M 
 
 Jfr~ 5^ A a . Si- 
 
 .1. THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, | 
 Princeton, N. J. | 
 
 t * 
 
 4k 
 
 <:■' 
 
 BS 413 .B58 v. 10 
 Stuart, Moses, 1780-1852. 
 A treatise on the syntax of 
 the New Testament dialect, 
 
TREATISE 
 
 SYNTAX 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 A DISSERTATION ON THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 MOSES STUART, 
 
 PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE IN THE THEOLOGICAL 
 SEMINARY, ANDOVER. 
 
 EDINBURGH : 
 
 THOMAS CLARK, 38. GEORGE STREET. 
 
 MDCCCXXXV. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 This volume of the Biblical Cabinet contains 
 that portion of Professor Stuart's Grammar of 
 the New Testament Dialect, which embraces 
 the Syntax, together with a separate treatise 
 on the Greek Article, which it was thought 
 would form an interesting sequel. 
 
 The first and second parts of the author's 
 Grammar, which treat, — I. Of Letters and their 
 Changes, — II. Grammatical Forms and Flec- 
 tions, have been omitted, from the conviction 
 that they would have greatly increased the ex- 
 pense of the work, without any corresponding 
 benefit to the British theological student. 
 
 The following excerpt from the author's Pre- 
 face, will explain his views of the importance 
 and utility of an accurate knowledge of the New 
 Testament dialect to the theological student : — 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 was solved, if possible, by a resort to the usages 
 of the Hebrew language. 
 
 Time and farther examination have corrected 
 these. errors and extravagancies. Accurate and 
 extensive investigation, such as has recently been 
 made by Planck , and Winer, has shewn, that 
 there is scarcely a unique and peculiar form of 
 a Greek word in the whole range of the New 
 Testament, nor a single principle of syntax of 
 any importance, which has not its parallel among 
 more or less of the native Greek writers. It is 
 true, beyond all doubt, that there are many 
 words in the New Testament to which the 
 writers have assigned a sense different from that 
 which can be found in any of the native Greek 
 authors. But this alters neither the form nor 
 the syntax of such words. Nor is it to be con- 
 sidered merely as Hebraism. It arises from the 
 necessity of the case. How could a Hebrew 
 express ideas of a religious nature, and pertaining 
 to the worship of Jehovah, in a language which 
 the mere heathen had formed, into whose minds, 
 in a variety of cases, no such ideas as the Hebrew 
 writer designed to communicate had ever enter- 
 ed ? One may answer this question by asking, 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 how a writer of the present day could express, 
 in Latin and Greek, the ideas contained in a 
 treatise on electricity, magnetism, or steam- 
 boats ? 
 
 The writers of the New Testament did just 
 what all writers are ever obliged to do ; where 
 the language which they employ is not adequate 
 to express their conceptions, they either coin 
 new words, or else use old words in new senses. 
 Both of these the New Testament writers have 
 done ; and done as often as they were necessitat- 
 ed to do it, but generally no oftener. Who can 
 blame them for this ? Or who can wonder that 
 they should have so done ? They must either 
 proceed in this way, or refrain from communicat- 
 ing what they wished to write. 
 
 In the formation of new words, however, 
 whether by composition or otherwise, they have 
 followed throughout the common analogies and 
 laws of the Greek language. From its syntax 
 they scarcely, if ever, depart, even in the minu- 
 tiae of it. Hence a Grammar of the New Testa- 
 ment idiom, must, for substance, be a grammar of 
 the Greek %m% didKsxrogt and so it is exhibited, in 
 the following sheets." 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 11 The references for illustration and example 
 are mostly taken from the New Testament ; 
 which all will acknowledge to be proper.*' 
 
PBXH& 
 
 THBOLOGIG* 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Page 
 Sect. 1. Definitions ...... 1 
 
 2. Dialects of Greece .... 2 
 
 3. Character of New Testament Dialect . 8 
 
 ARTICLE. 
 
 Sect. 1. Article before leading Nouns . 33 
 
 2. with Adjectives .... 43 
 
 3 with Participles .... 46 
 
 4. before adjuncts to principal Nouns . 48 
 
 5. ~~ specialUsages . . . .51 
 
 6. — as a Pronoun ..... 54 
 
 NOUNS. 
 
 Sect. 7. Nouns, Number and Gender 56 
 
 8. Apposition ..... 60 
 
 9. — Nominative and Vocative Case . . 61 
 
 GENITIVE. 
 
 Sect. 10. Genitive Case 63 
 
 1 1 after Nouns ..... 64 
 
XII CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 Sect. 12. Genitive after Verbs 68 
 
 13 after Partitives, Adjectives, etc. . 78 
 
 14. ~~ Absolute 82 
 
 15 after Prepositions and Adverbs . ib. 
 
 DATIVE. 
 
 Sect. 16. Dative, Nature and Uses . . .85 
 
 17. ~~ Classes of Words governing it . 86 
 
 18 various relations signified by it . 89 
 
 19. — with Prepositions . . . .91 
 
 ACCUSATIVE. 
 
 20. Accusative, Nature and Use ... 93 
 
 
 
 PRONOUNS. 
 
 
 Sect. 21. 
 
 Pronouns 
 
 , Gender and Number 
 
 100 
 
 22. 
 
 „~ 
 
 use of Personal ones 
 
 101 
 
 23. 
 
 
 
 Possessives 
 
 105 
 
 24. 
 
 
 
 Demonstratives . . . . 
 
 107 
 
 25. 
 
 — 
 
 Relatives . ... 
 
 . 109 
 
 26. 
 
 — 
 
 Interrogatives 
 
 . Ill 
 
 27. 
 
 „ 
 
 Indefinites .... 
 
 112 
 
 28. 
 
 
 Hebraism in the designation of 
 ADJECTIVES. 
 
 »6. 
 
 Sect. 29. Adjectives, concord . . . .114 
 
 30. various ways of using them . .116 
 
 31. „.. Comparative Degree . . 118 
 
 32. — Superlative Degree . .120 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 NUMERALS. 
 
 .Sect. 33. Numerals, Cardinals and Ordinal? 
 
 VERBS. 
 
 Sect. 34. Verbs Active 
 
 35. — Passive 
 
 36. _ Middle 
 37 Tenses 
 
 Page 
 121 
 
 122 
 124 
 127 
 128 
 
 MODES OF VERBS. 
 
 38. 
 
 Modes of Verbs in independent sentences 
 
 132 
 
 39. 
 
 .„. 
 
 dependent sentences 
 
 138 
 
 40. 
 
 — 
 
 after Particles of design, etc. 
 
 140 
 
 41. 
 
 
 
 in hypothetical sentences 
 
 145 
 
 42. 
 
 
 with Particles of time 
 
 150 
 
 43. 
 
 
 
 after on and <wj 
 
 152 
 
 44. 
 
 
 after Pronouns and Particles 
 
 155 
 
 45. 
 
 — 
 
 after Interrogates 
 
 156 
 
 46. 
 
 ,,„ 
 
 use of Modes with av 
 
 157 
 
 47. 
 
 — 
 
 distinctions made by av 
 
 168 
 
 48. 
 
 — 
 
 general remarks on av 
 
 169 
 
 IMPERATIVE. 
 
 Sect. 49. Imperative, Use and Construction 
 
 170 
 
 INFINITIVE. 
 
 .Sect. 50. Infinitive, Nature and Use> 
 
 173 
 
XIV CONTENTS. 
 
 PARTICIPLES. 
 
 Page 
 Sect. 51. Participle, Nature and Uses . . . 185 
 
 52. — construction . . . . .190 
 
 53. _ Part, in Case Absolute - .196 
 
 54. — use of in the Tenses . - .199 
 
 55. ~~ Hebraistic use of . . 200 
 
 IMPERSONAL VERBS. 
 
 Sect. 56. Impersonal Verbs, Nature and Use of . 200 
 
 CONCORD OF VERBS. 
 Sect. 57- Concord of Verbs as to Number and Gender 201 
 
 APPOSITION. 
 
 Sect. 58. Apposition, ways in which it is made . . 203 
 
 PARTICLES. 
 
 Sect. 59. Particles, Nature and kinds of 205 
 
 ADVERBS. 
 Sect. 60. Adverbs, Nature and Use .... 207 
 
 PREPOSITIONS. 
 
 Sect. 61. Prepositions, Nature and Use . . . 212 
 
 CONJUNCTIONS. 
 Sect. 62. Conjunctions, Nature and Use . . . 222 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XV 
 
 PARTICLES OF NEGATION. 
 
 Page 
 
 Sect. 63. Particles of Negation, nature and various uses 227 
 
 64. ~~ modes after them 232 
 
 INTERROGATIVES. 
 
 Sect. 65. Interrogatives, Nature and Use 
 
 234 
 
 Sect. 66. Ellipsis 
 
 
 236 
 
 67. Aposiopesis 
 
 
 
 241 
 
 68. Breviloquence 
 
 
 
 . . ib. 
 
 69. Zeugma 
 
 
 
 242 
 
 70. Pleonasm 
 
 
 
 243 
 
 71- Asyndeton 
 
 
 
 244 
 
 72. Parenthesis 
 
 
 
 246 
 
 73. Anacoluthon 
 
 
 
 247 
 
 74. Varied Construction 
 
 
 250 
 
 75. Position of Words, etc. 
 
 
 252 
 
 76. Trajection of Words 
 
 
 254 
 
 77. Position of particles 
 
 
 ib. 
 
 78. Paronomasia 
 
 
 
 255 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 HINTS AND CAUTIONS RESPECTING T HE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 73 lines 15 and 16, for the things which are seen read 
 the conduct of those who know 
 
 85, passim, for compliment read complement. 
 
 112 line 20, for ^ j^b — *"«*■ readh'D xb — ou va.;- 
 
 144 7, for u>s 'ihi^a, ftfaors, that I might have dis- 
 closed myself, read us i^u^a fty-ron spao-rov, that 1 might 
 not have disclosed myself. 
 
 144 9>f or invoked read closed. 
 
 — ! — 152 12 and 18, for compliment read complement. 
 
 153 6, for complimentary read complementary. 
 
 193 19, and page 226 line 22, for casual read causal. 
 
 The above errata, which exist in the original, were not observed till 
 this edition was printed off'. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 § 1. DEFINITIONS. 
 
 (1.) Language consists of the external signs 
 of ideas and feelings. It may be spoken or writ- 
 ten. In the first case, it consists of articulate 
 sounds uttered by the human voice ; in the se- 
 cond, of conventional signs called letters and 
 words, which are representatives of articulate 
 sounds. 
 
 (2.) Grammar is that science which teaches 
 the manner of forming and declining words, and 
 also the manner in which they are joined to- 
 gether in order to construct sentences or parts 
 of sentences. It may be divided, therefore, into 
 two parts, viz. formal, i. e. that which respects 
 the forms of words, and syntactic, i. e, that which 
 respects the manner of arranging words together 
 in order to express our ideas. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 (3.) Every language is exposed to changes, 
 and actually suffers more or less of them, 
 through all the periods of time in which it is 
 spoken. Any noticeable departure from what 
 has once been a general custom, or the most 
 approved usage, of speaking or writing a lan- 
 guage, is called a dialect (dtdXexrog.) Among a 
 nation widely extended, or consisting of various 
 smaller tribes, dialects nearly always exist. In 
 such a case, the differences in the forms of icords, 
 or in their syntax, are the things taken into the 
 account in order to make out the notion of what 
 is strictly called dialect ; which word is, and 
 always must be, used in a comparative sense, 
 when it is properly used. Departure, in more 
 or less particulars, from some supposed standard 
 or predominant usage among the more cultivated 
 part of a nation, is that which general custom 
 names dialect 
 
 § 2. OF THE DIALECTS OF GREECE. 
 
 (1.) The most ancient Greek language, if it 
 were universal, could not properly be named 
 dialect. In comparison, however, with most of 
 the Greek which has come down to us, it may 
 be so called. The most ancient Greek is, with 
 
DIALECTS. 3 
 
 good reason, supposed to be for substance exhi- 
 bited to us, in the poetry of Homer and Hesiod ; 
 who, as we may with much probability believe, 
 wrote the dialect which they spoke in common 
 with the people around them. This ancient dia- 
 lect (called also the epic dialect, because it is ex- 
 hibited in the poems of Homer and Hesiod) ap- 
 pears to have been the common mother of all 
 the later dialects of Greece ; and probably it 
 differs from the spoken language, only as the 
 language of elevated poetry commonly differs 
 from that which is spoken by the mass of the 
 people. New words, new forms of old words, 
 and new modes of expression, are almost of 
 course exhibited in the higher kinds of poetry. 
 
 Note. The supposition that Homer was ac- 
 quainted with all the later and different dialects of 
 Greece, and designedly introduced them into his 
 poem, seems very improbable. Much more pro- 
 bable is it, that the language which he employed was 
 the common mother of all the dialects. In this way 
 we may easily and naturally account for all of his al- 
 leged dialectic peculiarities. 
 
 (2.) The Hellenians or Greeks, who immi- 
 grated through Thrace into Hellas (so called), 
 consisted of several tribes, of which the two 
 
4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 principal ones were Dorians and Ionians. The 
 original seat of the Dorians in Greece, was the 
 Peloponnesus ; of the Ionians, Attica. From 
 these sprung the Doric and Ionic dialects, which 
 constituted the two principal dialects of Greece, 
 from the time that the Greek nation came to be 
 much known in authentic history. 
 
 (3.) The Doric dialect, which was the most 
 extensively spoken, prevailed in Hellas proper, 
 viz. in Sparta, Argos, and Messenia; also in Crete, 
 Sicily, Magna Graecia or Lower Italy, and in 
 the Dorian colonies of Asia Minor. In the 
 course of time, it became the appropriate dialect 
 of lyric and bucolic poetry. It is exhibited in 
 the fragments of Epicharmus and Sophron, and 
 in the works of Pindar, Alcaeus, Sappho, Co- 
 rinna, Theocritus, Bion, and Moschus. The 
 lyric parts of the Attic tragedy, i. e. the chorus, 
 also exhibit it. The peculiar characteristics of 
 this dialect are a certain harshness or roughness 
 in the construction of words, and a kind of in- 
 distinctness of sound occasioned by the frequent 
 use of the close vowel A', which the Greeks 
 called nXaruaG^og. 
 
 Note. Branches or subdivisions of this dialect 
 were the Laconic, Boeotian, Thessal^n, and Sicilian 
 
DIALECTS. 5 
 
 dialects ; no specimens of which are preserved, ex- 
 cepting a few fragments. The Aeolic was also a 
 branch or variety of the Doric. It became at length 
 a cultivated language, and was spoken in Middle 
 Greece, with the exception of Attica, Megaris, and 
 Doris. Sappho and Alcaeus afford specimens of this 
 species of the Doric. 
 
 (4.) The Ionic dialect was spoken origi- 
 nally in Attica. Numerous colonies emigrated, 
 however, from this country to Asia Minor, which 
 gradually became the principal, and at last the 
 only seat of the dialect, if we include the islands 
 which lie along its coasts in the Aegean sea. 
 This dialect is characterized by softness of 
 sound, and the resolution of the harsher sounds 
 by the insertion of letters that mitigated them. 
 The works of Herodotus, Hippocrates, and 
 Anacreon, are composed in the Ionic. 
 
 Note. This dialect approaches nearer to the epic 
 or old Greek than any other; so that the epic is 
 sometimes called the old Ionic, and the proper Ionic 
 the new Ionic. 
 
 (5.) The Attic dialect was formed out of the 
 Ionian, by the remnant of the Ionian people 
 which remained in Attica, after its colonies 
 were sent out to Asia Minor. It holds a middle 
 
6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 course between the harshness of the Doric, and 
 the softness of the Ionic dialect. The political 
 importance of Attica, the high culture of its 
 citizens, and the great number of excellent writ- 
 ers which it produced, caused this dialect to be- 
 come far more renowned and more an object of 
 study than any of the others. The works of 
 Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato, Demosthenes, 
 Lysias, Isocrates, Aeschines, etc., and also of 
 Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes, 
 and others, being in the Attic, have immortal- 
 ized the dialect in which they were written. 
 
 (6.) After the freedom of Greece was destroy- 
 ed by Philip, the Attic language began to be 
 adopted by degrees among all its different tribes, 
 now united together under Alexander and his 
 successors. Yet every tribe that had once been 
 distinct, in adopting it, would naturally give to 
 it a great many turns and modifications ; and 
 these of course would constitute departures from 
 its original form. It was this general dialect, 
 as spoken and modified by Greece at large, and 
 particularly by those who were not natives of 
 Attica, that came at last to be called the common 
 or Hellenic dialect. Of course the basis of the 
 xoivn didXsxrog is Attic ; but still the Attic as con- 
 
DIALECTS. 7 
 
 tained in the xo/v^ is modified in some respects as 
 to form and syntax. Thus modified it is the 
 usual standard of our grammars and lexicons ; 
 and departures from this are particularly speci- 
 fied by the names of particular dialects. 
 
 Note. Writers of this kind of Greek, i. e. of the 
 x.oivr h are Aristotle, Theophrastus, Pausanias, Apollo- 
 dorus, Polybius, Diodorus, Plutarch, Strabo, Diony- 
 sius Halicarnassensis, Lucian, Aelian, Arrian, etc. 
 
 (7.) In Macedonia the Attic dialect received 
 many and peculiar modifications. Moreover, 
 the successors of Alexander in Egypt cultivated 
 literature with greater ardour than any other of 
 the Grecian princes. Hence Alexandria became 
 the place where this peculiar dialect (sometimes 
 called Macedonian and sometimes Alexandrine)^ 
 particularly developed itself. A great number 
 of the later Greek works proceeded from this 
 source, and they exhibit the dialect in ques- 
 tion. 
 
 (8.) The Jews, who left Palestine and settled 
 at Alexandria during the reign of the Ptolemies, 
 learned this dialect ; and when the Old Testa- 
 ment was translated by them into Greek, for the 
 use of their synagogues, the translators exhi- 
 
8 INTRODUCTION". 
 
 bited a specimen of the Alexandrine Greek, 
 modified by their own dialect, i. e. by the He- 
 brew. For substance this same dialect, thus 
 modified, appears in the New Testament, and in 
 the early Christian fathers ; yet not without 
 many variations. Rost (the grammarian) calls 
 this ecclesiastical Greek ; it has usually been 
 called the Hellenistic language ; but might more 
 appropriately and significantly be called Hebrew- 
 Greek ; which appellation would designate the 
 cause and manner of its modifications. 
 
 § 3. CHARACTER OF THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 
 
 ( 1 .) Soon after the commencement of the 1 7th 
 century, a contest began among the learned in 
 Europe, respecting the character of the New 
 Testament diction. One class of writers claimed 
 for it the purity and elegance of the old Greek ; 
 while others not only acknowledged a Hebrew 
 colouring in it, but strove to shew that it every 
 where abounded in this. About the end of the 
 17th century this last party became the predo- 
 minant one ; but the contest did not entirely 
 cease, until about the middle of the 18th century, 
 when the Hebraists became almost universally 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. y 
 
 triumphant. The Purists (as the former party- 
 were called) have now become wholly extinct, at 
 least among all well-informed linguists and critics ; 
 but a new party (if it may be so named) has 
 arisen, who have taken a kind of middle way be- 
 tween the two older parties, avoiding the ex- 
 tremes of both, and occupying a ground which 
 seems to have a basis so well established as to 
 afford no apprehension that it can be shaken. 
 This third party bids fair speedily to become 
 universal. 
 
 Note. So early as the latter part of the 16th 
 century, Beza (De dono Linguae, etc., on Acts x. 46) 
 acknowledged the Hebraisms of the New Testament, 
 but extolled them as being " of such a nature, that in 
 no other idiom could expressions be so happily form- 
 ed ; nay, in some cases not even formed at all," in an 
 adequate manner. He considered them as " gems 
 with which [the apostles] had adorned their writings."' 
 The famous Robert Stephens (Pref. to his New Tes- 
 tament, 1576) declared strongly against those, " qui 
 in his scriptis [sacris] inculta omnia et horrida esse 
 putant ;" and he laboured not only to show that the 
 New Testament contains many of the elegancies of the 
 true Grecian style, but that even its Hebraisms give 
 inimitable strength and energy to its diction. Thus 
 far, then, Hebraism was not denied but vindicated ; 
 and it was' only against allowing an excess of it, and 
 
10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 against alleged incorrectnesses and barbarisms, that 
 Beza and Stephens contended. 
 
 Sebastian Pfochen, (Diatribe de Ling. Graec. N. 
 Test, puritate, 1629) first laboured in earnest, to 
 show that all the expressions employed in the New 
 Testament, are found in good classic Greek authors. 
 In 1658, Erasmus Schmidt vindicated the same ground. 
 But before this, J. Junge, rector of Hamburgh, pub- 
 lished (in 1637, 1639) his opinion in favour of the 
 purity (not the classic elegance) of the New Testa- 
 ment diction ; which opinion was vindicated by Jac. 
 Grosse, pastor in the same city, in a series of five 
 essays published in 1640 and several successive years. 
 The last four of these were directed against the attacks 
 of opponents, i. e. of advocates for the Hellenistic dic- 
 tion of the New Testament ; viz. against Dan. Wulfer's 
 Innocentia Hellenist, vindicata (1640), and an essay 
 of the like nature by J. Musaeus of Jena (1641 — 42). 
 
 Independently of this particular contest, D. Hein- 
 sius (in 1643) declared himself in favour of Hellenism ; 
 as also Thos. Gataker (1648), who avowedly wrote 
 in opposition to Pfochen, with much learning, but 
 rather an excessive leaning to Hebraism. Joh. Vor- 
 stius (1658, 1665) wrote a book on Hebraisms, which 
 is still common. On some excesses in this book, 
 Horace Vitringa made brief but strenuous remarks. 
 Somewhat earlier than these last writings, J. H. Boe- 
 der (1641) published remarks, in which he took a 
 kind of middle way between the two parties ; as did 
 J. Olearius (1668), and J. Leusden about the same 
 time. It was about this time, also, that the majority 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 11 
 
 of critical writers began to acknowledge a Hebrew 
 element in the New Testament diction, which, how- 
 ever, they did not regard as constituting barbarism, 
 but only as giving an oriental hue to the diction. M. 
 Solanus, in an able essay directed against the tract of 
 Pfochen, vindicated this position. J. H. Michaelis 
 (1707) and A. Blackwall {Sacred Classics, 1727), did 
 not venture to deny the Hebraisms of the New Testa- 
 ment, but aimed principally to shew, that these did 
 not detract from the qualities of a good and elegant 
 style ; so that, in this respect, the New Testament 
 writers were not inferior to the classical ones. The 
 work of the latter abounds with so many excellent re- 
 marks, that it is worthy of attention from every criti- 
 cal reader of the present time. 
 
 In 1722, Siegm. Georgi, in his Vindiciae, etc., and 
 in 1733 in his Hierocriticus Sacer, vindicated anew 
 the old opinion of the Purists ; but without changing 
 the tide of opinion. The same design J. C. Schwarz 
 had in view, in his Comm. crit. et philol. in Ling. 
 Graec. (1636) ; who was followed, in 1752, by E. 
 Palairet (Observ. philol. crit. in Nov. Test.), the last, 
 I believe, of all the Purists. 
 
 Most of the older dissertations above named, with 
 some others, were published together in a volume by 
 J. Rhenferd, entitled Dissertationum philol. theol. de 
 Stylo N. Test. Syntagma, 1702 ; and the later ones 
 by T. H. Van den Honert, in his Syntagma Dis- 
 sertat. de Stylo N. Test. Graeco, 1703. 
 
 2. The Purists in general committed several 
 errors in their efforts to establish the Graecism or 
 
12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 classic purity of the New Testament, (a) They 
 not unfrequently named that Graecism, which 
 is the common property of all cultivated lan- 
 guages, and so is properly neither Graecism nor 
 Hebraism. 
 
 E. g. in respect to di-^wreg rqv dixouoavvriv, Matt. v. 
 6, examples are adduced from various Greek writers, 
 to show that the verb di^uw is tropically employed by 
 them to signify strong desire. But so the correspond- 
 ing verb in Latin is used ; and in most other lan- 
 guages ; and, consequently, such a usage is properly 
 neither Graecism nor Hebraism, etc. The like may 
 be said of i&iew used to signify devouring, consuming, 
 etc. ; of ysvia for a. particular generation of men ; of 
 /ih as designating power ; and fo of many like words. 
 When Pfochen converted all such expressions into 
 evidences of the classical elegance of the New Testa- 
 ment, he made claims which cannot properly be al- 
 lowed. 
 
 As a specimen of the excess to which he carried his 
 classical illustrations, we may refer to Matt. x. 27, 
 xygv^are stti tuv doj/xdruv. To vindicate this he brings 
 from Msop the following sentence : egipog Wt rtvoi 
 duiparog kffruc, a kid was standing on a certain house. 
 
 (b) They did not make sufficient distinction 
 between mere prosaic and poetic diction ; nor 
 between those tropes which are occasionally used 
 and for special purposes, and those which have 
 become the common property of the language. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 13 
 
 E. g. to prove from the Greek poets that -/.oi/jbdo/^cn 
 sometimes means to be dead ; that ffvifftu means off- 
 spring ; KGiftdivsiv, to ride ; }hiTv ^dvurov, to die ,• cor?;- 
 ow kivsiv, to participate of suffering ; and rrhrnv, to 
 fail, to be frustrated ; would not be to show that the 
 diction of the New Testament, is the classic Greek of 
 prose ; although Georgi, Schwarz, and others have 
 resorted to such proof. 
 
 (c) They did not make proper allowance for 
 Hebraism, when an expression is common to the 
 Hebrew and Greek languages, and when the 
 natural probability is, that the New Testament 
 writers chose the expressions in question from 
 their feelings as Hebrews. 
 
 E. g. yivuiCKuv avdgcc probably came from the Heb. 
 t£^tf y"T« So Grt.uyyja, as meaning compassion, 
 
 ~ T 
 
 tr t oa land in distinction from water, ^/"ao? shore, 
 (rro/xa edge of the sword, vra^vvm to be stupid, xvgios 
 xvgiuv, u6^-/z6^at i/g rbv /toff/Aov, etc., were all introduced, 
 as we may well suppose, from the Hebrew, and they 
 should not be accounted for by any parallels from 
 Herodotus, Aelian, Xenophon, etc. 
 
 (d) The same word, if not employed in the 
 same sense, can prove nothing to the purpose of 
 the Purists. 
 
 E. g. Pfochen cites jjXSi...!* fyi plfkahy to show 
 that sv is classically used in the New Testament be- 
 
14 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 fore the Dat. of instrument ; whereas in the passage 
 cited it means in, not by. So xogrdfytv to feed men, 
 is illustrated from Plato. Rep. II. where it is used for 
 feeding swine ; and many other things of the like 
 nature. 
 
 (e) Similar meanings of words, but yet not 
 
 fully the same, will not constitute good proof of 
 
 classic purity. 
 
 E. g. tv^iexsiv ydoii Ta^a nva, is not properly con- 
 firmed by svgitfxsiv rqv il^vriv — rr)v dwgsuv which Georgi 
 brings from Demosthenes ; kotyioiov lot, destiny, is not 
 confirmed by k^cct^s a'//Mccrog from Aristophanes ; nor 
 Ktvruv, to be frustrated, by oj j/a^u-a/ wzfcTrat o ri av 
 i'l-xoig from Plato ; nor cvtto /j,r/„go\j sug fisydXou, by ovrs 
 fjAya ovts ff/jtixeov ; nor dvo dvo by irXsov ifksov, etc. 
 
 (/) The Byzantine historians cannot be safely 
 appealed to as examples of pure Greek, because 
 the lateness of their productions, and the plain 
 fact that their style was affected by the New 
 Testament, render them unsafe authorities in 
 such a case. 
 
 E. g. to confirm the classical use of ffrripifyiv rb TgoV- 
 wroi/ and hurifytftcci, as Schwarz has endeavoured to 
 do, by examples out of Nicetas ; or r\ £>jf a, dry land 
 by Cinnam. Hist, as Georgi has done ; is little to the 
 purpose. 
 
 (g) It should now be added, that many phrases 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 15 
 
 of the New Testament, of which the Purists 
 could find no parallel in Greek classic authors, 
 are passed over in silence by them, and kept en- 
 tirely out of view. No wonder, therefore, that 
 their opponents, the Hebraists, gained a victory 
 in the end, which seemed to be complete. All, 
 however, that was contended for, and that was 
 supposed to be won by the Hebraists, could not 
 afterwards be retained. 
 
 Note. The best works on the true dialect of the 
 New Testament, are Salmasius, De Lingua Hellen- 
 istica : Sturtz, De Dialecto Alexandrina (1809) ; and 
 Planck, De vera Natura et Indole Orat. Graec. N. 
 Test. [Biblical Cabinet, vol. II.] Almost all the in- 
 troductions to the New Testament contain more or 
 less in relation to this subject ; but none of them can 
 be fully confided in, which were written before the 
 essay by Planck, just mentioned, made its appearance. 
 
 (2.) Ground-element of the New Testament Greek. 
 When all Greece was united under one dominion, 
 during the time of Alexander the Great and his 
 successors, both the written and spoken language 
 underwent some change. The first, taking the 
 Attic for its stock, grafted upon it many words 
 that were common and general Greek, and even 
 some provincialisms ; this is h xoivfi didXsxrog. The 
 second, i. e. the language of intercourse, taking 
 
16 INTRODUCTION". 
 
 the same basis, adopted and intermixed more or 
 less words from all the different dialects ; among 
 which the Macedonian dialect was especially the 
 predominant one. It was by the speaking of 
 Greek, that the Hebrews in Alexandria and else- 
 where became acquainted with this language ; 
 and of course the Greek which they wrote, 
 would partake of the character of the Greek 
 spoken in the times succeeding those of Alexander. 
 
 Note. That the Jews of Alexandria learned 
 Greek by intercourse with those who spoke it there, 
 is manifest from the nature of the case, and from the 
 fact that the Jews, almost without exception, were 
 averse to the learned study of the Greek language. 
 Philo and Josephus are among the exceptions. The 
 style of the latter, when compared with that of the 
 LXX. in those parts of his works (for example) which 
 relate to the Old Testament History, shews that he 
 had cultivated the classical Greek of the times ; while 
 the Septuagint exhibits a kind of Greek quite dis- 
 crepant from that of Philo or of Josephus. Subse- 
 quently to the period when the Septuagint version 
 was made, the Greek style of the Jews was of course 
 affected more or less by this version. Hence the 
 apocryphal Greek writings of the Jews, and the New 
 Testament, partake more or less of the style of the 
 Septuagint. Still, as the Septuagint is a translation 
 of the Hebrew Scriptures, we might naturally ex- 
 pect it would abound more in Hebraisms than the 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 17 
 
 writings last named, which were original produc- 
 tions ; and such is the fact. The New Testament 
 writings are more free from peculiarities as to words 
 or phrases, than the Alexandrine version. 
 
 The ground element, then, of the New Testament 
 diction, is the later Greek as modified at Alex- 
 andria ; i. e. the Attic dialect, modified by the 
 intermixture of words used in other dialects, 
 especially in the dialect of the Macedonians, 
 and as employed in the language of intercourse. 
 In other words, its predominant ingredient is 
 the Attic dialect; while its subordinate consti- 
 tuents are principally the Macedonic dialect, 
 mixed with the peculiarities of those to whom 
 Hebrew was vernacular. 
 
 Note 2. The koivyi (3/aAsxro£, then, i. e. the later 
 Greek, as modified by the times which succeeded the 
 period of Alexander's reign, is nearest of all the pro- 
 fane Greek writings to the diction of the New Tes- 
 tament. Hence the study and comparison of the 
 later Greek authors is peculiarly important to the 
 interpreter of the New Testament. The difference 
 between their diction and that of the New Testa- 
 ment, arises principally from two sources ; viz., first, 
 the Hebrews wrote from their acquaintance with the 
 conversation- Greek, which naturally allowed more 
 latitude than the written Greek to departure from 
 the Attic style, and more frequently indulged in the 
 
18 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 use of words not classical, in constructions not agree- 
 able to the strict rules of syntax, and in assigning to 
 words new meanings; and secondly, every Jew, in 
 speaking or writing a foreign language, would neces- 
 sarily introduce many of the idioms of his own ver- 
 nacular language. 
 
 (3.) The peculiarities of the New Testament 
 diction may be classed under two heads, viz. 
 lexical and grammatical. 
 
 1 . The lexical relates to the choice of words : 
 the forms of them ; the frequency with which 
 they were employed ; the new and different 
 meanings assigned to them ; and the new forma- 
 tion of them. 
 
 (a) Words were chosen from all the dialects; (1) 
 The Attic ; e. g. vaXog, 6 ffxorog (masc), dzrbg, <ptd}.r„ 
 dXrftitv, <rgvpva, /Xiuig. (2) The Doric ; e. g. Kid?u, 
 yJJfiavog, t\ Xi/xbg, no'ia. (3) Ionic ; e. g. yoyyv^oo, 
 g?]<j(roj, Kgqvrig, /Sa^/xog, Moontfyiv, <pvw (intrans.) (4) 
 Macedonic ; e. g. KagspfioXri camp, gu^n street. (5) 
 Cyrenaic ; e. g. (3zvbg hill. (6) Syracusan ; e. g. 
 s/Vo/ (Imper.) 
 
 (b) New forms (mostly prolonged ones) were given 
 to words; e. g. dvd^spa (dvd^/Act), sWaXa/ (vaXou), 
 JJac/va (sga-7/vTjs), xav^rjffig (xrxv^rjfia), dnoffraGia, 
 (dxoijTucrig), Terdofxai (r's~o>j,ou), (3i(3\iag/diov (/3//3?Jo/oy), 
 opwuw (o'wo/jji), [jMyjjXig (/xoiydg), etc. etc. 
 
 (c) Uncommon or poetic words are used in com- 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 19 
 
 mon style ; e. g. aV^'cvruv, {/.zGoyjy.riov, akdXrirog, g'oS»j- 
 tsig, dXsxrwg, fi^X slv t° irrigate, xogdtfiov. 
 
 (d) New and different meanings, e. g. iragaxaXsi* 
 to beg, iraidzveiv to chastise, dvaxkheiv to recline at table, 
 d-7ro'/.*tirjMi to answer, ^v/.ov living tree, vexgwag, in a 
 passive sense, 6-^uviov wages, <nrufia, corpse, etc. etc. 
 The New Testament has many such words. 
 
 (e) Words were formed de novo ; e. g. by com- 
 position, as dWoreiosKiff/iO'-oc, di&gftwrags<rxd£, fiovoqfoa/.- 
 fMog, dya^o'jpyz7v, olxodsff-rronTv, etc. Nouns in — fta are 
 frequently formed ; as xard\v/&u f yhr^a, ^d^riff^a ; 
 nouns with g-jv, as ffiz/x/xa^'/jr/^, cy/x^oX/r^g ; adjectives, 
 in -t'sog, as o&Pivog, o-^mg, vgu/vog ; verbs in -m, as 
 avaxouvoco, 3oXigc*j, d^zvow ; also in — /£w, as bziyfLuriZ.to, 
 of&gi^u; also new forms of adverbs, as irdvrore, wcuftit&sv, 
 wuvoixi, etc. etc. 
 
 2. The grammatical peculiarities are limited 
 mostly to the forms of nouns and verbs. Some 
 of these in the Hebrew-Greek are new ; or not 
 classically used in certain words ; or are foreign 
 to the Attic book -language. The use of the 
 dual is superseded. In a syntactical respect, the 
 Hellenistic dialect has little that is peculiar. 
 There are a few examples of verbs constructed 
 with cases different from those that are usual in 
 classic Greek ; conjunctions that elsewhere are 
 joined with the Optative and Subjunctive modes, 
 are here sometimes connected with the Indica- 
 
20 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 tive ; the Optative is seldom employed in oblique 
 speech, etc. 
 
 Note. That each country and even province, 
 where Hebrew-Greek was spoken, had some pecu- 
 liarities of its own, is almost certain from the nature 
 of the case. But it is difficult for us, at present, to 
 ascertain the limits of these peculiarities. We only 
 know, that in the Hebrew-Greek there are a number 
 of words which are not found in any of the later 
 Greek authors. 
 
 (4,) Any nation which continues the use of its 
 own language, and also learns to speak a foreign 
 one, will intermix that foreign one with many 
 idioms of its own. Such was the case, as has 
 already been hinted, with the Jews at Alexandria 
 and in Palestine. The general tone of style, in 
 the writings of these Hebrews, naturally in- 
 clined to the Hebrew. Many turns of expres- 
 sion would be merely Hebrew, translated by the 
 corresponding Greek words; which were alto- 
 gether intelligible to a Jew, but scarcely at all 
 so to a native Greek. In a lexical respect, also, 
 the native language of a Jew would have much 
 influence. He would naturally extend the mean- 
 ing of a Greek word, that in a single respect 
 corresponded well to one meaning of a Hebrew 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 21 
 
 word, so as to make its significations correspond 
 in all respects with those of the Hebrew one. 
 In some cases, the difficulty of fully expressing 
 the Hebrew in Greek words already extant, 
 would lead him to coin new ones, which might 
 better correspond with his own vernacular tongue. 
 In a word, the manner of thinking and feeling, 
 which was peculiar to the Hebrew, would still 
 remain when he spoke or wrote Greek. His 
 style, then, would consist of Hebrew thoughts 
 clothed in Greek costume. But as the native 
 language of Greece was not, and from the na- 
 ture of the case could not be, so formed as to 
 convey all the conceptions and feelings of He- 
 brews, no way could be devised of conveying 
 them in Greek, except by some modifications of 
 this language, i. e. either by assigning a new 
 sense to words already extant, or by coining 
 new ones. The Hellenists, therefore, have done 
 no more, in general, than the nature of the case 
 compelled them to do, in order to express their 
 ideas in Greek. What they have thus done, 
 constitutes the Hebraism of the Hellenistic dia- 
 lect. 
 
 Note. By Hebrew, in this case, is meant the later 
 Hebrew, made up, in a great measure, of Chaldee and 
 
22 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Syriac, and often called the Syro-Chaldaic. The 
 idioms of this, however, are for the most part so like 
 to those of the Hebrew, that no important error will 
 arise from calling them and treating them as Hebrew. 
 
 (5.) The reason why the Greek of the Sep- 
 tuagint and the New Testament is called Hel- 
 lenistic, seems to be derived from the usage of 
 the New Testament in naming Jews Hellenists, 
 who spoke the Greek language; see Acts vi. 1. 
 It is a matter of no consequence, how r ever, as to 
 the name which we give this dialect. We may 
 call it, indifferently, the Hebrew-Greek, or the 
 Hellenistic dialect. Joseph Scaliger (in Euseb. 
 p. 134) was the first who gave it this latter 
 name ; which has been very generally adopted. 
 
 Note. The principal books which exhibit collec- 
 tively the so called Hebraisms of the New Testa- 
 ment, are Vorstius, De Hebraismis ; Leusden, Phi- 
 lologus Hebraeus ; and Olearius, De Stylo Nov. Test. 
 In these and other similar works, however, several 
 errors have been committed, (a) The authors have 
 not paid due attention to the idiom of the Aramean 
 or Syro-Chaldaic language, which was- the vernacular 
 tongue of the New Testament writers, (b) They 
 have not accurately observed the difference as to 
 Hebraizing, between the different authors of the New 
 Testament ; which, in some cases, is very consider- 
 able, (c) They have not shewn the relation of the 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 23 
 
 New Testament to the Septuagint Greek ; which, 
 with all its points of similitude, is still considerably 
 discrepant, (d) They have put much to the account 
 of Hebraism, which is the common property of both 
 Greek and Hebrew ; yea, of language in general ; 
 e. g. <pvXd<rfciv vofioVf a/,tta slaughter, dvrig with an ap- 
 pellative (as aviflg povzvg), <xcug servant, (jbzyctXvvsiv to 
 praise, etc. (e) They have made some things into 
 Hebraisms, by putting a forced construction upon 
 them ; e. g. Eph. v. 26, h '^(mccti i'va, construed as an 
 equivalent to *12£Jtf ^l^Ll/pi in order that ; Matt. 
 xxv. 23, yaoav feasty like the Arabic Jl 1*T fl 5 Matt. 
 
 t ; v 
 
 vi. 1, diTcauocrjvri alms, like the Chaldee Jlp*I^> etc. 
 
 (6.) Hebraism, properly so called, may be di- 
 vided into two kinds, viz., perfect and imperfect, 
 (a) Perfect Hebraism is that which has no 
 parallel in the native Greek, and which is mo- 
 delled altogether after the Hebrew. 
 
 E. g. frTrXayxvl^sG^cu, 6<pnX7]^arcc dpisvut, <7Tg6<loj<7rov 
 \a,{j,(3dvziv, oi7Lo§0(jji?v to edify, nkarvvsiv rqv xagdiav, iro- 
 g&v&t&cu hirldu, ou <7rag (for obbug), e^ofAoXoysT&ou sv nvt, 
 etc. 
 
 (b) Imperfect Hebraism is that which has 
 some parallel in the Greek, but which, having a 
 more perfect one in the Hebrew, was probably 
 derived from the Hebrew idiom. 
 
24 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 E.g. ffTigfxa, offspring, from JT") J; as/ayxfj trouble, 
 from pl^D> Ta ; s/s avdvrriav, j"lK*1p / 5 T^ara 
 rfo yfc, riKH >D£X ; yJTkog shore, n£t£> etc. Now 
 
 » V T t •• ; - XX. 
 
 although Greek parallels may be found to these ex- 
 pressions, and to others of the like kinds, yet they 
 are not of common occurrence, and therefore the pro- 
 bability is, that the New Testament writers derived 
 them from the Hebrew. 
 
 Note. The reason of employing both these kinds 
 of Hebraism has been already stated. No Hebrew 
 would divest himself, without much learned training, 
 of the native element of his own peculiar style. When 
 he wrote Greek, he would of course clothe Hebrew 
 conceptions in Greek words. Hence his departures 
 from the native Greek, in cases of perfect Hebraism. 
 Hence too the probability, that in respect to the im- 
 perfect Hebraisms he drew from his own native tongue. 
 
 (7.) The simple historical style of the Gospels, 
 of the Acts, and of the Apocrypha, exhibits this 
 influence of Hebrew in its most complete state ; 
 because here religious technics (which a Hebrew 
 must employ in speaking of religious matters) 
 are less frequent. And here the use of preposi- 
 tions is more frequent than in native Greek ; 
 minute circumstances (like ly% d<pn did xH^-> ™ vr k 
 nirh {ampov sots /xsydXov, etc.) are more commonly 
 inserted ; and besides this, the accumulation of 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 25 
 
 pronouns, especially after the relative ; the for- 
 mula xai eyevero in the transitions of narrative ; 
 the simple construction of sentences, in which 
 the parts of a complex one are rather co-ordinate 
 than subordinate ; the unfrequency of conjunc- 
 tions and of the accumulation of connective par- 
 ticles ; much uniformity in the use of the tenses ; 
 a want of periodic rounding, and of the union of 
 subordinate propositions with the main one ; the 
 unfrequent use of participal constructions in the 
 widely extended latitude of the native Greek ; 
 the direct citations of another's words in narration 
 where the Greeks commonly employ the indirect 
 one ; the neglect of the Optative mood — all 
 these things characterize the Hellenistic Greek, 
 and separate it from that which is common among 
 classic authors. 
 
