n t&? in transla- 211, 239
tion 14, 215, 249-bearing on history Attraction of
Relative 92 f.
of Koinh<;
34, 213 - 215-rare anar- Augment
51, 128, 129
throes use with prepositions 81, 216 Authorised
Version 93, 98, 112, 128 f.,
--appropriate to rhetoric 189, 213, 136-140, 189
215-statistics forclassical and later Auxiliary a@fej 175 f.
280 INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
B-see
Vaticanus Conative
action 125, 127, 128 f., 147,
b-text 42, 53, 224--see
under Sinaiti- 173 f., 186, 247
cus
and Vaticanus Concessive
Participle 230
Bezae, Codex 16, 38, 42, 50, 55, 56, 58, Concord 9, 28, 59
f., 182, 244
69, 73, 80, 94,
96, 107, 114, 124, Conditional
Sentences: pluperfect in
131, 161, 171, 228, 233, 235, 236, 148-apodosis with a@n
166 f., 196,
240, 241, 242 al--see under d-text 197-199, 200 f.- e]a<n c. indic. 168,
Biblical
Greek, 2-5, 18, 99 187—ei] mh<ti a@n
169—ei] mh< in unful-
Bilingualism:
in
from
in Lystra 7, 233--in
233 186--lessened difference between ei]
Boeotian
33, 34, 55, 214 and e]a<n
187, 240--these almost ex-
Bohairic
225 elusively confined to their proper
Brachylogy,
with a]lla< 241 moods 187—ei]
c. deliberative subj.
Broken
continuity, perfect of 144, 145, 18--differentia of ei]
and e]a<n in
148 future conditions 187--use of opta-
Byzantine
period 88, 96, 168, 197 tive 195, 196, 197 f.-- unfulfilled
conditions 199-201 -- participle in
Cappadocian--see
Pontic protasis 229 f.
Cardinals:
encroachment on ordinals Conjugation-stems
109 f., 120
95 f., 237-- simplification of the Conjunctions:
with a@n (e]a<n) 166, 264-
"teens" 96-uses of ei$j 96 f.-repeti- a]lla<
"except" 241
tion for distributive 97 Conjunctive
participle 230
Cases:
in Rev 9--history 60-76, 234- Consecutive
clauses: infinitive alone
236--with prepositions 100-107, 237 204, 210—w!ste with indic. and with
--see under the several Cases. infin. 209 f.--expressed by i!na
210-
Catholic
Epistles, use of compound by tou? c.
infin. 218
verbs 237--see under First Ep. of Constative
action 109, 111, 113, 115-
Peter, James, Second Ep. of Peter 118, 130, 133, 145, 174
Causal
Participle 230 Construct
state (Semitic) 236
Cautious
assertion 188, 192 f. Contingent
a@n, 166, 198, 200
Chance
in the Bible 219 Contract
Verbs, 37, 52-54, 55, 234
Christians,
ethics of average early 126, Contraction
of a@n sounds 45, 55
238 Correlation
of Article 81 f.
Chrysostom,
on ecbatic i!na 207--see Cretan 214,
233--see Gortyn
Index I (e), p. 264 Criticism,
contributions of grammar to
Clement
of Rome 95--see Index I (e), 9 f., 40 f.
p. 264 Culture--see
Education
Colloquial--see
under Vernacular
Common
Greek: takes place of "He- D-see
Bezae
braic" in definition of NT Greek 1-- Dative: lost
in MGr 60, 63--obso-
a universal language 5 f., 19--ma- lescent in Koinh< 62--decays through
terials for study 22 f.--literary Koinh< a period of over-use, esp. with e]n
62
(q.v. ) -- papyri, inscriptions, MGr --statistics with prepositions 62 f.--
27-30--unification of earlier Greek confusion of ei]j
and e]n 63, 66, 234 f.
dialects 30--foreshadowings of this --decay of dative uses with u[po< and
during v/iv B. C. 21--completed in pro<j
63-with e]pi<, distinct meaning
time of Alexander 31 f.--decay of the lost 63, 107--accus. begins to express
old dialects 32-their relative con- point of time 63--reaction, as in ex-
tributions to the resultant Koinh< 32- tension of dative (instrumental) of
34, 36 f., 214 f.--pronunciation 34 f. reference 63, 75, and in some transi-
how far was Koinh< homogeneous? tive verbs taking dative 64--verbs
19, 38-41-dialects in (q.v.) beginning to take accus. or gen.
Comparison
of adjectives and adverbs instead of dat. 64--illiterate uses of
77-79, 236 gen. and ace. for dat. 64-some im-
Complementary
Infinitive 204 probable citations from early in-
Compound
Prepositions 99 scriptions 64--with proskunei?n 64,
Compound
Verbs: cases with 65--per- 66--with some compound verbs 65
fective action 111-118, 237--repeated --with pisteu<ein 67 f.--incommodi
without preposition 111, 115- 75--syncretism with locative 75 f.,
statistics 237 104-with instrumental 75-exten
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 281
sion of time and point of time thus 52--see under Illiteracy; also under
both given by dative 75 f.--sociative Apocalypse, Mark, Luke, Paul,
instrumental 75--instrumental used Hebrews,
etc.
in translating Hebrew infin. abs. 75 Effective
action 109, 113, 130, 149
--this and use of participle com-
pared with classical uses and with Elative
78, 79, 236
LXX
76--various uses of e]n 103 f.--
dat. of person judging 104--common Elision 45
uses of dat. and loc. in Greek and Ellipsis
178, 180, 181, 183, 190
Sanskrit 104—e]n
added even to in- Emphasis:
in pronouns 85 f.--im-
struruental dative 104-o[molgei?n e]n perfect and aorist differing in 128
104—meta<, peri<, u[po< no longer c. --possible cause of original voice-
dat. 105--one or two exceptions with differentiation 152, 238--on subject,
u[po< 105-- pro<j
c. dat. common in brought out by English preterite
LXX, rare in NT 106-e]pi< indiffer- 140--degree of, in ou] mh< construe-
ently with the three cases 107- tion 188-190-ou]
c. partic. 232
e]f ] &$: 107--dative of
reflexive ap-
=-differentiating words of full or
proximates to force of the Middle attenuated meaning 237
157—xra?sqai
with instrumental 158 English, Hellenistic illustrated from
--dat. or loc. of a verbal noun makes 19, 39, 58, 71, 77, 79, 82, 85, 89,
the Infinitive
202-204-- articular 92, 94, 96, 98, 99, 111, 112, 135-
infin. (q.v.)