 Note. The Hebraisms of the New Testament, as 
 has been stated above, are divisible into perfect and 
 imperfect. This division has reference to their inter- 
 nal nature. But if we look at the sources whence 
 they are derived, or the causes which operated to 
 produce them, we may class these under four distinct 
 heads, each of which deserve particular notice. 
 
 (a.) Where the original and fundamental meaning 
 of a Greek and Hebrew word were the same, a He- 
 brew very naturally attached the same secondary or 
 
26 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 derived meanings to the Greek word as belonged to 
 
 the Hebrew one ; e. g. dizatoffvvri and np*?:£ agree 
 
 't t ; 
 in their original meaning, and so it was natural for the 
 
 Hebrew to attach to dixaiotivvTi the secondary sense of 
 
 liberality, kindness, because np*T¥ sometimes bore 
 
 't t : 
 this meaning. So opsiXrjficc, not only debt but sin, like 
 
 the Aramean ^flfl 5 s0 ^9^ bride and also daughter 
 
 in law, like fl /3 5 g 'S one and first, like *THK ; 
 
 s$o//,o\oyeT<ftai nvi, to praise one, like 7 HTlH '•> h u ~ 
 
 rav, to ask and also to beg, like 7ftt£J. Very frequent 
 
 - T 
 
 is this usage in regard to a secondary sense which is 
 tropical ; e.g. Korqgiov, cup and lot, like 013 5 ffxav- 
 daXov, offence in a moral sense, like vit^DD ; yXwcca, 
 
 tongue and nation, like 112^7 ; svoo-ttiov tov Seov in the 
 
 L 
 view; or judgment of God, like HliT *3£)7 » ^vd^efia, 
 
 t ; 
 
 *Aa£ which is devoted to destruction, like the Hebrew 
 Qin» etc. etc. 
 
 (6.) Peculiar Hebrew phrases were literally trans- 
 lated by corresponding Greek words, which, when 
 put together, constitute an idiom altogether foreign to 
 native Greek ; e. g. wgotuvov "hafifidvuv for D^iD Nt^3; 
 
 • T XT 
 
 £?jrs7v -vj/y;/^ for &£} {^I52l» ^wsft sXeog (or ^ag/v) 
 
 ^sra r/vog for Qy 1DI1 flt^y 5 <%™v pa/eft (to sup) 
 
 L * .* ' T T 
 
 from OH 7 ^DK 5 w^S Savaroy for DID "121 5 ops/Xrj/xa 
 
 - T VT ' V 
 
 dtpihai for Kiln p3.£^ (Talmudic) ; ca<ra <rap| for 
 "U#2 ^3 ; etc. etc. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 27 
 
 (c) Derivate Greek verbs were formed so as to 
 correspond with derivate Hebrew ones ; e. g. cr-rXay- 
 yyi^u&ut from o^Aciyyja, like DPH from D^PH ; 
 
 tyxccivi^ziv from lyxcuvta, like "l^fl PO^H 5 ai/a$s,aa- 
 
 t t'.~: 
 
 riZptv from ava^s/xa, like D^flH from D"in> etc. etc. 
 
 (d) The religious views and feelings of the writers 
 of the New Testament occasioned a kind of techno- 
 logical use of many Greek words, in a sense quite 
 different from that of classical usage ; e. g. such words 
 as s?ya KtGrig, <7riffrs{jziv zig Xg/tfroi/, hixaiova^ai, h/cXsys- 
 <&a/, oi ayioi, a^roVroXoj, , /3aTr/o'/xa, bizcuoevvri, and many 
 others, used particularly by Paul in his epistles. 
 This was altogether unavoidable ; inasmuch as the 
 classic Greek could furnish no words, which, accord- 
 ing to the usus loquendi of the Greek, would con- 
 vey the ideas of a Hebrew in relation to these sub- 
 jects'. 
 
 (8.) As to the grammatical character of the 
 New Testament diction, in general this does 
 not differ from that of the later Greek. The 
 common laws of syntax are applicable almost 
 throughout; at least, there is seldom any de- 
 parture from them. Even some of the nicer 
 peculiarities of the Greek language, such as the 
 attraction of the relative pronoun, and the dis- 
 tinction between oh and fin in negations, (which 
 are quite remote from the Hebrew idiom), are 
 
28 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 somewhat strictly observed. The peculiarities 
 of the later Greek itself (which also belong to 
 the New Testament) consist more in the forms 
 of words, and the use of peculiar tenses, than in 
 any diverse principles of syntax. In all parts of 
 the New Testament, indeed, Hebrew modes of 
 thinking and feeling, of course develope them- 
 selves. In the grammatical mode of expressing 
 these, however, the most important variation 
 from the native Greek is, that prepositions are 
 more commonly employed in the government of 
 nouns, etc., than was usual among Greek au- 
 thors. 
 
 Note 1. The meaning of words changes much 
 easier than the forms ; the forms much easier than 
 the syntax ; so that while the later Greek (and con- 
 sequently the New Testament Greek) admitted many 
 variations in the meaning and even in the forms of 
 words, it still retained the common syntax, with 
 some little enlargement. Accordingly we find, in 
 the New Testament, several forms which were not 
 current, at an early period, or else belong to some of 
 the dialects. Of the latter are (a) Attic forms, such 
 as '/i/So'j/.j^'/jy (r\ for the augment), tJ/mWs, (3ov\ei (2nd 
 pers. for (3ovXtj), o-vj^g/; (b) Doric, as tfru (for taru), 
 dpsojvrou (for dpeTvrat) ; (c) Aeolic, such as the Opt. 
 in -s/a of Aor. 1st. (d) Ionic, as yngu, zl-a (Aor. I.) 
 Of the forms not used in the more ancient language, 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 29 
 
 we may cite the Dative, voi, Imp. xaSov, Perf. syiwx&v 
 (for Jys/wxaff/), Aor. 2 /carsX/Voffav, Imperf. sdoXiovffav, 
 Aor. 2 s7<5a/xsv, spyyai>. The regular forms of tenses, 
 in certain verbs, not employed more anciently, are 
 employed in the New Testament ; e. g. fjpagrfitta (for 
 rj/jLccorov), av%(a (for av^dvoo), r^a (for ^V.w), <pdyofj,a< 
 (for edofxou), etc. In consequence of this, there is an 
 increase of the forms of verbs and of the tenses ac- 
 tually employed in the later Greek. To all this 
 must be added, that a new gender is assigned to some 
 nouns ; e.g. 6 (instead of 57) (3drog ; rb sXsog, rb rrXovrog 
 (neut. instead of masc), which casts them into the 3d 
 instead of the 2d declension. 
 
 Note 2. As to Syntax, the peculiarities consist 
 mostly in using orav, in a few cases with the Ind. 
 Praeter ; s/ with the Subj. ; ha with the Ind. Pres. ; 
 the construction of such verbs as ysvetfoui with the 
 Ace, ngoffxuvsTv with the Dat. ; such formulas as §'sXoj 
 ha, d^iog ha (instead of the Inf.) ; the employment of 
 the Subj. instead of the Opt. in historical diction and 
 after the Praeter ; and in general the rare employ- 
 ment of the Opt., (which has entirely disappeared in 
 modern Greek). Moreover the Inf. Aor. is oftener 
 used after /usXXztv, %'sXsiv, etc.; and a disregard to de- 
 clension (so conspicuous in modern Greek) appears 
 just in its inceptive state ; e. g. slg xo&etg, xa^sTg dvd 
 slg, ug <rrao ug. A similar disregard to case and tense 
 also appears in a few cases. The Dual is altogether 
 neglected. 
 
 Even the Seventy, in their version, have in gene- 
 ral conformed to the Greek Syntax. Some depar- 
 
30 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 tures from a diction purely Greek would of course be 
 expected. Instead of the Opt., they say (with the 
 Hebrew,) rig /xs xaraffrrjffsrai %o s iry\M ; They also say : 
 ^avdroj d-7rc&avg/<&s, pH^DD D^f2 '•> fi'Gw s/xiGr t cag, 
 Dtflttf fcOfc^« They also imitate, in some cases, 
 
 T •• T T 
 
 the Hebrew composite verbs, (which are made by a 
 preposition following them) ; as <pufo&at Wt rm, 
 o'iKodo/MsTv sv rtvi, sKsgurav h xvgiu), etc. The New 
 Testament, however, which is not a translation of 
 the Hebrew, but an original work, is more free from 
 these peculiarities. Yet in general, even here, the 
 the use of prepositions is more frequent than with 
 the Greeks, viz. in such cases as anrQTLgbnrw n dco 
 nvog, s&hiV dftb ruv *^iyjuv, d^uiog dirb rov ai^arog, 
 xotvuvbg h rivi, etc.; the like to which may indeed 
 be found in the ancient Greek. But in some cases 
 the imitation of the Hebrew has led the writers of the 
 New Testament to adopt expressions which would 
 sound in a singular manner to a native Greek ; e. g. 
 {a) Such as bfioXoysTv h nvi, (3"ks<?siv ditb to beware of, 
 <7Tgo6s$zro ir'tiL^ou to send again, and the form of the 
 oath in the negative sense, s/ do^qfcrai. (b) The re- 
 petition of the same word, in order to signify distri- 
 bution ; as duo duo two by two, (instead of dvu duo), 
 ic) The frequent and varied use of the Inf. with rov 
 before it. (d) The imitation of the Inf. abs. in He- 
 brew joined with a definitive mood and tense ; as in 
 wffuv sftio-ricag above, (e) The frequency of nouns in 
 ihe Gen., which stand in the place of adjectives. 
 <f) The often repeated use of the Inf. with a preposi- 
 tion in historical narration. Nos. a, b, may be classed 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 31 
 
 among the pure Hebraisms. The rest are to be 
 found in native Greek, although not with the like 
 frequency. 
 
 (9.) On the whole, when we consider that 
 many of even the niceties of Greek syntax are 
 observed in the New Testament, e. g. the sepa- 
 ration in the use of the Praeter tenses, the con- 
 struction of verbs with &v, the attraction of the 
 relative pronoun, the singular number of the 
 verb with neuter plurals, such idioms also as 
 oixovofiiav vreiritrsufiou, etc. ; moreover, the periphra- 
 sis for the Opt. which the Seventy use, is 
 here not employed ; there is, in fact, very little 
 reason for the charge of ungrammatical composi- 
 tion against the writers of the New Testament. 
 Much has been said, on this subject, by writers 
 for and against the purity of the New Testa- 
 ment, which is very inapposite, or has little 
 foundation. Patient, protracted, and widely ex- 
 tended examination, has at last corrected the 
 errors of both parties, and brought the whole 
 matter very near to the middle ground which 
 those consummate Greek scholars, Robert Ste- 
 phens and Theodore Beza, seem first to have 
 occupied. 
 

 ON THE 
 
 SYNTAX 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 
 
 There are various methods of arranging a Syntax ; but the 
 most facile, and that which is more usually followed of late, 
 is to treat of the parts of speech in the natural order in which 
 they would occur to the mind ; the noun with its various 
 adjuncts coming first ; then the verb with its various moods, 
 tenses, regimen, etc. ; and lastly, the various particles which 
 serve as a modification of these. Special peculiarities of phra- 
 seology, etc., may then be annexed. 
 
 ARTICLE. 
 
 § 1. THE ARTICLE BEFORE LEADING NOUNS. 
 
 (1.) The article is a declinable part of speech, 
 which, when employed, is usually prefixed to 
 nouns, adjectives, or participles, for the purpose 
 of specification or emphasis. 
 
 Note 1. Specification may be either on account of 
 individuality i i.e. when one individual is distinguish- 
 D 
 
34 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 ed from others of the same species, or when one species 
 or genus is distinguished from other species or genera ; 
 or it may be on account of quality, attributes, condi- 
 tion, actions, circumstances, etc., in which case the 
 attributes, etc., are as it were individualized or speci- 
 ficated, when the article is employed ; e.g. 6 dsrbg (he 
 eagle, when one is distinguished from several of the 
 same kind ; 6 dzrbg or o) diroi, when either the singu- 
 lar or plural is used generically, so as to distinguish 
 this species of birds from other species. Other speci- 
 fications of attributes, etc., are such as follow ; viz., s/V/v 
 o/ Xsyovrsg there are [some] who say, where this class of 
 persons is distinguished by the particular action attri- 
 buted to them in Xsyovrsg. So olx 'itiriv 6 y]yr,ff6'X£vog 
 there is no one who will lead, where this action of 
 leading is made to distinguish the individual who per- 
 forms it ; 6 ff-£i?uv the sower, 6 Ksied^wv the tempter, 
 etc., in which latter cases we convert the participles 
 into mere nouns in translating them. The cases of 
 specification which belong to the class above named, 
 are almost without number ;e.g.6 ayo&bg or o/ dyu%i, 
 6 xaxbg or oi xaxo'r and so oi (piXosotpovvrsg, oi d-zo<pv- 
 yovrzg, oi doxouvrsg, etc. ; almost all adjectives and par- 
 ticiples being capable of such a use, because they are 
 attributives ; and so, likewise, a multitude of attribu- 
 tive nouns, as o (3anTtfTrig, o (3a.ffiXvjg, 6 rjysficiv, o 
 yjXiaoyog, etc. 
 
 Note 2. The article, it should be understood, is 
 not rigidly confined to nouns, adjectives, and par- 
 ticiples ; but when adverbs, the Inf. mode, a part of a 
 sentence, etc., take the place of a noun or adjective 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 35 
 
 i. e. become so ad sensum, then the article may be, 
 and often is, prefixed to them. 
 
 (*2.) The article, (a) Is usually placed before 
 nouns that designate any thing which is single or 
 monadic in its kind, or which (from the nature of 
 the case) is deemed by the speaker or writer to 
 be single. 
 
 E. g. o o'jeavog, 7) yr„ 6 J}X/o£, 97 AIeXjJvjj dixaio<tvv7], r t 
 
 $u/.o6opia, r t dosTYj, to zaXbv, rb xaxSv, etc. 
 
 (b) But on the very ground that these things 
 are so definite in their nature as to leave no room 
 for mistake, the article is often omitted where it 
 might be inserted. 
 
 E. g. in the New Testament riXtog, yrj, ovoccvbg, ^a- 
 Xafftfa, vjZ, dyopa, dyobg, ^sog, osO/xa, dyiov, orarqg, 
 dvqp, ffPotfayrov, exxkfitfta, dzfavov, ^yyarog, ^y^a, vof/bog, 
 vexgot, -/.oiy/Mog, didj3o\og, u>ia, a^yji, xboiog' also br/.aioG-jv^ 
 iydirt), Ktarig, xaxicc, xXsovs^ta, a/xapr/a, etc., although 
 monadic, are more or less frequently employed with- 
 out the article, as may be seen by reference to the 
 Greek Concordance. 
 
 Note I. On the ground of single objects may be 
 placed the proper names of individuals, countries, 
 cities, rivers, etc. ; which, as is universally acknow- 
 ledged, employ or omit the article almost ad libitum 
 scr'iptoris. In the New Testament, the names of 
 countries and rivers more frequently take the article 
 
36 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 than the names of towns. The names of persons vary 
 so much, that no general principle can be stated ; ex- 
 cepting that where the names are indeclinable, it 
 might naturally be expected that the article would be 
 added in order to distinguish the case. This often 
 happens, but not always ; see in Matt. i. 1 — 16, where 
 throughout vers. 2 — 16, both usages are developed. 
 And so elsewhere. 
 
 (3.) When a word not definite and specific in 
 itself, is rendered so by some adjunct, (pronoun, 
 adjective, participle, noun, or noun with a pre- 
 position, etc.), it may, like monadic nouns, ad- 
 mit or reject the article. 
 
 E. g. in Matt. iii. we find in quick succession, ratg 
 Tjljj'soaig sxzjvaig, rfj fr/j/xw rrjg 'lovbatag, q (3affiAzia ruv 
 ovzavujv, rr t v odbv xvoiov, rag rgifiovg avrov, rb hdv/xa avrov, 
 rr,v 06$vv avrov, r\ rgotp'/} avrov, rag a/j,agriag avruiv, etc. ; 
 most of these nouns, being in their own nature in- 
 definite, are here made specific by the adjuncts united 
 with them. 
 
 On the contrary ; farl rrpoffojirov avruv, Matt. xvii. 6; 
 h fioayjovi avrov, Luke i. 51 ; h hi^a avrov; Eph. i. 
 20 ; d~b ofoaXfiuv gov, Luke xix. 42 ; vovv xvoiov,- 1 Cor. 
 ii. 16; h nohu Aavid, Luke ii. 11; rifxsoav xgicsug, 2 
 Pet. ii. 9; Ko&rrfj <pv\axqv, Acts xii. 10; all without 
 the article. And thus al. saepe. 
 
 (4.) When, from the nature of the case, the 
 speaker or writer can be supposed to mean only 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 37 
 
 one particular object, the article is usually pre- 
 fixed ; although even here, in some instances, 
 where there is no danger of mistake, the article 
 is sometimes omitted. 
 
 Note 1. The cases of this nature may be re- 
 solved principally into two classes ; viz. either, (a) 
 Well known or celebrated objects ; e. g. rb rrorrjpiov, m 
 Matt. xxvi. 27, means the cup by which drink was 
 usually served at the table ; rbv vi<rr^pa in John xiii. 
 5, the wash-bason which was usually placed in a guest- 
 chamber ; rut vnr)gsT7) in Luke iv. 20, the servant who 
 usually waited in the synagogue ; rovg ayyeXovg in 
 James ii. 25, the well known spies, etc. Cases of 
 this nature are very frequent, and are not always to 
 be judged of by the knowledge which the reader 
 may possess. Enough that the objects *vere well 
 known, or definitely conceived of, by the writer and his 
 cotemporaries. Not unfrequently, merely implied 
 antithesis occasions the use of the article ; and then 
 special stress is of course intended to be laid upon 
 the noun which it accompanies ; as John vii. 24, r^v 
 diKaiav xgiffiv y.oivarz, judge the righteous judgment, in 
 opposition to that which is unrighteous. When an- 
 tithesis is expressed, of course it justifies the same 
 usage in respect to the article ; as noXtpog o-jx sitrtv 
 avs-j xivdvvuv, without the article ; but when spoken in 
 the way of contrast, the usage would be different, as 
 6 rroXspog obx. avsv Ttivdvvojv, f) ds s/p^vtj dxtvdvvog. 
 
 (b) Objects that have already been mentioned, 
 either directly or indirectly ; e. g. directly, as Matt. 
 
38 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 i. 20 ayyzkog, i. 24 6 uyyzXog ; Matt. ii. 1 /xdyot, ii. 7 
 rovg (Aayovg' Matt. xiii. 25 £/£av/a, xiii. 26 ra £/£av/a* 
 Luke ix. 13 irhrz ccgroi %a! ty^uzg duo, ix. 16 rovg n'svrs 
 uoroug xai rovg duo iyfiuag' and so often, every where. 
 Indirect mention also admits the article ; e. g. Eph. 
 vi. 12, 57 vrdXri the contest, viz., the one implied by 
 what is said in ver. 10, 11; rqv ohiav, Acts ix. 17, 
 refers to what is said in ver. 11 ; rbv ayyzkov, Acts xi. 
 13, refers to the dyysXog mentioned in Acts x. 3, 22. 
 
 Note 2. The reader must not suppose the above 
 rules in a, b, to be imperious in all cases. Whenever 
 a speaker or writer chose to employ a word already 
 mentioned, in a sense less specific, or when (from the 
 nature of the case) there was no danger in respect to 
 its being regarded as specific, provided it really was 
 so, he could omit the article ; e. g. Matt. xiii. 27, 
 £/£awa, which had been already twice mentioned, but 
 which in this case required a somewhat more inde- 
 finite sense. 
 
 (5.) The subject of a proposition, (a) More usu- 
 ally takes the article, and the predicate omits it. 
 But, (b) Sometimes the reverse of this is the 
 case, (c) Sometimes both subject and predicate 
 take it or omit it. 
 
 E. g. (a) §sbg rjv 6 Xoyog, John i. 1, where Xoyog is 
 the subject ; 6 [aigcIjv rbv ahzktph uvrov av^pwiroxrovog sffri, 
 1 John iii. 15; and thus in a multitude of cases, be- 
 cause in general the subject of a proposition is spe- 
 cific, and the predicate is not so, but is designed 
 
NEW TESTAMENT IHALECT. 39 
 
 merely to mark quality, state, condition, character, 
 etc., without individuality in the mode of expression. 
 (b) Often a pronoun demonstrative or personal, with- 
 out the article, is employed as the Nom. or subject, 
 while the predicate has the article ; as avrri eeriv r t 
 ayyeXia, 1 John iii. 11 ; ourog iffrtv 6 rsxruv, Mark vi. 
 3 ; b<Aug e<tre oi XuXovvreg, Mark xiii. 11; et saepe 
 alibi, (c) The third case is very common ; e. g. 39 
 a/^agrva lath r\ dvofi/a, 1 John iii. 4; '/} svroXii r\ cra/.a/a 
 iattv 6 Xoyog %. r. X. 1 John ii. 7 ; ^ xi<paXr\ 6 XoiG-og 
 iffriy 1 Cor. xi. 3, y\ 8s nsrga i\v 6 Xgiarog, 1 Cor. x. 4 ; 
 r t r Cuii] %v rb (pug, John i. 4 ; and thus in a multitude 
 of cases. On the contrary, both subject and predi- 
 cate sometimes omit the article ; as koXXoi yug ski 
 '/JkriToi, Matt. xx. 16; Id. xxii. 14; and so in the 
 classics : uhia toutojv (pvdig ayoti?], Ael. Animal. III. 
 24; thus the proverbs, ndvrwv ysgriizdruv {t'srgov civ^eojcrog 
 and zuXbg $y)<favgbg . . . ydoig otpsiXo/Msvrj. 
 
 From facts such as these, it appears that the sub- 
 ject and predicate, as such, neither take nor reject 
 the article ; but the addition or omission of it depends 
 entirely on the specificness of words employed. 
 
 (6.) Nouns in apposition, explanatory of a 
 preceding noun, usually take the article; but 
 sometimes it is omitted. 
 
 E. g. 'AygiK-Tag 6 BaffiXsvg, 'ludvvqg Bawarrig, etc. 
 But, on the other hand ; %^m Bvgcsvg, Acts x. 32 ; 
 "Awa vrgopJjr/g, Luke ii. 36; Td'/og As^ocTog, Acts xx. 
 4 ; Tif3s*iou Kaiffctgog, Luke iiL 1 ; $a»aw Ba<r/Aswc, 
 
40 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 Acts vii. 10, etc Both of these usages are common 
 in the classics. In cases where the object of the noun 
 in apposition is to mark something specific and in- 
 dividual, which is altogether appropriate to the per- 
 son or thing named, the article is employed ; but 
 when there is no special design of this nature, it may 
 be omitted, as in QovTLvdidqg 'A^Tjva/bg, Bgivvog Takarw 
 BaaiXrog, etc. In the classics, indeed, examples are 
 not wanting, where the article in such cases even 
 stands before the first noun, and is omitted before the 
 second ; as 6 "AXvg Kora/xog, Herod. I. 72, 75 ; rbv 
 T7)giav Kora/xbvj Thucyd. VI. 50 ; rbv XgiKftjv . . . 
 do^r^a, Horn. II. a, 11, et alibi. 
 
 (7.) Verbs signifying to be or to call, usually 
 take anarthrous nouns, i. e. nouns without the 
 article after them ; but this custom is not uni- 
 form. 
 
 E. g. h ffuifid hart, h Kvzvj&d hen, oitx sen pofiog, 
 Matt. v. 9, v)oi SsoD xkr^trieovrai' Matt, xxiii. 10, prfc 
 xXrj^rjrs zctirjyrjrar and thus often. On the con- 
 trary ; l.sysrai b d-^iv^og, Rev. viii. 1 1 ; xaXurai . . . 
 6 Xoyog rov §sov, Rev. xix. 13. So Xen. Cyrop. III. 
 3, 4, dvaxuXovvrzg rbv zvsgysrrjv rbv civdga, rbv dycfobv. 
 See also Anab. VI. 7. Matth. Gramm. § 268. Ex- 
 amples of the article after the substantive verb, see 
 above under No. 5. 
 
 (8.) When the gender of nouns in the same 
 case connected together, is different, if the article 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 
 
 41 
 
 stands before the first noun, it is commonly in- 
 serted before the second, etc. ; but this practice 
 is not uniform. 
 
 E. g. rag ffsfto/Asvag yvvaTxag . . . xai Tovg wgurovg r^g 
 ToXsojg, Acts xiii. 50 : Iv roTg craga<7rrc^a(r/ xai rfj 
 dxPo(3v<frtq, Col. ii. 13; rb bixaiov xai rr\v /tfonjra, Col. 
 iv. 1 ; et alibi saepe. Yet the contrary usage exists; 
 e. g. ru IvrdXfiara xai dida&xaXiag, Col. ii. 22 ; tig rug 
 odoug xai tppaypovg, Luke xiv. 23 ; rr\v dvvafttv xai 
 vXovrov, Rev. v. 12 ; Luke i. 6 ; xxiii. 49, et al. So 
 Plato : oi KaTdzg rs xai yvva/xsg- 6 cutppovcov xai <rw<pgo- 
 voOtfa, et al. 
 
 (9.) Nouns connected in the same case and 
 the same gender, usually omit the article after 
 the first noun ; but not unfrequently they in- 
 sert it. 
 
 E. g. /xera ruv <rgsff(3vrigwv xai ypafa'Aarewv, Mark 
 xv. 1 ; did rr\g piXoffotpiag xai xwr\g d'Trdrrig^ Col. ii. 8 ; 
 vie) rfj §vffia xai Xeirovgyia, Phil. ii. 17, et alibi saepe. 
 And the like in respect to adjectives and participles ; 
 e. g. rbv clyiov xai bixaiov, Acts. iii. 14; and so Acts ii. 
 20, etc. Participles; oi...Xarprjovng xai xauyyiMivoi... 
 xai...'rz<7roft6r$g, Phil. iii. 3 ; and so in John xxi. 24, 
 et al. saepe. 
 
 Yet the contrary usage is almost equally common ; 
 e. g. oi ap^/jzgzTg xai oi vffrigerai, John xix. 6 ; rui 
 dvs/j,u xai rui xXvdwvi, Luke viii. 24. Luke xi. 37, 
 et al. saepe. The general principle seems to be, that 
 
42 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 where the particulars belong to one genus, the article 
 is not repeated ; but where they are entirely separate, 
 it is inserted. Yet this principle is very often vio- 
 lated ; as appears by the examples above, and as is 
 manifested from the best Greek writers ; see Matth. 
 Gramm. § 268, Anmerk. 1. 
 
 General Remark. Such are the general 
 principles respecting the article, when employed, 
 or not employed, as connected with the leading 
 or principal nouns in a sentence. The subor- 
 dinate uses of it remain to be developed. In 
 the mean time the student should well note, 
 that the Greeks have three distinct methods of 
 exhibiting their views in regard to the definite- 
 ness or indefiniteness of any object. For exam- 
 ple ; Zjuov means animal, i. e. every and any 
 animal ; rh Zuov means the animal, i. e. a specific 
 individual in a certain condition or with certain 
 particular attributes ; £wdv n means an animal, 
 i. e. a particular beast, or an individual beast, 
 considered simply as individual, but not as dis- 
 tinguished by particular attributes or conditions, 
 etc. T/g, r/, is called the indefinite article, and it 
 stands after its noun ; while the definite article 
 o, r h to stands before it. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 43 
 
 § 2. ARTICLE WITH ADJECTIVES. 
 
 (1.) An adjective qualifying any noun, may 
 be placed either between the article and its 
 noun, or after the noun. In the last case, the 
 general rule is, that if the noun has the article, 
 the adjective must adopt it. 
 
 E. g. rb ciyiov <rvzv{Aa, tit aXrfiivoi Kgoffxvvrirai etc. 
 More usually the adjective is placed after the noun ; 
 as v) ^uri ri aiojviog, r\ <zb\ig r\ /xsydXrj, 6 av^owrrog 6 
 dyctiog, etc. Cases of both kinds occur every where 
 and more examples are unnecessary. 
 
 (2.) Different from the cases in No. 1, are 
 all those cases in which the adjective is the pre- 
 dicate of a sentence. Here it usually and natu- 
 rally dispenses with the article, and more com- 
 monly (not always) precedes the noun or pro- 
 noun to which it bears a relation. 
 
 E. g. xaXbg 6 vo/Mog' oh xotXhv rb xav^fAGf rovro iffn 
 Ttctkov. As the adjective in this case does not in reality 
 agree with the noun expressed, it may be of a dif- 
 ferent number or gender, when the writer pleases ; 
 like the Latin : Varium et mutabile semper femina, 
 and so the Greek Kovqebv /xsv yuwg. 
 
 (3.) In nearly all the cases in which the noun 
 has an article, and the adjective has not the po- 
 
44 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 sition and adjunct article described in No. 1, it 
 must be regarded as a predicate, after a verb or 
 participle expressed or understood. But there 
 is a class of cases comparatively small, in re- 
 spect to which the question, how they are to be 
 construed, seems hardly to be settled. 
 
 E.g. rb ydg irveupu dytov, (so Griesbach and Schott), 
 Luke xii. 12; 1 Cor. x. 3, rb avrb j3goj/j,a rrvsv/ACtnxbv 
 .... rb avrb nopa Kvsvi&arrj.ov Gal. i. 4, rov svsffrojrog 
 aluvog rtov7i%o\j m 1 John v. 20, r\ fyjf) aluviog. In the clas- 
 sics a large number of the like constructions are found, 
 which are copiously exhibited in Matthiae's Gramm. 
 § 277, b. Some of these are as follows : ' It is pro- 
 per for me to speak /uy liri roTg sgyo/g xaXoTg, concern' 
 ing works not good, Eurip. Phenis. 540 ; 6 pdvng rovg 
 Xoyoug -^zuhTg Xeyu, Soph. Oedip. Tyr. 526 ; KovyeoTg 
 xcci ro/g Xoyoig %cl1 roTg tfgdyftaGi ^gw/AgfO/, Isoc. [Orell.] 
 § 208. So in Buttmann (§ 125 Note 3), oXtjv ryv 
 vvxra- s^st rh wsazxvv b^vrarov W ax^o/j roTg o^icr 
 i]diTo ski ffXovaioig roTg noXeffi. The reader will per- 
 ceive, that the adjective in this class of cases may 
 precede or follow the noun with the article. In these 
 and all the like cases, Matthiae and Buttmann pro- 
 pose to make the adjective a kind of predicate ; e. g. 
 " the prophet speaks words which are false;" " mak- 
 ing use of words and actions which are bad;" "he 
 has an axe which is very sharp" etc. But if we may 
 solve all these cases in such a way, we may do the 
 same in respect to all other adjectives, especially such 
 as follow the noun; e. g. 6 av^ounog 6 dyo&bg, the man 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 45 
 
 who is good ; nay, this comes actually nearer than 
 any other version, to the exact shape of the Greek, 
 the so called article before the adjective assuming the 
 nature of a relative pronoun. Moreover, how shall 
 we render oXtjv t?)v vvxrct, following the principles of 
 these grammarians ? The night which is whole, i. e. 
 unbroken, undivided, would not give the sense of 
 the Greek, which means, < the whole time of the 
 night season without any subtraction.' More dis- 
 cussion, therefore, would seem to be necessary, be- 
 fore to crvsD/xa ciyiov in Luke xii. 12, is changed by rea- 
 soning about the errors of scribes into to dyiov mtv t iia, 
 as it is by Knapp and others ; and before we are at 
 liberty to give an unnatural and strained emphasis to 
 adjectives thus conditioned. 
 
 (4.) Nothing is more common, than the use of 
 the article with adjectives which are not connect- 
 ed with any noun expressed. Such an usage 
 indicates, that they are substantively employed ; 
 but at the same time it is regulated by the usual 
 principles of specification. 
 
 E. g. o dya%g, oi xaxot, oi Si/jjro/, and particularly 
 the neuter sing, and often the plural, as to xaXbv, to 
 x.ax.bv, to yvuSToVf to\ dwyzafa, to, dbgaTa, etc. The 
 neuter thus employed is very commonly used in the 
 place of abstract nouns ; and often for adverbs. 
 
 Note 1. The article here, as in the case of nouns, 
 
46 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 can be omitted if the expression is designed to be in- 
 definite ; e. g. Odys. ^', 195, aka.bg a blind man. 
 
 § 3. ARTICLE WITH PARTICIPLES. 
 
 (1.) As participles in numerous cases become 
 adjectives, or at least partake largely of the na- 
 ture of adjectives, so the construction of them in 
 respect to the article, is, nearly throughout, like 
 that of adjectives. 
 
 E. g. (a) They are placed between the article and 
 its noun ; as 6 rsyfttig (3affiXzvg, Matt. ii. 2 ; rov <pam- 
 (a'svov dar'sgog, Matt. ii. 7; vr\g fjbi\Aovs7jg beyrig, Matt. iii. 
 7 ; rh Xgyo.a&vov Ilsroov, Matt. iv. 18 ; et al. saepe. 
 (b) They are placed after the noun, and with the article 
 when the noun has it ; as b §ebg ... 6 xaXstfag, 1 Peter 
 v. 10; rw Ssw toj doxifidfovri, 1 Thess. ii. 4. Acts i. 11. 
 In cases of this nature the participle is usually trans- 
 lated as a verb ; e. g. God who called; God who trieth, 
 etc., while the article in such cases is treated as a rela- 
 tive pronoun. The simple grammatical construction, 
 however, is altogether like that of the adjective, § 2. 1 
 above, (c) The cases are exceedingly numerous, 
 where the participle seems to retain so much of the 
 verbal construction, that it dispenses with the article, 
 even when agreeing with nouns that take it ; e. g. 
 rbv rivhoa . . . ffuXXrj(p^svra, Acts xxiii. 27 ; 6 §sbg dvacrr r 
 ffag, Acts iii. 26 ; rou evayysAiffrov ovrog, Acts xxi. 8. 
 Of course we may expect that the article will be omit- 
 ted where the noun omits it ; and such is usually the 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 47 
 
 fact, as dwffrag Us-gog, Acts i. 15 ; but oftentimes a 
 definite or monadic noun omits the article, and then 
 the participle may take it if the sense require it, as 
 Acts i. 23, 'lco<r^ rbv xakoiifi&vov, etc. (d) Where no 
 substantive is expressed, and where a participle be- 
 gins a sentence, or a clause in one, and has the nature 
 of a verb, it is a matter of course to omit the article ; 
 as KPOGsv^d/Mvoi zi'Trov, Acts i. 23 ; sa^ojv zK'ftsg r^v ysTpu 
 gov, etc., Matt. ix. 18 ; and so al. saepe. 
 
 (2.) The participle, like the adjective, usually 
 takes the article when it is employed as a noun ; 
 or is used (without a noun subjoined) in order 
 to distinguish any particular person or object, or 
 to designate any particular class of men or things 
 by their qualities or actions. 
 
 E. g. 6 crs/ga^wv, 6 ff-TTs/auVf oi pi\oGo(povvrsg, oi giko- 
 (pvyovrzg, oi drrzGraX/Azvot, etc. 
 
 Note 1. But here also, as in the case of adjectives, 
 if the object be not specific, the article may be omit- 
 ted, even according to the best Greek usage; e.g. 
 fiofaccg one loho cries, a crier, Odyss. v. 473 ; vofoag an 
 intelligent person, Hes. JLoy. init. ; b^oXoyuv any one 
 who confesses, Lys. p. 104, 28; and Plato even com- 
 mingles both constructions in the following sentence : 
 diap'sezi dz <7rd/Ju<7ro\v /ag&uv /ayi {AO&ovrog, xui 6 yv/AvaGd- 
 /xzvog imt\ ysyv/jsvaffiAsvov, he differs much who has learn- 
 ed, from him who has not learned, and he who has 
 practiced, from him who is not practiced. Matt. § 
 556, 4. 
 
48 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 General Remark. Commonly the article is not 
 employed with participles, (excepting in such cases as 
 No. 2), unless the writer designs to convey some 
 special emphasis, or to lay some particular stress upon 
 the idea which they designate. The cases in which 
 the article is omitted exceed almost immeasurably 
 those in which it is exhibited ; and even those in 
 which it is exhibited, are not of so imperious a nature 
 as to suffer no exceptions. In most cases it depends, 
 plainly, more on the particular design and subjective 
 views of the writer, than it does on the nature of the 
 word itself, whether the article shall be inserted or 
 omitted. It may be added, that the near resemblance 
 of participles to adjectives, and the numerous cases in 
 which the former are coupled with nouns while they 
 omit the article, may help to cast some light on the 
 contested case of adjectives, presented in § 3, 3 above. 
 
 § 4. ARTICLE BEFORE OTHER ADJUNCTS TO 
 PRINCIPAL NOUNS. 
 
 (1.) A multitude of leading nouns have ad- 
 juncts which qualify them, or are exegetical in 
 their nature ; and thus they partake of the nature 
 of adjectives. Such adjuncts are disposed of in 
 the same way as adjectives, in regard to the 
 article. 
 
 E. g. (a) Such adjuncts are put between the ar- 
 ticle and the noun ; as rb h avSouiroig xaxov rcttg sv bia~ 
 6-roeq, <p\ika7? ru sv <sa%xi sSmj, etc. In all such cases the 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 49 
 
 adjuncts are, to all intents and purposes, adjectives ad 
 sensum. (b) They are put after the principal noun, 
 and usually (but not always) with the article before 
 them when the noun has the article ; as rr\g dtcczoviag 
 rtiC, b/s roug ayioug, 2 Cor. viii. 4 ; ro?g ... abik<poTg roTg 
 s% s^vuv, Acts xv. 23 ; James i. 1. Rom. iv. 11, et 
 saepe alibi. (c) The adjunct sometimes has the 
 article when the principal noun omits it ; and vice 
 versa ; e. g. warn rfj tig e//,s, Acts xxvi. 18 ; egyuv tojv sv 
 faxauoguvp, Tit. iii. 5; 2 Tim. i. 13, et saepe al., see 
 Winer § xix. 4. Vice versa ; ruv (fyyytvuv /uou xara 
 (?a|xa, Rom. ix. 3 ; rd t&wj sv sapxi, Eph. ii. 11; 2 
 Cor. vii. 7. Col. i. 4. 1 Cor. x. 18. And so Polyb. 
 III. xlviii. 11, rr,v aXKoroiornra. rroog 'Pw/^a/ous, et al. 
 saepe. 
 
 Note 1. It will be -understood, of course, that 
 where the principal noun omits the article, the adjunct 
 more commonly omits it also ; as sig [AiraX^tv [urd 
 royjxoiGriag, 1 Tim. iv. 3 ; 1 Tim. i. 5. Rom. xiv. 17, 
 et al. saepe. 
 
 (2.) The adjuncts taken into view above, are 
 all in some oblique case governed by a preposi- 
 tion. But the most common adjunct of all is the 
 Gen. case connected with the principal noun, 
 and which is disposed of, in respect to the article, 
 nearly in the same way as adjectives are, or as 
 the cases already mentioned in No. 1. 
 
 E. g. (a) The Gen. is put between the article and 
 
50 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 its noun, as 6 ryg croaruag ji)ylr»}£, rd rr t g -iro/.sujc <rod- 
 yfiara, rr,vrov gqrooog rs^vrjv,etc. (b) The Gen. is usually 
 put after the principal noun ; and this, either without 
 or with repeating the article which belongs to the 
 principal noun. The predominant construction is 
 without this repetition ; as 6 Xoyog rov Ssou (not 6 roO 
 Seou) ; and thus in cases without number. But we 
 find also (although not often in the New Testament), 
 such constructions as repeat the article of the princi- 
 pal noun ; e. g. 6 dvrig 6 rr\z Ku^riong (Anac.) ; 6 hr^og 
 o ' A^fivctfojv, Plat. Georg. p. 481 ; ra n'r/ji rd 'A^jva/wi*, 
 id. p. 455, et al. saepe. 
 
 Note 1. Usually both nouns, in such a ease, have 
 or omit the article. But this is not a necessary rule ; 
 for often the first noun is anarthrous, while the second 
 noun has the article ; and sometimes vice versa ; e. g. 
 sv (jb'sffuj ruv dxa&ojv, Luke viii. 7 ; ^dovoja rov [3<ov, 
 Luke viii. 14 ; Luke viii. 41. Phil. ii. 25, et al saepe. 
 In the examples above, viz. rd ri'r/ji rd ' A^rjmi 'ojv, 6 
 hrjfiog 6 ' A^qvaiuv, etc., the noun in the Gen. omits the 
 article. It does not seem to depend merely on the 
 relation of the two nouns, whether they shall both 
 take or both reject the article ; but on the nature of 
 each noun by itself, and on the particular design of 
 the writer as to specification. 
 
 Note 2. The construction in (a) is sometimes 
 carried so far in the classics, that three articles are 
 sometimes brought together ; e. g. rr,v roZ rw o\n 
 lr,-o{r/.(j\j . . . rsy\r t v rd rr,g ruv rroWuv -^'oy/,i o/x/xara, 
 Plato. This involute construction is not at all pre- 
 dominant in the New Testament ; the writers of which 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 51 
 
 generally prefer the most simple and obvious position 
 of their words, and plainly seek for no effect result- 
 ing from mere artificial harmony of arrangement. 
 
 5. SPECIAL USAGES OF THE ARTICLE. 
 
 (1.) Ovroc, Exeaoca and airor, used as prono- 
 minal adjectives, require the noun (some proper 
 names excepted) to which they belong, to take 
 the article, throughout the New Testament. 
 
 Note 1. In the classics, nouns thus connected 
 sometimes take and sometimes omit the article, espe- 
 cially in poetry ; see Matth. § 265, 1, § 266. 
 
 Note 2. When the noun is the predicate of a 
 sentence, and the pronoun the subject, the article 
 may of course be dispensed with ; as rccZra, rixva rou 
 QioZ, these [are] the children of God, Rom. ix. > v . 
 Comp. Gal. Hi. 7. 1 Thess. iv. 3. Luke. i. 36, et 
 alibi. 
 
 (2.) "Exatrro;, in the New Testament, used as 
 an adjective, expels the article ; see Luke vi. 44. 
 John xix. 23. Heb. iii. 13, al. 
 
 Note 1. The Greeks, on the other hand, some- 
 times admitted the article in this case : see Matth. 
 § 265, 5. 
 
 (3.) Toio-jrc; admits or rejects the article, ts 
 the nature of the noun is definite or indefinite. 
 
52 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 E. g. 2 Cor. xii. 2, 3. John iv. 23. Mark ix. 37. 
 Excluded in Matt. ix. 8. Mark vi. 2. Acts xvi. 24, 
 et al. Same usage in the classics. 
 
 (4. ) TLag in the singular, (a) Admits the article 
 with its noun when it indicates totality, i. e. a tout 
 ensemble, (b) It excludes it, when each is the 
 idea conveyed by it. 
 
 (a) E.g. sratfa q apty, Matt. viii. 32; xxi. 10. 
 
 Mark iv. 1, et al. saepe. (b) E. g. era? av^gwrog, cra<ra 
 <ro>./c, etc. ; see Matt. iii. 10 ; xiii. 47. Luke iii. 5, 
 et al. saepe. 
 
 Note 1. Proper names under a do not always 
 take the article ; as crSca 'leooffoXvpa,, Matt. ii. 3. 
 Acts ii. 36. On the other hand, when a participle 
 is employed in the room of a noun, in the case 6, 
 the article remains ; as crag 6 ooyify/Asvog, Matt. v. 22 ; 
 crag 6 /SXicrwv, Matt. v. 28 ; and so in innumerable 
 cases, both in the New Testament and in the classics. 
 It is the participle that occasions the retention of the 
 article in such cases, in order that the article should 
 mark its assuming the nature of a noun, adjective, etc. 
 
 (5.) In the plural, <rdvrsg, etc., when it stands 
 with a definite noun, requires the article ; when 
 with an indefinite one, the article is omitted. 
 
 E. g. Matt. ii. 16 ; iv. 24. Mark v. 12, et saepe. 
 On the contrary ; Rom. v. 12. Gal. vi. 6. 1 Tim. 
 
 ii. 4, et al. saepe. The presence of cravrsg, etc., then, 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 53 
 
 does not alter the omission or insertion of the article 
 before the noun ; for this depends on the nature of 
 the noun. 
 
 Note 1. The position of <ras, etc., and wdvreg, 
 etc., varies in a few cases; e. g. craca vj noXig, 6 nag v6(j,og, 
 Gal. v. 14, rsjivuv avrrjg vravruv, Luke vii. 35 ; but in 
 almost all cases this adjective precedes the noun to 
 which it belongs. 
 
 (6.) The pronominal adjectives tptet <rk, 4aeri- 
 gos, etc., usually require the article, because of 
 their definitive nature. But sometimes it is omit- 
 ted, where the nature of the case shews that the 
 writer does not desire to particularize; as s/^ov 
 figwfjui sffnv, John iv. 34. 
 
 (7.) Adverbs often take the article and thus 
 become adjectives, or supply the place of nouns. 
 
 E. g. oi rrdXat [aiftowTO/], ri avgiov [j7/x££aj, v\ civco 
 [coX/g], etc. 
 
 (8.) The Inf. mode when used substantively, 
 usually takes the article ; in which case this 
 mode is employed as an indeclinable noun, in all 
 the usual cases of a noun. See § 50, 1 seq. 
 
 (9.) The article r6 is put before a word, phrase, 
 etc., quoted; as rb'EWag the [word] Hellas ; 
 
54 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 or before a phrase or sentence which is employed 
 as a mere subject or object in a sentence. 
 
 E. g. ' there arose a dispute among them, rb 
 ■rig av ziri {Aet^wv avroJv,' Luke ix. 46 ; * and they 
 sought... rb n&g av IawoVv avrbv,' Luke xxii. 2. So 
 Rom. viii. 26. Acts iv. 21 ; xxii. 30. Mark ix. 23. 
 Luke i. 62 ; xxii. 23. 1 Thess. iv. 1. In such cases, 
 r6 is equivalent to videlicet, namely, etc. 
 
 § 6. ARTICLE AS A PRONOUN. 
 
 (1.) The simple article as a pronoun demon- 
 strative, is employed rarely in the New Testa- 
 ment; but peculiar modifications of the article 
 in which the sense of a demonstrative attaches to 
 it, are very common. 
 
 E. g. in Acts xvii. 28, rov yag ysvog fopev (from 
 Aratus), means: We are the offspring of this one, 
 i. e. rovrov rov ©sou. In general the demonstrative is 
 made by adding /xh or 3i« as 6 /jl£v...6 tie, this one... 
 that one, or one... another ; oftentimes 6 Ss alone, 
 without the preceding [msv, is equivalent to ovrog, as 6 ds 
 avoxg&eig, Matt. xv. 24, 26 ; xii. 39, 48, al. saepe. 
 Again ; oi, etc., with the Gen. dependent on it, or 
 followed by a noun with a preposition, is often used 
 as a kind of demonstrative ; e. g. o/ rou Zefisdaiov, 
 John xxi. 2 ; ra rr^g <sao%bg, Rom. viii. 5. Luke ii. 
 49. Matt. xvi. 23, et al. saepe ; and so oi anb ryg 
 "IraX/ac, oi ix vo/xov, oi ix TSg/ro/x?j£, etc. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 55 
 
 (2.) The use of o, 57 rb, as a proper relative 
 pronoun in the New Testament, is denied by 
 late critics. Matthiae limits this use to the 
 Ionic and Doric writers, and to the tragedians 
 in the Attic, § 292. But the dispute seems to 
 be more about names than things. 
 
 For example : Passow states in his lexicon, that 
 0, jj, rb, (with the accent on all its forms), is a rela- 
 tive pronoun throughout, standing for og, j), o* that 
 in Homer this relative (0, jjf, rb) is very common, as 
 also among the Dorians and Ionians, and likewise 
 the tragedians. But how does 0, %, rb differ from the 
 article, except in the accent which grammarians have 
 put upon it, merely to distinguish when it has a re- 
 lative sense? And in the New Testament, in the nu- 
 merous cases where the Part, with the article must 
 be translated is qui, etc., as 6 Qzbg 6 xa>.Uccg, 6 0=05 6 
 dpoziaag, etc., God who called, God who separated, etc., 
 why is not the 6 to all intents and purposes a relative ? 
 Nay, may we not say that it is substantially so, in all 
 those cases where apposition is used, or where an ad- 
 jective following the noun, or a clause with a noun 
 which supplies the place of an adjective, is used ? E. g. 
 'IijavvTjs 6 /3a<TT7<rr^c, 6 a^wrss, 6 dyo&bg, 01 ddi\<poi 0/ 
 sg g^ySv, i. e. John who is the baptizer, the man who 
 is good, the brethren who are of the Gentiles, etc. 
 Middleton, who maintains that the article is always a 
 relative pronoun, was indeed far from being correct ; 
 but is not the position, that it never is so, almost as 
 far from the reality of the case ? If the real object of 
 
56 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 inquiry be things and not names, can there be much 
 dispute on this subject ? 
 
 NOUNS. 
 
 § 7. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS. 
 
 (1.) In cases almost without number, in the 
 Old Testament and in the New, also in all 
 classic authors, the singular number of nouns 
 and pronouns stands generically for a whole class; 
 i. e. (as we say), it is a noun or pronoun of 
 multitude, 
 
 E. g. James v. 6, ' ye have killed rbv dfxaiov' ii. 6, 
 ' but ye have dishonoured rbv Krwyjv' 1 Peter iv. 18, 
 'if 6 dixaiog scarcely he saved, where will 6 dfcfiris %al 
 a/xagrw>.6g appear?' Pronouns (which of course 
 occupy the place of nouns), conform every where, 
 pro re natd, to this usage. 
 
 (2.) Vice versa, the plural form is often used 
 where only an individual, or a particular thing 
 is meant. 
 
 E. g. (a) In a multitude of cases where the plural 
 form of nouns is employed to designate a single ob- 
 ject ; as ougavoi, alung, dvaroXal, cbtf/xa/, ru d&fya, roTg 
 xoXnoig, Luke xvi. 23, ig a///,arwi> iysvv^r}ffav, John i. 
 13, (probably referring to the blood of both parents), 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 57 
 
 rd lyxuviu, yev'sfficc, afyt&a, at ygctpai, and the like. 
 Usage only determines the extent of this idiom, (b) In 
 many special cases, where emphasis is given to the 
 expression, or generality expressed ; as Heb. ix. 23, 
 zpslrroffi ^vffiaig, spoken of the death of Christ ; John 
 ix. 3, spya SsoD, the peculiar or miraculous work of 
 healing the blind ; Heb. vii. 6, Ivayyik'tag the special 
 promise respecting the Messiah ; 2 Cor. xii. 1, onrariag 
 xai d-ToxaXu-vf/s/;, the heavenly vision related in the 
 sequel ; James ii. 1. Iv irpotruvohri-^iaig, partiality of 
 any kind ; and so oftentimes, both in the New and 
 Old Testament. 
 
 (c) Where the thought is designed to be general 
 only, the plural is not unfrequently used, when strict- 
 ly speaking the subject or agent is only one ; e. g. 
 Matt. xxvi. 8, oi /Ao&rirai aurou...XsyovTeg, but in John 
 xii. 4, ilg ex rwv /xo&rjrfiv avrov, 'loudag...Xeyei, etc. 
 where Matthew relates the fact in a general way, 
 while John specificates ; so Matt, xxvii. 44, o/ Xriffrai 
 ...wiih^ov, but Luke xxiii. 39, ug ds ruv...xaxovgyuv 
 s(3>Mff<pr}(Azr Matt. xx. 30 — 34, dvo rvpXoi, %. r. X., 
 Mark x. 46 — 52, Baoripaiog 6 r\j<p\hg y Luke xviii. 35 
 — 43, rv<p"k6g rig, where the former evangelist relates 
 the occurrence in a more general way, Mark specifi- 
 cates a noted individual, and Luke particularizes but 
 does not specificate. So John xx. 1, 11, 18, speaks 
 of Mary Magdalene only as going to the sepulchre, 
 while Mark xvi. 1, 2. Luke xxiv. 1, 9, 10, speak of 
 her and several others, and Matt, xxviii. 1, 7, 8, of 
 Mary Magdalene and another Mary ; in Matt. viii. 
 28 seq. two demoniacs are mentioned, while in Mark 
 
58 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 v. 1 seq. Luke viii. 26 seq., only one is named. 
 Comp. also Mark vii. 17, with Matt. xv. 15 ; Matt, 
 xiv. 17, and Mark vi. 38, with John vi. 8, 9 ; Matt, 
 xxiv. 1, with Mark xiii. 1 ; Matt, xxvii. 37, with 
 John xix. 19; Matt, xxvii. 48, and Mark xv. 36, 
 with John xix. 29. So in Luke xxii. 67 y Xsyovrsg, 
 when, in all probability, one only is meant ; see also 
 the same idiom in John xi. 8. Luke xx. 21, 39 ; xxiv. 
 5 (elrov). Matt. xv. 1, Xsyovrsg. xv. 12 (drov). In 
 John vi. 45. Acts xiii. 40, we have h roTg ir^o^raig' 
 Matt. xxiv. 26, h roTg ra,as/o/£, when evidently, only 
 a particular place and a particular recess is meant ; 
 so s<7rszd^iffsv h'xdvo) avruv, Matt. xxi. 7, where only 
 one can be meant. The reader is particularly desired 
 to collate all these passages; for the subject is of 
 great importance in respect to the conciliation of one 
 part of Scripture with another. 
 
 Note 1. In classical Greek a multitude of the 
 like idioms occur. Matthiae says (§ 293), that * ex- 
 pression in the plural serves to give emphasis to general 
 expressions. 1 So rd (piXrara for mother, spouse, etc. ; 
 so dupara — xagjji/a ' OXi//^ou, etc. So also Eurip. Hipp. 
 1 1, Hippolytus is called UirS'sag Kcudivpctra, the pupil 
 ofPittheus; Hesiod. Sc. H. 312, rg/Kog ...xXvrd sgya. 
 The exchange of sych and y/tisTg, and of corresponding 
 verbs, occurs, times without number, in the classics. 
 Matthiae, moreover, lays it down as a principle, that, 
 in the Greek language more than in any other (has he 
 studied the Hebrew?), there is a passing from the 
 plural to the singular, and vice versa ; and also, that 
 the plural may receive attributives or definitives fr. e. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 59 
 
 verbs, participles, adjectives, etc.] in the singular 
 number, § 293. Hence a verb in the singular is 
 sometimes employed after a Nom. in the plural ; or a 
 participial noun sing., or a common noun sing, stands 
 connected with a plural verb. In like manner the 
 sing, of nouns is often put where we might expect 
 the plural. Such being the case, why should we 
 imagine that the New Testament writers have de- 
 parted from the idiom of the Greek language, when 
 examples of this kind are now and then found among 
 them? 
 
 (3.) The reader will of course draw the con- 
 clusion, that the rule respecting the agreement 
 of a verb, adjective, etc., with a noun in regard 
 to number, is by no means universal. Nouns 
 generic or nouns of multitude, although in the 
 singular, may be construed ad sensum, and take 
 a plural verb, etc. ; and vice versa, plural nouns 
 designating single things, or the entirety of se- 
 veral parts combined together, may have a singu- 
 lar verb, etc. 
 
 (4.) The well known principle, that neuter 
 plurals may take a verb in the singular, (the 
 plural verb is also used), is commonly regarded 
 in the New Testament. 
 
 E. g. ru xakcc 'igyu . . . IcW, 1 Tim. V. 25 ; r,v . . . 
 aVavra xoivu, Acts iv. 32, et al. saepe. 
 
60 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 (5.) The neuter gender is not unfrequently 
 used in reference to persons, where the expres- 
 sion is designed to be of a general nature. 
 
 E. g. crai/ o, John xvii. 2, in reference to the elect ; 
 so ccvrot . . . h wovv, John xvii. 21 ; rb xarg^ov, 2 Thess. 
 ii. 6, for the masc. see ver. 7 ; comp. also 1 Cor. i. 27, 
 28. Heb. vii. 7. 1 John v. 4, et al. 
 
 Note 1. Constructio ad sensum often takes place, 
 in which case the gender or number of the word em- 
 ployed is overlooked, and the verb, adjective, etc. ; 
 accords with the real gender or number of the thing 
 or person intended to be expressed. 
 
 (6.) "Exatfrog, like the Heb. $W, one, each one, 
 sometimes takes the plural verb, etc. 
 
 E. g. Acts xi. 29, uDusav sxacros' Rev. v. 8, typvrii 
 haffrog' and so in classic Greek, as also aWcftsv aXXog, 
 Matt. § 302, a. Any pronoun, or other word, which 
 is a collective in respect to sense, admits of the like 
 construction. 
 
 § 8. APPOSITION. 
 
 (1.) A noun in apposition must be in the same 
 case as its co-relative noun ; and for the most 
 part it takes the article, but not always, (§ 1.6.) 
 The gender and number of the noun in apposi- 
 tion may vary according to its nature. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 61 
 
 E. g. 'ludvvrig 6 /SaTr/cr^g* 2//xa>f (S-joffsug' Sxu^a/, (3ds- 
 (3aoov rb e$vo$. 
 
 § 9. NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. 
 
 (1.) The Nom. case usually constitutes the 
 subject of a sentence, i. e. of some verb expressed 
 or implied. But, 
 
 (2.) The Nom. in some cases is used absolute- 
 ly^ i. e. independently of the construction which 
 follows it, both in the New Testament and in 
 classic writers. 
 
 E. g. 6 Muvffris ovrog ...qvh oldct/isv ri %. r. a., Acts 
 vii. 40 ; 6 v/xwy, co/^cw avrbv x. r. X., Rev. iii. 12. Also 
 Luke xiii. 4. 1 John ii. 27. Matt. x. 32 ; xii. 36. 
 Mark ix. 20, et al. See Matt. § 311. 
 
 (3.) The Nom. is often used instead of the 
 Vocative, both in the New Testament and else- 
 where. 
 
 E. g. 7} cra%, lysigov, Luke viii. 54. Mark ix. 25. 
 Matt, xxvii. 29. Mark x. 47, et saepe al. Matt. § 312. 
 
 (4.) The Voc. is used either with or without 
 the ^. 
 
 E. g. Matt. xv. 28, w yvvar Acts xxi. 20, adO.pk, 
 and saepe al. So in the classics; Matt. § 312, 4. 
 
 (5.) The Nom. stands in Greek after, as well 
 
62 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 as before, such verbs as merely constitute the 
 copula in a sentence, and even when this Nom. 
 is not the subject of the sentence. 
 
 Note 1. The student is already acquainted with 
 the well known constituents of a sentence, viz., the 
 subject, predicate, and copula. Most verbs serve the 
 double purpose of copula and predicate, i. e. they not 
 only assert, but assert some particular quality, action, 
 state, etc. But there is a considerable class of verbs, 
 which usually serve merely as the copula of a sen- 
 tence, and do not contain in themselves any com- 
 pleted declaration of attribute, action, state, etc. 
 All these usually take the Nom. case after them. 
 Such verbs are not only e//*/, urao^w, yivofAou, but also 
 pvoj, xvpsoj, xaXso/xa/, (pojvsw, gT/xaXso/^a/, Tgoffctyogrjo/Aai, 
 ovo/LLcL^ofAat, Xsyo/J^ai, dxovu, a/^so/xa/, a-Tro^s/xyy/xa/, X l, i°" 
 rovso/Mcci, xgivoj&cti, doxew, fpaivopai, soma, vofxi^ofcai, uto- 
 Xa/x/3a';o/xa/, x^/Vo/xa/, driXoopai, /a'svu, and xa$i<fTr)/j,t. It 
 must not be supposed that all these verbs in all their 
 voices, etc., take a Nom. after them ; nor in all the 
 meanings which they bear ; but in those cases in 
 which they serve as a copula only, they take the Nom. 
 after them ; e. g. syut h{u ^sog- puivsTrs /^s, 6 diddffxaXog, 
 John xiii. 13; Xsysra/, 6 a-^/tvSog, Rev. viii. 11 ; <p':Xog 
 . . . xod/xou e"X$gbg rov §zov xo&iararai, James i v. 4, et 
 sic. al. saepe. Rost § 100, Anm. 1. Matt. § 307. 
 
 Note. 2. When a name is given in connection with 
 ovo/xa, it may be done in three ways ; e. g. to ovo/xa 
 avrrig, Maoid^- or fj oi/o/xa, Mao/a/x* or ovo/^ccn Mae/a/x. 
 In the last case, the proper name stands in apposition 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 63 
 
 with some preceding noun, and wo part is the Dat. of 
 circumstance, as kxarovraoyji ovofian 'louX/w, Acts xxvii. 
 1. Luke i. 5. "Av5ga ovo/muti ' Avuviuv, Acts ix. 12. 
 
 (6.) Several nouns connected as subjects of a 
 sentence, may take a plural verb, etc. ; or the verb 
 may be conformed to the nearest noun. 
 
 E. g. ovz eyvca *I(/i(S7\<p xai r\ /j.^tyjp aurov, Luke ii. 43, 
 an example of the latter kind ; the former is so com- 
 mon that it needs no examples. The same usage is 
 common in the Greek classics, Matt. § 304 ; and also 
 in the Hebrew and Latin languages. 
 
 GENITIVE. 
 
 § 10. NATURE AND USES OF THE GENITIVE. 
 
 (1.) The fundamental idea designated by this 
 case seems to be that of an essential and immediate 
 relation or connection of objects. 
 
 Note 1. This may be the relation or connection 
 of a part with the whole ; of a quality or attribute 
 with a subject, i. e. of accidence with substance ; of 
 ownership or propriety with owner ; of effect with 
 cause ; of action with agent ; of feelings, opinions, etc., 
 with sensitive and intellectual beings ; of that which 
 is comprised in any thing, with that which comprises 
 it, etc. 
 
 (•2.) This connection of objects may be view- 
 
64 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 ed either in the light of parts as belonging to or 
 constituting a whole ; or as something proceed- 
 ing from, flowing out of, occasioned by, relating 
 to, some other person or thing. 
 
 Note 1. Hence the Gen. case of itself seems to 
 include the sense of the prepositions gcto, sg, and the 
 like ; which, when they are used before it, rather serve 
 the cause of greater perspicuity than that of necessity, 
 since most of the relations expressed by these prepo- 
 sitions, are occasionally expressed by the Gen. alone, 
 specially in the older Greek poetry. 
 
 § 11. GENITIVE AFTER NOUNS. 
 
 (1.) The great variety of relations which is 
 exhibited by this construction, is very important 
 to the interpreter, and should be made a subject 
 of particular attention. It is nearly impossible, 
 however, specifically to enumerate them all. 
 The following are some of the leading or princi- 
 pal ones ; viz., 
 
 (a) The Gen. of possession or property ; as 6 ohog 
 tou (Soc^Xsoog' r) y}i% too Kug/ou. 
 
 (b) The Gen. of cause, source, occasion, etc., (Gen. 
 auctoris) ; e. g. <po(3og § sou the fear which God inspires; 
 r) xax/a rw irovrjgZiv, the vexation which wicked men 
 occasion. Most of such expressions are also capable 
 of another sense which is subjective, viz., ' the fear 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 65 
 
 which one has of God, the injury which one does to 
 evil men,' etc. But in many cases only one sense is 
 admissible, as v'ibg Targbg dya-jrriroZ' 6 Ttaorrbg rov hhbpov. 
 etc. So in the classics ; xv/^ara vavrotuv ays/um, 
 waves occasioned by various winds ; tii&o$ duifiovuv, 
 grief occasioned by the gods. See Matth. § 375. 
 
 (c) The Gen. of object ; as caga/3o>^ rov ffTstoovroc, 
 the parable respecting the sower ; Luke vi. 7, xarr r 
 yooiav aurow, accusation against him ; Acts iv. 9, 
 zvsgysfflq d^o^-Ttov, beneficence toward the man; 1 Cor. 
 i. 18, b Xoyog 6 rov tfraygoD, doctrine respecting the 
 cross ; John xvii. 2, ejgovtiiav Taffy; ffawbg, power over 
 all fiesh ; Rom. xiii. 3, ob% s/'cv (p6j3og roov dya^ojy 
 sgyuv, are not a terror in respect to good works ; see 
 also Matt. xiv. 1, dzoriv 'Iqffov ; Luke vi. 12. 2 Cor. 
 x. 5. Mark xi. 22 ; viffriv §sov, faith in God, or faith 
 which God requires ; Rom. hi. 22. Gal. ii. 16, et al. 
 saepe. This is a wide field for the interpreter, and 
 it needs much caution and discrimination to traverse 
 it with good success. 
 
 (d) The Gen. of subject ; as boyri $zov, the wrath 
 which God feels ; r\ dydrrr\ rov §sov, the love which 
 God feels. This class of cases might possibly be 
 ranked under <z, but the relation oftentimes is some- 
 what discrepant. 
 
 (e) The Gen. of material ; as ffrstpuwg y^vffov^ uyaXfia 
 Xfoov, etc ; not common in the New Testament, but 
 very common in the classics. 
 
 (/) The Gen. of quality; as Rom. i. 26, cra^ 
 anpiag, base passions ; Acts vii. 2, o §sbg rr\g b6t,r t g, 
 
 F 
 
66 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 the glorious God; and thus often, both in the Old 
 and New Testament, in which cases the noun in the 
 Gen. supplies the place of an adjective. 
 
 (g) The Gen. of place; as in Matt. i. 11, 12, 
 {Aeroixzcia BafivXoJvog, the carrying away to Babylon ; 
 Matt. x. 5, odbg t&vwv, the way to the Gentiles. 
 
 (h) The Gen. of time ; Jude v. 6, xg/tf/i/ psydXrig 
 Tip's gag, judgment at the great day; Heb. vi 1, rbv 
 rr t g d^yj\g rod Xpigtov Xoyov, instruction at the beginning 
 of a Christian course of life. So vvxrbg, by night ; 
 ^a/xuvog, during the winter; rojv irgor'epwv sr'suv, in 
 former years; with a preceding noun (x%6vog, etc.) 
 implied. 
 
 (t) The Gen. of value; as d^a^ns ayopdfyiv r/, 
 to purchase something for a drachma; <r\siffrov rouro 
 n/iw/xa/, I prize this as of the highest value. 
 
 (2) Many shades of more remote relations 
 and connections still, are expressed occasionally 
 by the genitive. 
 
 E. g. Col. i. 20, aJ/Ma, rou 6tcivpov, blood shed upon 
 the cross ; 2 Cor. xi. 26, xhdvvoi qrorctfAobv, dangers on 
 the waters or occasioned by the waters ; John v. 29, 
 sig avdoroMTiv £&%, to the resurrection that is connected 
 with happiness ; Mark i. 4, fidKno-fbct /Azravoiag, bap- 
 tism which obligates to repentance ; Rom. vii. 2, v6[ws 
 rou dvdpbg, the law which binds to the husband ; Rom. 
 vii. 24, ffw/xa Savdrov, the body which occasions death ; 
 Rom. vi. 6, cw/xa rr\g dpa^riag, the body which leads 
 to sin ; Luke xi. 29, rb GripsTov 'Iwva, the sign which hap- 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 67 
 
 pened to Jonah; Philem. v. 9, ds^uiog Xgiarov, a pri- 
 soner for the sake of Christ ; James ii. 5, oi oru^d rov 
 xot/Aov, poor in respect to the present world; and so in a 
 great variety of other cases. Some of these examples 
 might be ranked under some of the divisions already 
 named above ; but in general, they are not of so di- 
 rect a nature. 
 
 Note 1. Such examples as Mag/a 'la%W|3ou, 'lovdag 
 'Iaxw/3ou, etc., are elliptical as to the idea which they 
 are designed to convey, either ywri, (iriryig, warrig, 
 vibg, or ddz\<pbg, etc. being understood, according to 
 the nature of the context. So in 6 'Iaxw/3ou, 97 'AXsg- 
 dvdoov, 0} XXoqg, etc., v/bg, §vydrr)o, etc., being under- 
 stood. 
 
 Note 2. Three Genitives in succession are some- 
 times connected ; e. g. in 2 Cor. iv. 4. Eph. iv. 13, et 
 al. Sometimes the Gen. is separated from the noun 
 that governs it ; as in Phil. ii. 10. 1 Tim. iii. 6. 
 Heb. viii. 5. Sometimes (although seldom) of two 
 genitives, one belongs to persons and another to 
 things; as in Acts v. 32. Phil. ii. 30. 2 Pet. iii. 2. 
 Heb. vi. 1. 
 
 Note 3. When the Gen. stands before the governing 
 noun, either, (a) It belongs to several nouns ; as Acts 
 iii. 7. Or, (b) It is emphatic; as in 1 Cor. iii. 9. Acts 
 xiii. 23. Heb. x. 36. Phil. ii. 25, et saepe alibi. 
 
 Note 4. The so called periphrasis of the Gen. by 
 a noun with sx, ng/, d-rb, xa-d, etc., is seldom, if ever, 
 to be regarded as a simple Gen., but as a mode of 
 expression designed to give a somewhat different 
 shade to its meaning. 
 
6'8 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 § 12. THE GEN. AFTER VERBS. 
 
 (1.) It will be impossible that the reader 
 should obtain an adequate idea of the nature of 
 this idiom, unless he first obtain a correct view 
 of the nature of the relations designed to be ex- 
 pressed by the Gen. case. The general state- 
 ment is made in § 10. It is proper to add some 
 things in this place, for the better understand- 
 ing of the matter. 
 
 (a) The person or thing to which any thing- 
 belongs, as property, attribute, power, usage, 
 duty, etc., is put in the Gen. ; for in this way 
 the relation of the property, etc., is defined. 
 
 (b) The Gen. marks the whole, to which parts 
 or portions of any thing belongs ; for thus the 
 relation of the parts is defined. 
 
 (c) All those cases, viewed subjectively or 
 objectively, in which a word has an incomplete 
 meaning in itself, and needs another word to 
 shew its relation ; or in which the object, the 
 reason, the source or ground, of an action or 
 state must needs be expressed ; in a word, all 
 those cases in which, to complete the expression 
 of the idea, in respect to, in relation to, on account 
 of, by reason of, must be added, admit of the 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. b\) 
 
 Gen. in order to shew what this respect, rela- 
 tion, or account is. 
 
 (d.) Even time and place may be considered 
 as having a relation to that which happens in 
 them; and therefore words designating these, 
 may be put in the Genitive. 
 
 Note 1. Under some of these general heads 
 may be arranged not only the use of the Gen. after 
 verbs, but also after adjectives, participles, preposi- 
 tions, adverbs, and indeed after nouns, as already 
 represented. 
 
 (2.) The student will more easily obtain a 
 proper view of the Gen. after verbs in Greek, 
 if he compares the very numerous class of verbs 
 in English, which are in like manner followed 
 by the Genitive. 
 
 E. g. The verbs axovw and ysvopai (verba sensus) 
 govern the Gen., and in English we often say : hear 
 of, taste of Often too we leave out the of; and so 
 does the Greek, for dxovoj and nearly all other verbs 
 which govern a Gen. may and do sometimes govern 
 other cases, i. e. the Ace, or Dat., as may be neces- 
 sary. Compare our English, thought of, smell of, cat 
 of, take of, give of partake of, drink of, to be of, to be 
 glad of, to be full of, to be emptied of, to complain of, 
 to accuse of, to convince of, to buy of, to sell of, to learn 
 of to rob of, to make of to require of to take hold of, 
 
70 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 to beg of, and so of a multitude of other verbs. In 
 nearly all these cases, there is an agreement with the 
 Greek idiom as to the genitive ; and also in the fact, 
 that nearly all these verbs, and most others which 
 govern the Gen., may also govern other cases. 
 
 (3.) It may be seen by the above exhibitions, 
 that ideas indicated by verbs of this nature di- 
 vide themselves into several classes; e. g. 
 
 (a) Such as designate the relation of property. 
 
 This is confined principally to s/'/x/ and yho^ai, for 
 the obvious reason, that other verbs designate action, 
 state, etc., which would be inappropriate to the pur- 
 pose under consideration ; e. g. tout "kstiv 'ludmv, 
 this is John's ; voKkrig dvoiag hari it belongs to consum- 
 mate folly ; sffrl dixuiov dvdfog, it belongs to a good 
 man, or a good man must, should, may, can, etc., 
 do thus and so. And so of yhopat, which is often 
 equivalent to s/'/x/. 
 
 (b) Verbs which have a partitive sense, i. e. 
 
 which indicate action that can be supposed to 
 
 relate only to a part or portion of the object to 
 
 which it is directed. 
 
 Note 1. The predominant part of the regimen of 
 the Gen. by verbs, is where a partitive sense is meant 
 to be designated. Of course such verbs as ^srs^s/v, 
 fiiraXcc/x^dvuv, xoivuvsTv, inrakay/dniv, /Mradidufii d-7ro- 
 Xavsiv, and all others of the like character, will be in- 
 cluded among those which govern the genitive. By 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 71 
 
 an extension of this principle that is natural enough, 
 verbs signifying to obtain, acquire, etc., i. e. to have a 
 part in or of, often conform to the same idiom, such 
 as rvy%dvsiv, Xayyjiviiv, tcvpsTv, zX^povo/xsTv, etc. Matt. 
 § 325. seq. See in New Testament, 1 Cor. ix. 10, 
 x. 21. Heb. v. 13. Rev. ii. 17, al. 
 
 Note 2. But any verbs whatever, even those 
 which are usually construed with the Ace, may 
 take a Gen. where a partitive sense is meant to be 
 conveyed ; as Odys. 6, 98, 6ft<rijmi xpsojv, to roast, 
 [some] flesh; Thucyd. II. 56, rr\g yy\g srs/xov, they 
 destroyed [a part of] the country ; Plato, Symp. p. 
 2i3,\ccf36vra ruv raivtuv, taking [some] fillets ; Soph. 
 Oed. Tyr. 709, fictvrtxrig 'iyov rzyyrig, having [some- 
 thing] of the prophetic art, etc. Matth. § 323. See 
 Acts xxvii. 36. Matt. xvi. 28. Luke ix. 27 ; xiv. 
 24, al. 
 
 Note 3. Kindred to the above constructions seems 
 to be that in which verbs signifying to seize, grasp, 
 take hold of hold fast, touch, manage, etc., e. g. Xu/m- 
 (3dvo,u,ai, bodrro/xai, avropai, s^u, etc. (specially when 
 in the Mid. voice,) govern the genitive ; Matth. § 
 330. When the whole of a thing grasped, etc., is 
 meant, the Ace. is used, and not the Genitive ; Matth. 
 § 331. See Mark ix. 27 ; v. 30. Matt. xiv. 31. Heb. 
 xii. 20. Luke viii. 54. For seizing the whole, see 
 Matt. xiv. 3 ; xviii. 28. Mark iii. 21, al. 
 
 Note 4. As the antithesis of this, and by one of 
 those peculiarities not uncommon in language, the 
 same usage is extended to verbs (mostly of the Mid. 
 
72 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 voice) of the opposite character; e. g. /AeSh/nou, atpis/xar 
 and so to a/jua^rdvofxai to miss the mark, ■^evfco'Scci to 
 fail in meeting expectations, titp&Kkza^at to be frustrat- 
 ed, etc. 
 
 Note 5. Verbs such as ag^siv, lira^itv, etc., which 
 signify to begin, commence, introduce, etc., govern the 
 Gen. ; for here the action is as it were partitive, i. e. 
 commenced but not completed. So 0/ uT^gav rr\c 
 ?7.rJ^ioiag, who introduced liberty ; Matth. § 335. 
 
 (c) When a noun must be added, in order to 
 shew in respect to, or in regard to, what person 
 or thing, or circumstance, the action, etc., of the 
 verb is to be understood, this noun may be put 
 in the Gen. after any kind of verb. 
 
 Note 1 . E. g. ug to^wv s^ov, as they were able in 
 respect to their feet, i. e. as fast as they could run ; 
 eu s%&iv <pgzvuv, to be sound in respect to understanding ; 
 Eurip. El. crwg uy&vog iinofAtv ; how do we come off as 
 to the contest ? KceXws zsTrai rou qXiov, it lies well in 
 respect to the sun ; Matth. §§ 337, 338. This is a 
 construction widely diffused, and deserving of parti- 
 cular attention. 
 
 (d) All verbs that necessarily imply a relation 
 to something in the action, etc., which they ex- 
 press, but which relation is not designated by 
 the verb itself, take a genitive in order to indi- 
 cate it. But this Gen. is not the direct object 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 73 
 
 of the action expressed by the verb ; for this 
 would require the Accusative. 
 
 Note 1. Verbs signifying an action or affection 
 of the mind, such as to remember, to forget, to be con- 
 cerned for, to neglect, to reflect, to consider, to under- 
 stand, to desire, to long after, etc., rank here, and 
 usually govern the genitive ; e. g. fLvqpovsvsre rr\c yv 
 vatxbg Aur, Luke xvii. 32. Acts xi. 16. 2 Pet. iii. 
 2, al. ; iKt\a,%<&ai rov egyov u/auv, Heb. vi. 10; ov... 
 dyysXuv siriXafiGdvsrai, Heb. ii. 16 (figuratively in- 
 terpreted) ; (ir\ ruv (3ou>v /mXsi- 1 Cor. ix. 9. Acts 
 xviii, 17, al. ; /taXov sgyov effftvpei, 1 Tim. iii. 1 ; £flv- 
 6xonrig ogsyzrai, 1 Tim. iii. 1. Heb. xi. 16. So in 
 the classics ; e. g. I&v/mu tuv s/doroov, consider the 
 things which rare 'Seen, Xen. Mem. III. vi. 17; ;/jo$o- 
 ixrjv aurojv, I perceived them, Plat. Apol. Soc. p. 27 ; 
 yvuiffsrai 2toX£ar?j£...ijaoy, Plat. Apol. p. 27. And so 
 occasionally, of most verbs which in any way express 
 an action or affection of the mind. The ground of 
 this seems to be, that the action of the mind does not 
 properly pass to the object, or at all affect it ; so that 
 the Ace. would seem to be not exactly in place here. 
 The Gen. points out the objects in relation to which 
 the mind acts, or is affected. But still, analogy of 
 usage often causes all such verbs to take an Ace. 
 after them. 
 
 Note 2. Kindred to the above verbs, which ex- 
 press the action or affection of the internal senses, 
 are those which express the action or affection of the 
 external ones ; e. g. avrov dxovsrs, Matt. xvii. 5. Luke 
 
74 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 ii. 46. John iii. 29, al. ; ou [myi ysuffuvroct ^vvdrov, 
 Matt. xvi. 28. Mark ix. 1, used figuratively, but 
 following the usual construction ; so ofyiv pvgav, vzxgou 
 I&Y} airretfoau Verbs of sight are excepted ; and all 
 such verbs as the above, often take the Accusative. 
 
 (e) Verbs signifying plenty or want, fulness or 
 emptiness, take the Gen. of the thing which fills 
 or which is lacking, in order to complete the 
 idea of the verb by pointing out its relation. 
 
 Note 1. E. g. yz[u<>arz rag bboiag vdarog, John ii. 
 7. Acts v. 28, al. So Xefaerau cotpiug, James i. 5. 
 Luke xxii. 35. Rom. iii. 23, al. 
 
 Note 2. Kindred to these verbs are such as signify 
 to deprive, take away, rob ; and (with some shades of 
 difference, but in the way of an analogy that is not 
 unnatural) verbs signifying to loose, free, separate 
 from, quit, etc., as /is^ierr^i in Luke xvi. 4 ; dcroy^oj 
 in 1 Tim. i. 6 ; a/gg/v in Mark ii. 21 ; vravofluu in 1 
 Pet. iv. 1, et al. On the other hand ; verbs signify- 
 ing to hinder, restrain, keep back, prevent, etc., may 
 take the Genitive; e. g. xu\vu in Acts xxvii. 43, 
 et al. 
 
 Note 3. More remotely kindred to verbs of 
 emptying, etc., are verbs meaning to separate, to re- 
 move, to turn off or away, to lead off or away, to de- 
 part, to go away, to cease, to stop, to make to cease, 
 etc. ; which occasionally govern the Genitive. 
 
 (f) All words denoting comparison in respect 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 75 
 
 to a thing or person, usually put that thing or 
 person in the Gen., as properly expressive of 
 relation. Hence verbs of the like meaning fol- 
 low the like construction. 
 
 E. g. ijrratrtJa/ nvoc, to be inferior [in respect to] 
 some one ; to exercise, rule, command, or dominion, 
 as xvgiebu in Rom. xiv. 9. 2 Cor. i. 24 ; afosvrsTv, 1 
 Tim. ii. 12 ; xarccduvcufrzvuv, James ii. 6; d^wrranvsiv, 
 Acts xviii. 12, et al. In like manner, verbs signify- 
 ing to prize more highly, to excel, exceed, be sub- 
 ject to, obey, yield to, succumb, and all others that im- 
 plicate inferiority in any way, may take a Gen., and 
 oftentimes do take one, although they are not (for 
 the most part) limited to this construction. 
 
 Note 1. Kindred to the construction under f, 
 although not quite of the same tenor, is the case where 
 the Gen. of price or value is put after verbs of buying, 
 selling, exchanging, procuring, etc. ; e. g. a<r<rag/oy crw- 
 As/ra/, are sold for a farthing, Matt. x. 29 ; *rga05jjvai 
 •toAAoD, be sold for much, Matt. xxvi. 9. 1 Cor. vi. 
 20. Rev. vi. 6 ; rSj; ff?j; Aargs/a? rqv IfMrjv diKjircaZ/av 
 ...oux otv aAAaga//*,/, I woidd not exchange my ill luck 
 for your servitude, Aesch. Prometh. 974. The ground 
 of this construction seems to be comparison of things 
 with price, and the consequent valuation or estima- 
 tion of them. 
 
 Note 2. So verbs of prizing, estimating, valuing ; 
 as rouro'j tiumuml this much I value it. 
 
76 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 Note 3. A comparison seems also to be expressed, 
 by implication, in those words which signify distinc- 
 tion, difference, disagreement, unlikeness, etc. ; e. g. 
 KoWuv <srgo\feiw dia<p'eesrs, ye differ from [ye are of 
 higher value than] many sparrows, Matt. x. 31. 1 
 Cor. xv. 41, al. So dgsry) nXourov disgTTjxs, Plat. Re- 
 publ. viii. p. 550 ; dXXoiov&ai nvog, to be different 
 from one, Plat. Parm. p. 138. 
 
 (4.) The cases in which the use of the Gen. 
 has thus far been exhibited, all belong to those 
 where the Gen. has a partitive sense, or else is 
 added in order to shew some relation of its cor- 
 relatives, so as to complete the idea which they 
 express. But there is an important aspect of 
 the Gen., which remains yet to be considered, 
 viz., the designation of the object to which any 
 thing is directed or has relation, or else the desig- 
 nation of its rtse or origin ; or both of these 
 combined. 
 
 As to nouns, see in § 11. 1, c and b. The nature 
 of this connection is obvious. The expression <pi\ia 
 •j'ioZ may be taken either actively or passively. In 
 the first case, it means of course the friendship which 
 the son cherishes toward some other person ; in the 
 second, the friendship of which the son is the object, 
 i. e. which another person cherishes toward him. The 
 context must always furnish the key to such (in them- 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 77 
 
 selves) ambiguous expressions ; of which there are a 
 great number, see § 11. 1, c. As to verbs, they may 
 be divided here into several classes, viz. 
 
 (a) Almost any verb, but particularly those 
 which in any way denote feelings or affections 
 of the mind, may take a Gen. of the thing, whose 
 relation to the verb (or participle) is such, that 
 we may indicate it by the words on account of, 
 for the sake of, etc. 
 
 E. g. Aavaoov -/.s^oXoj/jlsvoi, angry on account of the 
 Greeks, II. w, 545 ; ^aXsTrug p'sgsfv avruv, to grieve on 
 tJieir account, Thucy. II. 62 ; rovruv ovudiffat, to utter 
 reproach on account of these things, Herod. I. 90 ; 
 dixaiov atvs<ycci crgo^u/x/a£, to commend the Just man for 
 his readiness, Eurip. Iphig. in Aul. 1381. 
 
 (b) In particular ; verbs of complaining against, 
 accusing, prosecuting (at law), of condemning , sub- 
 jecting to condemnation, etc., take the Gen. of the 
 
 thing on account of which this is done. 
 
 E. g. diui^o^a/ tfc dztXiag, I accuse you of cowardice, 
 Aristoph. Eq. 367 ; siramoufdfAsvog /us"<p6vov, accusing 
 me of murder, i. e. accusing me on account of alleged 
 murder, etc. But in the New Testament, preposi- 
 tions are usually employed before the noun in such 
 cases, which serve to render the relation still more 
 definite ; and so, not unfrequently, in the classics. 
 
78 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 Note 1. In the classics, verbs of supplicating, be- 
 seeching, etc., take the Gen. of the person by or on 
 account of whom the supplication is made; as §sojv cs 
 Ixstsvoj, I beseech thee by the gods, Herod. VI. 68 ; but 
 in the New Testament a preposition is employed to 
 mark this relation. 
 
 (c) The Gen. of origin frequently follows the 
 verbs et/uki and yiyvo/j,cci. 
 