140, 144, 150 f., 171 f., 182, 184,
Days
of week and month 96, 101, 237 185, 189, 195, 203, 206, 218, 221 f.,
De-aspiration-see
Psilosis 229, 236, 243
Defective
Verbs 110 f. Epexegetic
infinitive 217, 218, 219
Definite
nouns, in Semitic 236 Epimenides 233
Definition,
gen. of 73 f. Epistolary
aorist 135--formula 28, 176,
Deliberative
Subjunctive 171, 185, 187, 180
194 Euripides
215--see Index 1 (e), p. 263
d-text 14, 44, 45, 53,
181, 233, 234— "Exhausted"
e[autou? and i@dioj 87-90,
see under Bezae 237
Delphian,
36, 37, 52, 55, 214
Demonstrative:
article as 81—au]to<j Final clauses : weakened telic
force of
and e]kei?noj
91 i!na
178, 205-210, 240 f., of 700 c.
Demosthenes
213--see Index I (e), p. infin. 207, 216-218, of ei]j to< c. infin.,
263 in Paul 219--originated in volitive,
Denial
and Prohibition, with ou] mh< with parataxis 185--final optative
187 f. with –i!na.
196 f.—w!ste c. infin. used
Deponents
153 f., 161 f. for purpose 207—tou ? c. infin. 216-
Dialects
in ancient
36-38, 41, 213 f.--see under Attic, 218-220--use of participle 230
Ionic,
etc. Final
i and n 49,
168, 187
Dialects
in Koinh< 5 f., 19, 28 f., 38-41, First Epistle of
Peter : prohibitions
47, 91, 94, 205, 209, 211, 241, 243, 249 124--preference for aorist imperative
Digamma
23, 38, 44, 47, 111, 244 174--for imperatival participles 181
Diodorus,
optative in 197 --ou$. . . au]tou ?;
improbable in such
Diphthongs:
pronunciation 33, 34 f.-- good Greek 237
augment 51 Fluellen
10 f.
Dissimilation
45 Fourth
Book of Maccabees, Atticising
Distributive
numerals 97 in 166, 197
Doric,
33, 41, 45, 48, 51, 101, 214 Fourth Gospel
and Apocalypse 9 f.
Double
comparative and superlative French
idioms in English 13
236 Frequency,
relative, of prepositions
Dual
57 f., 77 f. 62 f., 98, 100, 102, 105, 106 f.
Duality
77-80, 100 Frequentative
verb, 114
Durative
action--see Linear Future:
c. i!na 35-c. ou] mh< 35,
190
Dynamic
Middle 158 --c: e]f ] &$ 107--in
Indo-Germanic
verb 108--compared with futural
Ecbatic
i!na 206-209 present 120--history of its form 149
Education,
varieties of: in NT writers --links with subjunctive 149, 184,
8 f., 28, 44, 50,
52, 60-in papyri, 187, 240 - action mixed 149 f. -
etc. 4, 6 f.,
9, ". 44,
47, 49, 50, 51, English rendering 150 f. - volitive
282 INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
and futuristic uses 150 f.--its moods 8, 233--NT (Delitzsch) 104, 163--
151--Middle in active verbs 154 f. tenses 108
--Passive with middle force 161-- Hebrews,
Epistle to: did author know
used for imperative 176 f.--ditto Aramaic? 10--Greek style of 18, 20,
with o!pwj
177--rarely with mh< in 118, 129,
232, 237--grammatical
prohibition 177--in warning with points in 62, 129, 182, 211, 217,
mh<
178--c. ei] 187-c. mh< in cautions 218 f., 231, 237
assertion 193--optative 197--infini- Hebrews, Gospel
of 17-- see Index
tive 2041.--participle 230 I (e), p.265
Future
Conditions: with e]a<n 185--with Hellenistic
2-see Common Greek
ei] 187
--"less vivid form" 196, 199 Heracleon
104
Futuristic:
future 150, 177--subjunc-
tive 184, 185, 186, 192, 240 Hermogenes 172
Herodian:
cases in 63--optative 197
Gender
59 f. Herodotus
51, 62, 81, 91, 101, 214, 215
Genitive:
absolute 12, 74, 236--verbs --see also Index I (e), p. 263
with
65, 235--with a]kou<ein, and geu<- Heteroclisis
48, 60
esqai 66--syncretism
with ablative Hiatus
92, 117
72--objective and subjective 72-- Historic
Present, 120 f., 139
partitive 72 f., 102--with o]ye< 72, 73 Homer:
the Achnans of 24-forms
--time and place 73--definition 73 f. found in 55--syntax 121, 135, 147,
--Hebraism here 74--after negative 161--the Athenians' "Bible" 142--
adjective 74, 235 f.-- prepositions blamed by Protagoras for use of ini.
with 100-102, 104-107, 237-- of perative 172--see Index I (e), p. 263
material 102 Hypotaxis-see
under Parataxis
German,
illustrations from 94, 96
Gerundive
in –te<oj 222 Ignatius
215
Gnomic
aorist 135, 139--present 135-- Illiteracy
28, 36, 43, 49, 56, 78, 87, 93,
future 186 142, 169, 189, 220, 237, 238, 239
Gortyn
Code 214--cf Cretan Imperative:
endings 53--of ei]mi< 56,
Gothic
78, 181, 224 174--present, compared with aor.
Grammar
and literary criticism 9, 40 f., subj. in prohibition 122-126-tenses
205, 211 compared generally 129 f., 173 f.,
Grammatical
and lexical Semitism 12 176, 189, 238-prehistoric use 164-
172 f., 175-prominence of in NT
Headings,
anarthrous 82 173--aorist appropriate in prayer
Hebraism:
in theory of NT Greek 173--in 3rd person 174 f.--expres-
1-3--in Rev 9--use of 6, xvii, 11 f., sions for 1st person 175 f.--auxiliary
61, 103--cf Gallicisms in English a@fej
175 f.--perfect 176--substitutes
13—e]n t&?
c. inf. 14, 215, 249- for 176-182, 203, 223, 241, 248
in Lk 14-18--tested by MGr 17, Imperfect
128 f.--in unreal indic. 200 f.
94—ei]j
predicate 72, 76—articular --replaced by periphrasis 226 f.--see
nom. in address 70, 235--gen. of Present
stem
definition 73 f.--gen. abs. 74--dat. Impersonal
plural 58 f.-verbs 74, 226
or partic. for infin. abs. 75 f.--use of Improper
Prepositions 99
article 81, 236--redundance of pro- Inceptive
action of –i<skw suffix 120
nouns 85—yuxh< used for reflexive Incommodi,
Dativus 75
87, 105--relative with superfluous Indeclinable:
Greek proper name not
demonstrative 94 f.-- ei$j as ordinal to be taken as 12—plh<rhj, h!misu and
95 f.--and as indef. art. 96 f.--dis- comparatives in -w
50
trib. num. 21, 97--illustrated by AV Indefinite
Article 96 f.
98—e]nw<pion
99--compound preposi- Indicative:
alone may have inherent
tions 99—a]pokriqei>j ei#pen 131--active time-connotation 126, 128, 129 -
for middle 158--infin. for imper. 180 imperfect 128 f.--aorist, used of im-
--Hebrew teleology and final clauses mediate past 135, 140-rendering of
219--nom. pendens c. partic. 225- aorist in English 135-140—ge<nona
periphrastic tenses 226 f.-- freedom not aoristic in NT 145 f., 238-pluper-
of Mk from 242--cf under Over-use feet 148--future 149-151--as modus
Hebraist
2 f., 12, 223, 242 200 f.--with o!tan, o!pou a@n, o!soi a@n,
Hebrew:
how far known in
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 283
--but mh< not entirely expelled
170 f., Injunctive
mood 165
239 f.--negatived questions 170- Inscriptions:
Koinh< 6, 23, 28 1.--classi-
future used for command 176 f., 240 cal, 23, 214--see Index I (c), pp.
--future with ou] mh< 190--c. mh< in 258 f.
cautious assertions 192 f. --imperfect Instrumental case
61, 75, 104, 158-
for present time in unfulfilled con- use of e]n 12, 61 f., 75, 104
dition, wish, and purpose 200 f.-- Interjectional
character of voc. and
replaced by participle 222-224-peri- imper. 171 f.--of infin. in imperatival
phrasis 225-227 sense 179, 203--of partic. or adj.
Indirect
Questions 196, 198 f. used imperativally 180 f., 240--pre-
Indo-Germanic:
dual in 57 f. -- positional clauses 183 f.
numerals 58--cases 61, 72, 75--verb Internal
accusative 65, 93
system 108 f. --Aktionsart 109 f. -per- Interrogative:
confused with relative
fectivising by means of composition 93 f. –poi?oj and ti<j,
potapo<j
95--
111 f.--aorist-present in 119-aug- command 184
ment and the final -i in primary Intransitive:
verbs becoming transitive
tenses 128--was there a future in? 65, 162--use of strong perfect 147,
149--future participle 151--voice, its 154--tendency of strong aorist 155
rationale in 152, 238--no separate Ionic 33,
37 f., 41, 43, 44, 48, 51, 55,
passive
152--verbs with no middle 57, 81, 101, 195, 205
153--strong perfect without voice
distinction 154--passive use of Irrational
final i and n
49, 168, 187
middle already developing in 156-- Isolation of
Biblical Greek 2, 3
Greek weak aorist passive developed Itacism 34 f.,
47, 56, 199, 239, 240
from middle person-ending -thes 161 Iterative action 109, 114, 125, 127,
--differentia of the imperative 164, 128, 129, 173, 180, 186, 248--use of
171 f.--glottogonic theories of sub- a@n 166, 167, 168
junctive and optative 164--the
injunctive 165--the two negatives James: i]dou< in 11--prohibitions 126--
169--jussive subjunctive in posi- use of Middle 160
tive commands 177 f. --origins of the Jerome 181
infinitive 202 f.--its deficiency in Jewish
Greek 2 f., 19--see Hebraism
voice 203, and tense 204--verbal and Aramaic
adjectives and participles 221 f.-- John: Greek
of Gospel and Apocalypse
closeness of 3 pl. act. in -ont(i) to the 9--place of writing 40 f., 211--use
participle 224 of historic present 121--prohibitions
Infinitive:
c. e]n t&? 14, 215--forms in 124, 125, 126—mh< in questions 170,
contract verbs
53--future 151, 204 f. 239--periphrastic tenses 226, 227--
--for imperative 172, 179 f., 203-- compound verbs 237
articular (q.v.) 189, 213-220, 240- Josephus 2,
23, 25, 62, 89, 121, 146,
verb and noun 202--its origins 202-- 189, 197, 233, 235--see Index I (e),
204 --comparisons with Sanskrit, p. 264
Latin, English--202-204, 207, 210-- Jussive
subjunctive 178, 208 --see
development of voice 203, and of tense Volitive
204--case-uses traced 203 f., 207, Justin
Martyr 8, 143, 233-see Index
210--anarthrous expressing purpose I (e), p. 264
204, 205, 207, 217, 240 f.--conse-
quence 204, 210--complementary Kaqareu<ousa 26, 30 --cf Atticism,
204--limitative 204--relations with Literary Koinh<
i!na c. subj. 205-209, 210 f., 240 f.-- Klepht ballads--see
Index I (e), p.265
with w!ste final 207, 210--alleged Koinh< 23--see Common Greek
Latinism 208--consecutive with w!ste
209 f.--relations with w!ste c. indic. Laconian--see
209 f., and with consecutive i!na 210 Late Greek 1
--subject and object 210 f.--accus. Latin:
Bible 5, 72, 106, 129, 132, 240
and infin. compared with w!ste clause --Paul speaking 21, 233--cases 61--
211--accus. tending to replace regular use of we
for I 87--parallels with
nom. 212--not Latinism 212 f.-- Greek, etc. 112, 158--the Middle 153
mixture of acc. c. inf. and o!ti con- --subj. and indic. in cause-clauses
struction 213--statistics 241 171--jussive subj. 177--prohibition
Ingressive
action 109, 116, 117, 118, 178--quin
redeamus? 184-optative
130, 131, 145, 149, 1741 in indirect question 199--verbal
284 INDEX OF
SUBJECTS.
nouns 202-infinitive 204-ut clauses 233—e]laiwn 69, 235--artic. nom. of
206--their weakened final force 207 f. address 235—e]la<xistoj 236--com-
--verbal adj. turned into participle pound verbs 237--see Acts
221--participle and adj. in -bilis 222 LXX--see Septuagint
--parallels to use of participle for Lycaonian
7 f., 233
indic. or imper. 223 f., 241--poverty Lystra--see
Lycaonian
in participles 229 f.
Latinisms
18, 20 f., 71, 75, 100-102, Magnesia
29, 38, 43
142, 208, 212 f. 247 Manuscripts
of NT, orthography tested
Lesbian--see
Aeolic 42-56
Lewis
Syriac 53, 65, 72, 248 Marcion
114
Lexical
notes: ei]j a]pa<nthsin 14—nau?j Mark:
uncultured Greek 50, 53, 71--
25 E –a@ficij 26—e]rwta?n 66—sku<llein dative 62—ei]j and e]n 62--the Middle
89—e]nw<pion 99—e]pifanh<j,
e]pifa<neia 159—o!tan, etc. c. indic. 168--subj.
in
102—e]pibalw<n 131—a]poko<yontai comparisons 185--fut. c. ou]
mh< 190,
163, 201—prosfa<gion 170—paidi<a 191--optative 195--compound verbs
170—prosti<qesqai 232—ei]ko<nej 235 237--rich in Aramaism 242
Lexical:
studies of Deissmann 4-- Matthew:
improves Greek of his source
Hebraisms 11, 12, 46, 233 15, 124, 159, 200, 237, 242—kai>
i]dou<
Limitative
infinitive 204 17--historic present 121--prohibi-
Linear
action 109, 110, 111, 114, 117, tions 124--aorist in 137-140--aoristic
119, 120, 125, 126, 127, 128, 147, ge<gona 146 -- preference for
aor.