 E. g. /LL7jrgbs...Mavddvy}g ym<ftar sff^Xuv ysvstfoat, etc. 
 
 Note J. Here may be arranged verbs signifying 
 to smell or savour of; as o£w /j,vgo\j* ffvxotpavriug <7rvu, he 
 savours of sycophancy, Eq. 437 ; the noun denoting 
 the cause or origin of the smell or savour. 
 
 § 13. GENITIVE AFTER PARTITIVES, ADJECTIVES, 
 PARTICIPLES, ADVERBS, ETC. 
 
 (1.) Partitives of all classes, from their very 
 nature (designating a part or portion of), may 
 take of course the Gen. after them, to indicate 
 the whole to which they stand related. 
 
 E. g. (a) 'O {ih...6 ds' as rd fih roov hruv . . .rd ds ruv 
 ovtojv. (b) Demonstratives, as ovrog, etc. ; as rouro 
 uvdyxyg. (c) Participles, which (with the article) 
 denote a particular class of men ; as o) xaratpvyovrzg 
 a-jrojv. (d) Adjectives, which denote classes of men, 
 etc., as bXiyoi, noXko}, nXuarw, o) "Xgritirol, etc. ; as oXiyoi 
 dv'SooJrM, o/ xprjtfroi ruv ai&gwfl'W!/, 6 %/xiffvg rou "Xgovov, 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 79 
 
 etc. And so even in the singular number of the ad- 
 jective ; as rdXaiva Kafi'svwv. (e) Interrogatives ; as 
 rig ^wv (f ) Names of towns belonging to a country ; 
 as Br$\is/j, rqg 'lovdaiag. (g) Adverbs of place ; 
 as clXXcfti yaiyg, in another part of the country ; vov 
 yr\S' in what part of the world? (h) Adverbs of 
 time; as 6-^s rr\g r h 'j,'seag, in the evening ; nqviza, rr^g 
 rj[Asgu$' at what time of the day ? (i) Superlatives, 
 (which of course indicate a part only) as eyfiiffrog (3affi- 
 Xsuv. Also of course, adjectives, adverbs, etc., with 
 a superlative meaning ; as s'^o^og, s'i;o%a, etc. 
 
 (*2.) When the relation of an adjective, ad- 
 verb, etc., must be shewn by a word subjoined, 
 this word is put in the Genitive. 
 
 E. g. (a) Adjectives ; as r'&Xsiog rr\g dgsrJj;, perfect 
 in respect to courage ; d-raig dggevcav Kaibuv, childless 
 in respect to sons, (b) Adverbs ; as fl*o|gw eotpiug' 
 xarur'sgw rov Tccordgov, underneath in respect to Tar- 
 tarus, (c) Demonstratives ; as e/g rovro dvayxrig, un- 
 to this in respect to necessity , =ug rabrriv rqv dvdy%r\\>. 
 
 (3.) All adjectives and participials, indicative 
 of a state of mind, feeling, etc. ; of knowledge 
 or ignorance, etc. ; put the Gen. of relation 
 after them ; see and comp. § 12, 3, d. with notes. 
 
 E. g. (a) Adjectives ; as d-raidivrog /xovffixrig' <fo<pog 
 xaxuv. (b) Participials ; as ou rpifiwv ..jwrixris. 
 
80 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 (4.) Adjectives, etc., indicating plenty or want, 
 fulness or emptiness, etc. (comp. § 12, 3. p.), 
 may take the Gen. after them. 
 
 E. g. (a) Adjectives ; as xsvbg <pgsvuv sgripog <piXuv 
 ftXygyig xsvatv. (b) Adverbs ; as cidqv aiparog rvgavvmou, 
 enough of tyrant's blood. 
 
 (5.) All comparatives (which of course intimate 
 relation) put the thing compared in the Genitive ; 
 comp. § 12, Q.f. 
 
 E. g. (a) Adjectives ; as fui^uv vargbg, lit. greater 
 as it respects his father. Adverbs are of course con- 
 strued in the same way, when they have the like 
 meaning. (b) As kindred with this construction, 
 may be reckoned adjectives denoting rule, superiority, 
 preference, of any kind, or the contrary, etc ; as r t dovr t c 
 syzpa-'/jg' jjrruv Scrvou. 
 
 Note 1. Adjectives expressive of ivorth, value, 
 etc., and also of the contrary meaning, by a like prin- 
 ciple take the Genitive ; as a^iog rt/Mfg' dvd^iog rifjsr t g. 
 So adverbs of like meaning ; as d^iwg tyjc ddix/ag. 
 
 Remark. In regard to the classes of words in Nos. 
 2 — 5, it is obvious that the same general principle 
 may be applied to all of them, viz., that the Gen. 
 which follows them is designed to designate the relation 
 which its correlate sustains, and which may be express- 
 ed by the words in respect to, in regard to, etc. Thus 
 Ttsvbg (pozv&v, empty in respect to mind ; 6o<pbg xaxuv, 
 wary in regard to evils, etc. ; and so of all the rest. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 81 
 
 (6.) Adjectives, etc., may be followed by the 
 Gen., when the relation designated by the words 
 on account of, etc. is intended to be expressed. 
 
 E. g. (a) TdXaivcc Gv/jupogag xaxrjg, wretched on ac- 
 count of an evil destiny, Aesch. Pers. 443; sudaifiuv 
 ... Teal rov rgo-rov xcci ruiv \6ywv, fortunate on account of 
 his demeanour and his conversation, Plat. Phaed. p. 68. 
 (b) Genitives of exclamation, with or without an in- 
 terjection, are to be solved in the like way ; e. g. <piv 
 rov dvhgog ! So rr)g rv^rig I what a lucky chance ! In 
 such cases the context explains the thing referred to 
 by the exclamation. 
 
 (7.) Participials may take a Gen. denoting 
 material, or the source or origin of the action or 
 quality which they express; comp. § 11. 1. c. b. 
 
 E. g. <poivi7Log ... yeiroiTifievai, made of palm-wood, 
 Xen. Cyrop. V. 7. 22; rtXriyiig ^uyargbg rr)g sprig, 
 smitten of my own daughter, Eurip. Orest. 491. 
 
 (8.) In classic Greek, time and place are usually 
 put in the genitive ; in the New Testament, this 
 relation is commonly marked by prepositions. 
 
 E. g. 'l^d-/.r t g, at Ithaca ; rov dsfyov, on the right ; 
 Ixswjg rr)g qf&egag, on that day ; yzi'icavog, in winter. 
 In the New Testament, vvxrbg, by night. Matt. ii. 14 ; 
 -oiag, in what way, Luke v. 19 : rov Xomov, in future, 
 Gal. vi. 17 : but the cases of such a construction are 
 rare in the New Testament. 
 
 G 
 
82 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 § 14. GENITIVE ABSOLUTE. 
 
 ( 1 .) The genitive absolute is introduced, where 
 a subordinate clause of a sentence exhibits a subject 
 or agent different ft om that in the principal asser- 
 tion. In this case, to avoid confusion, and make 
 the construction clear, the subordinate clause has 
 a subject and participle in the genitive. 
 
 E. g. aurov s&vfiTj^svrog, Idov, ayyzXoc, Kuoiou, x.r.X, 
 Matt. i. 20 ; rou ds 'Ir^ov ysvvr$svrog...Idov fidyot uno 
 '/t.r.Xy Matt. ii. 1. Strictly speaking, the Gen. absolute 
 has a relation to time, and may be construed as a 
 Gen. of this nature ; Winer, p. 170, Anmerk. So, 
 in most cases, we supply when in translating such 
 clauses. 
 
 § 15. GENITIVE AFTER PREPOSITIONS AND 
 ADVERBS. 
 
 (I.) Prepositions express relation ; and, on this 
 account, (not in and of themselves) they govern 
 the genitive. It is, therefore, only those prepo- 
 sitions which express relations that comport with 
 the nature of the genitive, which govern it ; for 
 all prepositions do not govern it. 
 
 Note. The old method of solving the appearance 
 of the Gen. case when unconnected with a preced- 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 83 
 
 ing noun, by supplying svsxa, bveg, etc. leaves the real 
 difficulty unexplained; for when I say ogyjfy&at 
 rivoc, and evexa is supplied in order to govern ritig, I 
 may well ask : How comes hsza to govern the geni- 
 tive ? The answer to this will be just as difficult, as 
 to shew how 6gy/£s<fta/ can govern the genitive. 
 
 (2.) Two purposes are answered by using pre- 
 positions of known and established meaning be- 
 fore the genitive; the first, that the relation is 
 thus definitely expressed, and so guarded against 
 mistake ; the second, that the expression of re- 
 lation is thus extended, without the hazard of am- 
 biguity. 
 
 Note 1. Several prepositions plainly do not fall 
 directly within the relations of the genitive above ex- 
 plained, but only indirectly. Still there is an analo- 
 gous use in all of those which do govern it ; and the 
 danger of mistake is guarded against, by the definite 
 meaning of the prepositions themselves. It is thus 
 that the powers of expression in Greek are extended. 
 
 (3.) Some prepositions govern the Gen. only, 
 because they express only those relations that 
 are connected with it ; some govern the genitive 
 and another case, or two other cases, because 
 they have other meanings than those which are 
 appropriate to the genitive. 
 
 (a) The Gen. only; dvri, oM, 1% (!£,) hzxa, <rs6. (b) 
 
84 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 Gen. and Ace. ha, Kara, Wzo. (c) Gen. Dat., and 
 Accusative ; appl, Ktgi, Iff/, kgcpu, Tohg, fisra, vto. 
 
 (4.) Prepositions in composition with verbs, 
 etc., may govern the Genitive, if they govern it 
 when standing alone. In some cases, this usage 
 is extended even to prepositions that (when 
 standing alone) govern other cases. 
 
 E. g. Verbs compounded with sv, <rvv, sis, 6/mov, etc., 
 sometimes (often with auv and c;moZ) govern the Gen- 
 itive. 
 
 (5.) In many cases, compound verbs govern 
 the Gen., not because of the preposition in them, 
 but because of their meaning. 
 
 Note 1. In this way we may account for it (for 
 the most part), when we find verbs governing the 
 Gen. and yet compounded with prepositions which 
 do not govern it. 
 
 (6.) The so called adverbs which govern the 
 Gen., in such cases become of course mere pre- 
 positions expressive of relation, etc. Of these 
 there are a considerable number. 
 
 E. g. avev, arsg, hya, dix'/jv, syyitg, rrXriffiov, et&tf, 
 evutmov, /xira^-o, l^yji, «%£'> x'soa, rrbav, tX'/jv, ydeiv, etc. 
 
 General Remarks respecting the Genitive. In 
 
 almost all the cases in which verbs, etc., govern this case, 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 85 
 
 other constructions are allowable ; in many cases they are 
 common ; in some, even the more common. In English I 
 may say, to taste this, or to taste of this, etc., sometimes with 
 some difference of meaning, and sometimes without any. And 
 thus it is in Greek. Constructions with prepositions, for the 
 sake of more explicitness, are nearly always allowable ; and 
 in the New Testament they are far more frequent than in the 
 older Greek classics. This serves to render the interpretation 
 easier. The student must beware not to conclude, that be- 
 cause a verb governs the Genitive, it can govern no other case, 
 even where the same idea (for substance) is expressed. The 
 mode of expression may be, and is, very diverse ; and this gives 
 to any language far more scope of expression than it would 
 otherwise have. 
 
 DATIVE. 
 
 § 16. NATURE AND USES OF THE DATIVE. 
 
 (1.) The Dative serves for the designation of 
 indirect compliment, i. e. of the more remote ob- 
 ject, to which any action, passion, etc., has re- 
 lation. 
 
 Note 1. The direct compliment of a transitive 
 verb, for example, is the object on which its action, 
 etc., directly operates, or which it effects. But the 
 indirect compliment is that to or for which this action, 
 etc., takes place. 
 
 (2.) Hence results this very general principle 
 or rule ; viz., the person or thing to or for which 
 
86 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 any thing is, is done, is directed, etc., is put in 
 the Dative after any words which indicate exis- 
 tence, action, or direction. 
 
 E. g. zdwxd (for Ssw agsffxzr syfiiw 6or avrui (piXog' 
 and so £sv/£s<&a/ rtvi, to wonder at any thing, 1 Peter 
 iv. 12 ; ffgooxvv&Tv rtvi, to show reverence to one, 
 Matt. ii. 8, 11 ; yovwersTv rtvi, to kneel to one, Matt, 
 xvii. 14, (in the better Codices) ; ofioXoyzTv rtvi, to make 
 acknowledgment to one, Heb. xiii. 15; t&sfips&ai rtvi, 
 to attribute blame to him, Heb. viii. 8 ; fiagruesw rtvi, 
 to bear testimony to one, John iii. 26 ; and thus 6oi scri, 
 it belongs to thee ; avrti yfosrai, virdg^ei, etc. 
 
 Note I. The so called Dativus commodi vel in- 
 commodi may be ranged under this general principle. 
 The Dativus commodi occurs very frequently ; e. g. 
 2 Cor. v. 13. Rom. xiv. 6, 7. Matt. iii. 16. Mark 
 ix. 5. Luke i. 55, al. The Dativus incommodi may 
 be found in Matt, xxiii. 31, fiagrvgurs sauroTg ye beai 
 witness against yourselves. See also James v. 3. 
 
 § 17. PARTICULAR CLASSES OF WORDS USUALLY 
 GOVERNING THE DATIVE. 
 
 (1.) Verbs signifying to approach, meet, unite, 
 connect; and such as imply approach, etc., in 
 order to complete the action which they express, 
 e. g. to associate with, speak to, address, pray to, 
 come together, propitiate ; strive with, fight with, 
 rival ; follow, hearken to, give head to, etc., may 
 take the Dative. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 87 
 
 Note 1. The indirect compliment in these and 
 the like cases may be expressed by the Dative ; as 
 stated above, under the general principle. In the 
 mean time many of these verbs may also take an 
 Ace; just as in English we say : ' I fought him/ or 
 ' I fought with him.' 
 
 (2.) Verbs signifying to blame, reproach, up- 
 braid, accuse, envy, to be angry at, etc. govern the 
 Dat. of the person blamed, etc. 
 
 E. g. 601 Xoido^sr rw ^s^acrovTV y^ocXsTatvsi' bf/jv /xs/x- 
 ijDsrar ocvtuj (p^ovsT- 
 
 (3.) Verbs, adjectives, etc., which signify 
 likeness or unlikeness, sameness or discrepance, 
 fitness or unfitness, usually govern the Dative. 
 
 E. g. 6/xo/outfw aurbv dvdgi, I will liken him to a man, 
 Matt. vii. 24 ; opotoJ e/tiv naibioig, Luke vii. 32 ; 'iGovg 
 7liJAv...roTg joaffrdffafft, Matt. xx. 12; s'j^stov Ixetvoic, 
 Heb. vi. 7 ; itgzicii ayioig, Eph. v. 3 ; so/xs xXuSww, 
 James i. 6 ; So even avrbg is often construed in the 
 classics ; e. g. h toj avruj xivduvu) roTg <pav\ordroig, in 
 peril the same with that which belongs to the basest ; 
 rb avrb toj yjXftiu) zhui, to be the same with that which 
 is silly. And in the poets, even ug and roiovrog are 
 sometimes followed by the Dative. 
 
 Note 1. Some adjectives of the nature above de- 
 scribed, such as o/xotog, hog, tpsxojv, etc, sometimes go- 
 vern the Genitive. The construction varies, ad libi- 
 tum scriptoris. 
 
88 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 Note 2. Adjectives, moreover, which signify to 
 be profitable or unprofitable, agreeable or disagree- 
 able, friendly or inimical, hard or easy, and so of all 
 kindred meanings, may govern the Dative in the 
 same way as those described above. 
 
 (4.) Verbs signifying to give to, deliver over 
 or up, please, help, counsel, command, happen to, 
 yield to, concede, etc., almost of course govern the 
 Dative. 
 
 Note 1. And yet here, as in most other cases, the 
 language admits sometimes of a different construc- 
 tion, some of these verbs occasionally governing the 
 Gen., and some the Accusative. 
 
 (5.) Passive verbs frequently take the Dative 
 after them, without any preposition, indicating 
 the agent by which or whom the action is clone 
 which is indicated by the verb. 
 
 E. g. ^rifLadiv Ivraigsrai, he is lifted up by his wealth; 
 swgdrrsro avroTg rd rrig noXzug, the affairs of the city 
 are managed by them. See § 18, 4, 5. Comp. 
 Matt. v. 21. Luke xxiii. 15. James iii. 7, 18. 
 
 Note 1. Specially do passive (and also neuter) 
 verbs, signifying an affection of the mind, take the 
 Dat. of the thing which occasions that affection ; as 
 dyatfoevreg rfi sgyu, exulting in the work ; yjzhznwg 
 (p'sga rdig ira^ovat KguyfAGrfi, I am grieved at the pre- 
 sent state of things. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT 89 
 
 (6.) Adverbs of signification like to that of 
 verbs or adjectives governing the Dat, may 
 also take the Dative aiter them. 
 
 E. g. ofioiwg svedocfa like a snare, or as a snare ; 
 uffavrug i^oi, as even to me, etc. 
 
 § 18. VARIOUS RELATIONS DESIGNATED BY THE 
 DATIVE. 
 
 (1.) In respect to, in regard to, is a relation 
 which it not unfrequently designates. 
 
 E. g. [JjYi <7Tctidia yivsff'Ss raTg <pgsfftv, dWot rfi zayjq, 
 be not children in respect to understanding, but in 
 regard to malice, 1 Cor. xiv. 20 ; 6yfnj,ari evge^eig ug 
 uvtyunog, in respect to form, he was found as a man, 
 Phil. ii. 7. So Acts vii. 51 ; xx. 22. Heb. v. 11. 
 Gal. i. 22. Luke i. 51, et saep. al. 
 
 Note 1. In classic Greek this is also very common ; 
 e. g. a^iog Isri ^avarov rfj koXs/, he is worthy of death, 
 in respect to the city, Xen. Mem. Soc. p. 1 ; ru...rfi 
 rwv av§eu><7rwv <pv<rsi s\syo/y,sv, we have said those things 
 ...in respect to human nature, Plato, Phaed. p. 79. 
 In like manner the Gen. case is often used ; see § 
 12, 3, c. 
 
 (2.) The relation signified by the words in 
 accordance with the nature, principles, opinion, 
 judgment, circumstances, etc., of any thing or 
 person, is sometimes expressed by the Dative. 
 
90 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 E. g. < Except ye be circumcised rw g'Ss/ Muuff'eug, 
 agreeably to the usage of Moses, 9 Acts xv. 1 ; dcrsTog 
 ruj Ss<jj, Acts vii. 20 ; dwara rw Sgw, 2 Cor. x. 4, 
 (but this may mean : Are feasible to him.) So Plat. 
 Phaed. p. 101, u Co/ dXkriXoig ^vfi<pcavsT q diupwvs?, if in 
 your opinion they mutually agree or differ. 
 
 (3.) The manner in which any thing is done, 
 etc., is designated by the Dative. 
 
 E. g. ' Praying dxcikvKTU) rjj xztpaXjj, with the 
 head uncovered,' 1 Cor. xi. 5 ; <Ye are circumcised 
 vrsgtTOfAJi ayjiooxotr,™' Col. ii. 11. 
 
 Note 1. In conformity with this use of the Da- 
 tive, are many nouns employed adverbially ; e. g. 
 drjuoffiq, at the public expense ; xoivfj, in common ; /dice, 
 privately, et al. 
 
 (4.) The instrument is put in the Dative. 
 
 E. g. Xftu) rqv 'Aitpakriv vard^ug' * Upholding all 
 things ru) ^[molti r5jg duvdfMsug avrov,' Heb. i. 3 ; rw 
 <7rXoiaoi(jj rj\%v, they came by means of a small boat, 
 John xxi. 8 ; et al saepe. 
 
 5. The cause or occasion of any thing may be 
 put in the Dative. 
 
 E. g. ' They were broken off tjj aviar/a,' Rom xi. 
 20 ; < Ye obtained mercy rf tovtojv uKsfts/u, through 
 their disobedience, i, e. the occasion of mercy being ex- 
 tended to you, was their disobedience, Rom. xi. 30. 
 So in the classics : <p6 { 3uj acrijXSov, they departed through 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 91 
 
 fear ; sroWoi uT&avov axgarzia, many died through in- 
 temperance ; cW ya'i^ovtii, they rejoice through means of 
 you; rovroig Xwrouf/ksSa, we grieve because of these, i. e. 
 our grief is occasioned by them. 
 
 Note 1. It is easy to see, that such verbs as to 
 delight in, to rejoice in, be troubled, be sad, be satisfied 
 or unsatisfied, to be willing or unwilling, to wonder 
 at, be terrified, be astonished, etc., may very natu- 
 rally put the cause or occasion of these emotions in 
 the Dative. 
 
 Note 2. In like manner, verbs signifying to dis- 
 tinguish ones self to excel, to be eminent, etc., put the 
 quality which is the cause or ground of distinction, 
 in the Dative. 
 
 (6.) Time when and place ivhere, are put in 
 the Dative. 
 
 E. g. rfids rrj wxrt, this very night; raurri rr\ r^zou., 
 on the same day ; /xax^w xgwGi, during a long time. 
 So A'/j?.w, at Delos ; AqjOuvi, at Dodona ; Mux^va/g, 
 at Mycaence. 
 
 § 19. dative with prepositions and compound 
 
 VERBS. 
 
 (1.) Prepositions adapted to express any of 
 the various relations of the Dative, may govern 
 this case. 
 
 E. g. (a) Governing the Dat. only ; h ffvv (fw). 
 
92 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 (b.) Governing the Dat. (and also the Gen. and Ace); 
 
 a/jitpl, tspi, he) [isra, itaga, W, 
 
 (2.) Verbs compounded with these preposi- 
 tions, may of course govern the Dative. 
 
 Note 1. In particular ; verbs compounded with 
 gvv, /xgra, and 6/jlov take the Dative, because the idea 
 of association or union (so consonant with the nature 
 of the Dative) is expressed by these words. 
 
 Note 2. Verbs with lit) and itfog not unfrequent- 
 ly take the Dative, even in cases where the Ace. 
 would seem most consonant with the prepositions ; 
 e. g. eieurrgurevsiv riv), KgosfiaKkeiv nvi. 
 
 (3.) Any verbs compounded with prepositions 
 which do not govern the Dative, may govern 
 this case, if they have a meaning which is ap- 
 propriate to such a regimen. 
 
 General Remark I. The Dative without any 
 preposition before it, is more common in the earlier 
 than in the later Greek ; and more usual in the clas- 
 sics than in the New Testament. Indeed, in a great 
 number of cases, after verbs of almost every kind 
 which usually govern the Dative, a preposition is in- 
 serted by the New Testament writers ; which makes 
 the relation still more definite and explicit. In par- 
 ticular does the preposition h mark the relation of 
 the Dative ; so that we have iiyidvsiv rr\ itiarn and h 
 rf( iticTii, hiayjuv riv) and sfv nvi, etc. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 93 
 
 But the Greek has a wide latitude of construction ; 
 and the Accus. with s/g or itolg before it, often ex- 
 press the like relation as the Dative; e. g. ro'/opai 
 §z& and £v%pfj,ai icghg SsoV so ■v^sufet&a/ rtvt and vrgog 
 nva, rodoxetv s/g nva and nvi. So with adjectives ; as 
 evSsTog ug ri or rivi, et. al. mult. 
 
 General Remark II. Here, as in the case of 
 the Genitive, most verbs, etc., which govern the Da- 
 tive, are capable of another construction, and may 
 govern the Ace. or Gen., pro libitu scriptoris, as the 
 nature of the case may be. The student should learn, 
 therefore, in most cases rather to say may govern, 
 than must govern. 
 
 ACCUSATIVE. 
 
 § 20. NATURE AND USES OF THE ACCUSATIVE. 
 
 (1.) The Ace. case marks the direct comple- 
 ment of the verb, i. e. the object which the ac- 
 tion of the verb affects, either as producing it, 
 or in some way operating upon it ; or else, to- 
 ward which the action of the verb is immediately 
 directed. 
 
 (2.) In respect to all verbs which designate 
 an action that is plainly transitive in its nature, 
 as rvTru, the use of the Ace. after them is too 
 plain to need any illustration, being common to 
 all languages. But, 
 
94 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 (3.) The Greeks employ the Ace. after many 
 Verbs, which are in their own nature not strictly 
 transitive, but more or less of a neuter or intran- 
 sitive signification ; and the extent of this usage 
 can hardly be made the subject of grammatical 
 rule ; it must be learned by practice. 
 
 E. g. akiriv bbh eJtiv, they go [by] the way of the sea, 
 Horn. rr t v vqffov a<pixzro,he came [to] the island; ditpgov 
 fiaiueiv, to go [into] a chariot ; sX^sTv odov to travel [by] 
 the way ; T\et vy^a xsXsu^a, he sails [on] the wa- 
 tery ways. And so even of place ; e. g. rjx^s x^ va > 
 he came [to] the country. But such constructions 
 are much more common in poetry than in prose ; e. 
 g. (to), X&fAKCt), gs-7rcti, gsw, ffTsvdw, p^ogsuw, and the like, 
 take the Ace. after them. 
 
 Note 1. There is a very large class of verbs, 
 which from their nature do not seem fully to belong 
 to the order of transitive, nor fully to the order of 
 intransitive ones, but hold a kind of intermediate 
 place between the two ; and yet they very commonly 
 govern the Ace. case. My meaning is, that when we 
 examine strictly into the nature of this class of verbs, 
 we shall find that the action which they express, 
 cannot be truly and accurately named transitive, in- 
 asmuch as it does not affect the object which is put 
 in the Ace. case. Still the verb itself is so far transi- 
 tive, that it requires some object to be named after 
 it toward which the action stands related ; for with- 
 out the designation of this, the meaning of the verb 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 95 
 
 would be incomplete. If there be any obscurity in 
 this statement, it will be made altogether clear by 
 examples ; e. g. in KooGjtuvzTv riva (common in the 
 best classical writers), the verb does not express an 
 action of which nvd is properly the subject; for the 
 worship paid to any being does not (strictly consider- 
 ed) affect him at all, but it affects only the worshipper 
 himself. Yet when we say, he worshipped, we feel, of 
 course, that the idea is incomplete and imperfect un- 
 less the object of worship (for so we must call it) is 
 also named. Kindred to this example are a multi- 
 tude of cases in Greek ; e. g. such as doovpoow rim, 
 to be a spear-bearer for one (as we express it in Eng- 
 lish) ; and so peoXa/Csuw, £&ai/w, "ka^civw, l-irgovzuoij, 
 Jt/Xs/Vw, /SXscai, avrod/^acxw, o,<xvl///,/, atiifiiTv, <proynv, 
 and many other like verbs, usually take the Accu- 
 sative. 
 
 Note 2. In like manner, all such verbs as desig- 
 nate the feelings and affections of the mind, though 
 not strictly transitive, very commonly take after them 
 the Accus. of the object which occasions such feelings 
 or affections ; e. g. ocl^vvo/xai avrbv, I am ashamed 
 [of] him ; aid'so/uai avrbv I reverence him ; sToiznigoj 
 avrbv, I pity him ; sXsut avrbv, I compassionate him ; 
 and so of other like verbs, as ffTXay^/vi^o/xai, $ofihtj,ai, 
 dffsjSsoj, o/Avvui, etc. in the New Testament, where the 
 idiom in question is common. 
 
 Note 3. Even such verbs, expressive of the feel- 
 ings or affections, as may be called strictly intransi- 
 tive, i. e. such as make a complete sense of themselves, 
 do, among the Greeks, not unfrequently take the 
 
96 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 Acc. after them, in order to designate the object to- 
 ward which such feelings are exercised ; e. g. dXy'su 
 a-jrbvlam distressed [for] him; a^o/xa/ eXxog, lam 
 grieved [for] the tvound ; udivw (3dgog, I am in anguish 
 [on account of] the burden ; oh %aigov<fi rovg Svyjffzovrag, 
 they exult not [over] the dying ; Sagow Sdvarov, I 
 am fearless [of] death. This liberty sometimes ex- 
 tends very far among the poets ; as Eurip. Iph. Aul. 
 1489, s7J<f<fsr dfitpl (3w/y,bv "Agrspiv, lit. dance around 
 the altar — Diana, i. e. dancing around the altar [ve- 
 nerate or worship] Diana. 
 
 Note 4. This liberty in regard to verbs indicative 
 of feeling, is at times extended to some others ; e. g. 
 §'jsiv yd/xov, to sacrifice [on account of] a wedding ; 
 §vstv slayysXia, to sacrifice [because of] good news ; 
 i)/xa/ g'sX/acx, ttflvbVf I sit [upon] an honourable seat; 
 xofoifwv rgfaoda, sitting [upon] a tripod, etc. 
 
 Remark. Nothing is plainer, therefore, than that 
 there is much which is arbitrary in the usages of the 
 Greek language, as to what verbs are to be construed 
 in a transitive manner. The lexicons, which ought 
 to mark these usages in respect to every verb, are to 
 the present hour deficient ; I mean the general lexi- 
 cons of the Greek language. Much, that is useful, 
 remains to be done in this respect. 
 
 (4.) Verbs transitive, and still oftener in- 
 transitive, take an Acc. of a conjugate noun, i, e. 
 one of a kindred meaning. 
 
 E. g. (SfftTocu tqv ff-rogov, Luke viii. 5 ; <pvXdffffovreg 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 97 
 
 p-jXcczug, Luke ii. 8 ; rqv dixafctv xg/V/v, xrivars, John vji. 
 24 ; (SroccTiiiri rr\v xaXfiv Groarziav, 1 Tim. i. 18, et al. 
 saepe. This has sometimes been called Hebrew 
 idiom ; but it is as common in Greek as in Hebrew, 
 and extends even more to verbs that are intransitive; 
 as the classic (3ovXs-ju (3ov\r,v, vo<ts7 vo<rov, s-TnfizXowTcci 
 sKifAsKsiav, iroXs/Ai^zi tfoXz/Aov, xivduvsvw yjvdvvsv^a, yz- 
 Awra yzXco, yciijjovg syrj/Aav, (pvynv (psvysiv, etc. show ; 
 Matth. § 408. In general, the meaning is more fully 
 and emphatically expressed by this mode of phrase- 
 ology. 
 
 (5.) Many verbs govern two Accusatives ; 
 (a) The one of a person and the other of a 
 thing; or, (b) The one of a subject and the 
 other of (an explanatory) predicate. 
 
 E. g. (a) Verbs of clothing and unclothing; John 
 xix. 2. Matt, xxvii. 31. Mark xv. 17. (2.) Verbs 
 signifying to give to drink; Mark ix. 41. 1 Cor. iii. 
 2. (3.) Of anointing ; as in Heb. i. 9. (4.) Of 
 loading; Luke xi. 46. (5.) Of persuading ; Acts 
 xxviii. 23. (6.) Of adjuring ; Acts xix. 13. 1 Thess. 
 v. 27. (7.) Of reminding ; 1 Cor. iv. 17. John xiv. 
 26. (8.) Of asking ; Mark iv. 10. 
 
 Note 1. This idiom is widely extended in classic 
 Greek. Verbs signifying to treat well or ill, to make, 
 to speak well or ill, beg, teach, take away, rob, spoil, 
 conceal, hide, compel, distribute, etc., govern two Ac- 
 cusatives. 
 
 (b) Verbs of nominating, choosing, naming, consti- 
 
98 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 tuting, regarding as, etc. ; as ha iroifaum avrov (3a- 
 ev/Ja, John vi. 15 ; v/xug e^sro emtixfawg, Acts xx. 28 ; 
 ov s^Ti'/cs %\t)pov6{aovi Heb. i. 2. So in the classics ; rh 
 Ttofigvav axedzi^s ffr^arriyov ttXovtov v.a\ 7t,u,r\v...aya ( $a 
 vo[*iZpv6i' 6o(piUT7iv ovo/jsd^ovGt tov dvd^a, etc. In these 
 and all similar cases, the second Ace. may be con- 
 sidered as exegetical apposition. 
 
 Note 2. It is a Hebraism when tig with the Ace. 
 is employed in such cases ; as « He raised up for 
 them rh Aa(3id sig /Saov/ia, David for a king,' L e. 
 David the king. Comp. Heb. i. 5. 
 
 (6.) The Passive of verbs governing two Ac- 
 cusatives, retains the latter of them. 
 
 E. g. itagabofctg, cig IhihdyJ^riTz, 2 Thess. ii. 15 ; 
 to fid<TTiS[La o syu (3a<7rrf£ ! o>j,ai, Mark x. 38 ; dworjGzrai 
 voWdg, Luke xii. 47. 
 
 Note 1. Even verbs which govern the Dat. and 
 Accus., do sometimes retain the Ace. ; as vremarsvfAai 
 suayysXtoy, Gal. ii. 7. 
 
 (7.) The Accusative (like the Gen. and Da- 
 tive) is often employed, in order to define or 
 point out some particular relation of a person or 
 thing. 
 
 E. g. G'/.r/voKoioi ryjv rl^wjv, tent-makers [in respect 
 to] occupation, Acts xviii. 3, tov ueftpov . . .mvrayLHSyj- 
 A/o/, five thousand [in] number, John vi. 10. So in 
 the classics; Au3o$ soti to y'svog, he is a Lydian [by] 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 99 
 
 descent ; 6 Kugog...s7dog /xsv xdXkt&rog, •vj/u^v ds tpiXav- 
 tyuvorarog* ' The river Marsyas has 25 feet to svgog, 
 as to breadth. 
 
 Note 1. Cases of this nature are usually solved by 
 supplying xctrd before the Accusative. But nothing 
 can be more evident than that the preposition is here 
 (as in the case of the Gen. and Dative) unnecessary. 
 When inserted it only renders the relation of the 
 noun more explicit. 
 
 (8.) The Ace. is often employed when time 
 and space are designated. 
 
 E. g. ugav swan*})*, Acts x. 3. So rg'irqv rjfi'egav, 
 s'lxoffiv srjj, dsxarov 'irog, these ten years. As to space ; 
 ftfvrs tfradiovg, rb (3d§og dia^/Xioi, two thousand [as to] 
 depth. 
 
 (9.) The Ace. frequently stands adverbially. 
 
 E. g. rqv ugx/iv, at first', reXog, finally ; rqv ruyjtirriv, 
 as soon as possible, etc. 
 
 (10.) Several prepositions govern the Accu- 
 sative. 
 
 (a) The Ace. only : dvd, sig Qg), wg (sometimes 
 used as a preposition), (b) The Ace. and some other 
 case; did, xard, vnep. (c) The Ace. with the Gen. 
 and Dative ; d/itpi, nigi, inl, fisrd, xagd, ftgbg, v-~6. 
 
 General Remark on the Gen. Dat. and Ac- 
 cusative. It is very obvious, that all these cases arc 
 
100 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 used to designate the relation which we express by 
 the words in respect to, in regard to, with reference to. 
 In many instances it is altogether a matter of indiffer- 
 ence which of the cases is employed, and it is left to 
 the choice of the writer ; e. g. Avdog u(m to y'evog, or 
 rui yhzi, or ysvoug. In many other cases, nicer shades 
 of diversity are manifest; in others still, the cases 
 cannot be exchanged at all for each other. Nothing 
 but an accurate knowledge, however, of the idioms 
 of the Greek tongue, can enable one to judge in 
 cases of such a nature. 
 
 PRONOUNS. 
 
 § 21. GENERAL PRINCIPLES RESPECTING GENDER 
 AND NUMBER. 
 
 (1.) It is a general law respecting pronouns of 
 every kind, that they should conform, as to 
 gender, to the noun which is their correlate. 
 But concord in this respect is often merely ad 
 sensum. 
 
 E. g. ' Teach rrdvra ra, sSvij, baptizing avrovg,* 
 mase. pronoun, because ?0mj designates men, Matt, 
 xxviii. 19; rsxv/a /jlou, ovg wd\iv wbivw, where ©3$ re- 
 fers to rexv/a-ibr the like reason, Gal. iv. 19 ; « There 
 is Touddeiov h here, og x. r. X., (in the better Codd.), 
 John vi. 9. So in 2 John v. 1. Acts xv. 17. Mark 
 v. 41. Rom. ii. 14, 26. Rev. xvii. 5. This is fre- 
 quent in classic Greek ; Matth. § 434. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 101 
 
 (2.) Plural pronouns are often employed, 
 when the correlate noun is nomen multitudinis, 
 i. e. is in the singular number, but has a col- 
 lective sense. 
 
 E. g. Xccbv . . .ctvrojv, Matt. i. 21 ; h p'saw yzvsag..Jv 
 olg, Phil. ii. 15 ; rjj hxXrj<jia...auruv, 3 John v. 9; rou 
 tsxorovg... ,v<r avroov, Eph. v. 11, 12 ; xara ^affocv irokiv, sv 
 atg %. r. X. The adjectives each, every, are collectives 
 in their own nature, and therefore they cause the noun 
 with 4 which they are joined to partake of this sense. 
 So ^3 and ffl$ in Hebrew, are followed often by a 
 plural verb. 
 
 Note 1. Pronouns are often used in a generic 
 sense, i. e. as collectives, or in the place of nouns of 
 multitude. In the Old Testament this occurs times 
 without number. 
 
 § 22. USE OF PERSONAL PRONOUNS. 
 
 (1.) Personal pronouns, specially in the ob- 
 lique cases, are more frequent in the New Tes- 
 tament, than is usual in classic Greek. 
 
 Note 1 . The ground of this seems to be the same 
 as in the case of prepositions, which are also employed 
 in the New Testament with unusual frequency. A 
 definiteness is thus given to the expression in Greek, 
 such as a foreigner would very naturally seek for, be- 
 cause it made the language more intelligible to him ; 
 and in respect to the Greeks, all the Hebrews were 
 
102 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 in a sense foreigners. Seldom indeed is the pronoun 
 omitted, where we might expect it ; e. g. Acts xiii. 3, 
 Mark vi. 5. 1 Tim. vi. 2. 
 
 (2.) Personal pronouns are not usually added 
 to verbs, as the subjects of them. When they 
 are, emphasis or distinction is generally in- 
 tended. 
 
 E. g. Co in Luke xvii. 8 ; iyxs% in Mark vi. 37. So 
 also in Mark xiii. 23. 1 John iv. 19, et al. saepe. But 
 in some cases, it is difficult to make out an emphatic 
 meaning ; e. g. v/M?g in Mark xiii. 9 ; lyoj in Eph. v. 
 32. In a few cases, in the same sentence, one verb 
 has a pronoun expressed and another has not ; e. g. 
 in Luke x. 23, 24, a (Sketfsre ... a h/usTg (3Xe<7r£re. See 
 also 2 Cor. xi. 29 
 
 (3.) In some cases, the noun itself is repeated, 
 where we might naturally expect the pronoun. 
 
 E. g. in Luke iii. 19, 'Hgwchjg; and so irgotrwrov in 2 
 Cor. iii. 7 ; see also John x. 41. In some cases of 
 this nature, there is an emphasis or significance attach- 
 ed to the repetition of the noun ; e. g. John iv. 1. 
 Matt. x. 23. Luke xii. 8 ; ix. 26. John vi. 40, et 
 saep. al. 
 
 (4.) Aurog is ranked by most grammarians 
 among the demonstrative pronouns ; but in its 
 oblique cases it is employed as a personal pro- 
 noun. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 103 
 
 Note 1. Abrog, when joined with a noun or pro- 
 noun as a kind of adjective, means self; and with the 
 article, self-same, the same ; as 6 irarrie abrog' lyu avrog* 
 0/ b<vb rrii abrr\g fATjrfog rgapsvrsg, those who are nourish- 
 ed by the same mother ; o\ Uhffou xai abroi, even the 
 Persians themselves, etc. 
 
 Note 2. Abrbg (when used as described above,) 
 may stand either before a noun and its article, as abrbg 
 o ads\<p6g' or after both, as o ^arr\2, abrog' or between 
 the article and its noun (like adjectives,) as rb abrb 
 ^wg/oi/. When it stands after the noun, the intention 
 of the writer usually is, to render its meaning {self) 
 emphatic. 
 
 Note 3. When employed alone (in the Nom.) as the 
 subject of a sentence, the presence of a personal pro- 
 noun joined with it, viz., lyoj, <tj, etc., is implied. In 
 this case ipse (and not ille) is the proper meaning. 
 Although we often translate abrog by he simply, yet 
 the Greek means he himself 'or himself etc. But in the 
 oblique cases, abrog is a simple pronoun, him, her, it, 
 etc. ; and is so used times without number. 
 
 Note 4. The noun to which abrog relates when it 
 is employed as a pronoun, is sometimes a collective 
 one, as Matt. iv. 23, abruv refers back to YaXiXaiav, 
 (the country for its inhabitants.) So in Matt. ix. 35. 
 Luke iv. 15, al. ; (constructio ad sensum.) Not un- 
 frequently abrog stands related to some noun merely 
 implied by the nature of the case or by the context ; 
 as in Luke i. 17, ' He shall go before abrou, himf 
 
104 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 viz. the Messiah, not mentioned in the preceding dis- 
 course ; avrov in 1 John ii. 12, in reference to Christ. 
 So aurou in 2 John v. 6 ; and in many cases the refer- 
 ence is more or less obscure. 
 
 Note 5. Avrog, as a pronoun, is not unfrequently 
 repeated, in cases where its use would seem to be 
 pleonastic ; e. g. IZO&gvti abruj Jx ro\J crXo/oy, sv^'sug 
 cirrrivrriGBv abru), Mark v. 2. So Mark ix. 28. Matt. 
 xxvi. 71. Rev. vi. 4, al. But such constructions, 
 following clauses with a participle, are common in 
 the classics. More pleonastic still would seem to be 
 the following constructions, with clauses containing 
 the relative pronoun; viz., o/g sdo^r) aWoTg ddr/trjffat 
 ■/.. r. >.., Rev. vii. 2; %v ovdsig dvvarai x\ilmi avrqv. 
 Rev. iii. 8; so Mark vii. 25; xiii. 19, comp. Rev. 
 xii. 14, o-ttov and s-/,sT. This is very common in the 
 Sept. and in the Hebrew; but it is also found in 
 classical Greek, Xen. Cyrop. I. 4, 19, Diod. Sic. I. 
 97, XVII. 35. See many examples of the pleonastic 
 repetitions of personal pronouns, 'in Matth. § 465, 4. 
 Sometimes this repetition seems to be for the sake of 
 emphasis, and sometimes for the sake of greater per- 
 spicuity. 
 
 (5.) 'Eaurou (Attice ai/rou) is a compound of £ 
 and abrbg, and is used only in the oblique cases. 
 But its use is not so limited as its etymology 
 would seem to indicate. 
 
 Note 1. It is sometimes applied to the 1st. pers. 
 plural, as in Rom. viii. 23. 1 Cor. xi. 31. 2 Cor. i. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 105 
 
 1, 9, al ; sometimes to the 2nd. pers. plural, as in John 
 xii. 8. Phil. ii. 12. Matt. iii. 9, al. ; sometimes to 
 the 2nd. pers. sing., as in John xviii. 34. The same 
 usage is found in the classics. 
 