149 f., 173, 174, 175, 180, 183, 186, imper. in Sermon on the Mount 174,
233 (119)—ou] mh< 190, 191,--
tou? c. inf.
Literary
element in NT 20, 25 E , 26, 216 --superlative e]la<xistoj 236-
55, 106, 147 f., 204, 211--see under compound verbs 237
Hebrews, Paul, Luke Middle:
of ei]mi< 36 f., 55 f.--with and
Literary
Koinh< 2 f., 21, 22 f., 24-26, without expressed. personal pronoun
62 f., 64, 88, 118, 194, 197, 211--its (gen. or dat.) 85, 157, 236 f.--primi-
analogue in MGr 21, 26, 30--element tive differentia 152, 238--in Sanskrit,
in inscriptions 29--see Atticism Latin, and Keltic 153--
"Deponents"
Lithuanian:
alleged Latinising gen. 153--links with the strong perfect
found in 101--future in -siu 149 154, and with future 154 f.--how far
Local
cases 60 f. reflexive 155 f., 238--evolution of a
Localising
of textual types 41 passive 156--compared with English
Locative
61, 75, 104, 202 f. verbs that are both transitive and
Logia
15, 104, 124, 126, 189, 191 intransitive 156 f.--paraphrased by
Lord's
Prayer 10, 173 reflexive in dative case 157--typical
Lost
cases 61 exx. 157--reciprocal 157--dynamic
Lucian
25, 170, 197, 227--see Index 158--mental action 158--differences
I (e), p. 264 between Attic and Hellenistic 158 f.
Luke:
did he know Aramaic? 10, 15, --"incorrect" uses in NT and
104-style 11, 18, 20, 232--Hebraism papyri 159 f.--Paul not implicated
in 13-18--unity of Lucan wiitings 160—ai]tei?n and ai]tei?sqai
160 f.--
14, 217--preserving words of source middle and passive aorists 161 f.--
15, 18, 106, 237, contra 159, 242-- verbs in which active became obsolete,
construction of e]ge<neto for 71 16 f., or was recoined out of a deponent
70, 233-was "Hebrew's Gospel" a 162-common ground b etween middle
source? 26--misusing a literary word? and passive 162 f.
26--recalling Homer? 26--use of w#
Misplacement of article
84
71--projected third treatise? 79--use Misuse
of old literary words 26
of "dual" words 79 f.—o!stij 91 f.-- Mixed declension
49
pres.
for aor. imper. 119--historic Modern
Greek: kai<
in place of hypo-
pres. 121--prohibitions 124--itera- taxis 12--used as a criterion against
tive a@n 167 f.--optative165,195,
198 f. Semitism
xviii, 17, 94--study com-
--"correct" use of pro<n 169, 199-- paratively recent 22, 29--dialects in
preference for pres. imper. com- 23 (see Pontic and. Zaconian)--the
pared with Mt 174—a]rca<menoi
182, written language (see Atticism and
240--ou] mh< 190 f.--hymns in, their kaqareu<ousa--use of the modern
use of infin. 210--acc. c. inf. 211-- vernacular in NT study 29 f.--
tou? c. inf. 216 f.--literary
survival
versions of NT 30 (see Index I (e),
of ou] c. partic. 232--his two
editions p. 265)-Ionic forms in 38-parti
INDEX OF
SUBJECTS.
285
ciple now indeclinable 60, 225-- Nouns:
in -ra
and –ui?a
38, 48--hetero
gender changes 60--the dative obso- clisis 48, 60--contracted 48--in –ou>j
lete 60, 63--vocative 71--article as passing into 3rd decl. 48--in -ij, -in,
a relative 81--redundant personal from--ioj and –ion
48 f.--mixed
de-
or demonstrative pronoun 85, 94- clension 49--accusatives with added
relative 94--interrogative 94, 95- -n 49--number 57-59--gender
59 f.
cardinals as ordinals 96--indefinite --breach of concord 59 f.--case 60--
article 96--distributives 97-- sup-
76, 234-236
ports Purdie's thesis on the consta- Number:
disappearance of dual 57 f.,
tive 115- present tense for our 77 f.- neuter plural, history and
perfect, with words of duration 119 syntax of 57 f.-"Pindaric" con-
--historic present alternating with struction 58, 234--impersonal plural
aorist 121, 139--pres. and aor. subj. 58 f., 163—h[mei?j for e]gw< 86 f., 246
in prohibition 122--imper. in pro- Numerals: ei$j
as an
ordinal 95 f., 237
hibition 122, 164--imperf. and aor. --ordinals in MGr 96—simplified
compared 128 f.--idiom of e]ce<sth "teens"
96—ei$j
as indefinite article
134--gnomic aorist 135--the perfect 96 f.—o[ ei$j 97--repeated to form
obsolete 141 f.--use of Middle 156, distributives 97—o@gdoon
Nw?e in AV
157--new active verbs 162--subj. for 97 f.— e[bdomhkonta<kij
e[pta< 98
relics of a@n 167--negatives 169, 170,
232--auxiliaries forming imperative Object
clauses 210-213
175
f., 178, and future 179, 185--sole Objective
Genitive 72, 236
survival of optative 194, of learned [Omiloume<nh 26
origin 240--infinitive obsolete, ex- Omission of a@n 194, 198, 200 f.