 Note 2. Aurov, etc. the Attic form, is used in a 
 multitude of cases where aurov, etc., might have been 
 employed. It often depends merely on the mode of 
 expression which the writer deems the more eligible, 
 and not on any substantial difference of meaning, 
 whether the one or the other is employed. Hence 
 the continual discrepancies of the Codices, in relation 
 to these words. Generally where the pronoun refers 
 to the principal subject of the sentence, kuurou (aurou) 
 is employed. Rost's Grammar, § 99, 2. 
 
 § 23. POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 
 
 (1.) The possessive pronominal adjectives, (for 
 such they are,) are not very frequent in the New 
 Testament. Instead of s/Mbg, <sbg, etc., the Gen. 
 of the personal pronoun, pov, cov, etc., is more 
 commonly employed. 
 
 Note 1. This is the case also in the classics. The 
 position moreover of the proper possessives, is like 
 that of adjectives in general. The pronouns employed 
 instead of them, may precede or follow the noun, e. g. 
 7){jbuv i] 6toTY}gia, Rom. xiii. 11 ; /iou rr\v %a^af, Phil. ii. 
 2 ; and often so in the writings of Paul, Luke, and 
 John. The other construction, such as 6 %z6g fiou, q 
 
106 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 k'kstic, v/jjwv, etc., is too common to need examples. 
 The first of these constructions has generally been 
 deemed emphatic ; but many instances occur where 
 no particular emphasis is apparent. 
 
 (2.) The meaning of possessive pronouns may 
 be subjective or objective. 
 
 E. g. o cbg vo^og may mean, the desire which you 
 have, or the longing of another after you. So rr\v ifi^v 
 uvd^vTjffiVy the remembering of me, Luke xxii. 19 ; rw 
 vfjusrsgtf) IXki, through mercy bestowed on you, Rom. xi. 
 31. See 2 Tim. iv. 6. 1 Cor. xv. 31. So r\ JH&erepct 
 svvoia, may mean our own benevolence, or benevolence 
 toward us. 
 
 (3.) The Dative of pronouns often supplies 
 the place of a possessive pronoun. 
 
 E. g. /^rTjg poi, my mother ; o't 7][i7v ffv/Mfia^o/, our 
 allies ; <so) s-^ool, thine enemies. The true solution 
 of such cases seems to be either thus : a mother in 
 respect to me ; or, ^tjtyjo jjj sort poi. 
 
 (4.) The place of the possessive pronominal 
 adjective, or of the pronoun in its stead, is some- 
 times supplied, in the New Testament by Ihiog. 
 
 E. g. ilg tov 'ibiov dyfov to his field, Matt. xxii. 5 ; rxg 
 /d/ovg dovXovg, his servants ; where to say, his own field, 
 his own servants, does not seem to be the intention 
 of the writer. See also 1 Peter iii. 1, and comp. Prov. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 107 
 
 xxvii. 8. Jos. vii. 10 in the Sept. In the classics 
 no certain example of such a usage has been produced. 
 
 § 24. DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS. 
 
 (1.) The demonstratives ourog, ode, exstvog, (avrbg), 
 stand sometimes immediately before the verb, 
 and after the subject of the sentence, in order to 
 give emphasis to the expression. 
 
 E. g. ' He who endureth to the end, ovrog ac&q- 
 o-srai.' Matt. xxiv. 13. See Matt. vi. 4. Mark vii. 
 15, 20 ; xii. 40, et al. saepe. 
 
 (2.) Ovrog more usually refers to a preceding 
 noun ; oh to something which follows ; but at 
 other times ourog refers to a more distant object, 
 ode to a nearer one. Olrog (in distinction from 
 hsTvog') also refers to what immediately precedes ; 
 sxiTvog, to that which is more remote. 
 
 Note 1. Yet none of these usages are invariable ; 
 for there are cases where they are relinquished. Not 
 unfrequently, (as in respect to avrbg as a pronoun), 
 the subject referred to is remote, or merely implied, 
 or simply something which the nature of the topic 
 under discussion suggests. See Acts iv. 11, ovrog. 
 1 John v. 20 is a doubtful case, so far as olrog is con- 
 cerned. See also Acts viii. 26 ; vii. 19. 2 John v. 8 
 
 Note 2. The usual place of ovrog is before the 
 noun to which it has relation (when adjectively used) ; 
 
108 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 that of sxs?vo$, after the noun. But the reverse of this 
 sometimes happens in both cases. 
 
 (3.) Some one of the demonstrative pronouns 
 is omitted, but still implied, in innumerable cases 
 where the relative pronoun is employed ; which 
 latter seems often to include the demonstrative 
 along with it. 
 
 E. g. dyopacov oZv Xi s ' av '^X°^ sv ^ buy [those things] 
 of which we have need, i. e. dyogaffov [jxuva~\ uv x. r. 
 X., John xiii. 29 ; ' How shall they call sig ov oCx lr!- 
 ffrevffuv,' i. e. s/'s sxsTvov h obx x. r. X., Rom. x. 14 ; ' What 
 fruit had ye l(ft olc vvv scrce/o^-j^ff^s,' i. e. W Ixuvoig 
 oig vvv x. r. X., Rom. vi. 21 ; agag sip' o xarsxstro, i. e. 
 sxsTvo l<p' o x. r. X., Luke v. 25. Comp. John vi. 29. 
 2 Cor. v. 10. The same idiom is frequent in the 
 classics. 
 
 (4.) The Demonstrative rovro Is often employ- 
 ed before ha, on, and the like particles, when 
 that which follows them is intended to be made 
 particularly emphatic. 
 
 E. g. tidojg rovro, on, x. r. X., 1 Tim. i. 9 ; olba rovro, 
 on x. r. X., Acts xx. 29. So ejg rovro. ..ha x. r. X., Acts 
 ix. 21 ; tig rovro yag .... ha x. r. X., Rom. xiv. 9, and 
 so, very often, in all parts of the New Testament, and 
 sometimes in the classics. 
 
 Note 1. The neuters ravra, rovro, etc., are often 
 used adverbially. Tovruv appears, also, to be employed 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT 109 
 
 in the same way as the singular number, in 3 John v. 
 4 ; and so ravra in John xv. 17. 
 
 § 25. RELATIVE PRONOUNS. 
 
 (1.) As a general principle, the relative agrees 
 with its antecedent in gender and number ; but 
 there are not a few exceptions to this. 
 
 E. g. When another noun, etc., is added by way of 
 explanation, the relative not unfrequently conforms to 
 this latter noun ; as rrjg av\9jg, o sen Kgairojpiov, Mark 
 xv. 16 ; tQj ffKegpari (Toy, og effrt Xgiffrbg, Gal. iii. 16. 
 So Eph. i. 14 ; vi. 17. 1 Tim. iii. 15. Phil. i. 28. 
 Eph. iii. 13. 1 Cor. iv. 17. But the anomaly in 
 question is not confined to these cases only ; for in 
 Matt, xxvii. 33. Mark xv. 22 ; xii. 42. John i. 39, 
 42, 43. Heb. vii. 3, the pronoun (o neuter) agrees 
 with neither the antecedent nor consequent noun, but 
 rather with ffifia implied. So in Xen. Cyrop. VII. 2. 
 11. et al. ; see Bib. Repos. II. p. 63. In the classics, 
 the relative not unfrequently differs from its antece- 
 dent, both in number and gender. Matt. § 475, seq. 
 
 (2.) While the relative commonly agrees with 
 its antecedent in gender and number, it usually 
 depends on the verb, etc., which it stands con- 
 nected with, for the case in which it is put ; but 
 oftentimes it conforms to the case of its antece- 
 dent, let the verb govern whatever case it may. 
 
110 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 This is called attraction. E. g. hi warn, olg 
 rjxovciGiv, Luke ii. 20; sV/Vrsutfav ... rw Xoyw, o5 g/fl-sv, 
 John ii. 22 ; Tgg/ Tavrwi/ rwv egywv ... wv 7)c>e(3ri6av, 
 Jude v. 15. So in Acts iii. 21, 25 ; x. 39 ; vii. 17 ; 
 xxii. 10. James ii. 5. 1 Pet. iv. 11. John xv. 20 ; 
 xxi. 10, et al. saepe. 
 
 Note 1. In most parts of the New Testament 
 this usage is very common, or rather, it is the regu- 
 lar one. But in Matthew it never occurs ; and in 
 Mark but once, vii. 13. 
 
 Note 2. The word, whether a noun or demonstra- 
 tive pronoun, etc., which is the antecedent, is often 
 omitted, while the relative assumes the same case that 
 it would, provided the antecedent had been express- 
 ed; e. g. {ASfAvrifAevog uv sVga^g, i.e. /&s{tvri{j,svog [tojv 
 <7rgccy/jjdrtov~\ uv sVga|[s. So olg s^u xgu/xai, the things 
 I have, I use, for ^ufiai [_rovroig~] olg '£%(*)• and with 
 still greater latitude, as deivoregd, lanv ...uv s/'gfjxa, 
 they are more dreadful than the things which I have 
 said, for dsivorsod hr/v [exeivuv] uv £/g»jxa. Comp. 
 Heb. v. 8. Rom. xv. 18. 
 
 (3.) Vice versa, the noun sometimes conforms 
 to the case in which the relative is put by the 
 proper regimen of the verb. 
 
 E. g. (a) When the noun precedes, as rbv cigrov ov 
 yXufiiv, 1 Cor. x. 16 ; Xfoov ov dirsdoTti/xaffav, ovrog x. r.X., 
 Matt. xxi. 42 ; vavr/ u> sdo^n <7ro\v, Luke xii. 48. (b) 
 When the noun follows ; as ov syojdffix.stp&XiGa'lojuvvrtv, 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. Ill 
 
 ovrog x. r. X., Mark vi. 16 ; s/g ov Kaozhlforirz rvrrov 
 hihayj,g, Rom. vi. 17. Philem. v. 10. Both usages 
 occur in the classics. Comp. Heb. v. 8. 
 
 § 26. INTERROGATIVES. 
 
 (1.) The interrogatives rig, ri, are not only 
 employed in questions direct and indirect, but 
 even in some cases where the Greeks would 
 employ o n. 
 
 E. g. bcftriCirai b(jJtv...ri XaXqffiTs, what ye shall say, 
 shall be given to you, Matt. x. 19 ; sroipccffov ri faiKVTjGoi, 
 prepare that ivhich I may eat, Luke xvii. 8. Mark 
 vi. 36. So Xenophon ; obx syu ri fieifyv g/Vw, / have 
 not/miff more important which I could say, Cyrop. 
 vi. 1, 48. 
 
 (2.) In the New Testament, ha ri is frequent- 
 ly employed in an interrogative sense, why ? 
 wherefore ? 
 
 E. g. Matt. ix. 4 ; xxvii. 46. Luke xiii. 7, al. It 
 is also employed in the same way in the Greek 
 classics. 
 
 Note 1. The student will remember, that the in- 
 terrogatives rig, ri, always have the accute accent, 
 which is retained on the first syllable in the oblique 
 cases ; by which the interrogatives are distinguished 
 from the indefinite pronouns. 
 
112 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 § 27. INDEFINITE PRONOUNS. 
 
 (1.) Tig, ft (indefinite,) are sometimes added 
 to nouns, in order to express the idea of a certain, 
 a kind of, etc. 
 
 E. g. dcTagp^v r/va, a kind of first fruits, James i. 18. 
 
 (2.) Sometimes they are joined to numerals; 
 and sometimes to adjectives. 
 
 In the first case, they mean a certain, or about so 
 many ; as duo nvdg, Acts xxiii. 23. So v)/J>sgas £/3do- 
 fiifaovrd rivag, some seventy days. With adjectives, 
 they have a kind of intensive meaning, as <po£sed Tig 
 whoyji xpIosojc, a certain terrible expectation of punish- 
 ment, Heb. x. 27 ; {Asyccg rig, some great affair, some 
 important personage, Acts viii. 9. 1 Cor. iii. 7. 
 Gal. ii. 6, al. 
 
 § 28. HEBRAISM AS TO THE DESIGNATION OF 
 CERTAIN PRONOUNS. 
 
 (1.) The usual classic words ouhug, whig, no 
 one are sometimes expressed in the manner of 
 the Hebrew 7b — ft 7 — ^»s* yet with this modi- 
 fication, that the negative particle (oh or m) is 
 closely joined with the verb of the sentence, 
 and not with vug. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 113 
 
 E. g. oj% av sffdj^T) <7ra<ru tfaog, lit. then could not be 
 saved all flesh , i. e. no flesh or no man could be saved, 
 Matt. xxiv. 22 ; oh dvtouufofasrou na<$a tfag£, no flesh, 
 i. e. no man, shall be justified, Rom. ill. 20. Eph. v. 
 5. 1 John ii. 21. John iii. 15. 1 Cor. i. 29. Acts 
 x. 14. Rev. vii. 1. See the like idiom also, in 
 Matt. x. 29. Luke i. 37. 
 
 Note 1 . Different from this is the case, where 
 the negative particle is immediately connected with 
 vac,' for then the meaning is as in other languages, 
 i. e. not every one, (q. d. only some of.) E. g. ou ca,- 
 6 Usyuv xvgie, xvgts, z. r. /.., it is not every individual, 
 who addresses me with Lord ! Lord ! etc., Matt. vii. 
 21 ; oil waffa cafe r\ avrri ccc^, not all flesh is the same 
 flesh, i. e. there are different kinds of flesh, etc., 1 Cor. 
 xv. 39. So o'j Kdvrzg in Matt. xix. 11. Rom. ix. 6; 
 x. 16. 
 
 Remark. Philosophically considered, there is no 
 difficulty in the mode of expression stated in the text 
 above. For example, John ii. 21, on rrdv -^svdog Ix 
 rris dXrfisiag oox sari, for every lie is not of the truth, 
 which must of course be equivalent to no lie is of the 
 truth. But in the classics this mode of expression 
 is not found; nor is it frequent in the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 (2.) The one and the other, in classic Greek, 
 may be expressed by slg fih, slg hv but in the New 
 Testament we find s/;...xa/ e/£. 
 
 E. g. Matt. xx. 21 ; xxvii. 38. Mark iv. 8, et al. 
 
 i 
 
1 14 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 The Heb. idiom, in JO ... "Tiltf, seems to be the 
 basis of the New Testament mode of expression. 
 
 ADJECTIVES. 
 
 § '29. CONCORD OF ADJECTIVES WITH NOUNS. 
 
 (1.) The general rule respecting adjectives as 
 united to nouns, etc., is, that they must agree 
 with them in gender and number : but to this there 
 are not a few exceptions. 
 
 Note 1. An adjective agrees with a noun, when 
 it is so combined with it as to form one whole, which, 
 without the adjective, would be imperfectly or incom- 
 pletely expressed. On the other hand, the adjective 
 is a predicate in a sentence, when the expression of 
 the noun, etc., is complete without it, and the adjec- 
 tive only adds some new limitation. 
 
 (2.) Concord merely ad sensum is frequent in 
 respect to adjectives. 
 
 E. g. (a) In respect to gender ; as rot (H-garey/tara 
 
 . . .hd-dvfxhoi, Rev. xix. 14; ra Xoi-cc'i^'.r i ...}<jy.oriff/xsvct, 
 Eph. iv. 17; ptanti f&eyd'kau... TJyomg, Rev. xi. 15. So 
 frequently in the classics, (b) In regard to number; 
 rh -~t5^( 1 ;,..yo.iiv-ii, Luke xix. 37 ; o '/.ab;...r/.^a/x3oi, 
 Acts iii. 11. So in the classics ; e. g. nj» -6Kiv...o;rx;, 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 115 
 
 Thucyd. III. 79, and the like oftentimes ; see Matth. 
 §434. 
 
 Note 1. In Rev. xiv. 19, we find rr,v Krivbv . . .rbv 
 psyav but "krtvbg is itself of the common gender. 
 
 (3.) The same adjective belonging to nouns 
 of different gender and connected, if it precede 
 the nouns, is when repeated, usually put in its 
 appropriate gender ; but if both nouns are of the 
 same gender, it is commonly inserted but once. 
 
 E. g. -raffa doc>ig...-<tui vav do^aa, James i. 17 ; 
 TrorizKOi X'ftoi xai -Trora-Trai oizodopcti, Mark xiii. ] . Acts 
 iv. 7. On the contrary, where the adjective is not 
 repeated ; -roXXa rsgara xal G7j/Asia, Acts ii. 43 ; Kor/.l- 
 Xaig votrotg xai fiatdvoig, Matt. iv. 24 ; xiii. 32 ; ix. 35, 
 al. Exceptions to the first rule, see in Luke x. \. 
 2 Thess. i. 4, al. 
 
 (4.) An adjective which in reality qualifies 
 several connected nouns, when inserted but once, 
 may take the gender and number of either of the 
 nouns which it qualifies ; but commonly it con- 
 forms to its proximate noun. 
 
 E. g. ioig rs (piXy, tro\e/j,oi rs fid'/at rs, II. s, 891. 
 But also ciyysa Tocura, yavXoi rs <r/.ufiidsg rs, r~r-jyn,y,a.. 
 Odyss. /, 222. 
 
 N. B. In respect to the position occupied by the 
 adjectives, see § 2, 1 seq. 
 
116 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 § 30. VARIOUS WAYS IN WHICH ADJECTIVES ARE 
 EMPLOYED. 
 
 (1.) With the article, they are often employ- 
 ed (more commonly in the singular but some- 
 times in the plural), as abstract nouns. 
 
 E.g. to a6%vsg...[rr i g evroXrJs], Heb. vii. 18; to 
 [lupov too §sov, and to aa^zvlg tov §sou, 1 Cor. i. 25. 
 Rom. ii. 4. Heb. vi. 17. 2 Cor. iv. 17; viii. 8. 
 So to, aoguTa \rov SsoD], Rom. i. 20. This idiom is 
 common in the Greek writers, especially in the philo- 
 sophical ones. 
 
 (2.) On the contrary, the place of an adjective 
 is frequently supplied by a noun in the Gen. 
 which qualifies the noun on which it depends. 
 
 E. g. ToTg Xoyoig T^g yjx^Tog, Luke iv. 22 ; ofoovofiog 
 Tr t g adixlag, unjust steward, Luke xvi. 8 ; v'/bg Tr,g 
 dyaT^g } beloved son, Col. i. 13. Luke xviii. 6. Rev. 
 xiii. 3, et al. saepe. 
 
 Note. 1. The frequency of this in the New Tes- 
 tament may be called Hebraism ; for although this 
 idiom is by no means a stranger to the classic Greek, 
 it is more common to the poets than to the prose 
 writers. See Matth. § 316, f. 
 
 (3.) But sometimes the -principal noun (and 
 not the one which designates qualification) , is in 
 the Genitive. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 117 
 
 E. g. It/ kXovtov ddr}X6ry}ri, in riches that are deceit- 
 ful, or in deceitful riches, 1 Tim. vi. 17 ; h xatvorfirj 
 £w?js, in a new life, Rom. vi. 4 ; ev'egysiav wkdv7ig, strong 
 delusion, 2 Thess. ii. 11. 
 
 Note 1. When a pronoun or pronominal adjec- 
 tive, etc., follows two words connected as in Nos. 2, 
 3, it relates to both as one whole ; as ru> g^/xar/ rr t g 
 duvdfAsws aJroD, by his powerful word, Heb. i. 3. Rev. 
 iii. 10; xiii. 3. Sometimes, however, such pronoun 
 or adjective is more appropriately connected only 
 with one of the words ; e. g. Rom. vii. 24. Acts 
 xiii. 26. 
 
 (4.) In a few cases, the fern, of adjectives 
 seems to stand for the neuter, according to the 
 Heb. idiom. 
 
 E. g. auraj and ^au/xa<rr^ in Matt. xxi. 42. Mark xii. 
 11. But this is a citation from Ps. cxviii. 22 (Sept.); 
 and in the Sept. such an idiom is not unfrequent, 
 while in the New Testament it is very rare. 
 
 (5.) The frequent expression of the sense of 
 adjectives, by the use of vibg, rexvov, etc., before 
 abstract nouns, is properly Hebraistic. 
 
 E. g. vk) aMrefosiag* r'exva tpurbg —viraxo^g -tyy^g -xu- 
 rd*as. The Greeks use iraSteg iargw —dvtfr^vcav, etc., 
 where, however, the Gen. is not an abstract noun. 
 
 (6.) The neuter adjective, either singular or 
 
118 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 plural, with or without the article, is often used 
 in an adverbial manner. 
 
 E. g. Koojrov, rb rrgojrov first ; aha, dreadfully ; fii- 
 xga, (ropujrara, altiyjcra, etc. 
 
 § 31. COMPARATIVE DEGREE OF ADJECTIVES. 
 
 (1.) The usual form of the comparative re- 
 quires the Gen. after it; see § 13, 5. 
 
 (2.) Notunfrequently the comparative degree 
 is expressed in the New Testament, by the po- 
 sitive form of the adjective, followed by n. 
 
 E. g. xa\6v coi s6Ti...ri etc. it is better for thee... 
 than, etc., Mark ix. 43. So Mark ix. 45. Matt, 
 xviii. 8, 9, al. The same usage is occasionally found 
 in the classics ; as h[io) Kixfog...Yi xehojg %. r. X., Soph. 
 Ajax. 981. Comp. Luke xv. 7 ; xviii. 14. Gen. 
 xxviii. 36. 1 Cor. xiv. 19, for the like expressions; 
 which are very common in the Sept. and are a close 
 copy of the Heb. comparative. Let the reader note, 
 that when tj is employed, the word which follows is in 
 the same case as that which precedes. 
 
 Note 1. The older grammarians say, that/^aXXov 
 is to be supplied by the mind before r\ in all cases of 
 this nature. Recent grammarians think the idiom 
 may be as well explained without the aid of /xaXXov 
 as with it. 
 
 (3.) The positive degree followed by *wge« 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 119 
 
 or frarefj, is sometimes employed to designate the 
 sense of the comparative. 
 
 E. g. a^ajTwXo/ itaga <7rdvrag rovg TaXiXaiovg, greater 
 sinners, or sinners above, more than, Luke xiii. 2. 
 Rom. xiv. 5. Heb. i. 9, the same sense is made by 
 -a^a after nouns. But the same preposition is very 
 common after the comparative degree ; as irXeov vctoa, 
 Luke iii. 13 ; dtapoouirsgov na^a, Heb. i. 4. 
 
 'YTgg is employed in the same way as ca^a* e. g. 
 Luke xvi. 8. Heb. iv. 12. In all these respects, 
 parallels are found in the classics. 
 
 (4.) The comparative is sometimes used, when 
 the thing with which it is compared is merely 
 implied but not expressed. 
 
 E. g. Acts xvii. 21, rt...xaivc>TZPov something more 
 recent than even what was called new; Acts xxv. 
 10, -/.dX7jov, better than I ; 2 Cor. vii. 7, ftaXXoi/ 
 %a§vjvai rejoice still more than I did before, on the 
 arrival of Titus. So in Phil. i. 12. Acts xxvii. 13. 
 John xiii. 27. Heb. xiii. 19. Matt. xi. 11, al., ex- 
 amples of the like kind may be found ; and so in the 
 classics, Matth. § 457. 
 
 Note 1. MdXXov and m put before the compa- 
 rative, make an intensive sense ; as /auXXov vrsgiafforsgov, 
 the more abundantly, Mark vii. 36. Phil. i. 23. So 
 sn fj.u7.Xov, still more, Phil. i. 9. Heb. vii. 15. The 
 same usage is found in the classics. 
 
120 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 Note 2. For crgoregov (compar.) ngurov seems to be 
 used in John i. 15 ; xv. 18. Comp. Heb. viii. 7. Acts 
 i. 1. 
 
 (5.) An imperfectly expressed, but concise 
 and energetic comparison is made, by comparing 
 a thing with a person, when, strictly speaking, 
 the comparison is with something which belongs 
 to the person. 
 
 E. g. [xaoT'joiav (LilZw tov 'iwdvvov, testimony greater 
 than John's, i. e. greater than that of John, John v. 
 36. This construction is frequent in the classics. 
 Matth. § 453. 
 
 § 32. SUPERLATIVE DEGREE. 
 
 (1.) Besides the usual superlative forms, this 
 degree is sometimes expressed by the positive 
 and a noun which designates the class of persons 
 or things to which it belongs. 
 
 E. g. ilXoyriitevn 0v sv yuva/g/V, lit. blessed art thou 
 among women, i. e. most blessed of women art thou, 
 
 Luke i. 28. This is like the Heb. D*tWl POTD ; 
 
 * T '. t i 
 but examples of the like kind are not wanting in the 
 Greek classics, e. g. w <pi\cc yumi%tov> Eurip. Alcest. 
 473 ; w 6%er\i' uvdguv, most miserable man f Aristoph. 
 Ran. 108 J ; azrbg dixvg h Kcravorg, the eagle is the 
 swiftest of the winged, Pind. Nem. III. 76. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 121 
 
 (2.) The Heb. superlative, such as £Hp 
 D'K^Tpj is found in very few cases, and the 
 classic Greek is not wanting in the like expres- 
 sions. 
 
 E. g. ayia ayiuv, Heb. ix. 3 : (3a<riXsvg fiattiXsuv, 
 Rev. xix. 16. But in Soph. Elect. 849, we find 
 deiXaia dsiXamv Oed. R. 446, aggqr oL^tuv Aeschyl. 
 Supp. 524, ava.% dvdzrwv. 
 
 Note 1. The so called superlatives made by 
 $&ov, xug/oa, etc., appear to be all capable of solution 
 in another way ; e. g. av^r,<stv rov ^soD, an increase of 
 which God is the author, Col. ii. 19 ; tfaXcz/g Seov, 
 the trumpet which God will order to be sounded, 1 
 Thess. iv. 16. So in Luke i. 15. 2 Cor. i. 12. Rev. 
 xxi. 11 ; xv. 2. 'ACTiTog rw §su>,fair in the view of 
 God; see § 18, 2. 
 
 NUMERALS. 
 
 § 33. USE OF ORDINAL AND CARDINAL NUMBERS. 
 
 (1.) For the ordinal vfirog, the cardinal e'S is 
 constantly employed in designating a day of the 
 week. 
 
 E. g. irgwt TY t g /Aiag ruv tfa/3 ; 3arwv, earl?/ on the first 
 day of the tveek, Mark xvi. 2. Matt, xxviii. 1. John 
 
122 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 xx. 1 9. Acts xx. 7. al. The Greeks employ tig, in such 
 cases, only when dsvregog, ciXXog, etc., follow. The New 
 Testament usage is therefore Hebraistic. 
 
 (2.) Cardinal numbers repeated denote dis- 
 tribution ; as in Hebrew. 
 
 E. g. duo duo, two and two or two by two, Mark vi. 
 7. The Greeks would say : duo xard duo, or duo dva 
 dvo' and like the latter is Luke x. 1. 
 
 Note 1. The formulas, dva stg 'ixacrog, Rev. xxi. 
 21 ; sTg xceS' tig, Mark xiv. 19. John viii. 9 ; o za§' 
 sic, Rom. xii. 5 ; are peculiar. The usual Greek is, 
 
 6 %a^' ha. 
 
 (3.) Ordinals in the neuter are sometimes 
 used adverbialhj. 
 
 E. g. rgtrov, hsurzgov, thrice, twice, etc. 
 
 VERBS. 
 
 § 34. VERBS ACTIVE, TRANSITIVE, AND INTRANSITIVE. 
 
 (1.) Many verbs, having a variety of mean- 
 ings, are active and transitive in one sense, and 
 neuter or intransitive, sometimes reflexive, and 
 in some cases even of a passive nature, in an- 
 other. 
 
 E. g. GTgspziv aura tig cJ/xa, to turn them into blood, 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 123 
 
 Rev. xi. 6, where (trp'spsiv is used actively ; while ge- 
 nerally in the New Testament it is employed as a 
 verb neuter or reflexive, i. e. as meaning to turnback, 
 or to turn one's self, etc. So ra xvfLura krrzfiaXKiv Big 
 to irkoTov, the waves cast themselves into the boat, 
 Mark iv. 37 ; airowtyavreg, casting themselves, viz. 
 into the sea, Acts xxvii. 43 ; orav Ka^ahtZ 6 xagvrbc, 
 when the fruit shews itself Mark iv. 29 ; and so even 
 with a passive sense, Ka>izyji iv rfj ygcctpfi, it is con- 
 tained in the Scripture, 1 Pet. ii. 6. 
 
 Note 1. This principle is common to other lan- 
 guages. In Hebrew it is of very frequent occur- 
 rence. In the Greek classics it is as common as in 
 the New Testament. Especially does the Perf. 2d in 
 Greek bear an intransitive meaning so commonly, 
 that it has not unfrequently been called its predomi- 
 nant sense. And indeed, in the few cases where 
 verbs have two Perfects active in real use, the Perf. 
 2d is nearly always intransitive. 
 
 Note 2. Some verbs which are transitive through- 
 out, in most of their tenses, are intransitive exclusive- 
 ly in some others ; e. g. in Perf. 2d, Pluperf. 2d, and 
 Aor. 2d. So it is with /'cr^/x/, <pvw, bvw, cfSswo/u, and 
 some others. 
 
 (2.) Some intransitive verbs are not unfre- 
 quently constructed in the same way as passives. 
 
 E. g. "Ex-rwg a t 7Ts^aviv -oxo rov ' AyriJdojg, Hector 
 died by Achilles, i. e. was slain by him; \\yjnol jp' 
 
124 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 "Exropog spvyov, the Greeks fled by reason of Hector •, 
 i. e. they were put to flight by Hector. 
 
 Remark 1. See an abundance of examples of all 
 sorts, viz. of actives used as neuters ; of neuters em- 
 ployed as actives and as passives ; of active for passive 
 and middle ; of passive for active and neuter ; of the 
 middle for active and passive, in Matth. § 496. All 
 this, however, goes not to shew that one voice, or 
 one kind of verb, is actually substituted for another ; 
 but only that some verbs have a variety of significa- 
 tions, transitive or intransitive, active or passive, and 
 sometimes middle. Usage and a good lexicon or 
 commentarj', are the only guides which a student 
 can have, in respect to particular examples. But the 
 nature of the case in general, and the possibilities of 
 such usages, he may learn from grammar. 
 
 Remark 2. The cases governed by active verbs, 
 have been already designated above, in considering 
 the Gen., Dat., and Ace. cases, §§ 10 — 20. 
 
 § 35. PASSIVE VERBS. 
 
 (1.) Verbs passive are such as require the 
 subject and object to be united in their Nom. 
 case. 
 
 E. g. Jyw rvKroficu, lam beaten, where the subject 
 of the verb is eyeb, which is also the object affected by 
 the action that the verb expresses. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 125 
 
 (2.) As the active subject of the verb, i. e. the 
 agent, is not expressed by the passive form, and 
 is not necessarily implied ; and as this form is 
 from its nature intransitive; the agent, if noted 
 at all, must be noted indirectly. This is done 
 in several ways ; 
 
 E. g. (a) By biro, xgog, or Kuea before the Genitive ; 
 as "E/trwg Ttrsivzrcu b<xb rob ' A^iXXsoog, or iroog rob 'A^/?.- 
 Xsug, or craga rob ' A^XXsojg. It is most common, 
 however, to employ bxo. (b) The Dative simply, 
 without any preposition, is often employed in the 
 same way, denoting the cause or instrument ; as l-oar- 
 rsro abroTg rcc rr\g -rro'Xswc, the affairs of the city were 
 managed by them. 
 
 (3.) In the usual cases of the passive, that 
 which was the Accusative in the active voice, 
 becomes the Nom in the passive ; but if verbs 
 govern the Dat. or Gen. of person, these may 
 in like manner become Nominatives in their 
 passive voices. 
 
 E. g. rvftret /m, he beats me, fis in the Ace. ; but in 
 lycb rvKTopai, I am beaten, the ps takes its place in 
 the Nom. of the verb. So in other cases ; dfisXw 
 robrojv (Gen.) to neglect these things, while rubra oif&e- 
 Xurat bnb rosv §suv, may be said just as well as if dfie- 
 Xsiv in the active voice governed the Ace. ; and in the 
 like manner, l-n[3o-jXsbsiv tj/mTv and ri[M7g iTtfio-j'/.i-joft&u 
 iwr abrcov. 
 
12G ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 (4.) The Passives of verbs active that govern 
 two Accusatives, the one of a person and the 
 other of a thing, retain the regimen of the latter. 
 
 E. g. 6 rroug diddffxsrai rag rsyniag, the boy is taught 
 the arts ; but in the active, diddaxet tov <7raTda rag rs- 
 X v a$> he teaches, etc. 
 
 (5.) When a verb active governs the Ace. 
 of a thing and Dative of a person, the latter may 
 become the Nom. of the passive, while the Ace. 
 of the thing is retained. 
 
 E. g. sffirgeiret rti Swxodret rnv diairav, he entrusts 
 the decision to Socrates, may be passively expressed 
 thus ; 'Zoozp&rn g emrgsirerai rriv hiatrav. See in Gall. ii. 7. 
 Rom. iii. 2. 1 Cor. ix. 17. 
 
 (6.) The Aorists passive are not unfrequently 
 used in the New Testament, in an intransitive 
 and reflexive sense. a 
 
 So dirsxgftr), dffoxgftsig, dizxgiQrj, ^offsxoXXyi^r], xarah- 
 Xayrirw, Ivripdv'/jv, and other verbs, &c. are frequently 
 employed ; see Luke xxii. 68. Matt. xvi. 2. Matt. 
 xxi. 21. 1 Cor. vii. 11. Tit. ii. 11 ; and even the 
 Future irgoGKoKkiftinfcraiy Eph. v. 31. 
 
 Note 1. That the Perf. passive is used in the 
 
 3 See the Author's Gram, of the New Testament Dialect, 
 p. 84, § 61. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 127 
 
 sense of the middle voice, the student may see by 
 consulting ArgoffasxXjj^a/ in Acts xiii. 2 ; wgodfcsxXjjra/, 
 Acts xvi. 10 ; Ka/<raga Iw/xsxXjjtfa/, Acts xxv. 12: g-jvz- 
 r&wro, John ix. 22 ; vsvngeu/tievovg, 1 Pet. iv. 3. See 
 peculiar cases in Acts xx. 13. 2 Pet. i. 3. Also 
 Fut. opSfaoffiou in Acts xxvi. 16, which probably has 
 a Middle sense. 
 
 § 36. VERBS OF THE MIDDLE VOICE. 
 
 (1.) The inter-community between the passive 
 and middle voices, as also the distinctions be- 
 tween them ; and in like manner with respect to 
 the active voice ; the peculiar sense, moreover, of 
 the middle voice, and its distinction from depo- 
 nent verbs ; are all explained at large in Gram. 
 of New Testament Dialect, p. 80—84, § 60— 
 62, and these subjects, therefore, need not be 
 here repeated. 
 
 (2.) Like the other voices, the Middle may 
 deflect from its usual and natural meaning, and 
 in some cases have a sense merely active or 
 passive. Especially is this the case, when the 
 appropriate forms of any verb, in the active or 
 passive voices, do not exist, or are gone into 
 desuetude.* 
 
 a Comp. Gram, of New Test. Dialect, p. 81—84, § 60—62. 
 
128 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 (3.) The student should not forget, in re- 
 spect to the middle voice, that although it is 
 called reflexive, for distinction's sake, yet it is 
 directly so only in a very few cases ; and these 
 have regard only to actions which properly re- 
 spect one's person. In general, it is only indi- 
 rectly reflexive, and it commonly indicates ac- 
 tions done for one's self, on his account, by his com- 
 mand, desire, or procurement, etc. 
 
 See Gram, of New Testament Dialect, p. 81 — 83, 
 § 60, 3 — 8, where are exhibited appropriate examples, 
 
 (4.) The Middle voice of course may have an 
 active or passive construction, according as it has 
 an active or passive sense. In its appropriate 
 sense it usually follows the construction of the 
 active, in relation to the case of the noun which 
 designates the object to which the action of the 
 verb stands related. 
 
 § 37. TENSES OF VERBS. 
 
 (1.) The subject of the tenses at large has 
 already been explained in Gram, of New Test. 
 Dialect, p. 70—75, § 50—52, and p. 83, 84, § 
 61, 62. 
 
 (2.) The interchange of tenses, e. g. the Perf. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 129 
 
 and Present, the Perf. and Aorists, the Pluperf. 
 and Aorists, the Imperf. and 2d Aorist, etc., the 
 reader will find exhibited under § 50, seq. of 
 Gram, of N. T. Dialect, p. 70. 
 
 (3.) In the New Testament the use of the 
 tenses does not differ in any respect worthy of 
 note, from that of the classic Greek. 
 
 Note 1. (a) The Present is used in narrating the 
 past ; e. g. John i. 29, 44, 46 ; ix. 13. Acts x. 11. 
 Rev. viii. 11 ; xii. 2, al. saepe. It is even set by the 
 side of the Praeter, in the same sentence; e. g. Mark 
 ii. 4; iv. 38. John i. 44; v. 14; xi. 29, et al. saepe. 
 So often in the classics ; Matth. § 504, Winer § 41, 
 h. (b) The Present is used in respect to the future ; 
 Matt, xx vi. 2. John iv. 21 ; x. 32 ; xii. 26 ; xiv. 3 ; 
 xvii. 24; vii. 34. Matt. xvii. 11, al. But in tran- 
 slating such passages we need not use the future, any 
 more than we need use the Praeter in translating those 
 under a. This modus of expression creates no embar- 
 rassment as to sense ; and the classical writers not un- 
 frequently indulge in it, (Matth. § 504, 3,) although 
 not with the same frequency as does the evangelist 
 John, (c) The Present seems to supply the place of 
 the Imperf., in some cases ; e. g. < Now the Pharisees 
 had heard that Jesus... wohTtlo.} fiairrigsi/ etc., John 
 iv. 1, where we might render : was making and bap- 
 tizing, etc. So in John ii. 7. Mark viii. 23; v. 14. 
 Luke xix. 3. Acts iv. J 3, et al. saepe. But this con- 
 struction is not foreign to the classics (Winer § 41, 
 
130 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 2 ;) and it is no more strange, than that other tenses 
 should often be commuted. 
 
 Note 2. The Imperfect; (a) It is sometimes em- 
 ployed as denoting continued action in past time ; 
 Lukexiv. 7; xxiv. 32. John v. 16; xii. 6. Mark 
 iii. 11, et al. (b) Continued and customary action or 
 state ; Rom. xv. 22. 1 Cor. x. 4 ; xiii. 11. Acts xiii. 
 11. Mat. xiii. 34, et al. saepe. (c) Commenced but 
 not fully accomplished action ; Luke i. 59. Matt. iii. 
 14. Gal. i. 13. (d) Imperf. for the Aorist ; Actsxvi. 
 22. Mark vii. 17 ; x. 17, al. See Matth. § 505. So 
 the Imperf. and Aorist are sometimes employed in the 
 same sentence ; as in Luke viii. 23. James ii. 22. 
 (e) For that kind of Present which denotes duration, 
 and includes the past as well as the present time, the 
 Imperf. is sometimes used, specially in neuter or im- 
 personal verbs, such as r\v dvyxsv, etc. ; as Col. iii. 
 18. Matth. § 505. In all these usages, the classical 
 writers agree ; see' Winer, § 41, 3, and Matth. § 505, 
 throughout. 
 
 Note 3. The perfect ; (a) Denoting continued and 
 continuing action, state, etc. ; Luke xiii. 2 ; iv. 6 ; v. 
 32. Acts viii. 14. Mark x. 40. Rom. ix. 6. Matt, 
 iv. 4, yeyganra/, i. e. it has been ivritten and stands re- 
 corded ; al. saepe. (b) The Perfect is frequently join- 
 ed in the same sentence with an Aorist ; e. g. Luke 
 vii. 16; ix. 7 and 8; iv. 18. Heb. ii. 14. Acts xxi. 
 28. John xiii. 3. 1 Cor. iv. 8. 1 John i. 1. In 
 some of these cases the true permanency of the Per- 
 fect is plain ; in others, its use can hardly be dis- 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 131 
 
 tinguished from that of the Aorist. (c) For the 
 Present ; in which case an action or state that was 
 and still is, for the most part, is designated ; as in 
 John xx. 29. 2 Cor. i. 10. Gal. ii. 7. John viii. 
 40 ; xiv. 25. Matth. § 505. III. Several verbs use 
 the Perfect for the Present, because they have no 
 Present with the same sense which the Perfect bears.* 
 (d) As a kind of Futurum exactum the Perf. is some- 
 times employed ; e. g. in Rom. xiv. 23. So Eurip. 
 El. 690, < If he shall fall a corpse in the contest, okwXa, 
 lit. / am undone, i. e. I shall have been undone. See 
 Matth. § 500. 
 
 Note 4. The Aorist; (a) Is not unfrequently 
 used for the Pluperfect ; e. g. in John xviii. 24. Matt. 
 xiv. 3, 4. Acts i. 2; iv. 13; ix. 35. John xi. 30, 
 al. (b) It has relation to what is future, in several 
 cases; e. g. in John xv. 6, sj3\'fir}. Rev. vii. 10. 
 In the classics it is frequently employed in the like 
 way ; Matth. § 506, 2. (c) Customary action is some- 
 times designated by it ; e. g. Matt, xxiii. 2, ha^iaav 
 xi. 19, edr/.atui'Sri. Luke i. 51, may also be understood 
 in the same way, although it is capable of another 
 construction ; so Eph. v. 29, l/^/V/jcgi/. (d) For the 
 Present; e. g. iyoa-^a for ygdpu. 1 Cor. v. 11 # 
 Philem v. 19 and 21. 1 John ii. 14, 21, al. ; comp. 
 srs/x-^a, Acts xxiii. 30. Philem. v. 11. See also 
 '/^sXTjcas, wdoz-rjaa, Heb. x. 5. Matt. iii. 17. The 
 same usage exists in the classics, Matth. § 506. 
 
 Note 5. The Future ; (a) Expresses not simply 
 
 a See the Author's Gram, of N. T. Dialect, § 50, 3, Notes \, 
 2. p. 70. 
 
132 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 the pure future, i. e. not merely that a thing will be 
 done, happen, etc., but also that it must or can be 
 done; e.g. Rom. vi. 15, 2. 1 Cor. xi. 22. Rom. iii. 
 6; x. 14. Matt. xix. 16. Luke iii. 10; xviii. 18. 
 xxii. 49. Heb. ii. 3, al. (b) The Future is used to 
 designate a supposed and possible case ; James ii. 10, 
 18. 1 Cor. xv. 35. Rom. ix. 19; xi. 19. Matt, 
 xviii. 21. (c) The Future is used in a sense that the 
 Present would well express, in Rom. iii. 30. Gal. ii. 
 16. Luke i. 37. So in the classics; see Matth. § 
 506, VI. 
 
 USE OF THE MODES. 
 
 § 38. USE OF THE MODES IN INDEPENDENT 
 
 SENTENCES. 
 