cept in Politic (q.v.) 205--early date Optative:
in Lucian 25—d&<h 55,
of its characteristics illustrated 233 f. 193 f.--future 151, 197-- origin
--periphrastic future 234, 240--the 164 f.--with a@n 166, 198--after pri<n
parenthetic nominative 235--see 169, 199--in command 179--in
Index I (e), p. 265, and II, p. 269 LXX 194--compared with subj., and
Modus irrealis 164, 199-201 with future 194 - optative proper
Moeris
46, 55 194-197--compared with English
Month,
numerals for days of 96 survivals 195--in hypothesis 196--
Moods:
common subjective element differentia of optative conditional
164--other common ground 165—a@n sentences 196, 198, 199--in final
in connexion with 165-169--nega- clauses 196 f.--Atticisers ignorant of
tives (q.v. ) 169-171 al-see under sequence 197--misuses in ignorant
Imperative, Injunctive, Optative, Sub- Greek 197-potential optative 197-
junctive, and Itiodus irrealis 199-attended by oil and ctv 197--a
Mystical
e]n
of Paul 68, 103 literary use, but not yet artificial
197--omission of a@n 198--in indirect
Narrative,
tenses in 135 questions, contrasted with Latin
Nasal
in word-endings 45, 49 198 f.--Luke observes sequence 199
Negative
adjective c. gen. 74, 235 --itacism in late period hastens decay
Negatives:
in Atticists 25--in NT and 199, 239, 240
papyri 39, 169-171, 177, 184, 185, Oratio obliqua 142, 144, 151, 196, 223,
187-194, 200, 229, 231 f., 239, 240 239
Neuter
plurals 57 f. Ordinals:
use of ei$j
95 f., 237-sim-
"Neutral"
text--see b-text plified "teens" 96
New
Testament, how far its diction Origen
139, 169, 247
peculiar 19 f., 67 f. Orthography:
Attic basis 34--a test of
Nominative:
as receiver of unappro- provenance of MSS 41--correspond-
priated uses 69--name-case unassi- ence of NT and papyri 42-56
milated 69, 235--nominativuspendens Over-use
of vernacular locutions agree-
69, 225--parenthetic in time expres- ing with Semitic 11, 14, 21, 39, 61,
sions and ei]ko<nej 70, 235--articular 72, 74, 95, 99, 215, 226, 235, 242
in address 70 f., 235--replaced as Oxyrhynchus
Loggia 3, 51, 121, 130,
predicate by ei]j c. acc. 71 f.-per- 191 f.--MS of Heb 190, 224
sonal pronouns not always emphatic
85 f.--for accus. as subject to infin. Pagan
phraseology 84, 102
212 f. Papyri:
non-literary, their importance
Nonthematic
present stems 38, 55 brought out by Deissmann 3 f.--
North-West
Greek 33, 36 f., 55 education of writers 4 al (see Edit.
286 INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
cation
and Illiteracy)--compared Perfect:
for event on permanent re-
with inscriptions 6, 28--remarkable cord 129, 142, 143 f.--vivid use fee
anticipation by Brunet de Presle 6 f. event yet future 134 --compared
--their character and use 27 f.--ex- with aorist 140 f.--increasing use in
ceptions to their general agreement vernacular 141--may be used with
with NT 39, 46, 53--see Index I a point of time 141, 146--decayed
(d), pp. 252-255 in mediaeval Greek 141 f.--obsolete
Parataxis
12, 178, 135, 193 in MGr 141 f.--Latin not responsible
Parenthetic
nom. in time-expressions 142--characteristic use in Heb 142,
69, 235, 245--in descriptions 69 143 f.-combined with aorist 142 f.,
Participle:
pleonastic by Semitism 14, 238--genuinely aoristic uses possible
230, 241--negatives with 25, 229, in Rev 143, 145--broken continuity
231 f., 239--tendency towards in- 144, 145-e@sxhka 145, 238—pe<praka
decl. 60--in gen. abs. 74--trans- 145--ge<gona 145 f., 239--with pre-
lating Hebrew inf. abs. 76--present sent meaning 147, 176, 238—ke<
with article 126 f., 228--aorist of kraga 147 –h@ghmai literary in Ac 148
coincident or identical action 130-- --strong perfect normally intransi-
134, 238--that of subsequent action tive 154--originally voiceless 154--
denied 132-134--with a@n 167--for imperative 176--periphrastic forms
imperative 180-183, 223, 240--for 176, 226, 227
optative 182--overdone by Josephus Perfective
verbs 111-118, 128, 135, 176,
189--for
indic. 222-225, 241--in
periphrastic tenses 226 f. --comple- Periphrasis 226
f., 249--see under
mentary 228 f.--contrasted with Participle,
and the several tenses
partic. in Latin and English 229- Person-endings
51-54, 152, 154
conditional 229 f.--conjunctive, con- Personal
Pronouns: alleged Semitism
cessive, causal, final, temporal, and 84 f., 94 f.-emphasis in nominative
attendant circumstances 230—alleged 85 f.—h[mei?j for e]gw< 86 f.
Aramaism 231 Perspective,
action in--see Constative
Partitive
Genitive: largely replaced by Philo
2, 96-see Index I (e), p. 264
a]po< or e]k c. abl. 72, 102--possibly
Phrygian
Greek 56--see Index I (c),
with o]ye< 72--as subject of a
sentence p. 259
73, 223 Phrynichus
39, 194
Passive:
no separate forms in Indo- Pictorial
imperfect 128
Germanic 108, 152, 156--invades Pindar
214--see Index I (e), p. 263
middle in Greek, Latin and else- Pindaric
construction 58, 234
where 153--evolved from intransitive Place, genitive
of 73
156--only partially differentiated in Plato 62, 213,
215--see Index I (e), p.
aorist and future 161 f.--common 263
ground with middle 162 f.--replaced Pleonasm
14-16, 85, 94 f., 230, 237, 241
largely in Aramaic by impersonal Pluperfect:
endings 53--action 113,
plural 163--not definitely attached 148--in
conditional sentences, 201
to the verbal adjective 221 f. Plural--see
Number
Past
time 108, 119, 128, 129 Plutarch:
optative 197—o!ti mh< 239-
Paul:
spoke Greek 7, 19, Latin? 21, see Index I (e), p. 264
233, Aramaic 7, 10--limited literary Polybius 14,
21, 23, 25, 30, 39, 62, 85,
phraseology 20--his e]n
Xrist&?,
68, 92, 115-118, 197, 206 f., 247-see
103--use of we for 186 f.-use of Index I (e), p. 264.
between 99--prohibitions 124-126- Pontic
dialect of MGr 40, 45, 47, 94,
perfect 145, 238 - middle 160- 180, 205
iterative a@n 167, 168--prefers
present Point
action--see Punctiliar
imperative 174--imperatival par- Popular
etymology 96
ticiple 181—ou] mh< 190--optative 195 Position of
article S3 f.
-acc. et inf.—211--tou?
c. inf. 217 Potential
165, 197-199
--pro>j to< and ei]j
to< c.
inf. 218 f.-- Prayer:
the Lord's 10, 173--absence
periphrastic tenses 226, 227—ou] c. of w# in 71--In 17, use of
aorist in
partic. 232—e]la<xistoj and e]la- 137--aorist imper. appropriate to 173
xisto<teroj 236 --compound verbs --optative in 195
237—mh< in questions 239—mh<tige Predicate, with ei]j 71
240 Prepositional
clause, anarthrous and
Perfect:
action 109, 111--in English, articular, 81 f., 236
its double force 136 Prepositions:
added to local cases in
INDEX OF
SUBJECTS.
287
Greek 61--extended use in Heile- Pronouns:
possessive 40--duality 77,
nistic, not due to Semitism 61 f.-- 79 f.--personal 84-87--reflexives 81
statistics for classical and post- --unemphatic e]autou? and i@dioj 87-90,
classical historians 62 f., and for 237—o[ i@dioj 90 f.—au]to<j
o[ and o[
NT 62 f., 98--in composition with au]to<j: 91-- relatives 91-95 --inter-
verbs 65, 111-118, 128, 237--re- rogatives 93 f., 95 ,
placing partitive gen. 72--"Hebraic"
Pronunciation
28, 33-36, 240, 243, 244
phrases 81 f.--dropping of article
--see Itacism
between prep. and infin. 81, 216-- Proper names
and Article S3, 236
tendency to drop article after 82, Prophecy,
use of shall in 150 f.
236--combinations with adverbs Protagoras
172
99--Semitism 99 f. --with one Psilosis
33, 38, 44
case 100-104 --alleged Latinisms Punctiliar
action 109-111, 116, 117,
100 -102--over-use paving the 118, 119, 120, 126, 129-131, 135,
way for extinction 103 f.--with 145, 149, 173, 174, 186, 222, 247
two cases 104-106--statistics 105-- Purist
with three cases 106 f.--adverbs in 242
essence 112--dropped when corn-- Purists in MGr
26, 30, 243-ef Atticism
pound is repeated soon after 115-- Purpose--see Final clauses
compounds tend to be used instead
of punctiliar simplex 115-118 -- "Q"--see
Logia
Polybius using compounds to avoid Qualitative use
of anartlarous noun
hiatus 117--NT writers use them 82 f.
less than the litterateurs 118--with Quantity,
levelling of 34
articular infinitive 216, 218-220, 241 Questions: with mh<ti 170--with ou]
--see Index II under the several 170, 177--with mh 170, 192 f., 239-
Prepositions indirect, in optative 196
Present
stem: twenty-three Greek Quotations
from classical Greek 45,
varieties of 109--its linear action 81, 156, 233, 238 f.
109, 110, 111, 114, 117, 119, 120, Quotations
from OT 11, 16, 52, 124,
125, 126, 127, 128, 147, 149, 173, 174, 188, 190, 192, 224, 235--see
174, 175, 180, 183, 186--iterative Index I (b), p. 257
action 109, 114, 119, 125, 127, 128,
129, 173, 180, 186, 233-verbs de- Reciprocal
Middle 157
fective
in 110 f.--in perfectivised Reciprocal
Pronoun, e[autou<j used for 87
verbs 113 f.--punctiliar action 119 f., Reduplication
109, 142, 145
238--contrasted with aorist in pro- Reference,
dative of 63, 75
hibitions 122-126--conative action Reflexive
Middle 155-157, 163
125, 127, 128 f., 147, 173 f, 186-- Reflexives:
no distinction for persons
timeless articular participle 126 f.-- in plural 87--this confusion illiterate
statistics with 6, 166--imperative, in singular 87--used for a]llh<louj 87
compared with aorist 173 f., 238- --replaced by Semitic use of yuxh<
quasi-ingressive in a]poxwrei?te 174 87--unemphatic e[autou? 87-90
-- subjunctive in warning clauses Relative
time 148
178--subjunctive with compounds Relatives:
pleonastic demonstrative
of a@n, compared with aorist
186- with 85, 94 f., 237--Sans 91-93-
participle in periphrasis 227--special attraction 92 f.--confused with inter-
uses of o[ w@n 228--see Imperfect and rogatives 93 f.--with a@n
(e]a<n) 166,
Present tense 234--relative sentences, mh< in 171,
Present
tense: for future time 114, 239--relative clauses replaced by
120, 167--with pa<lai, etc., rendered articular participle 228
by our perfect 119--for past time Religion:
technical language 18--con-
(historic present) 120-122, 139--see servative phraseology 20
Present
stem Repetition,
making distributives and
Prohibition:
distinction of present elatives 97
and aorist in 122-126--not originally Reported speech--see
Oratio obliqua
expressed by imperative, nor now in Result clauses--see
Consecutive
MGr 164--use of injunctive 165-- Resurrection,
voice of the verbs applied
negative in 169, 187 f., 192--in same to 163
category as commands 173—ou]
mh< Revelation--see
Apocalypse
187 f,--must be treated here with Revised
Version of NT: quoted or
denial 187 f. discussed 20, 50, 69, 72, 75, 90, 91,
288 INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
116, 117, 128, 129, 132, 136-140, for a@n 234--articular nom. in
address
148, 163, 175, 184, 189, 225, 229, 235—mi<a for prw<th 237--statistics
231, 241--margin 65, 66, 75, 78, for infin. 241--Mk little influenced
98, 137, 148, 163, 221, 222--the by 242--see under Quotations, and
First Revision 83, 156, 180 Index I (b), p. 250
Rhetoric,
rules for command in 172 Sequence, rules
of: Luke observes with
indirect question 199
Sahidic
80 Sermon
on the Mount, respective pro-
Sanskrit:
survival of Indo-Germanic portions of aorist and present imper.
cases 61--locative of indirect object in Mt and Lk 174
104--aorist of "thing just
happened" Sextus
Empiricus 52
135--future in -syami 149--gram- Shall and Will 150 f.
marians' names for active and middle Simple conditions 171
153--2 sing. mid. secondary suffix Sinaiticus,
Codex 34, 35, 38, 42, 45,
-thas
compared with Greek weak 47, 52, 53, 55, 65, 90, 133, 181,
aorist passive 161--survival of the 190 al
injunctive 165--imperative suffix Slavonic:
perfective compounds 111-
-tat
172--Vedic subjunctive makes future from that in -syo (obsolete)
in Epic a 1st person imperative 175 149--cf Lithuanian
--Vedic infinitives 203--classical Sophocles
215--see Index I (e), p. 268
ditto 204--infinitive parallel with Sources
for study of Koinh< 22 f., 27-30
sequimini
224--parenthetic nomina-
tive in time-expression 235--active Spoken Greek-see
Vernacular
and middle forms differentiated by Style, in
Luke and Heb (q.v.) 18
Ablaut
238 Subjective
genitive 72, 236--moods
Scotch
parallel to a@n
166, 239 164--negative 169 f.
Second
Epistle of Peter 78, 98, 171, Subjunctive:
itacistic confusions with
238 f. indicative 35--forms in contract verbs
Semitism--see
Aramaic and Hebraism 54--Sen 55, 193 f., 196--origin 164
Septuagint:
"translation Greek" of --relation to injunctive 165--after
2 f., 13--Justin Martyr's dependence compounds of a@n 166, 186, 239, 240
on 8, 233—ei]j
a]pa<thsin
in 14-
--after pri>n (h}) a@n 169--after ei]
mh<ti
constructions of e]ge<neto=yhiy;va 16 f.-- a@n 169, 239--negatives 170,
184 f.,
extent of Luke's imitation 18-- 187 f., 190, 192--1st person volitive
Hebraisms from this source to be used to supplement imperative 175,
carefully distinguished from Arama- 177--ditto in 2nd and 3rd person
isms 18--3rd pl. in -san 33, 56- 177 f.--volitive in positive commands
indecl. plh<rhj 50--gender of Ba<al 177 f.--c. tea as an imperative 177 f.