 (1.) By an independent sentence is meant, any 
 declaration which is of itself complete, and does 
 not need any supplementary words in order to 
 render it intelligible, or does not depend on such 
 words in the way of necessary connection. 
 
 INDICATIVE MODE. 
 
 (2.) Most sentences of this nature employ of 
 course the Ind. mode. Every thing which ac- 
 tually is, and every opinion expressed directly 
 and absolutely without conditions or limitations, 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 133 
 
 is asserted or declared by the Indicative ; which, 
 for the most part is very simple, and is gene- 
 rally alike in all languages. But, 
 
 (3.) The Imperf. Indicative is sometimes em- 
 ployed in a conditional way, not unlike the Con- 
 ditional or Subj. mode. 
 
 E. g. xaXbv r\v alruj, si obx syevvyfiq x- r. X, it were 
 good for him, if he had not been born, etc., Mark xiv. 
 21 ; xgsrrrov jjv avroTg, fj.'h ivnymxevau x. r. X., it were 
 better for them not to have known the way of righteous- 
 ness, etc., 2 Pet. ii. 21 ; h/oj SxpziXov v<p' ifiwv ttvvt- 
 erracfta/, debebam a vobis commendari, 2 Cor. xii. 1 J ; 
 qd'jvccro yao rovro xgo&TJvou, for this could be sold, etc., 
 Matt. xxvi. 9. 
 
 Note 1. Connected with this usage, are some im- 
 portant passages in the New Testament. To illus- 
 trate the conditional usage of the Imperf. Ind., i. e. 
 the modified sense of it, Acts xxv. 22 may be taken 
 as an example ; viz., s^ouXo/nriv %a) avrbg rov av^wToy 
 uxovffai, I myself could wish to hear the man ; which 
 means, that although he was desirous to hear him, yet, 
 in his view, present circumstances forbade it. Had 
 he simply said, I desire to hear him, or 1 will hear him, 
 without any qualification or limitation, he would have 
 used fiouXofiai or ^iXw (not s(3ov\6/Ar}v) comp. ^ouXo/xat 
 in 1 Tim. ii. 8, and §e\u in 1 Cor. xvi. 7. Rom. i. 
 13 ; xvi. 19, al. Had he spoken Optatively (/3oy- 
 >.o//Ur?jv oiv,) then the possibility or probability, in the 
 judgment of the speaker, that he should hear him, 
 
134 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 would have been distinctly intimated. It was only 
 the Indie. Imperf., therefore, which would answer the 
 exact purpose of the speaker. 
 
 So in that celebrated passage in Rom. ix. 3, r^ofii^v 
 yuo avrbg syu ava^i/Aa uvai ocrb rov X^/tfroO, / could 
 wish to be an anathema from Christ, or (in other 
 words) to be given up to utter destruction by him ; 
 that is, I could wish to take the place of the Jewish 
 nation, and to be devoted to destruction in their room, 
 if this were possible ; but I know it is not. In the 
 like manner, Gal. iv. 20, r^z'kov ds KagiTvui rrgog bfiag 
 agri, I could wish to be present with you now, i. e. if 
 circumstances permitted (but they do not,) I would 
 gladly be with you. 
 
 (4.) The Ind. Present is sometimes employed 
 in asking questions, where we should make use 
 of shall or will before the verb, i. e. express it 
 by the Future. 
 
 E. g. rt woiov/jLsv ; John xi. 47, lit. what do we ? 
 meaning, what shall we do ? or, what can we do ? 
 Vice versa in Rom. vi. 1, we have ski/asvov/asv in the 
 Future, instead of iinjAsmjj.ev in the Subj. Present. 
 
 SUBJUNCTIVE MODE. 
 
 (5.) The Subjunctive mode, as its very name 
 imports, is not commonly employed in indepen- 
 dent, but in dependent, sentences ; for it is sub- 
 joined to another mode, or is used in a subjoin- 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 135 
 
 ed affirmation or declaration. Yet there are a few 
 cases in which it is employed in sentences not 
 dependent on, nor necessarily connected with 
 others. E. g. 
 
 (a) In cases of exciting or exhorting", in the 
 1st pers. plural; or the 2d pers. singular. 
 
 E. g. ayca/Aiv evreuSev, let us go hence-, John xiv. 31 ; 
 (pd.ytaii.iy %al ftica/Asv, let us eat and drink, 1 Cor. xv. 32 ; 
 and so in John xix. 24. Phil. iii. 15. Luke viii. 22. 
 al. saepe. Very common in the classics ; Matth. § 
 516, 1. So in the 2d person ; [±r\ (Aoiyj ! o6r\c,' (x,r\ <pon\j- 
 tf»}5« //,?) xXtyps* [at\ -^zvdo/AaDTugrjffpc, Luke xviii. 20. 
 Mark x. 19. al. saepe. 
 
 (b) In questions where real doubt is expressed. 
 
 E. g. dca/Asv r) /ur] du/Asv shall we give, or shall we 
 not give? Mark xii. 14; irov...sroi[Aa,(jOj l 'Atv Luke 
 xxii. 9, al. saepe. So in the classics ; Matth. § 516, 2. 
 
 Note 1. The Future Indicative is sometimes 
 employed in such cases; as <7rov...zroi{Au(fo/A2v (in the 
 better Codices), Matt. xxvi. 17; xiii. 28 (in some 
 Codices), al. And such is occasionally the usage of 
 classic Greek; Matth. § 516. Anm. 2. 
 
 (c) In negative sentences after [at] or o-j m. 
 
 E. g. with [AT]' see under a above. With ob /at; as ou 
 (A7\ ziff'zX^y, Mark x. 15 ; ou /ayj u<pi^j\ y Mark xiii. 2, 
 al. saepe. 
 
136 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 Note 1. But /xr, is not confined to the Subj. mode ; 
 it is often employed with the Opt., Imper., and In- 
 dicative ; e. g. firi d-jva&s, {Lr\ xgtore t fi,r\ ysvoiro, etc. 
 
 OPTATIVE MODE. 
 
 (6.) The Optative was employed very exten- 
 sively by the Greeks, in independent sentences : 
 viz., 
 
 (a) In the expression of a wish, desire, that 
 any thing may be, be done, or happen. 
 
 E. g. ' His bishopric Xdfioi hsoog, let another take' 
 Acts i. 20 ; « Let thy money s/?j s/g dcrwXs/av, perish 
 with thee, 1 Acts viii. 20. Rom. xv. 5. 2 Tim. ii. 7 ; 
 iv. 14, et. al. So the formula [Ar\ ysvoiro ! 
 
 Note 1. In classic Greek, the Optative in this 
 sense often has with it the particles s/, tl yap, s'fos, ug, 
 in order to increase the intensity of expression ; Matth. 
 § 513, 1. 
 
 Note 2. When a wish respecting something abso- 
 lutely past is expressed, these particles with the Aor. 
 Indie, are used ; something still continuing requires 
 the Imperf ; as e/'^g co/ tots (fuvByivopqv,, would that I 
 had been there with thee ! s/^ s7% ) sg...(3z'krwvg <p§kvas ! 
 I wish you had a better mind ! Eurip. Hel. 1068. 
 
 (b) Occurrences which the mind of itself 
 deems possible in and of themselves, or suppos- 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 137 
 
 able, without special reference to external cir- 
 cumstances (which would require the Subjunc- 
 tive), are expressed in the Optative, and usually 
 (but not always) with the particle &v (poetic *s) 
 before it. 
 
 E. g. "nsdic, civ rmg iwirtfi^gBtav roTg sigfipivoig, perhaps 
 some might think of punishing the things that were 
 said ; y'svoir ccv nav, all of it may happen; (3ouXoi/^r t v 
 civ, I should ivish. 
 
 (c) In requests, commands, and even direct 
 assertions, the Opt. is often employed, instead of 
 the Indie, or Imperative ; in which case it always 
 gives a tone of moderation or modesty to the 
 assertion, command, etc., it being the language 
 of comity and moderation, in opposition to that 
 of positiveness or arrogance. 
 
 E. g. oux. civ a<7ro<p£uyoig ry\v vocov, you could not then 
 have avoided the disease ; wga civ g/ij rrgurrsiv roc dsovra, 
 there may be a time to do what is requisite ; "kiyoig oiv 
 a ds? Xsyziv, you may say what it is proper to say ,- 
 Matth. § 515. 
 
 Note 1. Here also the particle civ (poetic xg) is 
 usually employed, yet, in not a few cases, it is omit- 
 ted ; Matth. § 515, 7. Anm. 
 
138 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 § 39. USE OF THE MODES IN DEPENDENT SENTENCES. 
 
 (1.) The nature of a dependent sentence being 
 well understood, it will be easily seen, that all 
 such particles as imply conditionality, uncer- 
 tainty, possibility, probability, an unlimited or 
 merely supposed case, etc., for the most part will 
 be found very naturally united with the Optative 
 and Subjunctive modes. And such is the usual 
 fact. Yet there is scarcely any of these particles 
 with which the Indicative mode is not sometimes 
 joined. Indeed, as a general principle, it is 
 joined with them, when the assertion (let the 
 thing asserted be conditional or not) is designed 
 to be absolute and positive as an assertion. 
 
 Note 1. As the Future Indicative, in a multitude 
 of cases, has for substance the same meaning with the 
 Subjunctive, (Matth. § 518, 1, 7, p. 998, sq.), so it is 
 not strange that even /Va and fattag, as well as other 
 particles, should often be employed with it. 
 
 (2.) The fundamental distinction between the 
 Ind., Subj., and Optative, appears to be this; viz., , 
 the Indicative simply affirms or denies ; and this 
 without any qualification so far as the mode itself 
 is concerned, although conditional and qualifying 
 particles may be joined with it. The Optative 
 declares opinion, belief, desire, merely without 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 139 
 
 categorical assertion ; in other words, it exhibits 
 subjective views. The Subjunctive indicates 
 the possibility of a thing, in reference to its con- 
 dition or circumstances. 
 
 E. g. 'iXzyzg, on Zsi/g rbv a&gwxov gVg//-\j>g (Ind.), 
 means, you have said that Jupiter sent the man, im- 
 plying a full belief on the part of him who thus said, 
 that it was in fact so, and an assertion of the fact. 
 But sXsyeg, on Ziug rbv av^gwirov crg/x-vj/g/s (Opt.), indi- 
 cates only the opinion or apprehension on the part of 
 the same speaker that it was so. On the other hand, 
 Xsysig, on Zeus rbv ci&w-rov ts/m^ (Subj.), implies a 
 belief that Jupiter can or will send the man, i. e. that 
 circumstances are such, in the view of the speaker, as 
 to render the thing possible. 
 
 Note 1. Although these nice distinctions are laid 
 down by Hermann, Winer, Rost, and other acute 
 grammarians, they are applicable, after all, only to the 
 writers of refined and cultivated taste ; and even 
 among them cannot be carried through, without the 
 aid of many fictitious niceties. Homer and the epic 
 poets in general confessedly neglect them ; for they 
 employ the Opt. and Subjunctive oftentimes without 
 .-•regard to them. In later Greek, the Opt. became 
 more and more rare, until finally it was altogether 
 dropped ; and the modern Greek does not at all re- 
 cognize i& The New Testament Greek, it should be 
 remembered, is in the transition-state, in which the 
 Opt. is quite unfrequent. When it is employed, how- 
 
140 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 ever, it is commonly in accordance with the general 
 principles of classical usage. 
 
 § 40. MODES AFTER PARTICLES OF DESIGN OR INTEN- 
 TION IN DEPENDENT SENTENCES. 
 
 (1.) The usual particles of this kind are ha, 
 oVwg, a) g (%a), and pn lest (conjunction) ; which, 
 from the nature of their signification, usually 
 have relation to the Future. 
 
 (2.) The general rule respecting the verb 
 which follows these particles in the dependent 
 clause, is as follows : viz., (a) The verb of the 
 principal clause being in the Present or Future, 
 the Subjunctive is taken for the verb in the de- 
 pendent clause ; (b) On the other hand, if the 
 principal verb is in any of the Praeterites, then 
 the dependent verb takes the Optative. 
 
 E. g. rtaoti^t ha 7<3w, I am present that I may see 
 (Subj.) or iragsifof&ou ha 7du m but oragrji/ ha 7doifu (Opt.) 
 / was present that I might see. And thus after the 
 other particles of design. 
 
 Note 1. Buttmann seems to intimate (§ 139, 2), 
 that the exceptions to this general rule are few, or 
 anomalous. Yet they are exceedingly numerous. 
 The Subj. may be used after Praeterites j a (a) 
 
 a See the Author's Gram, of New Test. Dialect, p. 79, § 50, 
 (1, 2, 3,) and p. 79, § 58, (3). 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 141 
 
 When in the form of a Praet., the sense of the Present 
 is included ; as <pi\ovg xsxrojvra/ 0/ afoguiroi, hot, 'iyojffi 
 fiorfiovg, men have acquired (acquire) friends, in order 
 that they may have helpers, (b) When the action is 
 past, but its effects still continue ; as Thucyd. I. 73, 
 <raor j X%fxsv, oxug [JjY\ . . .yjl^w (SovXzvffq&s, we have come 
 [and are here] in order that you may not decide for 
 the worse ; see Matth. § 518, 1, 1. (c) In narration, 
 when definite intention is signified, which (it was 
 fully believed) would be carried into execution ; as 
 rovc...TP<JjrQvg arrsKS/A'^av '2'ra^Ti^rai, 'i'va...ffv/j,fMayot 
 GTpa-svwvrai, the Spartans sent away the principal 
 persons., that... the allies might make war, Herod. 
 VII. 206. (d) Generally, the Subj. after Praeterites 
 is used, when the design or object of the agent of the 
 principal verb is distinctly and definitely announced, 
 while the Opt., in such a case, would only declare 
 the opinion of the narrator ; e. g. Uesdixxug 'i^affgsv, 
 oxug --oXz/xog yhr\rai, Perdiccas made efforts, that there 
 should be war, etc., Thucyd. I. 57. Rost, § 122, 
 Anm. 4. Matth. § 518, 1, 1. 
 
 Note 2. On the other hand ; the Optative is fre- 
 quently employed in a dependent clause, after a prin- 
 cipal verb in the Present or Future, when not a spe- 
 cific and actual purpose of the agent of the principal 
 verb is designated, but only the apprehension of the 
 writer or of some other person respecting what may 
 take place, or in regard to the design to be accom- 
 plished; e. g. xaXov sirn 'jAyj&at, o-rug /Mr, rig bou/.og 
 fjusXKpi ysyqite&at, it is commendable to Jight, that one 
 may not become a slave. Here is merely a general 
 
142 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 apprehension expressed, that if one does not fight he 
 will become a slave. So vokiiv ^dvgov ejMr'epu/ni Kurrjg, 
 ha (lv\ a-avic, (3iov sr/j, the father sent much gold, that 
 she might not be stinted as to the means of living. 
 Here the purpose is general, and the event — being 
 reduced to poverty so as to need the gold — of a con- 
 tingent nature. 
 
 Note 3. The particle av (see § 46) is connected 
 with ug and o«rw§ only, of all the particles of design ; 
 but when it is added to these, it does not vary the 
 principles already laid down. 
 
 (3.) The New Testament usage conforms to 
 that which has now been exhibited. 
 
 E. g. {a) The Subj. after the Present and Future; 
 as t iroiouciv...orroj; do^a&ooffiv, Matt. vi. 2; ovdsig... 
 s[jt,<7r\sxzrai...ha aos<sr\, 2 Tim. ii. 4. 1 Tim. i. 18 ; v. 
 21. Mark iv. 21. Phil. i. 9, al. saepe. So with the 
 Future; as ha /xri . . .diavsfj,r)^fj ...acrs/X^^w/xs^a, Acts iv. 
 17 ; yoyiihaTa do^yjasrai avrui...ha Xvtirj (text, recept.), 
 Acts xxiv. 26 ; and often thus, specially after the 
 Imper. (which is of the nature of a Future tense), 
 having reference to that which is to be done, as Rom. 
 iii. 8. 1 Tim. iv. 15. Matt. ii. 8. Acts viii. 19, al. 
 
 (b) The Subjunctive after Praeterites ; as riXs^v... 
 ha..Jvdsi^'/irai, 1 Tim. i. 16; xare\i<7r6v c>z...ha...i-ibioz- 
 Suct), Tit. i. 5. So Tit. ii. 14. Rom. vi. 4. 1 John 
 iii. 5, 8 ; v. 13. 1 Cor. iv. 6, al. saepe. Indeed this 
 usage is the only one, in such cases, of the New- 
 Testament writers; no instance occurring in which 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 143 
 
 the Optative is employed after a Praeterite, as is the 
 usual practice of the classics. But this peculiarity is 
 not confined to the New Testament. It is the pre- 
 dominant usage of Plutarch, and the usual one of the 
 Septuagint, Apochrypha, Pseudepigrapha, etc. and 
 is in itself a characteristic of the later Greek, in which 
 the Opt. was gradually going into desuetude. 
 
 (c) The Opt. after the Present ; as ob cauo/xa/ . . . 
 fivsktv vfiuv <7roiovfisvog...bcc 6 Ssbg 6oJ?j, Eph. i. 16 ; xgc/xt- 
 rw ra yovura . . .'iva c$gJ?j, Eph. iii. 14 — 16. These are 
 the only examples in the New Testament ; and in 
 respect to these the Codices vary, some of them giving 
 d-2) (instead of <3cJ?j.) 
 
 (4.) The Fut. Indicative is not unfrequent 
 after particles of design. 
 
 This results from the resemblance of the Future 
 to the Subj. ; for these are often commuted, and used 
 in the like manner ; e. g. /juazdoioi o) <7roiovvrsg..jva 
 sarai, Rev. xxii. 14; zbuxug avrui s^ouffiav ..jva...ddj(jsi 
 (in the better Codices), John xvii. 2. Comp. Rom. 
 v. 21. Rev. xiii. 16. 1 Cor. xiii. 3, al. where the 
 Subj. is employed ; as it more commonly is. 
 
 Note 1. This construction is common in the 
 classics ; but it is confined principally to the cases 
 where orws dv or /x/j is employed before the Future ; 
 Matth. § 519, 7. In such cases it indicates objective 
 occurrence, or the actual happening of events, while 
 the Opt. and Subj. would express possibility, or sup- 
 posed probability. Rost, § 122, 11. 
 
144 ON* THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 (5.) Other tenses of the Indicative are some- 
 times employed, even after the particles of de- 
 sign, when the idea is expressed, that something 
 might or should have been done, etc., which -has 
 not been done, or cannot now be done. 
 
 E. g. ' Why didst thou not kill me outright, us 
 sbu^a f&faoh, that I might have disclosed myself 
 to men, in respect to my origin,' Soph. Oedip. 
 Tyr. 1377 ; " Then I should not have mvofeed my 
 miserable body, ha rjv rvtpXbc, that I might be blind 
 and dumb,' lb. 1373 ; ' You should have harnessed 
 in Pegasus, otoi; e<pafoov rgayutumgog, tliat you might 
 have put on more of a tragic mien. See Matth. § 
 519. Rost. 122, 12. 
 
 Note 1. In the New Testament only two (con- 
 tested) instances appear ; viz. ha /ifi pu<wou<&s, 1 Cor. 
 iv. 6, and ha aureus £*jXourg, Gal. iv. 17. Some 
 render ha when, in these passages, invito, Minerva. 
 In the cases from the classics above, the preceding 
 and principal verb is in the Praeterite, and so ha, 
 etc., seems to indicate something future to the action 
 designated by the principal verb. But in Gal. iv. 17, 
 the preceding verb has a present sense, and makes 
 the construction peculiar. 
 
 (6.) The particle m (lest) usually requires 
 the Subj., even after Praeterites ; when the Opt. 
 follows, it marks only subjective views. The In- 
 dicative after //,/, (lest) marks the action desig- 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 145 
 
 nated as actually past, or the apprehension of it 
 as grounded in fact, not in opinion merely; 
 Rost, § 122, 13. 
 
 § 41. MODES IN HYPOTHETICAL OR CONDITIONAL 
 SENTENCES. 
 
 (1.) The conditional particle is s/', or s/ with 
 av = lav or its contracted form n* (civ.) 
 
 (2.) Conditional sentences consist mostly of a 
 protasis and apodosis, either expressed or im- 
 plied. 
 
 (3.) A conditional sentence may be expressed 
 absolutely ; or merely as assumption ; or as a sup- 
 position, the realization of which is probable, but 
 is dependent on circumstances ; or conditionality 
 may be expressed, with a belief that the thing 
 supposed does not exist or will not take place. 
 
 (a) Simply or absolutely ; in which case si 
 with the Indie, stands in the protasis, and the 
 Ind., or Imper. (where requisition is made,) in 
 the apodosis. 
 
 E. g. £/' sjSoovryjffs, %cd forgct^t, if it has thundered, 
 it has lightned ; i. e. assuming the fact that it has 
 thundered (without inquiring whether it has or has 
 not,) then it follows that it must have lightned. So 
 
J 46 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 in the New Testament; ei ovrw; sffriv r\ a/ria rov av- 
 l ^o'M-7To-o...ob <fv,up'egzi ya/x^ffat, if such is the case with 
 men... it is not good to marry ; Matt. xix. 10; i. e. 
 assuming that such is the case, then, etc. E/ ^sXstg 
 e/ff\&e?v stg ttjv Zur^ rrjeriffov %. r. X., if thou will enter 
 into life, keep, etc., Matt. xix. 17, i. e. assuming the 
 fact that you are desirous of becoming happy, then, 
 in order to be so, you must keep, etc. So 1 Cor. vi. 
 2; ix. 17. Rom. viii. 25. Col. ii. 5— John vii. 4. 
 1 Cor. vii. 9— Rom. viii. 11. Matt. xvii. 4—1 Cor. 
 xv. 16. 2 Pet. ii. 20— Matt. xii. 26. Luke xi. 20 ; 
 where the Pres. in the protasis is followed by either 
 the Pres., Fut., Perf., or Aor. of the Indie, or else 
 by the Imper., in the apodosis. 
 
 Acts xvi. 15. John xi. 12. Rom. vi. 5 ; where 
 the Perf. in the protasis, is followed by the Imper., 
 or the Fut., (Indie.,) in the apodosis. 
 
 Rom. iv. 2 ; xv. 27. John xviii. 23 ; xiii. 32 ; 
 where the Aor. in the protasis is followed by the 
 Pres., Imper., Fut., in the apodosis. 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 33. James ii. 11; where the Fut. is 
 followed by the Future and by the Perfect. 
 
 (b) Assumption on the ground of subjective 
 possibility ; in which case «/ with the Opt. stands 
 in the protasis, and the apodosis (when one is 
 expressed) takes civ with the Optative. 
 
 E. g. s/' 2/» c 3o/£f Uhaai...ov-/. civ wreg(3akoi{Mt6$a, if the 
 Persians should come [and in my opinion they may 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 147 
 
 come,] we should not then be able to conquer. Sub- 
 jective possibility or probability in the view of the 
 speaker, is generally indicated by all sentences of this 
 nature. 
 
 Note 1. In the New Testament only the protasis 
 of such assumptions (making supposed cases) appears; 
 as in 1 Pet. ii. 17. 1 Cor. xv. 37. Acts xxvii. 39 ; 
 xx. 16, et al. ; the two last cases after a Praeter, Ind. 
 preceding. (In 1 Pet. iii. 14. Acts xxiv. 19, the 
 Indie, expressed or implied, follows such a protasis.) 
 In the classics r\v = sav (instead of s/) is sometimes 
 used before the Optative, in suppositions consisting 
 of only one member; Rost, 121, 8 b. Anmerk. 
 
 (c) Possibility, considered in respect to exter- 
 nal circumstances; in which case the protasis 
 lias sav, Yiv (d\) = £/' dv with the Subjunctive, and 
 the apodosis takes the Indie, or Imperative. 
 
 E. g. sav n exwpiv, du>ffo,u.sv. So in John vii. 17, edv 
 rig ^sXfj...yvu)ffsrccr and sav dxovff'/j rouro . . .irsko/MSv, 
 Matt, xxviii. 14. John vii. 37. Matt. v. 23 ; xviii. 
 13. 1 Cor. vii. 28. The apodosis may have the 
 Ind. Fut., Imperf., Present, Perf., Aorist, or the Im- 
 perative. 
 
 (d) Conditionality is expressed, with the ap- 
 prehension that the thing does not exist, or 
 could not take place. In this case, the protasis 
 has e/ with a Praeterite of the Indie, (the Per- 
 
148 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 feet excepted), and the apodosis has the Indie. 
 Praeterite accompanied by av. 
 
 E. g. s7 ri s/%2i>, Ibidou av, if he had any thing, [I 
 doubt whether he has, or I do not believe he has,] 
 then would he give it. 
 
 Note 1. So, in all cases where the apodosis is 
 made by the Imperfect, it refers to what would take 
 place or he done, i. e. it has a sense relatively future. 
 So Luke vii. 39. Acts xviii. 14. John v. 46 ; ix. 
 41 ; xv. 19. 1 Cor. xi. 31. Gal. iii. 21. Heb. rv. 
 8, * for if Joshua had given them rest, oux av nrioi a?.- 
 \y& iXdXsi, then would he not speak respecting another 
 [day]/ But if the Aorist is employed in the apodo- 
 dosis, then the past time is designated, i. e. the mean- 
 ing would have been done, etc. is designated ; as s/ 
 sysvovro ..vaXai av...fjbsrev6r)6av' if that had been done 
 ...then long ago they would have repented, etc. Matt. 
 xi. 21. So 1 Cor. ii. 8. John xviii. 30 ; xiv. 28. 
 Matt. xii. 7. 
 
 But in this last case, the Pluperf. is sometimes em- 
 ployed in the apodosis, instead of the Aorist ; as 1 
 John ii. 19, < if they were of us, {Aspsvrjxstfav av, then 
 they would have remained with us/ John xi. 21 ; 
 xiv. 7, where the Plup., however is used as an Im- 
 perfect. 
 
 Note 2. The distinction here made between the 
 sense of the Imperf. and Aor. or Pluperf. in the apo- 
 dosis, is of serious moment, and has very often been 
 overlooked, even by some of the best translators. For 
 the reality of it, see Buttm. § 139, 9, (4.) 10 ; Winer 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 149 
 
 § 43, 2. In the protasis, all the Praeterites (Perf. 
 excepted) may stand, as the nature of the case re- 
 quires ; but in the apodosis, the distinction noted as 
 to the sense must be observed. 
 
 Note 3. The particle u is often used, moreover, 
 in indirect questions, like the Latin an ; as sgwrag, si 
 
 General Remark. Besides the kinds of condi- 
 tionally designated by these four classes or modes 
 of expression just named, there is a great variety as 
 to tense, and even mode, in the Greek language, ac- 
 cording to the exigency of each particular case. E. g. 
 the Greek might say ; et roZro aXr^sg hn, cirorrov %v 9 
 or aroToi/ eVr/, or ciroKov 'ifftrat. But instead of the 
 Indie, (rjv, itfri, sgzrat,) which expresses a sentiment 
 absolutely or categorically, if the speaker wished 
 merely to convey his own subjective views of opinion, 
 he might say ; arocrov av sir,. So, if possibility depen- 
 dent on circumstances were to be expressed in the 
 apodosis, he might say, arorov y, etc. 
 
 (4.) The particles « and lav are not always 
 confined, in the New Testament, to the modes 
 (Indie, and Opt. for £>', and Subj. for sdv) to 
 which common usage has limited them in the 
 earlier Greek writers, when they stand in the 
 protasis of a hypothetic sentence. For, 
 
 (a) E/ is sometimes found before the Subjunctive ; 
 e. g. ii rtg..3'sXri, Rev. xi. 5. So in Luke ix. 13. 
 
150 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 1 Cor. xiv. 5, with some variations of MSS. For a 
 long time it was contested whether this accords with 
 classical usage ; but it seems now to be conceded to 
 later writers, and also to those who are not Attic, 
 Matth. § 525, b-; Winer, p. 243. 
 
 (b) 'Eavis sometimes found before the Indicative ; 
 Rom. xiv. 8, lav atrcftv7}6x.ofAzv, (in the better Codices). 
 So Gal. i. 8, svayyfA/fyrai in the better copies. John 
 viii. 36. Luke xi. 12. 1 John v. 15 ; with variations 
 of MSS. For the most part, Knapp has put such Ind. 
 forms in the Subjunctive. But the Ind. after lav 
 is not only found in older Greek writers, e. g. Hero- 
 dotus, but is very frequent in the later ones ; Matth. 
 § 525, d. 
 
 § 42. MODES WITH PARTICLES SIGNIFICANT OF TIME. 
 
 (l.)'The usual particles of this nature, are 
 hjg, fcrors, jjw'xo, (o<p%a), vgh, simply significant of 
 time ; and s-rsi, k-s/5^, ors, ag, mostly significant of 
 time, but sometimes of cause or ground. 
 
 (2.) When a verb is connected with these, (a) 
 It stands in the Indie, Pres. or Fut. if a distinct 
 and definite thing is positively declared. 
 
 E. g. ors GvvzrVksasv 6 'irfioZg, taken Jesus had finish- 
 ed. So Luke vii. 1. Mark xiv. 12. Luke i. 23. 
 Acts xvi. 4. Luke vi. 3. Matt. ii. 9; i. 25, al. 
 With the Fut.; e. g. ors...KooG7iwr l 6srs, John iv. 21. 
 Luke xvii. 22. John iv. 23 ; xvi. 25, al. saepe. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 151 
 
 (b) In the Subjunctive, when any thing is 
 declared as possible or conditional, i. e. which 
 will happen under certain circumstances ; in 
 which case the particles of time take civ into con- 
 nection with them. 
 
 E. g. orav (== ors civ) Kor/iffrj-i cravra, Luke xvii. 
 10; xi. 36. Matt. xxi. 40. Other particles; 2 
 Cor. iii. 16. 1 Cor. xi. 25; xi. 34. Matt. xii. 20. 
 James v. 7. 1 Cor. xv. 25. 
 
 Note 1. The Fut. Indie, is sometimes employed 
 in such cases, instead of the Subjunctive ; e. g. orav 
 dweouff/, Rev. iv. 9. Luke xiii. 28. (o-vJ/etfSs in some 
 good copies.) (Once with the Imperf., Mark iii. 11.) 
 This usage in the classics is doubtful ; Matth. p. 1007. 
 
 Note 2. The particles of time, with the Subj. 
 A or., designate the Futurum exactum, Mark viii. 38. 
 John iv. 25, al. ; but with the Pres. Subj., they desig- 
 nate an action that is to be often or habitually re- 
 peated in Future. Matth. p. 1006. 
 
 Note 3. After the particle sug, the civ is frequent- 
 ly omitted ; as sag rsXst&ji (in the better Codices), 
 Rev. xx. 5. Matt. xiv. 22. 2 Pet. i. 19. Luke 
 xiii. 8 ; xii. 50 ; xv. 4, al. 
 
 (c) With the Optative, when suppositions or 
 subjective views merely are expressed, and a re- 
 petition or frequent occurrence of the action is 
 (usually) denoted; in which case civ is not em- 
 ployed. 
 
152 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 E. g. 6'rs rot, aoiara wgurror otots h sgrj/Aiq ehv. In 
 the New Testament, only once after a particle of 
 time, viz. Acts xxv. 16, irgh r\..!iyj)i. The Subj. is 
 commonly used in its stead, as in Matt. xiv. 22. 
 Acts xxiii. 12 ; iv. 21, al. 
 
 Remark. When on, dion are employed in the 
 (casual sense of Its}, !«*£/&}, etc. they are construed in 
 the same way as the particles of time ; which is the 
 case with the casual particles generally. 
 
 § 43. MODES AFTER THE PARTICLES, 0T£, uc. 
 
 (1.) That part of a sentence which follows 
 
 these particles, when they have the sense of the 
 
 conjunction that, may be called the compliment 
 
 of the preceding verbs, and regarded as standing 
 
 in the place of an Ace. case. 
 
 E. g. sXsyev, on crs/x-v^s/g abrbv 6 fia<sikrj$, he said that 
 the king sent him. If the question be asked, what 
 did he say ? The answer is, that the king, etc., which 
 makes the real compliment (although indirectly) of 
 the verb tXtyev. 
 
 Note 1. All verbs which designate the action or 
 exertion of senses external or internal, or an action 
 immediately connected with and proceeding from 
 these ; e. g. such as hearing, seeing, feeling, noticing, 
 perceiving, understanding, etc. ; and so also, judging, 
 supposing, believing, remembering, saying, shewing, 
 mentioning, proving, etc. ; and also the impersonal 
 verbs corresponding to some of these, such as signify 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 153 
 
 it is manifest, it is plain, it is proved, it is evident, 
 etc. ; all such admit, or rather require, a compli- 
 mentary part of a sentence, such as that above de- 
 scribed. 
 
 (2.) The Indicative and Optative modes are 
 employed in constructions, in the complimentary 
 clauses ; the Indicative, when any thing is po- 
 sitively and definitely asserted; the Optative 
 when it is declared as a matter of opinion or 
 probability. When &* is added to the Optative, 
 it makes an accession to the probability which 
 the mode itself would naturally designate. 
 
 Indicative ; e. g. as tkzysv, on Msyaga apsarfixs, he 
 said that Megara had revolted ovy^ ohv ds, on skts- 
 -rrw/csv 6 Xoyog rov §sou, Rom. ix. 6. So often else- 
 where, it being the usual method in the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 Optative; as ars^/varo, on (3ovXotro av utuvtiz 
 rroiuv, he answered, that he should wish to do every 
 thing ; zlrsv, Sri /jlsvziv (3ovXotro. 
 
 (3.) When the words or sentiments of an- 
 other are indirectly or directly recited, ori is usu- 
 ally employed. Here the Optative is, in the 
 classics, more common in indirect speech, al- 
 though the Ind. may be and is also used, when 
 actual events are designated, or positive asser- 
 tions made. In direct quotations, the oV/, which 
 
154 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 often precedes, has no influence upon the modes 
 that are used in the quotation itself. 
 
 Note 1. Indirect speech (oratio obliqua) is dis- 
 tinguished from direct, principally by the form which 
 it takes. Thus, he said that the king sent him, would 
 he the indirect mode of reciting the words of another; 
 he said, The king sent me, would be the direct one. 
 This latter method is almost universal in the New 
 Testament. Hence the Optative is very seldom if 
 ever employed in cases of this nature, inasmuch as 
 the direct kind of citation does not often admit of it. 
 
 Note 2. Examples of the indirect in the Indica- 
 tive are very rare in the New Testament. Matt. vii. 
 23, 6 t tt\oyr]<roj ahroTg, on ovd'etfors syvuv upMg, may be 
 taken either way. In cases such as in Luke viii. 47. 
 Matt, xviii. 25. Mark v. 29 ; ix. 9. Acts xxii. 24. 
 Matt. xvii. 10.. Luke xviii. 9; xii. 18, etc., where 
 the Optative might be expected, at least in a part of 
 these instances, we find the Indicative. Cases of the 
 Opt. in indirect speech of the nature in question, are 
 to be found in the text of Knapp, in John xiii. 24. 
 Acts x. 1 7. 
 
 The cases in which Sri is placed before direct quo- 
 tations, are very numerous ; e. g. Matt. ii. 23 ; v. 31 ; 
 xxi. 16. Acts xi. 3, et al. saepe. For the most part 
 we do not, or need not, translate on in such cases ; it 
 being merely equivalent to our double comma used 
 as the sign of quotation in English. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 155 
 
 § 44. MODES AFTER RELATIVE PRONOUNS AND 
 PARTICLES. 
 
 (1.) The relative pronouns are og, 8ms, ohg, 
 "mg, etc. ; the relative particles are ov, omu, si&a, 
 fi&sv, eftsv, 6'ro/, O'lrojg, ojg, ( when,whenever ) , ha f where, 
 when.) 
 
 Note 1. The clauses in which these relatives 
 stand, are called relative clauses or sentences for dis- 
 tinction's sake. 
 
 (2.) The Indicative stands in the relative 
 clause, after any tense whatever in the principal 
 one, whenever positive and absolute assertion is 
 made. The Optative, after any tense in the 
 principal clause, whenever mere opinion or ap- 
 prehension is expressed. The Subjunctive, how- 
 ever, can stand only after the Present and Fu- 
 ture, because it implies conditionality from cir- 
 cumstances, which must arise either from some- 
 thing that now is or will be. In this case civ is 
 generally added to the relative pronouns or par- 
 ticles. 
 
 Note 1. v Ai/ is also joined with the Optative, 
 whenever conditionality is assumed merely or sup- 
 posed ; e. g. « There are men here, of cravy av pu.o- 
 n/xrfisizv £/Aw goi yor^ai, who would very gladly have 
 you for their friend, Rost, § 123. 
 
156 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 Note 2. The Indicative also may be used with ctv 
 in a relative sentence (i. e. the Ind. Imperf. and 
 Aorist), in order to show that a condition supposed 
 was not fulfilled ; or to show some condition arising 
 out of something asserted in the context. Rost, § 
 123. Anm. 2. 
 
 § 45. MODES AFTER INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES OR 
 PRONOUNS. 
 
 (1.) These are such words as irug, s! 9 r/, rim, 
 oTroTbg, vou, and others of similar signification, when 
 used in an interrogative way. 
 
 Note 1. It is these particles as employed before 
 indirect questions, which is the subject here treated of. 
 
 (2.) In clauses containing these particles, the 
 Ind. is employed, whenever that which is mat- 
 ter of fact is simply asserted. 
 
 E. g. ' Ye know...<7rw£ (*&' v>j,uv..J'ysv6 l <Ariv, how I 
 was with you J Acts xx. 18 ; ' We know not...T&}$ vuv 
 /SXsts/, how he now seeth,' John ix. 21 ; iii. 8 ; vii. 27. 
 Col. iv. 6. Eph. i. 18. John x. 6. Acts x. 18, al. 
 saepe. In some of these cases, there is a mingling of 
 the direct and indirect question ; as is very common 
 in the classics. Winer, § 42, 4. 
 
 (3.) The Subjunctive is employed where 
 things objectively possible are asserted. 
 
 E. g. ' The Son of Man hath not, croD ryv xxpaXriv 
 rXivri where he may or can lay his head, Matt. viii. 20. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 157 
 
 Rom. viii. 26. Matt. x. 19; vi. 25. Luke xii. 11. 
 Mark vi. 36 ; xiii. 11 ; iii. 6 (after the Praeter), al. 
 
 (4.) The Optative, when subjective possibility 
 is indicated. 
 
 E. g. ' They began to inquire among themselves, 
 to tic, aoa sr/j J£ airwi/, who of them it could be,' Luke 
 xxii. 23. * And she reasoned with herself, Toracroj g/jj 
 6 aovraff/xog ourog what kind of salutation this could be, 
 Luke i. 29 ; iii. 15 ; viii. 9 ; xviii. 36 ; xv. 26. Acts 
 xxv. 20; xvii. 27; xxvii. 12; xxi. 33, where the 
 difference between the Opt. and Indie, is made ap- 
 parent by contrast. 
 
 § 46. USE OF THE MODES WITH &V. 
 
 (1.) This particle has various and important 
 uses; and the doctrine respecting it seems to be 
 the most subtile and difficult of any thing that 
 pertains to Greek syntax. 
 
 Note 1. The efforts of some of the first Greek 
 scholars have been laid out upon this particle. Among 
 these the most distinguished are exhibited in Poppo, 
 Programma de Usu partic. av, 1816, 4. Reisig, de Vi 
 et Usu civ, in his Aristoph. Nubes, pp. 97 — 140; of 
 which Rost speaks in the highest terms, Gram. p. 250. 
 Hermann, de Particula "Av, first printed in the late 
 English edition of Stephani Thesaurus; and since 
 that, printed by itself in a small octavo, Lips. 1831. 
 
 Note 2. It is matter of still more difficulty to the 
 
15S ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 student, that grammarians of the highest rank, such 
 as Buttmann and Thiersch, differ considerably in their 
 development of the uses of civ, from Hermann and 
 others of his school ; Hermann also in some respects, 
 from Reisig ; and so of others. It is some satisfac- 
 tion however to know, that this difference respects, for 
 the most part, the minutiae and subtilties of the doc- 
 trine, which are not of great practical moment in most 
 cases, if indeed they are in any. That the Greeks 
 themselves never thought of all the subtilties which 
 recent grammarians have found, is my full persuasion. 
 
 (2.) The original and fundamental meaning 
 of the particle civ (as stated by Passow), is per- 
 haps, about, nearly, somewhat, somehow, probably, 
 in some degree or manner, etc. It serves, when 
 joined with the Ind. of absolute assertion or de- 
 claration, to moderate of course the tone of posi- 
 tiveness in the assertion, and to make it more 
 of the probable than of the absolute cast. When 
 joined with the Optative, which expresses sub- 
 jective possibility or probability, it gives empha- 
 sis to or strengthens this probability, etc. Ac- 
 cording to Hermann (p. 10, seq.), all the grada- 
 tions of doubt, difficulty, uncertainty, and pro- 
 bability, are not usually designated by adding 
 the particle civ to verbs ; but only those which 
 he calls fortuita, by which term he designates 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 159 
 
 those things which one regards as likely to be or 
 to happen. 1 In other words, it is a sign of the 
 
 1 This great master of the Greek idiom has given us, in his 
 work above mentioned, p. 9, seq., a view of the exquisite 
 adaptedness of the Greek to express the finer shades of thought, 
 such as I have no where else met with, and which I cannot 
 deny myself the pleasure of here abridging and submitting to 
 the view of the reader, for his profit. The student must be 
 careful to note, that the other particles of which mention is 
 here made, and which resemble eiv in regard to meaning, are 
 now considered solely in this point of view, and not in respect 
 to the construction of the verb, etc., which they may require. 
 
 ' There are several other particles besides av (xsv), which 
 have a like meaning; viz., "<ra>s, nob, ri. But all these differ in 
 the manner and gradation of their meaning. This is, indeed, 
 common to them all, viz., that they abate the force of positive 
 assertion, and introduce something of doubt or ambiguity. Of 
 such doubt or uncertainty, the Greeks seem to have made 
 four gradations. (1.) Things merely possible ; to express 
 which "<ra; is used. (2.) Things fortuitous, i. e. things, the 
 occurrence of which is suspended on something future, which 
 may or may not take place ; in which case av (epic k\v) is used 
 (3.) Things verisimilar (verisimilia), i. e. suspended on future 
 occurrences, which are more likely on the whole to happen 
 than not to happen ; where tov is employed. (4.) Things 
 probable, i. e. in regard to which one may say, it would be 
 strange if they should not happen ; here re is employed. 
 
 All this is illustrated by a verse from Homer ; (a) auv rt 2v 
 IgXofAivot, km i'reos vgo o rod ivovtriv, two being associated, pos- 
 sibly the one may see further than the other. Here the bare 
 possibility is stated by "<rus, without any intimation that the 
 thing will or will not be so. The opposite of this, i. e. abso- 
 lute affirmation, would be made simply by dropping the parti- 
 
160 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 potential and conditional ; but the kinds and gra- 
 dations of these may be, and often are designated 
 
 cle "ffu;, which would leave the assertion direct and unqua- 
 lified. 
 