59—au!th for tOz 59-pisteu<ein
67 f.-- --its tone in command 178--with mh<
parenthetic nominative 70--violent in warning 178, 184--present allowed
use of gen. abs. 74--renderings of here 178--classified 184--volitive
the Hebrew infin. abs. 75 f.--"ex- 184 f.--deliberative 184, 185-futur-
hausted" i@dioj
and e[autou? 88--redun- istic 184, 185, 186, 192, 240--future
dant demonstrative after relative 95, indic. trespasses on all three 184 f.,
237--"77 times" 98, 107--uses of e]n 240--volitive clauses of purpose 185
103—peri< c. dat. 105—pro<j c.
dat. (see Final)--futuristic
with day and
and gen. 106—prw?toj 107—historic o!tan (q.v. in Index II), etc. 185--in
pres.121—a]pokriqei>j
ei#pen three
131--semi- comparisons
185 f.--tenses of 186-
aoristic perfect 142--aorist and per- with ei] 187, 239--has excluded
feet together 143---ke<kraga and kra<zw optative from final clauses 196 f.--
147—koima?n active 162—a]pokekom- c. tea has become equivalent of infin.
me<noj 163--statistics for a@n 166- 205 (see i!na in Index II)
perf. imper. 176--subj. used for Subsequent
action, alleged aor. partic.
future 185—ou] mh< 188, 191 f.—d&<h of 132-134
optative 194—ei] c. opt. 196--opta- Suffixes--see
severally in Index II
tive disappearing in final clauses 197 Superfluous
words--see Pleonasm
--potential opt. 197 f.—o@felon 201 Superlative
78 f., 236
--articular intin. 220, 241--participle Syncretism of
cases 61, 72, 104 --of
for indicative 224--partic. c. ei]mi<, tenses in English 135
disproving Aramaism 226—xlo
c. Synoptic
question, grammatical points
partic. translated with ou], 232—e]a<n
in 15-18,
71, 95, 103, 104, 105, 124,
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 289
174, 175, 189-192, 224, 226 f., 231, Universal
language, Greek as a 5 f.,
236, 241, 242--see under Matthew, 19, 28 f., 31
Mark,
Luke
Syntax:
alleged Semitisms in 12 f.-- Vase-inscriptions,
Attie 31, 33
Latinisms 21 Vaticanus,
Codex 34, 35, 38, 42, 47,
Syriac
104, 241, 244--see Lewis, and of 52, 53, 54, 80, 90, 97, 131, 133, 159,
Aramaic 169, 181, 190, 244 al--see b-text
Syrian
Recension 42, 53--see a-text Verba dieendi et
cogitandi 239
Verbal
adjectives 221 f.
Teleology
219 Verbs:
forms 38, 51-56--in mi (see
Telic--see
Final clauses Nonthematic)--number
58 f.--transi-
Temporal
Participle 230 tive and intransitive 64, 65 (q.v.)-
Tenses:
connexion with time mi- cases governed by 61-68--Aktionsart
original 108 f., 119--with a@n 166, 108-118, 221 al (see Action-form)-
186--in conditional sentences 166, defectives 110 f.--compounds (q.v.)
201--in infinitive 204--in verbal ad- --tenses 119-151 (see under the
jective 221--see under the several several tenses)-voice (q.v.) 152-163
Tenses --moods (q.v.) 164-201--infinitive
Tertullian
69 and participle (q.v.) 202-232
Textual
Criticism: pronunciation bear- Vernacular
Greek 1, 4 f., 22-41, 83, 85,
ing on 34-36--a, b and d text (q. v. )-- 188, 234, 239 al
see also under Alexandrinus, Bezae, Vocative: not
strictly a case 60--rela-
Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc. tions with articular nominative of
"Textus Receptus"--see a-text address 70 f., 235--few forms sur-
Thematic
vowel 171 viving 71--anarthrous nominative
Thucydides
25, 62, 215, 216--see tends to supplant it 71--progressive
Index I (e), p. 263 omission of w$--like imperative, is
Time:
cases expressing 63, 70, 72, an interjection 171
73, 75--connexion with tense un- Voice
152-163, 221, 238f.--see Middle,
original 108f., 119--expressed by Passive, Active
augment, and possibly by suffix -i Volitive
future 150, 151, 177-subjunc-
128--the perfect accompanied by tive 175, 177 f., 184 f.--see under
mark of 141 Future
and Subjunctive
Timelessness:
participles 126 f., 134- Vulgate--see
Latin
perfect and aorist 134
Traditional
spelling 35 f.
"Translation
Greek" 4, 13, 39, 59, 76, "We"--document
217--see Acts
102, 104, 105, 106,188 f., 237, 240, Week, days of
96, 237
242, 248--see Hehraism and Aramaic "W
estern" Text--see d-text
Translations
of NT: Latin, Syriac, Wish:
optative in 195--unrealised
Sahidic, Bohairic, Gothic (q.v.)-- 200 f.--ditto in future with o@felon
Hebrew (Delitzsch) 104, 163--MGr 201
(Pallis and B.F.B.S.) 22, 30--see World-language--see
Universal
Index I (e), p. 265 Wulfila--see
Gothic
Uncontracted
vowels 38, 48, 54 f., 234 Xenophon:
fore runner of Hellenism
31--grammar of 62--see Index I
Unemphatic
pronouns 85--e[autou? and (e)
i@dioj 87-90 Xenophon,
pseudo- 25-see Index I
Unfulfilled
condition 171, 196, 199- e)
201--wish 200--purpose 201
Unification
of Greek dialects 30 Zaconian, 32,
249
Uniformity
of Koinh< 5 f., 19, 38-41 Zeugma 241
ADDENDA TO
INDICES
-----------
INDEX I.
(a) NEW TESTAMENT.
MATTHEW ACTS PHILIPPIANS
PAGE PAGE PAGE
5.
17, 19 115 7.
34 185 1.
24 f.. 115
5.
24 247 10.
30 245
5.
25 249 17.
27 56
5.
26 188 17.
31 107 COLOSSIANS
6.
2, 5, 16 247 19.
2 131
7.
29 227 19.
27, 37 60, 244 1. 21 227
10.
11 249 26.
7 205 2. 18 239
11.
12 163 3.
9 117
11.
25 52 ROMANS
12.
18 64 1
THESSALONIANS
17.
14 69 2. 9 f. 115
18.
7 246 5.