 (6) The fortuitous would be expressed thus : xeti av (xsv) -rgo 
 o rov hovtriv, the one perhaps (or perchance) would see better (or 
 further) than the other ; i. e. it may turn out to be so, or may 
 not, events will disclose. The expression of the contrary sen- 
 timent in this case would be by inserting -racvra;, surely, cer- 
 tainly, in the room of «v or xiv. 
 
 (c) The verisimilar would be thus expressed; xai vov w^o S 
 tou ivontnv, one, it is likely, would see further than the other. 
 Here the declaration is, that such is the opinion of the speaker, 
 or so it seems to him, although he does not make an absolute 
 affirmation of it. Such an affirmation would be made by vi or 
 2jj, or (which is more usual) both united ; as xa.) n %* vgo 2 rev 
 Ivo'/ia-iv, undoubtedly the one could see, etc. 
 
 (d) That which is so probable that the contrary cannot well 
 be supposed, would be expressed thus ; xai n Tgo 2 tou hon<riv, 
 the one, to be sure, would see, etc. In this case, the speaker 
 considers the thing asserted, as altogether probable, but not 
 absolutely necessary. If he meant to affirm the latter, he would 
 put a.»a,yxa,iu>$ in the place of ri. 
 
 When compared together, these particles thus nicely making 
 gradations, are found to range themselves under two classes ; 
 viz., 'la-cj; possible, and tov the verisimilar, are referrible to the 
 subjective feelings and views of the speaker, i. e. they are merely 
 expressions of opinion, feeling, etc. ; while av (Vsv) the fortui- 
 tous, andre the probable are referrible to objective matters, viz. 
 to things or events, and not to the mere opinion of the speaker.' 
 This, however, must be understood of these particles, as to 
 their own proper nature in themselves considered ; for av (to 
 select an example) is often joined'-'with the Opt. mode, which 
 appropriately indicates subjective views. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 161 
 
 and limited by other particles, pronouns (rela- 
 tive), etc., connected with «»• 
 
 Note 1. Passow gives etwa, wohl, as expressing 
 the fundamental meaning of av the sense of which is 
 given above, as nearly as our language will permit. 
 In many cases the English words there employed as cor- 
 responding with ay, may be retained in a version of the 
 Greek ; in many other cases, the conditional 'and poten- 
 tial modes in English answer the same purpose of 
 themselves as the Greek verb with av, and this without 
 expressing av by a separate particle ; in other cases, 
 the av is to be translated ( if I may so speak) by the 
 mere tone of the voice, i. e. by emphasis, or a tone de- 
 noting confidence, doubt, etc. Often av in an apo- 
 dosis, requires to be translated by then and some 
 turn of the expression which shews conditionally or 
 possibility. The nature of the case shows, that av 
 cannot be always rendered alike in English, because 
 of the great variety of potential and conditional ex- 
 pressions ; nor indeed always translated at all, except 
 in the manner last designated above. 
 
 Note 2. In epic poetry, xe, xsu, (Dor. zd,) have the 
 same meaning as av, and are employed in the same 
 manner. Hermann thinks av is a derivate from dva, 
 which being first and originally a preposition, then 
 becomes an adverb, and finally a conjunction. So 
 ij8ouXo/ti3ji» av, he says, is equivalent to sj3ou\6fiitiv dva 
 rovro' lav Xsyr h to si Xsyp dva tovto, etc. So xsv, va 
 (epic,) he thinks to be derivates from y.at. (De Partic. 
 av, pp. 4. seq.) The same author states the general 
 
 M 
 
162 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 power of av, as being that which renders indefinite 
 and unlimited, what otherwise would be definite and 
 limited; e. g. og Xzy/}, he who says, i. e. the individual 
 who says ; but og av "ksyy, whoever says, i. e. whatever 
 individual may say. 
 
 (3.) In independent sentences, av may be 
 connected with all the modes, excepting- the Im- 
 perative ; and even with this it is sometimes con- 
 nected in the later Greek poets, in order to in- 
 dicate some supposed difficulty in executing the 
 command; Rost, § 1*20. 5. d. With the Subj. 
 it does not appear in independent sentences, in 
 the New Testament. It is rarely found, also, 
 in connection with the Subj. in the classic Greek 
 writers, except in Homer and other poets ; and 
 when employed in such a connection, it signifies, 
 as usual, probability depending on circumstances. 
 
 (4.) In the Indie av is not unfrequently used 
 in independent sentences, (a) It is connected 
 with the Future. 
 
 E. g. SuegTjffovav av, they will surely be of good 
 courage. So Rost (after Reisig ;) who represents av 
 as strengthening the Future, § 125, 5, c. But Pas- 
 sow says, that av moderates the assertion in the Fu- 
 ture (Lex. civ) and Hermann says : " The ancient 
 epic poets employed it very often [in the Future,] 
 whenever they meant to indicate some fortuity in re- 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 163 
 
 spect to any thing future," (p. 28.) These latter 
 views are surely the more probable and analogous 
 ones. I find no instance of its connection with the 
 Fut. Indie, in the New Testament. 
 
 (b.) With the Praeterites, especially the Im- 
 perf. and Aorist; in which case, it implies that 
 the thing designated would or might have been 
 done, in case something else had been done ; or 
 that something was done so often as some other 
 thing happened or was done. 
 
 E. g. ■ Why didst thou not put my money out at 
 interest, that when I came, ffvv roxtfi av scrga^a avrb, 1 
 might have received it ivith usury,' Luke xix. 23. 
 Comp. Matt. xxv. 27. So in Heb. x. 2, iml owe ^ 
 hrawfavro crgoctpsgo/Asvai, then ivould they not have ceas- 
 ed to be offered. Of the latter meaning above desig- 
 nated, 1 find no instance in the New Testament ; but 
 it is common in the classics ; e. g. * But he, whenever 
 being driven away he went to another house, oVs- 
 Xaiii/sr av xa/ aVo ravrqg, was then driven away from 
 this also, i. e. he was usually or habitually driven 
 away. 
 
 (5.) In the Optative ; where, in connection 
 with independent sentences, it is found most fre- 
 quently of all. Here it expresses subjective pos- 
 sibility, i. e. it indicates the attitude or persua- 
 sion of the mind, (whether with or without good 
 
164 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 cause is not signified,) in regard to the proba- 
 bility or possibility of a thing. 
 
 The Opt. mode itself does this, but when civ is add- 
 ed to it, it gives prominency or emphasis to its ori- 
 ginal power of declaring opinion of subjective possi- 
 bility. E. g. ovx civcKSyjj'iij^v (without civ,) I could not 
 endure it, a simple declaration of opinion ; but ovx civ 
 civasyot/^v (with civ,) a declaration of opinion in view 
 of circumstances, then I could not ivell endure it. So 
 in questions with the Opt. the insertion of civ indicates 
 a doubt in the mind of him who asks them, whether 
 that can be, or be done, about which he inquires ; e. 
 g. ri av <pafyg ; what can you ivell say ? with the im- 
 plication, that in the opinion of the inquirer, the per- 
 son addressed would be able to say nothing. But ri 
 pa/jjs* would mean simply, What can you say ? in 
 reference to the state of mind which the person has 
 who is addressed. Both of these questions are dis- 
 tinguished from the mere deliberative or doubting 
 question, which is expressed in the Subjunctive ; e.g. 
 ri <pu ; What can I say ? i. e. I know not what to say. 
 
 Note 1. In indirect speech or questions, the 
 Optative with civ follows the Present and Fut. Indi- 
 cative ; but av is omitted, when the Ind. Praeter pre- 
 cedes ; e. g. ovx \yjj> (or s^oj) o-ro/ dv r^aTto'i^v, I know 
 not (or I shall not know), where I should (or could) 
 turn myself ; but ovx zTyov o-rrcv rgairoifiaih I knew 
 not where I could turn myself. The reason of this 
 seems to be, that the Pres. and Fut. may be regarded 
 as suspended on a condition, yet to be completed ; 
 while that which is past cannot be suspended on any 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 165 
 
 condition, for it has already taken place. Hence av 
 where conditionality is signified ; and the omission of 
 it where it is not. 
 
 Note 2. For further development of the Opt. 
 mode with av and without it, see § 28, 6, a, b, c. 
 The simple expression of a wish ; the simple expres- 
 sion of feelings or persuasion, without a reference to 
 external circumstances and events that may happen ; 
 the mere representation of the opinions of others ; (all 
 of which may be expressed by the Optative) ; would 
 of course require that av (which is conditional) should 
 be omitted. On the other hand, events deemed merely 
 supposeable, possible, probable, etc. ; cases where the 
 speaker intends to make the impression, by his words, 
 that he states them merely as viewed by his own 
 mind ; requests, commands, assertions even, which 
 are intended to be so uttered as to be divested of the 
 positive and absolute ; all these may and do take av 
 in the Optative ; although usage sometimes permits 
 the omission of it. 
 
 (6.) In the New Testament, the use of av in the 
 Opt., in an independent sentence, is rare. Where 
 it is employed, it denotes subjective possibility ', 
 dependent on some condition. 
 
 E. g. too; av dvvai/xrjV, « how can /, unless some one 
 guide me/ Acts viii. 31. In Acts ii.12, vi av $'~\oi 
 ro\Jro zhai ; what can (or would) this mean ? has an 
 implied condition attached to it, viz. ' if it could be 
 explained.' So, in Acts xvii. 18, r/ av %7m what can 
 
166 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 this babbler mean ? i. e. if his words have any mean- 
 ing. 
 
 (7.) M Av is often joined with the Inf. mode 
 and the Participle, in independent sentences ; in 
 which case it indicates conditionality and proba- 
 bility. 
 
 E. g. ' They supposed, if they could take the 
 principal city, gqbiwg av rcc «>.>.« vooe^uo^siv, that 
 other things would probably then yield with ease. 
 1 I find ravryv av /movyjv ye))Gp,sv7i9...cHrorgo#yiv, this to be 
 in all probability the only avoidance? So in 2 Cor. 
 x. 9. ug av sz(po(3s7v vf&ag, as if I would fain terrify 
 you. This is the only instance I have been able to 
 find in the New Testament of av with the Inf. ; I 
 have not found any with the participle. This shews 
 (what is known to be the fact) the more unfrequent 
 and limited use of av in the later Greek. 
 
 (8.) In dependent sentences, avis frequently 
 employed, (a) Where hypothetical possibility 
 only is expressed, with the implication that the 
 thing supposed has not taken place, because the 
 condition was not fulfilled. See § 41, 3, d and 
 Notes. 
 
 Note 1. In this case, the protasis has il with a 
 Praeterite of the Indie, and the apodosis av with the 
 Imperf., Aor., or Perfect. But the a\in the apodosis 
 may be omitted ; and in later Greek it often is. See 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 167 
 
 examples in John ix. 33 ; viii. 39 (variations). Rom. 
 vii. 7, (abridged and the order inverted.) John xv. 
 22; xix. 11 (inverted.) Acts xxvi. 32. In 2 Cor. 
 xi. 4, the Present is used in the protasis ; so in Diog. 
 Laert. II. viii. 4, it rovro <pavAov stfri, ovx av...lyhsro. 
 
 Note 2. For other cases in which av, lav, etc., 
 are employed, in hypothetical sentences, see in § 41, 
 3, b. c. 4. b. 
 
 When the particles of time are employed, and 
 stand before the Subjunctive, av is joined with 
 them, in order to indicate that the thing desig- 
 nated may happen, or is objectively possible. 
 
 E. g. orav = ors av, sag av, etc. See § 42, 1 and 2 
 b with notes. 
 
 (c) 1 y Av is frequently joined with the Optative, 
 when it stands after the particles on, ug, (that;) 
 in which case it renders prominent the subjective 
 sense of the Optative. See § 43, 2. 
 
 (d) Relative pronouns and particles (og, o<mg, 
 
 olog, etc. wrov, sv^a, o^sv, otoi, oxug, ug when, etc.) 
 
 often take av. See § 44. 
 
 Note 1. In cases of this nature, the force of av 
 seems to fall mainly on the pronouns and particles ; 
 e. g. og he icho, og av whoever, okov where, owou av 
 wlierever ; and so of the rest. The construction of 
 the verb, however, follows the general principles in 
 regard to conditional relative sentences ; see § 44 and 
 Notes. *A* with pronouns relative and particles of 
 
168 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 time, serves to render that indeterminate and inde- 
 finite, which otherwise would be definite and spe- 
 cific ; e. g. og (he who) means a specific individual ; 
 but oc av (whoever) means any particular individual 
 whatever. See § 46, 2, Note 2. 
 
 Note 2. Of course the unlimited nature of the 
 pronouns and particles, in such cases, forbids that the 
 verb should designate merely and exclusively one 
 specific and particular action, etc. They, therefore, 
 imply what may happen often, customarily, etc., or 
 action which may be repeated as often as the causes 
 supervene. In cases of this nature, (1) The Indie. 
 expresses what is actual, and might be often repeated; 
 as in Mark vi. 56. Acts ii. 45 ; iv. 35. 1 Cor. xii. 
 2. (2.) The Subjunctive is employed to express 
 what is uncertain or not limited, but objectively pos- 
 sible ; as in Matt. x. 11; xxi. 22, oca av alr/jc^rs, 
 whatever ye may ask; Mark ix. 18; xiv. 9. Acts ii. 
 39. Rom. x. 13. James iv. 4, al saepe. 
 
 § 47. DISTINCTIONS MADE IN THE SENSE OF 
 PARTICLES, ETC., BY av, 
 
 (I.) We have already seen (Notes 1, 2 above,) 
 what effect &» has, when added to the particles 
 of time and to the relative pronouns. The con- 
 ditional particle s\ is changed as to its construc- 
 tion and meaning, by its being united with av. 
 
 In this case it becomes lav, or its equivalent con- 
 tracted form, r\v, (av sometimes, at the beginning of a 
 sentence, by which position this contracted form is 
 distinguished.) 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 169 
 
 The distinction between si and stxv = si av may be 
 made palpable. E/ is a mere logical if belonging simply 
 to the expression of an act of the mind, which doubts 
 or which conceives of a thing conditionally. It may 
 therefore be employed in connection with most, if not 
 all, of the tenses. 'Edm (for the most part confined 
 to the Subj.) is properly used only in reference to 
 that which is yet to he developed by the future ; e. 
 g. si tovto ylvsrai (Indie.,) if this is so ; i. e. I assume 
 this as being so, without making the inquiry as to 
 the fact whether it will really occur or not. E/ toZtq 
 yhotTo (Opt.) would mean, if this should be so, with 
 the assumption merely that it is possible or probable. 
 E/ rouro lysvsro (Indie. Praet.,) if this were so ; i. e. 
 I assume it, although it is not so, or cannot be so. 
 But when lav is employed, the Subj. is used, and the 
 meaning has a future aspect ; e. g. lav rovro ysvyrat, 
 if this may be so ; i. e. I assume it, and it is altogether 
 possible ; but whether it will actually be so or not, 
 must depend on events yet future. In other words, 
 the Subj. expresses conditionatity depending on ex- 
 ternal circumstances, and not mere logical condition- 
 ally existing only in the conceptions of the mind. It 
 is thus that Hermann developes the difference be- 
 tween si and lav (ijv, av), in his Notes to Vigerus de 
 Idiotismisj Note 422. For variations in the construc- 
 tion of si and lav, see § 41, 4. a. b. 
 
 § 48. GENERAL REMARKS ON THE NATURE OF UV. 
 
 (1.) The generic design of this particle seems, 
 in view of all that has been said, to be this, viz., 
 to express moderated assertion. Thus with the 
 
170 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 Indicative, it changes the tone from that which 
 is positive and categorical, to that which is more 
 gentle and courteous ; as ovz old' cl v I do not cer~ 
 tainly know, 1 do not icell know, etc. In the 
 Subj.and Opt, (modes of possibility, probability, 
 conditionally, etc.,) it aids the more definite ex- 
 pression of that which is not designed to be po- 
 sitive and categorical. When joined with rela- 
 tive pronouns or adverbs, it renders them inde- 
 finite, which otherwise would be definite ; as h he 
 who, og av whoever. One general principle, 
 therefore, runs through all the cases of its usage. 
 
 (2.) The ancient Greeks employed av much 
 oftener, especially the Attics, than the modern ; 
 and in a much wider extent. The niceties of 
 expression connected with its use, went gradu- 
 ally into desuetude, as the language declined. 
 Hence its comparatively unfrequent use in the 
 New Testament. 
 
 IMPERATIVE. 
 
 § 49. USE OF THE IMPERATIVE MODE. 
 
 (1.) The Imperative is employed not only to 
 designate direct commands, but also requests, ex- 
 hortations, warnings, permissions, etc. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 171 
 
 E. g. * If the unbelieving depart, ;£W£/£s<$w, let 
 him depart, (permissive,) 1 Cor. vii. 15. So ayvosfcu, 
 let him be ignorant, 1 Cor. xiv. 38. In Eph. iv. 26, 
 ogy/£s<&s xa\ ihr\ apaordvsrs, the first verb is permis- 
 sive, i. e. you may be angry, but not so as to sin. 
 Let it be remembered that Jesus himself looked on 
 the Pharisees /xsr boyqg, Mark iii. 5. In Matt, xxiii. 
 32, the Imp. seems to be permissive. The precative 
 sense of the Imper. hardly needs illustration, it is so 
 common ; see in the Lord's prayer, dbg, atpsc, Matt, 
 vi. 11, 12, et alibi saepe. 
 
 (2.) When two Imperatives are connected by 
 ■/.oil, the first usually designates something which 
 is conditional in respect to the second. 
 
 E. g. sgzvvqffov xa) 'Ids, search and see, i. e. search 
 and then you will see, John vii. 52. 
 
 Note 1. The Imp. is often used instead of the con- 
 ditional modes, in the first part of a conditional sen- 
 tence, when the last part or apodosis takes a verb in 
 the Indie, etc.; as Xixsan rbv vabv rourov, ytai...lyzooj 
 avrbv, John ii. 19. So James iv. 7. Eph. v. 14. al. 
 
 (3.) A moderated Imp. sense is made by ha 
 with the Aor. Subjunctive. 
 
 E. g. ha 'xaoayyiiy^c, rial, exhort some, or that you 
 should exhort some, 1 Tim. i. 3. Mark v. 23. 2 Cor. 
 viii. 7. Eph. v. 33, al. In most cases of this nature, 
 
172 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 there seems to be an ellipsis of some verb before ha 
 •/.. r. X. such as Ta^axaXw <rs, or oscyxa/ gov, etc. 
 
 (4.) When an Imper. in a negative sense is 
 required m (not oh) is always employed. Very 
 often the Subjunctive with [ly\ is employed, in 
 the like manner, for prohibition. 
 
 Note 1. Yet the use of the two modes does not 
 seem to be precisely the same. The Subj. with m 
 is employed usually in general prohibitions ; e. g. 
 Mark x. 19, fi^ xXs^/pg, pri (povzvffr t g, etc.; while the 
 corresponding Imper. would seem to be a command 
 to desist from an action already begun ; e. g. /X7j pot 
 dvriXsys do not contradict me [as you have begun to 
 do] ; (h'/\ fioi dvn\s^r,g, you must never contradict me. 
 But the Fut. Indie, with oh is also employed for the 
 like purpose with the Subj. ; as oh xktyug, Matt. xix. 
 18, al. 
 
 (5.) More generally the Present Imper. has 
 reference to a continued or often repeated action, 
 while the Aorist is used in reference to a parti- 
 cular thing, which is done once for all ; but this 
 nicety is not always observed. 
 
 E. g. Aorist ; aoov gov rbv xodfiiSurov, take up thy 
 bed, Mark ii. 9. So Mark i. 44 ; hi. 5 ; vi. 11. John 
 ii. 7 ; xiii. 27. Acts i. 24, et al. saepe. In other 
 cases the usage is different, as /^sheers (Aor.), abide, 
 Matt. x. 11. John xv. 4. Acts xvi. 15. 1 John v. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 173 
 
 21, al. saepe, all indicating actions of an enduring 
 nature. 
 
 Present ; pri v-^yXotpooni be not high minded, 
 which is applicable at all times. So in Rom. xi. 20 ; 
 xii. 20 ; xiii. 3. James ii. 12. 1 Tim. iv. 7, et al. 
 saepe. It does not appear that the Pres. Imper. is 
 used for one particular action only ; but the Aor. 
 (which sometimes is used in the same sense as the 
 Present) is not unfrequently found in the same con- 
 nection with the Pres. Imper.; e. g in John ii. 16, 
 aoars...fxri koiutb' 1 Cor. xv. 34. Matt. iii. 3. 
 
 (6.) The Perf. Imper. is seldom employed in 
 the New Testament. When it is, it designates 
 the entire completion of the action, etc., com- 
 manded. 
 
 E. g. a-TroX'sXvGcu rrjg a&svsiag ffov, be thou entirety 
 freed from thine infirmity, Luke xiii. 12. Mark iv. 
 39. So in the classics, where it denotes that the ac- 
 tion is to be completed and to remain so ; Matth. II. 
 p. 947. 
 
 INFINITIVE. 
 
 § 50. NATURE AND USES OF THE INFINITIVE MODE. 
 
 (1.) The Inf. mode is a kind of abstract form 
 of the verb (nomen actionis vel passionis), which 
 of itself expresses limitations neither of time, 
 number, nor person. It is of a mixed character, 
 
174 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 partaking both of the nature of a verb and of a 
 noun. For the most part, its regimen as to nouns, 
 etc., connected with it, is the same as that of the 
 verb in the definite modes and tenses ; and this 
 even when it is employed as a noun. Hence it 
 is capable of nearly all the offices of a noun and 
 of a verb ; and often it stands in both relations 
 at one and the same time. 
 
 E. g. rb ft'sfjtys&au rfj xa%ia, the blaming of evil ; for 
 so we translate it, although xax/'a is in the Dat. go- 
 verned by fAs/j.ps(&a,i. So rb Samrovv av^PuiKovg the 
 killing of men, and so in a multitude of cases, where, 
 although the Gen. of relation is implied, the usual 
 regimen of the verb is retained. 
 
 (2.) The Inf. with or without the article, is 
 often used as the subject of a proposition ; it is so 
 used also, when connected with nouns, pronouns, 
 participles, adjectives, etc., which help to form 
 with it one composite subject. 
 
 E. g. £/' £^£<Tr/..3g^aT£us/v, is it lawful to heal, i. e. is 
 healing lawful ? Matt. xii. 10. So rb \yuv xgrj/iura, 
 7)dv serif the possession of wealth is pleasant ; rbya'i^nv 
 xccXov son. Composite subjects of a sentence, formed 
 in connection with the Inf., are also very common, as 
 y.aXov e&riv ri^as uds thai, that we should be here — is 
 good, Matt. xvii. 4, where the whole phrase jj/accs wdz 
 mat is the subject of the proposition. So xccXov sol I- 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 175 
 
 ffriv slasX^sTv slg tt\v fytvjv yjukfo r\ xv"kXbv, Matt, xviii. 8, 
 where all but the three first words constitute the sub- 
 ject of the sentence. Heb. xiii. 9. John xviii. 14. 
 1 Cor. xi. 13. 1 Pet. ii. 15, al. 
 
 Note 1. The article, when added to the Inf. in 
 such cases, does not seem to depart from its customary 
 usage before nouns. It is inserted when special stress 
 is laid by the writer on the Inf. ; and omitted in other 
 cases : e. g. zaXbv to fyXov&ai h xaXti, to be zealous 
 in a good thing is laudable, Gal. iv. 18. Rom. iv. 21. 
 1 Cor. vii. 11. Phil. i. 21, 29. 
 
 Note 2. Instead of the Inf., or the Inf. and words 
 connected with it, as the subject of a proposition, other 
 conditional modes and expressions are frequently em- 
 ployed ; e. g. xaXh %v abrti, u ov% lysvvrfir), Mark xiv. 
 21 ; so lav (auvwgiv ug xayu makes the subject, in 1 Cor. 
 vii. 8 ; ha syu ds-sXSw, in John xvi. 7 ; and often so. 
 This is not common in the earlier classics ; but it is 
 not unusual in the later ones. 
 
 (3.) The Infinitive is often employed to de- 
 signate the complement of verbs, t. e. to com- 
 plete the idea which is necessary to fill out the 
 sense of the preceding verb. 
 
 E. g. 3sXw aK&X^i/v, IXav'^ft) btaKoosvziv, u dvvaffai 
 w/trreDtfa/, Xsyuv efvai riva Iccvtov, and so after any verbs 
 which of themselves do not indicate a complete idea, 
 and have no noun, etc., as a direct object or comple- 
 ment. 
 
176 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 Note 1. The article is not unfrequently employed 
 before Infinitives of this kind also, and for its usual pur- 
 pose of emphasis or specification ; as rh XaXsTv yXtiffcoti; 
 (j.71 -/.ojXvsrs, forbid not the speaking with tongues, 1 Cor. 
 xiv. 39 ; ohy^ ao^ay^bv yiyrjGaro to zivai i6ct ^joj, he re- 
 garded not the being equal with God as a thing to be 
 eagerly coveted, Phil. ii. 6. Rom. xiv. 13. Acts iv. 
 18. Luke vii. 21, al. 
 
 (4.) The Inf. after another verb may have 
 the same subject (agent) as its preceding Verb: 
 or it may have a different one. 
 
 (a) When it has the same subject, that sub- 
 ject is of course understood to be in the Nomina- 
 tive, although not expressed, and any adjuncts, 
 adjectives, participles, etc., relating to this sub- 
 ject must be in the same case. 
 
 E. g. hXiriZo) diaffogsvofievog ^sdffu&at : o/j,ag, I hope, 
 when I pass through, to see you, i. e. I, passing 
 through, hope, etc., Rom. xv. 24; oso/xa/ rb /myi 
 vrap&v ^agp55<ra/, / pray that when present I may 
 not be bold, i. e. syu b'so^at naguv, '/.. r. A. I pray that 
 I when present, etc. 2 Cor. x. 2. Rom. i. 22. Acts 
 xiv. 10. So in the classics; 'ipuGxss zlvat dzfrTrorr,;- 
 s-rntra avrovg zhai Sho;, I have persuaded them that I 
 am a god. 
 
 (b) When the Inf. has a different subject 
 from that of the preceding verb, that subject is 
 regularly put in the accusative. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 177 
 
 E. g. (3ovXo[lcu crgotfrj^sffSa/ roug ai&gw-roug, I desire 
 that men should pray, 1 Tim. ii. 8. 2 Pet. i. 15. 1 
 Cor. vii. 10. Acts xiv. 19, al. saepe. 
 
 Note 1. Yet peculiar regimen may change the 
 case of the subject, and throw it out of the usual con- 
 struction, i. e. out of the Ace. ; e. g. xgiTrrov yv avrofg, 
 firj Iffsyvuxevcu rr t v odbv, x. r. X., where avroTg is put in 
 the Dat. after xgsTrrov, while, so far as the Inf. is con- 
 cerned, avrodg would be the regular construction, 2 
 Pet. ii. 21. So in the classics: do g [Lot (pavyvai afyoj, 
 help me to appear worthy; v>L7v...s£ > s<rri svdaifLott ysve- 
 <&a/, it is permitted to you to be fortunate ; avccffi 
 (Tv/s-Trsffsv . . .ysvsff^ai XapwrgoTg, it has happened to them 
 all, to become conspicuous. So, also, as to the Geni- 
 tive ; sbsovro avrov thai irgo§v[Lov, they besought him to be 
 ready; svgq<tsig...rvgavvovs...die<p§ugfL2vovg...v i n , b eratgav 
 ...doxovvrwv <piXuv shat, where <piXw agrees with the 
 preceding noun (srahojv), which is the subject of zhou. 
 All cases of this nature, in which the subject of the 
 Inf. is thrown out of the Ace. into another oblique 
 case, and where adjunct words (as above) conform 
 to that other oblique case, are called cases of attrac- 
 tion, because the predicate or adjunct word is at- 
 tracted to the same case with its principal noun or 
 pronoun. 
 
 But the student should note, that such attraction, 
 although admissible at the pleasure of an author, is 
 not always practised ; e. g. Herod. III. 36, hersiXaro 
 roTg SsDaKouffi, Xa(36v~ag [liv avroxreTwh he commanded 
 the servants, that they should take and kill him, 
 where the writer might have said Xu(3ouo't, but he has 
 
 N 
 
178 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 followed the usual construction, viz. the Ace. case. 
 Often is the regular construction (the Ace.) adopted 
 for the adjunct word, where the subject is so remote 
 from the Inf., that attraction would make the sense 
 obscure. 
 
 Note 2. Where the subject of the Inf. and of the 
 preceding verb is one and the same, it is not usual 
 to repeat it before the Inf. ; e. g. 6 <ptko$ 'itpn ttmvd&fytv, 
 i. e. abrbv (froudd^siv see also the examples under a 
 above. Yet where emphasis is demanded, the sub- 
 ject may be repeated, and then it is put in the Ace. 
 case, like the examples under b ; e. g. syoJ ificcvrbv o\j 
 "hoyiZppcu x.arzi\f)<p'svaj, Phil. iii. 13. So xcU /m ou 
 vofj,i7u KaTdct Gov tttpvxevai, I do not think myself to have 
 been born your child, Eurip. Ale. 657 ; and thus not 
 unfrequently in the classics. Winer, p. 265. Rost, 
 p. 507. 
 
 (5.) The Inf. alone, or with more or fewer 
 words joined with it (as may be necessary to 
 complete any particular expression of thought), 
 is often employed for the purposes of defining, 
 limiting, specifying, explaining, etc., the pre- 
 ceding expression. 
 
 E. g. tyuv oora azovziv, having ears to hear, i. e. 
 ears adapted to hear, or made for the purpose of 
 hearing, Luke viii. 8 ; s^oocia ywouxec mgiuyuv, power 
 to lead about a wife, where the Infin. Ksgiuyw, defines 
 the nature of the power, 1 Cor. ix. 5 ; a <ra£sXa/3oy 
 xgureTv, which they have received in order to retain 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 179 
 
 or holdfast, Mark vii. 4 ; 'idujx.av avrw <me7v o^og, they 
 gave him vinegar to drink, i. e. that he might drink 
 it, Matt, xxvii. 34 ; oh fisrevorjeav houvai uutuj doi~uv, 
 they did not repent to give him glory, i. e. so as to 
 give him glory, Rev. xvi. 9 ; y^oimv vrgosxuwjtfttt 
 ahruj, we have come in order to worship him, Matt, 
 ii. 2. Rev. xii. 2. 2 Pet. iii. 1, 2. 1 Cor. i. 17 ; x. 
 7. Matt. xi. 7 ; xx. 28. Luke i. 17. John iv. 15, 
 al. saepe. See Matth. § 532, d., for evidences of the 
 like usage in the classics. In fact, the use of the Inf. 
 in them, is even more lax than in the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 Note 1. In cases where design is to be indicated 
 by the Inf., it often takes wffrs before it ; e. g. xa- 
 rqoy'forifJMv ocrb ro\j v6/j,ov...o!)6ts dovXsvstv, in order that 
 we might serve, etc., Rom. vii. 6. Luke ix. 52. 2 
 Cor. iii. 7, al. saepe. Once &g is used for wars, Acts 
 xx. 24 ; so also, occasionally in the classics, Rost, § 
 125, 8. 
 
 (6.) The Inf. is often employed after adjec- 
 tives, which of themselves do not imply a mean- 
 ing that is of itself complete, but only ability or 
 fitness to do or be something, or a general qua- 
 lity which needs specification in order to be as 
 definite as the writer intends it should be. 
 
 E. g. such adjectives as duvarbg, olog rs, ddvvarog, r/.u- 
 vbg, ayo&bg, ga<3/oj, yjxKiitbg, ci^iog, [3a.pvg, xaxbg, o/aoioc, 
 ro/ovrog, and the like, take the Inf. after them ; and so 
 all adjectives whose nature requires something to be 
 
180 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 added, in order to complete or define the idea which 
 they express; as dvvarog xuXveat, Acts xi. 17 ; havoc 
 ...XD<ra/, Mark i. 7, etc. So gadwv vorjffui, yraXixbv 
 Asynv, etc. 
 
 (7.) The Inf. is often employed as a noun in 
 all cases, (the Voc. of compellation only except- 
 ed) ; in which state it takes the article with its 
 variations, but in other respects remains inde- 
 clinable. 
 
 For the Nom. case (when it is the subject of a pro- 
 position), see Nos. 1, 2, above. Of the Genitive, 
 examples almost without number might be adduced ; 
 e. g. (in a gerundial sense), igoutf/a rov /xn !gya£s<fta/, 
 1 Cor. ix. 1 ; s\<?rt$ rou /xsrs^s/i/, 1 Cor. ix. 10. 1 Pet. 
 iv. 17. Acts xiv. 9; xx. 3 ; xxiii. 15. Luke xxiv. 
 25. So after verbs and prepositions governing the 
 Genitive ; as eku%i rov §vfiiaGau f Luke i. 9. Rom. 
 xv. 22. Luke iv. 42. Acts x. 47 ; xiv. 18; xx. 27, 
 
 1 Pet. iii. 10. 1 Cor. xvi. 4. Heb. ii. 15, al saepe. 
 And thus in the classics. 
 
 The Dative ; as iv r& azovsiv, Acts viii. 6; h r& 
 xa&tvdetv, Matt. xiii. 25. Luke i. 8. Gal. iv. 18. 
 Acts iii. 26, al. saepe ; and so in the classics. 
 
 The Accusative ; as e/g rb im thai, 1 Cor. x. 6. 
 
 2 Cor. viii. 6, c^oc rb Ssc&^a/, Matt. vi. 1. 2 Cor. 
 iii. 13 ; fxsrd rb lyso^ijvai fie, Matt. xxvi. 32. Luke 
 xii. 5. Mark i. 14. In like manner the Inf. with 
 •-p'tv or irglv n may be considered as an Inf. nominas- 
 cens ; e. g. mfh dTo^avsTv rb rrcuhiov /aov, John iv. 49. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 181 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 34; i. 18. Acts vii. 2. John viii. 58. 
 Often with to and without a preposition. And thus 
 in the classics. 
 
 (8.) The Inf. with rov and rSt before it (the 
 usual signs of the Gen. and Dative), particu- 
 larly with rov, has a widely extended use in the 
 New Testament, which is hardly capable of 
 being defined by precise limits. 
 
 (a) Specially is the Inf. with rov used to indicate 
 design, end to be accomplished ; and this in almost 
 every kind of connection. E. g. ' To open their 
 eyes, rov aKoerg&^cti owrb ffzorovg, in order to turn them 
 from darkness' Acts xxvi. 18; ' No man shall set on 
 thee, rov xaxutai o~s, in order to do thee harm,' Acts 
 xviii. 10; * A sower s^X%v...rov <j<7Ts?pcu, went out... 
 for to sow, 1 Mark iv. 3. Luke xxii. 31. Heb. x. 7. 
 Rom. vi. 6. Acts xxi. 12. James v. 17, al. saepe. 
 Luke and Paul abound in this idiom ; also the Sept. 
 in like manner. Nor is this mode of constructing 
 the Inf. foreign to the classics, but of frequent oc- 
 currence, particularly in the later Greek. 
 
 Note 1. Cases of this nature should be carefully 
 distinguished from those in which the verb governs 
 the Inf. nominascens in the Genitive ; e. g. hv/ionrd- 
 /j,r}v...rov sa^sTv, Rom. xv. 22. So in Luke iv. 42. 
 Acts x. 47 ; xiv. 18 ; xx. 27, al. 
 
 (b) There are many cases, however, where rov 
 with the Inf. is employed in a much more lax sense, 
 and merely as epexegetical ; sometimes, indeed, it 
 
182 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 seems to be used merely as a common Infinitive ; e. 
 g. « He evilly treated our fathers, rou mtih 'ix^zra ra 
 (3ge<pi} } so that they made outcasts of their children? 
 Acts vii. 19; ' Why gaze ye at us, ug... mnotrixoei rou 
 xszixarzTv ccurbv as having made him to walk? Acts 
 iii. 12; xgtvw ..J<7ritfr2?}Mi auroTg rou dcrgp££<rSa/, I am of 
 the opinion .. .that we should send to them to abstain, 
 etc., Acts xv. 20 ; He will give his angels charge con- 
 cerning thee, rou diupvXu^ai, to keep thee, etc.* Luke 
 iv. 10 ; ' And when it was thought good rou a.wov'k&Tv 
 r,[Aug, that we should sail? Acts xxvii. 1 ; 'he set his 
 face rou kopsvs&gii, to go? Luke ix. 51. The three 
 last cases may be said to partake of the nature of the 
 Inf. with design, as described under a above. But 
 not unfrequently, of two infinitives standing in the 
 same predicament, the one has rou before it, while 
 the other omits it; e. g. Luke i. 79, e-7n<p&ivcu...rou xa- 
 reu^vvar Luke i. 77, sroi/xoio'ai...rou douvar ib. v. 72, 
 73, Kotr i Gai...{j,v7j<&rivuf„.rou douvou, etc. In the Sept. 
 this lax manner of employing the Inf. with rou is 
 everywhere to be met with; e. g. Josh. xxii. 26. 1 
 Kings xiii. 16 ; xvi. 19 ; viii. 18. Judith xiii. 12, 20. 
 1 Mace. vi. 59. Ruth i. 16. Joel ii. 21, and al. 
 saepissime. 
 
 Note 2. Such a lax use of rou with the Inf., even 
 in cases where design or end is not the specific object, 
 belongs only to the later Greek; the frequency of it, 
 only to Hellenism or Hebraism. The Hebrews used 
 their Inf. with b in a similar manner. One can hard- 
 ly doubt that the Sept. and New Testament have, in 
 some measure, been modified by this Hebrew usage. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 183 
 
 (c) The Inf. with ru> before it, may be reckoned as 
 a species of Inf. nominascens, where the Dat. case 
 designates (as elsewhere, § 18, 5) the cause or occa- 
 sion ; e. g. 'I had no rest in my mind, rw fir] svgzTv 
 T/rov because I did not find Titus,' 2 Cor. ii. 12. And 
 so in the classics. But this is not a common usage of 
 the New Testament. In 1 Thess. iii. 3, rut /irjdsm 
 tra.ive&ai, that no one should be shaken, seems to be 
 used in the same manner as tig rb /Ayd'eva camera/, or 
 
 (9.) The Inf. is sometimes employed in an 
 Imperative and hortatory sense. 
 
 Note 1. This is very frequent among the ancient 
 Greek poets ; Matth. §§ 546, 547. Of course it is 
 employed for the Imper. 2d and 3d persons ; also for 
 the Subjunctive 1st pers. plural, etc. This is not com- 
 mon in the New Testament ; but dovvai in Rev. x. 9, 
 sldsvat, in Col. iv. 6, croi^sTv in Phil. iii. 16, seems to 
 be used in an imperative or hortatory sense. In 
 such cases, it is usual for grammarians to supply deT, 
 fxs/j.v7j&&, etc., before the Inf. ; but this is superfluous, 
 inasmuch as the idiom is so common in the better 
 classics. 
 
 (10.) The usual distinction between the Inf. 
 Aor., as marking- a thing that happens but once 
 or is soon passed ; and the Present, as marking 
 continued action ; is generally observed in the 
 New Testament, as well as in the classics. 
 
184 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 (a) Aorist after the Praeterite of another verb ; as 
 bvdeig qdvmro avrbv dqaai, Mark v. 3; ovx r^iksv... 
 Ivagai, Luke xviii. 13. John vi. 21. Mark ii. 4. 
 (b) Aorist when an action of short continuance is 
 plainly intended; e. g. dvva&s . . .siKro/Jj<ra/, ye can... 
 give alms, Mark xiv. 7 ; luvrov ou dvvarut ffuffai, Mark 
 xv. 31 ; xiv. 31. Matt. xix. 3; v. 13. John iii. 4 ; 
 xi. 37 ; ix. 27; xii. 21. Acts iv. 16. Rev. ii. 21, 
 al. saepe. 
 
 (c) So after verbs signifying to hope, promise, com- 
 mand, wish, will, etc. ; e. g. JX-r/^srs aKoXafiilv, Luke 
 vi. 34. Mark xiv. 1J. Acts ii. 30; iii. 18. Rom. 
 xv. 24. 1 Cor. xvi. 7. (d) In like manner after cr^/v 
 and toiv t]' e. g. Matt. i. 18. Luke xxii. 34. Acts ii. 
 20 ; vii. 2, al. 
 
 Note 1. Yet this usage of employing the Aorist 
 to designate temporary action, is not so strenuously 
 observed as to admit of no exception ; see Rom. xv. 
 9. <5egatfa/, et al. similia in al. locis. 
 
 On the other hand ; (e) The present is sometimes 
 employed to designate continued action or influence, 
 etc. ; as s/ms fo7 s^y&ZiG^ai, it becomes me constantly to 
 ply my work, John ix. 4 ; ' If any will koisTv [habitu- 
 ally] do the will of God,' etc., John vii. 17 ; ' No one 
 is able dovXsvsiv, to serve two masters, Luke xvi. 13. 
 Matt. vi. 24. Mark ii. 19, et al saepe. 
 
 Note 2. Whether the writer will represent an ac- 
 tion as of short duration and taking place once for all, 
 or as Continued, often depends entirely on the design 
 of his own mind, or on the view which he takes of 
 it, rather than on the nature of the thing itself. Hence 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 185 
 
 many apparent cases of exception to the principles 
 here laid down occur ; e. g. Luke xiv. 28 ; xx. 22 ; 
 xix. 5. John xvi. 19. The two constructions (Inf. 
 Aor. and Pres.) are sometimes even commingled in 
 the same sentence; as Mark xiv. 71 ; which happens 
 also, not unfrequently, in the classics ; Winer p. 276. 
 The helping verb //^Xaw takes either Pres., Aor., or 
 Fut. after it. 
 
 (11.) The Perf, and Future commonly retain 
 their appropriate meaning in the Inf. mode. 
 
 (12.) The Inf. is not unfrequently exchanged 
 for the Subj. with ha. 
 
 E. g. ' My meat is ha koiu, that I may do the will, 
 etc., John iv. 34 ; 'lam not worthy, ha Ajcw/ etc., 
 John i. 27 ; and thus very often in the New Testa- 
 ment. The like constructions also occur in the classics ; 
 Wirier, § 45. 9. 
 
 PARTICIPLE. 
 
 § 51. NATURE AND OBJECT OF THE PARTICIPLE. 
 
 (1.) The principal difficulty with respect to 
 a correct understanding of the Participle, (the 
 real participle, and not a mere participial adjec- 
 tive), consists in rightly distinguishing it from 
 the Inf. mode, as to its true signification. Both 
 
186 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 depend on another verb, i. e. they must precede 
 or follow a verb, and have a necessary relation 
 to it; and in certain cases the same sentiment 
 (for substance) might be expressed by either; 
 although in general they are quite distinct. 
 