2 248 2.11 225
18.
22 107 14.
5 246 2.
16 249
27.
29 246 5.
4 249
1 CORINTHIANS 5.
11 246
3.
14 f. 185
MARK 1 TIMOTHY
4.
21 xvii
1.
34 69 7. 21 247 5. 22 125
1.
41 f. 56 7. 28 247
11.
2 129 7. 29 . 179
13.
20 246 10. 9 115 2 TIMOTHY
13.
21 125 4.
7 237
2 CORINTHIANS
LUKE 11. 3 248 HEBREWS
12.1 248
4.29
249 3.
18 205
9.58 185 7.
7 246
15.
13 130 GALATIANS 11. 17 247
16.
16 163 2. 10 95 12.
17 245
19.
37 244 2. 14 24
2.
16 241 JAMES
JOHN 3. 18 248
3.
16 249 3. 21 67 1.
19 245
4.52 248 4. 23 248 5.
12 126
4.
52f. 245 5. 2 162
5.
[4] 245 5. 4 247 1 PETER
6.15
107
5. 17 249
10.
32 247 6. 10 248 1.
11 246
15.
13 249 6. 12 247 3.
1 90
17.
21, 24 f. 249 EHESIANS 2 PETER
18.
11 189 5. 5 245,
246 1.
16 231
290
ADDENDA TO INDICES. 291
(b) OLD
TESTAMENT.
PAGE PAGE PAGE
Gen.
3. 20 235 2 Sam. (2 K.) 19. 23 13 Isai. 31. 4 185
“ 38. 25 93
Job 21. 24 50 “ 37. 38 244
Num.
21. 14 235 Isai.
7. 2 185 “ 63. 2 50
1
Sam. (1 K.) 20.3 245
“ 17. 11 185
Jer. 42 (49) 22 245
APOCRYPHA.
(C) INSCRIPTIONS.
Syll.
Sylloge
Inscriptinum Graecarum, iterum ed. W. Dittenberger (
1900,
1901).
no.
356 167 no. 540. 240 no.
734 76
364 64
549 240 737 55
376 121
578 46 807 14, 144
385 107
653 46, 80, 101, 850 107
537 240 214,
245 928 227
538 240
656 121
930 81
JHS
xxii. 358. 244 BCH xxiv. 339 244
(d)
PAPYRI AND OSTRAKA.
BM
Vol. iii. (1907--cited by pages).
p.
1 76 p. 131 249 p.
136 53, 228
105 76
BU
Vol. i.
no.
5 240
no. 11 240 no. 180 101
Vol. ii.
530 240
Vol. iii.
798 246
Par
P
no.
43 86
no. 47 200 no. 58 55
PP
Vol. iii.
no.
28 107
no. 56 46 no. 65 46
43 234
OP
Vol.
iii.
no.
466 244
Vol. iv.
no.
743 194
Tb
P
Vol. i.
no.
16 xvii,
246 no. 61 214
Vol. ii. (1907--nos 265-689)
no.
283 249 no. 333 168, 193 no. 412 159
309 28
357 97 413 237
314 76
391 239 414 177,
178
315 76
408 178 526 240
292 ADDENDA TO INDICES.
Hb
P
Hibeh
Papyri, vol. i. (ed. Grenfell and Hunt, 1906—all iii/B.C.).
PAGE PAGE PAGE
no.
30 99
no. 51 234 no. 77 244
41 176
56 123 78 168
42 76
59 185 96 234
44 246
60 177 168 177
45 129,
177, 247
EP
Elephantine
Papyri, ed. O. Rubensohn (Berlin, 1907—all iv or iii/n.c.).
no.
11 144
no. 13 86
LI
P
Papyrus
grecs, from the Institut
Papyrologique de Universite de Lille; ed. P.
Jouguet (tome i. fast. 1, 2,
no.
1 130,
178
Lp
P
Griech.
Urkunden, der Papyrussammlung zu Leipzig, ed. L. Mitteis, vol. i.
(
no.
41 150,
159
Rein
P
Papyrus
Th. Reinach (
no.
7 200
Str
P
Strassburg
Papyri, ed. Fr. Preisigke, vol. i. part 1, 1906.
no.
22 76
Ostr
Griechisch
e Ostraka, by Ulrich Wileken. 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1899.)
nos.
1-900 243 f., 246 no. 240 245 no
927 245
Mélanges
Nicole
Studies, largely papyrological, in honour
of Prof. Jules Nicole,
p.
184. 244
p. 185 244 p. 251 246
INDEX
III.
Aorist:
action-form, 247—expressing Education,
varieties of 244
immediate past 247— compared with "Exhausted"
i@dioj
246
perfect 247 f. Final
clauses: weakened i!na 249
Aramaic:
in
for imper. 248 Genitive: with a]kou<ein and geu<esqai 245
Attic:
treatment of a 244 —partitive 245—ei]j supplying for
possessive 246
Bezae,
Codex 56, 244, 249
Bilingualism
243 Hebraism: e!wj po<te 107—ble<pein
a]po<
107—i@ste
ginw<kontej 245—use of
pa?j with negative 245 f.
Compound
verbs, not confined to
literary Greek 237 Imperfect
248
Infinitive:
for imperative 248—pur-
Dative:
ethicus 76—commodi 76— pose (anarthrous)249 --relations with
illiterate use of gen. for, 245 i!na 248—in MGr 249
ADDENDA TO INDICES. 293
John:
use of i!na 206, 249 Perfect:
in refl. to Scripture,in Paul 248
combined with aor.—
e@sxhka--248
Kaqareu<ousa, 243, 245, 246 Plautus
202
Koinh<: periods in 41, 45, 48—history Prepositions,
replacing partitive 245
of name 243 Present
stem: punctiliar 247—im-
perative compared with aorist 247
L, Codex 234 Pronunciation
of h,
^,
ei
Lexical
notes: ei]j a]pa<nthsin 242
Literary
element in NT 245 Revised
Version 245
Luke:
accurate use of h[ qeo<j 60, 244 Septuagint:
flexion of -ra
nouns, etc.
48—acc. in -an in 3rd decl. 49—e]ka-
Middle:
"incorrect" uses 248 qeri<sqh 56—ou]qei<j and ou]dei<j
56--3
Modern
Greek: versions of NT 243— pl. opt. in -san 56—uses of e]n 245
pa?sa 244—a]po< 245—tij 246—sur- Subjunctive, futuristic
249
vivals 249 Symmachus
245
Ostraka
243 ff., 283 Textual
Criticism: pronunciation bear-
ing on 244—relations of B and D
Partitive
gen., replaced by a]po< 245 244, 249
Paul:
literary use of i@ste? 245—use of Time, cases expressing 245
perfect 248—Hebraism in? 245 Tobit,
uses of e]n
245