 (2.) The Inf. mode (as the object of a sentence) 
 expresses, (a) The result, i. e. design, or designed 
 consequence, of the action designated by its pre- 
 ceding verb, (b) The simple object of the main 
 verb; like a noun in the Ace. case, (c) The 
 limitations with which, or respect in which, the 
 word to which it stands related is to be taken. 
 The Inf. may be employed either with or with- 
 out an agent, according to the nature of the case ; 
 and when it has one, it designates not the quality, 
 etc., of the agent, but only how he may act, 
 feel, etc. 
 
 On the other hand ; the Participle always de- 
 signates some quality, power, attribute, (either 
 active or passive), as belonging to a person or 
 thing. For the most part it designates that 
 which exists independently of the agency ex- 
 pressed by the principal verb, i. e. something 
 belonging to the agent or object of the sentence ; 
 while the Inf. designates that which is to be 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 187 
 
 brought about by the agency of the principal 
 verb, or that which is actually effected or affect- 
 ed by it, or that which serves to explain the 
 manner or measure of its action. 
 
 On these distinctions between the Part, and Inf. 
 mode depend some of the greatest niceties of the 
 Greek language. They merit, therefore, an attentive 
 consideration. The subject may, in some measure, 
 be illustrated by examples. 
 
 (a) The Inf. expresses design ; e. g. ^sXu ygd<psiv, 
 I ivishto write. Here, the meaning of Ssaco by itself 
 is incomplete ; its complement is ygaps/v, which shows 
 the object that is willed or desired. The same is 
 the case with all other verbs, whose meaning is in- 
 complete in itself. Specially do all verbs that de- 
 signate the action of the senses internal or external, 
 whether primary or secondary, require a comple- 
 ment ; e. g. to see, hear, perceive, understand, prove, 
 show, tell, disclose, remember, forget, etc., etc., all 
 require a complement or object, towards which the 
 action is directed, or on which it falls. QsXoj y%a<povru, 
 would make a sense entirely different from SsXw ygd- 
 <pziv, as every one instantly perceives. 
 
 Note 1. Verbs, which in some of their meanings 
 are complete or intransitive, may take the Inf. after 
 them in other meanings that are incomplete ; and so 
 it may stand after whole phrases, or after adjectives, 
 or nouns, which require a complement in order to 
 complete their meaning. 
 
188 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 (b) The Inf. of object is nearly allied to the pre- 
 ceding, and hardly needs to be made distinct ; e. g. 
 evrsies /xe noorjst&ai, he persuaded me to go ; svo&zrrfii 
 ajrbv ffuppovzfi, he advised him to be considerate ; in 
 all which cases, the Ace. of the Part, would give the 
 sentence wholly a different turn, inasmuch as the par- 
 ticiple would designate a quality already existing, or 
 an action already performed or designed to be so ; e. 
 g. hov§er?)fev avrbv c>oj<pgovovvra, he advised him being 
 considerate, etc, 
 
 (c) The Inf. expresses limitation or explanation ; 
 e. g. sx.a!vvT0... vTJa xu/S^v/jca/, he excelled as to steering 
 a ship ; §hiv avz/Aoicav o/aoToi, like the winds in respect 
 to running ; dXsysivoi <3a,tt^asva/, difficult as to being 
 subdued ; where the participle would make a sense not 
 at all resembling that of the Infinitive. 
 
 On the other hand ; (d) The Participle designates 
 quality, etc., of some person or thing, as existing in 
 past, present, or future time, (according to the tense 
 of the Part.;) e. g. hoj cs youtpovra' dzovoj (fz hihd<S'/.ovra m 
 or where the subject of the Part, and the verb are the 
 same, as olda %yjrbg ujv, lit. being mortal I know it, 
 i. e. I know that I am mortal. It is only where the 
 Part, is of the Future, that it designates a meaning 
 hardly to be distinguished from the Inf. ; e. g. 'i^/o^ai 
 <podcuv, I am come in order to tell ; where s^o/xa/ 
 <pod<sai would designate for substance the same mean- 
 ing. All that needs to be said, in cases such as this 
 latter one, is, that the mode of expression is different. 
 
 Remark. The difference between the Inf. and 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 189 
 
 Part, may be more briefly stated in the following man- 
 ner ; viz., the Part, is employed whenever a state or 
 condition is designated, in which the subject or object 
 of the sentence is, or is considered as being ; the Inf. 
 is employed whenever a writer means to assert, that 
 a particular state or condition is yet to take place, or 
 can take place. But even here, the Part, of the Fu- 
 ture (as 'zoyjjijjai pgditfuv) can hardly be distinguished as 
 to meaning from the Inf. (as in eiyo/aou podffai.) 
 
 Note 1. Additional illustrations of these distinc- 
 tions may be made ; e. g. Luke xvi. 3, sirairsTv alcyjo- 
 m/jjui, I am ashamed to beg, i. e. to betake myself to 
 begging, which I do not now practice ; but i-Trairojv 
 ajGyjuo/juai, I am ashamed of begging, or being a beg- 
 gar I am ashamed, would indicate of course that he 
 was already in the practice of begging. In like man- 
 ner, 6 yji'Auv r<§X iT0 yiy^t^ai, the winter was about to 
 set in, or began to set in ; while 6 yji^wv '/]oyjTo ysvo- 
 l&svog means, the winter had already commenced. So 
 qjLoutia rbv ATjfxoa^svr, Xsyovrct, I heard Demosthenes say, 
 i. e. I heard him with my own ears ; while dxovu rbv 
 A?i{j,o(fosv7} Xeyziv, 1 hear that Demosthenes says, i. e. 
 I have heard it from another. In like manner, zXaistv 
 tyaivsro, he seemed to iveep ; while yXuiw spa/Wo would 
 mean, he visibly or plainly wept. ' Aryjyys/Xaro 57 
 ■-6/.1; -o/jopzov/Asvri, it is reported that the city is be- 
 sieged, lit. the city besieged is reported, such being 
 actually the case in the view of the speaker : while 
 u-rr/ysiXaro r, rro/.ic wo\iogxs7(&ai would mean, it is re- 
 ported [merely] that the city is besieged. 
 
190 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 § 52. CONSTRUCTION OF PARTICIPLES. 
 
 (1.) Participles, in general, stand only in con- 
 nection with ajinite verb, or with a noun. 
 
 (2.) As a general rule, they conform as to 
 gender, number, and case, to the nouns which they 
 qualify, define, etc. In this respect they put on 
 the nature of adjectives ; and they are also sub- 
 ject to anomalies of concord, in the same manner 
 as adjectives. 
 
 Note 1. Nouns of multitude may have a Part, 
 plural ; or a Part, singular may be connected with the 
 plural agent of a verb, when it is intended to desig- 
 nate the generic idea of each, as %Q>gwfLev 7 Xafiuv, let 
 ms go, each one taking. In general, where Participles 
 differ from their nouns in respect to case, it is the re- 
 sult of dvaxoXv^ov in the sentence ; see § 73. 
 
 Note 2. (a) If the subject of a Part, is the same 
 with that of the verb, it is of course put in the Nomi- 
 native ; as olda ^vyjrbg wv a^o/y^ai diddffzojv. (b) If the 
 subject be in the Ace, so is the Part. ; as 7]%o\j6cx, at>- 
 rbv Xsyovra. (c) So also as to the Gen. and Dative ; 
 as f\6^7iaai /&ov rl ahixovvrgarrov-os' have you known me 
 as doing any thing unjust? Ovd'sTore (tsrefi'sXriGs poi 
 ffr/TjGuvTi, I never repented of being silent. 
 
 (3.) The Greek language possesses a peculiar 
 power of construction, in regard to the latitude 
 with which Participles are employed in the place 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 191 
 
 of verbs, i. e. to express that which might be ex- 
 pressed by verbs in another mode of construc- 
 tion. Every action which a writer or speaker 
 may suppose to be preparatory or introductory to 
 some more principal and important action, may 
 be expressed by a Participle. 
 
 E. g. sX^mv iibv u-Toxoftsig s/Vg* dxo-jffccg l^au/xaffs' 
 where as to the sense, one might say, jfX^s zoci slds, 
 etc. The advantage of the Part, is, that it varies 
 the construction and avoids the use of the conjunc- 
 tion which must be inserted between verbs. 
 
 Note 1. Two or more participles may be used, 
 in such a connection, without any intervening %ar as 
 x.aruj3a,g ...KgoasX'Stjjv d-s-Av\i<?s rbv Xfoov, Matt, xxviii. 
 2; a%o-jojv...Kz6tov e'£tyv%e, Acts v. 5. Luke ix. 16 ; 
 xvi. 23 ; xxiii. 48. Mark i. 41, al. The omission of 
 xou denotes that all the participles are closely allied 
 to one and the same final and principal action. Some- 
 times one Part, is before the principal verb, and an- 
 other after it ; as g/\J;av.. J^^gi/...//,?]^ /SXa-v^ac, Luke 
 iv. 35 ; x. 30. Acts xiv. 19, al. 
 
 Note 2. There are a few cases, on the contrary, 
 in which the principal action is designated by the 
 Part. ; while the verb joined with it has only a subor- 
 dinate, and often an adverbial sense. Such secondary 
 verbs are rvyj/dvoj, Xai^ai/w, <p§dvoj, diocrsXsco, diayivo'ACti, 
 didyoj, dhtfi/i, p/a/oai, and oiy^pi^ar e. g. o/' gVir/ov <ra- 
 govreg, who were present, where 'iruypv is a mere help- 
 ing verb; 5/argrgXsxa tpzvywv rb fAoi&dvsiv, I always 
 
]92 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 avoid learning ; o't Sso/ yaiooxxsi ripoj/Asvot, the gods 
 gladly receive honour; Ig av <fiavr t suegysruv, whoever 
 first shows favour, etc. 
 
 Note 3. In some cases it is a matter of indif- 
 ference, as to the sense, which of two verbs is used as 
 a participle ; e. g. #x« xaXwg iroiwv, or xaKujg koiZj 
 ijxwv, et al. saepe. 
 
 (4.) The Present Part., with the article, often 
 becomes a mere substantive, i. e. nomen agentis, 
 excluding all idea of tense or time. But even 
 such participles often govern the same cases as 
 their verbs; although they are sometimes con- 
 structed as nouns. 
 
 E. g. 6 GicsigM, o '/./.s-rrruv, 6 vizuiv, 6 tpu,6(>uv, o irsigd^uv, 
 etc. As to regimen ; 6 vrgd<ftfuv ravra, 6 diuxw rjfiag, 
 6 ttoiojv rods ^fyaxag, etc. The construction of sub- 
 stantive-participles as nouns is by no means unfre- 
 quent; e.g. rrshg ro b/uuv avruv ffv/j,psDov, where eufjupegov 
 has the Gen. bpuv, etc., 1 Cor. vii. 35. So rot /xizpu 
 6vfi<phovra rr\g irokecog, Demosthenes. 
 
 (5.) Participles with the article (when not em- 
 ployed as nouns), often express the sense of 
 who, he who, etc. ; i. e. the article joined with 
 them appears to bear this sense. 
 
 E. g. e7dov...rov$ wtuvrag, I saw those who had con- 
 quered, Rev. xv. 2 ; 6 biwxuv fifi&g -~ors, vuv svuy- 
 yi'/.i'^zrai, he who once persecuted, etc., Gal. i. 23. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 193 
 
 The mere participial noun may be simply translated 
 as a noun ; e. g. 6 gvreiguv, the sower. Where the 
 noun of this kind is required to be indefinite, the ar- 
 ticle may be omitted before the participle; and where 
 a participial sense is retained, the article may be 
 omitted when there is no stress laid upon the parti- 
 ciple; see § 3, 2. Note 1. 
 
 (6.) Participles often express the relations of 
 time, and we must, in translating them, supply 
 when, while, during, etc. 
 
 This cannot be thought strange, inasmuch as Par- 
 ticiples retain the distinctions of tense. E. g. obyj 
 fievov, col sfAeve ; while it remained, etc., Acts v. 4. 1 
 Thess. hi. 6. So II. I. 46, < The arrows on the shoul- 
 der of him in a rage, sounded ahrov x/i/j$si/rog, ivhen he 
 moved; KuXXiddou a^ovrog, while Calliades governed. 
 The same with M before the participle; Matth. § 
 565, 1. 
 
 (7.) Participles often express a casual rela- 
 tion ; in which case because, since, etc., must be 
 supplied in translating them. 
 
 E. g. Acts iv. 21, ' They set him at liberty, fir^bh 
 sug/tfxovrsg, because they found nothing' etc It is dif- 
 ficult to speak to the appetite, wra oux h/ovra, because 
 it has no ears ; Matth. § 565, 2. 
 
 (8.) Participles often express limitation or 
 conditionally ; in which case we supply if, al- 
 though, etc 
 
194 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 E. g. < She will not be an adulteress, yzvo{jt.evr)v er'sgu 
 dvdgi, if, or provided, she become another man's [wife]/ 
 Rom. vii. 3. ' AvsyxXi^Toi ovrsc, if, or provided, they 
 are blameless, 1 Tim. iii. 10 ; iv. 4 ; vi. 8. 2 Pet. i. 
 S. So with although; 'roffccvra avrov 6r\ixi7a ftzvoiYjXoroz, 
 although he did so many miracles, they did not believe, 
 etc., John xii. 37 ; xai roffovruv ovroov, and although 
 there were so many, yet, &c. John xxi. 11. Luke 
 xviii. 7. James iii. 4. 1 Pet. ii. 19. 1 Tim. i. 7, al. 
 
 (9.) The Future tense of the Part, is rarely 
 employed, except after verbs of motion ; and 
 with these it is very common. 
 
 E. g. 'igxpiAai (pouGow, I come to tell ; cs ye diddi^ojv 
 u>p/j,ri{Aai, I hasten to teach thee ; ' It is meet to bring 
 him who does wrong before the judges, dizqv duxrovra, 
 that he may receive punishment. 
 
 (10.) Participles are often joined with w£, 
 which makes their meaning subjective rather than 
 objective. 
 
 The meaning is, that us, qualifies them so, that 
 they merely declare the opinion, supposition, con- 
 clusion, etc., of the agents to which they refer ; or 
 else merely what is probable or apparent, in distinc- 
 tion from what is real and matter of fact. E. g. Ar- 
 taxerxes took hold of Cyrus, wg anQxrsvvv, as if he 
 was about to kill him ;' ' Overlooking other cities, u$ 
 ov% civ dvva^svovg fiovfiijaai, as if, or as believing that, 
 they were unable to assist ; ug d-Triovrsg, as desirous to 
 go away ;' < They punish him who withdraws, wg 
 vragavofioiivra, inasmuch as they consider him as a 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 195 
 
 transgressor;' < The Athenians made ready, wg 
 <7ro\s/j,rjffovrs<;, expecting to engage in a war ; Luke 
 xvi. 1, ug diaffnogfri^wv, as one supposed to waste; wg 
 d<ro(trge<povra, as one supposed to pervert, etc., Luke 
 xxiii. 14, al. But this idiom, so common in the 
 classics, is not very frequent in the New Testament. 
 
 (11.) Participles are frequently joined with 
 verbs of existence (stfii ytyvoftcu, rvyyavu,) and 
 then stand in the room of a finite verb. 
 
 This we can fully appreciate, inasmuch as we can 
 say in English with equal propriety, / do, I am doing, 
 I write, I am writing, I have been writing, etc. So 
 the Greeks ; ' The stars of heaven saovrou sx<7ri-7rrovrzg, 
 lit. shall be falling, i. e. shall fall, Mark xiii. 25. Luke 
 v. 1. 2 Cor. v. 19. Mark xv. 43. Luke xxiv. 32 ; 
 i. 22 ; v. 10. Acts i. 10, al. saepe. The examples 
 in the New Testament appear to be mostly (if not 
 all) of the Pres. tense of the Part.; but in the 
 classics, other tenses are employed, as xoarfoag qv, 
 Herodian. The later classics abound in this idiom ; 
 the early ones more rarely employ it. 
 
 Note 1. The verbs yiyvo/j,ai, hxaoyw, ruyyjcvo), 
 are employed in the same manner as elfii, with par- 
 ticiples. Also the verbs $xw (to come), il<u {to go), 
 'ioyo^at (to come) are frequently joined in like manner 
 with participles. So zyju is also used ; in which case 
 its only force seems to be, to give the idea of per- 
 manency to the meaning of the participle ; e. g. Sau/xa- 
 eag 'iyju, I have wondered, i. e. have long been won- 
 dering. 
 
196 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 § 53. PARTICIPLES IN THE CASE ABSOLUTE. 
 
 (1.) The construction of Participles, thus far 
 considered, has relation only to those cases 
 where they qualify the agent of the principal 
 verb, or some object to which it stands related ; 
 and consequently are connected with, or de- 
 pendent on, the principal verb. But there are 
 many cases, where the Part, has a subject of its 
 own, which is different from the subject or object of 
 the principal verb. In this case there is a pecu- 
 liarity of construction, called the case abso- 
 lute ; which needs a particular explanation. 
 
 (2.) Generally participles thus conditioned 
 express a relation either of time or cause ; and 
 therefore (as the Gen. is adapted to the expres- 
 sion of these) they are put in the Genitive. 
 
 E. g. avrov zl-irwrog, irdvrzg sti/yuv, while he was 
 speaking, all were silent; SsoD dtdovrog, ovdsv Jg^vn 
 <p§6vog, when God permits, envy avails nothing ; 
 The city was not the richer, xgocodojv avrfj ttXziovojv yi- 
 vo/msvuv, because it had many sources of revenue ; ovtoj 
 tou aiojvog ffgoxs^wgrj/iorog, thus because his age was ad- 
 vanced, he went, etc. 
 
 Note 1. When the agent or object of the verb 
 and of the Part, is the same, then the Part, stands in 
 the same case with such object or agent ; (a) The 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 197 
 
 agent or Nom. of the verb being also the subject of 
 the Part., the Part., of course usually takes the Nom. 
 case ; as alffyovo/Mai ravra <?roiu)v or Kotqffag, I am 
 ashamed that I do, or have done these things ; dia- 
 (3sfi\Yi{tevog ov (j,av$dvag ; being calumniated dost thou 
 not perceive it? So in the Pass, voice ; s^sX^Xsy/crai 
 ii/Aug axaruv, he is convicted of deceiving us ; YjyysX^yj 
 6 <&i\i'7r<7rog rrp "OXvfoov Ko'kiopxojv, it was announced 
 that Philip was besieging Olynthus, lit., Philip be- 
 sieging Olynthus, teas announced ; in which the Greek 
 form of expression has the advantage over ours in 
 point of brevity and energy. 1 Cor. xiv. 18. Acts 
 xvi. 34. 
 
 (b) When the Part, refers to the object of the verb, 
 its accord with this in respect to gender, number, 
 and case, is a matter of course, a few peculiar cases only 
 excepted ; e. g. ' The Persians relate rbv Kugov 'iyjavra. 
 pu&v, etc., that Cyrus had a disposition, i. e. they 
 tell of Cyrus as one having, etc. So in the Gen. 
 and Dative; ^VSo//^ avruv oto/nsvuv efrau <fo<purdrwv, I 
 perceived that they deemed themselves to be very wise ; 
 ovdsffors fMSTifAXrjffs ixoi fftyytfavri, I never repent of 
 having kept silence. See § 52, 2, Note 2, where the 
 same subject is treated of in a general point of view. 
 Luke viii. 46. Acts xxiv. 10. 2 John v. 7. 
 
 (c) In case the verb has a reflexive pronoun after 
 it, differing in case from the subject or Nom., the 
 Part, may be in the Nom. or in the same oblique 
 case as the reflexive pronoun; e. g. cuvoida s/xavru> 
 co<pbg fittv, or no(pu> ovtu 
 
198 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 (3.) As the Dative also is sometimes used in 
 designating time, cause, occasion, etc., so the case 
 absolute of participles is sometimes the Dative. 
 
 E. g. xarafiuvr/ avrti, when he had descended, Matt, 
 -viii. 1 ; sX^ovn avrip, when he had come, Matt. xxi. 
 23. But this is rare in the New Testament. In the 
 Greek classics it is also rare ; but still it is clearly an 
 idiom belonging to the Greek ; Matth. § 562, 2. 
 
 (4.) The Ace. and Nom. are also employed 
 occasionally in the Greek classics, as the case 
 absolute. In the New Testament, no examples 
 of this kind occur, which may not be explained 
 on the grounds of apposition, or anacoluthon ; 
 see § 73, § 58. 
 
 E. g. Tovg (3ovg ^aorroutf/, rd xs^ara u^sg^ovra, they 
 bury the oxen, the horns sticking out, where x£|ara, 
 etc. indicates a circumstance belonging to (3ovg, and 
 is put as it were in apposition with it. ' That he 
 might have twelve years instead of six, a) vbxreg fi/aspou 
 Tonu/Mvai, the nights being computed as days,* where 
 is a kind of apposition ; Buttm. § 145, Note 4. Such 
 a kind of Nom. absolute is not unfrequent in the clas- 
 sics, where the Part, is of an impersonal nature ; Rost, 
 § 131, 5. Matth. § 564. The Part, in the neuter 
 gender, often stands, in cases of this nature, in a kind 
 of apposition to a whole clause or sentence ; as ffv ds 
 ozdiwg civ, rb Xsyo/jbsvov, rr\v ffavrou gkiccv, but you, fearing 
 your own shadow, as it is said, would answer, etc. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 199 
 
 § 54. PARTICIPIAL USE OF THE TENSES. 
 
 (1.) The Present Part, designates not merely 
 
 something now present, but may also designate 
 
 what is now commencing and is to be continued, 
 
 or what is immediately to commence. 
 
 E. g. dTo^v)j<r?cwi', moriturus or dying in the sense of 
 being already in extremis. Matt. xxvi. 28, rb aT/xa 
 .... to lx%vvfcfievov, the blood .. .which is about to be shed. 
 So didofievov, in Luke xxii. 19 ; xXoj/llsvov, in 1 Cor. xi. 
 24. So all these cases may be solved, by considering 
 the Part, as expressing what is mentally regarded as 
 Present. Rom. xv. 25, biaxovwv. 1 Peter i. 7. 
 
 (2.) The Pres. Part, is often employed in the 
 
 sense of the Imperfect. 
 
 E. g. egsvvuvrsg, who searched, 1 Pet. i. 11 ; * I saw 
 seven angels, e%ovra$ ifkriyag, who had plagues, Rev. 
 xv. 1, 6. Acts xxi. 16 ; xxv. 3. Matt. xiv. 21. In par- 
 ticular, the Part. Pres. is often connected with a verb 
 Praeterite, in order to designate something done, etc., 
 at the time when another thing was done which the 
 principal verb announces ; e. g. ' on the following day, 
 w£&?j avroTg //.a^o/xsvo/j, he shewed himself to them when 
 they were contending, Acts vii. 26 ; xviii. 5. Heb. xi. 
 22. Luke v. 18, al. saepe. Very often is the Part, m 
 employed in the sense of the Imperf. ; e. g. John i. 49 ; 
 v. 13 ; xi. 31 ; xxi. 11. Acts vii. 2; xi. 1 ; xviii. 24. 
 1 Cor. viii. 9, al. 
 
 (3.) The Perf. participle is used to denote 
 
200 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 things done, the result of which was somewhat 
 permanent, or the consequences of which con- 
 tinued. The Aorist, on the other hand, is usual- 
 ly employed where a thing is done once for all, 
 and is not designedly represented as continuing 
 in its consequences. 
 
 E. g. Perfect ; Heb. ii. 9. John xix. 35. Acts 
 xxii. 3. I Pet. i. 23 ; ii. 4. Rev. ix. 1. Aorist ; 
 Rom. viii. 11 ; xvi. 22. Acts ix. 21, al. saepe. 
 
 § 55. HEBRAISM IN THE USE OF PARTICIPLES. 
 
 (1.) This consists of employing the Part, with 
 
 a verb in a definite mode, in the room of the 
 
 Heb. Inf. with a definite mode. 
 
 E. g. idojv sJdov, ivXoyuv zukoyriGo), nXrfivvwv nXr^uvcb, 
 (SXsvovrsg fiXsKsrs, etc. ; forms of speech which are 
 very frequent in the Septuagint. It is however the 
 frequency only of this idiom which may be called 
 Hebraism in the Sept. ; for such phrases are found, 
 not only in the Greek poets, but in the prose-writers ; 
 Winer, § 46, 7. See numerous examples also, in 
 Matth. § 553. 
 
 IMPERSONAL VERBS. 
 
 § 56. MANNER IN WHICH THESE ARE EMPLOYED. 
 
 (1.) The Greeks usually employ the 3d. pers. 
 plural or sing, of these verbs; and sometimes 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 201 
 
 the 2nd pers. singular. In the New Testament, 
 the 3d pers. plural is the more usual form. 
 
 E. g. John xv. 6 ; xx. 2. Mark x. 13. Matt. vii. 
 16. Luke xii. 20, 48, et al. saepe. The 3d pers. 
 sing., p?j<r/, is used in 2 Cor. x. 10. So the passive 
 ysyoa-rai, Xsyzrai, etc., are naturally employed in the 
 same impersonal way. 
 
 Note 1. In Hebrew the same custom prevails. 
 The 3d pers. sing, and plural, also the 2d pers. sing., 
 are used in an impersonal way, or with indefinite No- 
 minatives ; Heb. Gramm. § 500. 
 
 CONCORD OF VERBS, ETC., WITH THEIR 
 SUBJECTS. 
 
 § 57. CONCORD IN RESPECT TO NUMBER AND GENDER. 
 
 (1.) The general rule is, that verbs and par- 
 ticiples agree with their nouns, the former in 
 respect to number, and the latter in regard to 
 number and gender. But to this rule are not a 
 few exceptions ; viz., 
 
 (a) Nouns of multitude, i. e. generic nouns, 
 may take a plural verb, etc. 
 
 E. g. 6 o^kog.... sKixuTdoaroi zigi, John vii. 49 ; rqv 
 o/xiuv 'Znipava, on.,..era%av eomrovg, 1 Cor. xvi. 15. 
 Matt. xxi. 8. Luke ix. 12. John vi. 2, sing, and 
 plural both ; al. saepe. And so in the classics. 
 
 Note 1. Distributives in the singular sometimes 
 
202 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 take a plural verb ; e. g. cxc^r/V^re sxaffrog, John xvi. 
 32 ; tJtcovov ug exatfrog, Acts ii. 6 ; ueitfav sxacroc, Acts 
 xi. 29 ; h/ovrzg 'haffrog x/^agag, Rev. v. 8. So the 
 Heb. J£^K (each) very often takes a plur. verb. 
 Corap. § 9, 1. 
 
 (b) Neuter plurals generally (not always) 
 take a verb singular ; and when these plurals 
 designate animated beings, the plural of the verb 
 is the more common usa^e. 
 
 E« g« *"« £wa rge^zr rd nccka sg n /cx l ...J<frt, 1 Tim. v. 
 25, al saepe. Examples of animated beings are rd 
 s^vy sXv/ovffi, Matt. xii. 21 ; rd Tvsv/uara. . ..itffqT&ov, 
 Mark v. 13; rd dai/Movia mtrreuovot xal pgifftfovffi, James 
 ii. 19. Rev. xi. 18; xvi. 14, al saepe. Yet the 
 singular of the verb is also used in such cases ; e. g. 
 in Luke iv. 41 ; viii. 30, 38 ; xiii. 19. Mark iii. 11 ; 
 iv. 4 ; vii. 28, al. but generally with variations of the 
 Codices. Sing, and plur. in the same sentence, Luke 
 iv. 41. John x. 27. 1 Cor. xx. 11, Comp. 1 Sam. 
 ix. 12. II. ft. 135. 
 
 Note 1. Even the neuter plur. of inanimate things 
 sometimes takes a plural verb ; e. g. a g/tfi, Rev. i. 
 19; s$dvri6(xv...rd g?^aara, Luke xxiv. 11. 2 Pet. 
 iii. 10. All the usages above noted, are common in 
 the Greek classics. 
 
 (c) The gender of the participle may be con- 
 formed to the sense of the passage. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 203 
 
 E. g. iv Tygw %al '2idwvi...7ta§7j{j,ivoi, according to 
 Cod. A. B. C. al., Luke. x. 13 ; rb ytarlyov, 2 Thes. 
 ii. 6. 
 
 Note 1. Those cases in which the predicate of a 
 sentence is in the neuter gender, cannot be considered 
 as strictly belonging to the above class ; e. g. )%avh .. 
 y) sTtn/Mia avrrj, this chastisement is sufficient, i. e. that 
 which suffices. So 6 tfoXs/xog (pofiseov t) (p-j(Hg...Tutp'k6r 
 aotpov 7] <7Tgo/j,ri§zi(x,, et al. simil. in the classics. Such 
 predicates are rather to be understood as designating 
 an abstract noun, or a quality merely which is predict- 
 ed of the subject. The like is true where a neuter 
 participle is employed in the same way. 
 
 APPOSITION. 
 
 § 58. VARIOUS WAYS IN WHICH THIS IS MADE. 
 
 (1.) Not only single words, appellatives, etc., 
 are put in apposition with a leading noun, but 
 whole phrases or sentences. 
 
 E. g. ' I beseech you... to present your bodies, a 
 living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, rr]v Xoytxriv 
 Xarosiav, your reasonable service, i. e. which is your 
 reasonable service, Rom. xii. 1. So in 1 Tim. ii. 6, 
 rb [Aaorvgiov, etc. 2 Tim. i. 5, vnopvriGiv Xa/xfidvuv, i. e. 
 syoj Xa/xfidvwv etc., in connection with v. 3. 
 
 Note 1. The Ace. case is generally chosen for ap- 
 position, where the object of a verb is the leading, 
 
204 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 noun ; but sometimes the Nom. is employed ; e. g. 
 xo&aoifyv in Mark vii. 19. So rb Xzyopsw, rb /isyicrov, 
 rb xaxbv, etc., are often inserted, in classic authors, in 
 the midst of a sentence, when apposition to the rest 
 of the sentence is intended ; Matth. § 432, 5, p. 805. 
 
 (2.) The word in apposition may differ as to 
 gender or number from the leading word to 
 which it relates. 
 
 E. g. ' And he shall give ahrOj Qwfiv, roTg upaoru- 
 vo'jfft [jjYi irgbg rbv Savaroi/, to him life, to those who sin 
 (plural) not unto death, 1 John v. 16; where ahr& 
 is generic, like Ixatfru). So, as in the cases produced 
 in Note 1 above, the gender may differ from that of 
 the leading noun. 
 
 (3.) The position of the word or words ir ap- 
 position is naturally next to the leading noun, 
 etc. ; but oftentimes there is an intervening 
 phrase inserted. 
 
 E. g. avrtj l<5rh r\ IrayysXia, qv alrbg e<7T7}yye/\aro 
 Tifuv, ttjv ^w^v ty\v ccJuviov, where %v...r)(iTv not only in- 
 tervenes, but the relative jjv by attraction puts £w?^in 
 the Accusative, 1 John ii. 25. So, frequently, in the 
 classics. See also James i. 7, 6 av$gwKog...avrig di-^/v^og, 
 x. rX, Phil.iii. 18. 
 
 Note 1. In Matt. x. 25, xal 6 dovXog (where we 
 should expect rco dovXu) must be constructed thus : 
 xcia \jLoxirh ha yhr-ai~] 6 douXog x. r. X., taking the 
 supplement from the preceding phrase. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 205 
 
 Remark. Abstracts are often put in apposition with 
 concretes ; e. g. 1 John iv. 10. 2 Cor. viii. 23. James 
 v. 10. Where apposition might be employed, an in- 
 dependent phrase is often used ; e. g. in James iii. 8. 
 Rev. i. 5, aero 'I. Xoidrov, 6 (jMpvg 6 irierhg x. r. >.., i. e. 
 og iffri 6 (Auorvg, etc. 
 
 PARTICLES. 
 
 § 59. NATURE AND KINDS OF THE PARTICLES. 
 
 (1.) All those small and indeclinable words? 
 which serve the purposes of expressing or aiding 
 oonnection, dejiniteness, perspicuity, intensity ', bre- 
 vity, etc., are usually named, in a generic way, 
 Particles. 
 
 (2.) These may be divided into prepositions, 
 conjunctions, and adverbs. Interjections, which 
 are mere exclamations of joy, woe, wonder, etc., 
 can hardly be ranged under the Particles, 
 in the sense given to this word as above denned. 
 They do not properly belong to Syntax. 
 
 Note 1. An interjection is the expression of an 
 emotion, and not of an idea or notion of the mind ; it 
 is the representative of suffering, joy, etc., rather 
 than an expression of a notion respectingjoy, sorrow, 
 etc. Hence, it makes a sense (so to speak) com- 
 plete in itself; and it may be understood without the 
 
206 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 sequel of any other words. Such words may indeed 
 be added ; but they are not necessary to complete the 
 sense of the interjection. Different is the case with 
 the particles, i. e. with prepositions, conjunctions, 
 and adverbs ; for all of these express either relation, 
 connection, or quality, and therefore require some 
 supplement in order to indicate the thing to which 
 they are related, with which they are connected, or 
 which they qualify. 
 
 (3.) The most generic idea of the particles 
 seems to be this, viz., that they are in some 
 sense predicates of things, i. e. affirmations of 
 some relation, connection, quality, or quantity, 
 in respect to them ; and therefore they are words 
 expressive of condition in some sense or other. 
 
 Note. 1. Condition, in its most generic sense, may 
 be viewed as having respect to quality, or relation, 
 or connection. Particles which mark the condition 
 of quality, are called adverbs, i. e. additions to 
 words; those which designate the condition of rela- 
 tion, (a relation supposed to exist as to things them- 
 selves, and not merely in the notions of the mind), 
 are called prepositions, i. e. words placed before 
 others, (for what purpose, the name itself does not 
 designate) ; and lastly, the connection of things as 
 associated by the mind, (not of things as they are 
 simply in and of themselves), is expressed by con- 
 junctions, i. e. words joining together. 
 
 Remark. Dispute exists, even at the present 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 207 
 
 time, among grammarians of the highest order, as to 
 the limits of the respective classes of particles. The 
 names adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions, will not 
 serve accurately to define these limits. An adverb 
 may be, and often is, a word set before another (i. e. 
 a preposition in the literal sense), in order to qualify 
 it. A conjunction also points out some kind of rela- 
 tion ; which also seems to be the appropriate office 
 of a preposition. Hence the difficulty of making a 
 definite and satisfactory classification, in all its minu- 
 tiae ; a difficulty which our lexicons have hitherto 
 scarcely attempted to remedy. 
 
 ADVERBS. 
 
 § 60. NATURE AND VARIOUS USES. 
 
 (1.) Those indeclinable particles which serve 
 to designate some qualification of things them- 
 selves, or the manner in which the mind con- 
 ceives of these qualifications and expresses itself 
 concerning them, may be called adverbs. 
 
 (2.) The first class of adverbs, viz, that which 
 respects things themselves, may be subdivided into 
 two classes ; (a) Those which have respect to 
 time and place ; (b) Those which regard some 
 quality or condition of the thing itself. 
 
 Note 1. To every thing of which we have any 
 
208 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 distinct conception, we assign, by a necessary law of 
 our minds as connected with experience, time and 
 place as necessary adjuncts. Hence, (a) Adverbs of 
 time and place ; such as hrccv^a, l%t7, uds, evSdds, no- 
 §ev, croD, ko?, <;:% mre, ffqvixa* (b.) Adverbs which 
 designate the state, condition, etc., of the thing ; as 
 s-j, xaXug, KoWa-fcug, it^odciyjhg, (Aovayoog, hiyj\, vavoixi, 
 iravffrgari, ug, xa^w£, wWsp, xa^acrsg, roo$ y ovrag, o'lovzi, 
 vug, etc. Those words which are often called in- 
 separable prepositions, also belong here; such as dvg, 
 a, dgi, Igt, da, j3ov, figt, Za, vs, vrj, etc. 
 
 (3.) The adverbs which serve to qualify or 
 characterize our modes of thought or expression, 
 may be subdivided into various classes, accord- 
 ing to the nature of their respective design and 
 meaning. 
 
 E. g. an adverb may be of such a nature as to make 
 the proposition particular, singular, or general ; affir- 
 mative or negative ; limited or unlimited ; declarative 
 or conditional ; copulative or disjunctive ; categorical 
 or dubious, etc. (a) Adverbs of quantity, i. e. of li- 
 mitation in respect to number, belong here ; as acrag, 
 dig, rgig, iroXkdxig, irdvrojg. (b) Affirmation and nega- 
 tion ; vai, oh. Under these may be ranked all the 
 gradations of assertion, made by such words as /uoXtg, 
 Xtav, ctpoboa, (AaKkov, rjfffov, fidXiffra, rjxiffra, ug, etc. 
 (c.) Categorical ; such as '/jyovv, brfkahr,. (d) Condi- 
 tional and consecutive, i. e. suspended on something 
 supposed to precede or follow ; as rroojrov, sJra, sVs/ra, 
 *&$> £?*£,%$> tdXtv, etc. (e) Copulative and disjunc- 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 209 
 
 tive ; u/jLcc, 6/xoD, Ofiug, <juXX^/3&jv cimv, ario, %wg>/c, 
 hiyji, irTJp, (e) Categorical and dubious, ovrcag, vdv-j, 
 irdivrwg, dXrfiuig, ovoa/xug' '/Gag, rap/a, wc. 
 
 (4.) Inasmuch as many adverbs are expressive 
 of quality, these admit of gradations in compa- 
 rison. 1 But such as have shades of meaning, 
 which by their very nature do not exist in dif- 
 ferent degrees, are incapable of comparison. 
 
 E. g. a-7ra%, dig, rug' mi, oil* ug, rrug, ovrcag' wrug, 
 7<7oi?, <!tdvrug, finida/Lug, etc., are, from their nature, 
 incapable of different degrees of comparison. 
 
 (5.) In the New Testament, the use of ad- 
 verbs is not less frequent than in the classics. 
 Some of the nicer shades of meaning, however, 
 that are found in the better classics, can hardly 
 
 1 In respect to this, adverbs resemble adjectives ; as we might 
 naturally expect from their kindred signification. The compa- 
 rison is usually made, by assuming the form of the neut. sing, of 
 adjectives for the COMPARATIVE degree, and the neut. plural 
 
 for the SUPERLATIVE. 
 
 E. g. ffoQws, ffotp&iTifiov , ffotp&iraru' a\a^ou>i, a.'i<r%tov, cc'i<r%iffra. 
 
 Note 1. Not a few adverbs, however, which are derived 
 from prepositions, etc. form the comparison by -t'i^oj and tutu' 
 e. g. ctvw, avarice*), avajTeireo' and even some others, as tyyv;, 
 lyyvri^u, iyyvruTco. 
 
 Note 2. Some take -o>; even in the comp. and superl. de- 
 grees ; as akySus, a.knSitr'rigw;, KKr^iffraTco;. A few, moreover, 
 are irregular in their comparison, in like manner with adjec- 
 tives ; as ftd/^a, fjt,a,Wov, fzakia-ra' ay%t, airirov, ctyp^ttrra. 
 P 
 
210 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 be looked for in the New Testament. On the 
 other hand, adverbs derived from adjectives (by 
 adding -wg, etc.), are more common in the New 
 Testament than in the earlier classics ; as they 
 are, also, in the later Greek in general. The 
 neuter adjective, so often employed adverbially 
 in the later Greek, is not more common in the 
 New Testament, than in the earlier classics. 
 
 Note 1. This latter species of adverbs is employ- 
 ed principally when there are not other appropriate 
 adverbial forms, which would express the same idea ; 
 e. g. voujtov, utirsgov, Tgoregov, KXqffiov, ray^y, nvxm, "/act, 
 •TToX/.a, etc. 
 
 Note 2. Adjectives in the oblique cases, with or 
 without a preposition, and used as adverbs, such as 
 ts^, <Tai/r»7, /dice, %ccr Idiccv, zc&oXov, etc., have nothing 
 remarkable as to frequency or unfrequency in the 
 New Testament. But nouns with prepositions, used 
 adverbially, such as h d\r$ziu,= dX^cog, h d/xatoavvr, 
 = d/xaiug, etc., are more frequent in the New Testa- 
 ment than in the classics. The frequency is Hebrais- 
 tic ; but the thing itself exists in the Greek classics. 
 
 (6.) Not unfrequently adjectives are used, 
 where we might naturally expect adverbs ; and 
 where, indeed, we must translate adverbially. 
 
 E. g. « He that is without sin, irgufog rbv Xftw... 
 SctXerctj, let him first cast the stone* John viii. 7 ; 
 4 The gate opened auro^anj, of its own accord, i. e. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT, 211 
 
 spontaneously, Acts xii. 10; 'Ada//, tfgurog scrAa^, 
 Adam was first formed, 1 Tim. ii. 13. 1 Cor. ix. 17. 
 John xx. 4. Acts xxviii. 13, d&vrsgaToi ij}3o{Azv, we 
 came on the second day, etc. ; but this idiom is com- 
 mon in the classics. 
 
 (7.) Intensity of degree which might be ad- 
 verbially designated, is not unfrequently marked 
 by a verb and its conjugate noun. 
 
 E. g. snftvpia evsSvfi.risa, / have greatly desired, 
 Luke xxii. 15 ; %a^a Z a 'Z sl > ^ ie 9 rea ^D rejoices, John 
 iii. 29; gccts/A^ a-xuXr^o^a, Acts iv. 17; v. 28; 
 xxiii. 14. James v. 17. Matt. xv. 4, al. But this 
 idiom is common in the best Attic writers ; e. g. 
 (pzxjyu <pvyfi' <7raidia crsTa/i&ar vtx.fi zvizqas, etc. 
 
 (8.) Certain verbs in Greek, when joined 
 with others, are best rendered adverbially in Eng- 
 lish. 
 
 E. g. s\o&6v rm$ %svi<favrsc, they unwittingly en- 
 tertained, Heb. xiii. 2 ; t^osacc/3s /xvgiffcu, by way of 
 anticipation she hath anointed, Mark xiv. 8. Acts 
 xii. 16. So in the classics. 
 
 Note 1. Hebraism, however, may be seen in 
 such expressions as the following : kpog'&zto Ts/^ai 
 (Vht& &|Di*1)> Luke xx. 12, i. e. he sent again, 
 
 (Matt. xxi. 36, xakiv dz&ffretXs.') So Acts xii. 3, 
 Kooff&iTo ffvXXajdiTv. Sometimes even where %a) stands 
 between two verbs which are both in a definite mode, 
 one of them seems to be adverbially employed ; e. g. 
 
212 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 d-TroroXfMa nai X'sysi, he boldly says, Rom. x. 20. Luke 
 vi. 48. Col. ii. 5. 
 
 (9.) Whenever adverbs are associated with 
 a case, after the manner of prepositions, they 
 may be considered as prepositions ; as, on the 
 other hand, prepositions become adverbs, when 
 they are not associated with some case of a 
 noun, etc. 
 
 In other words, it is not the mere form, but the 
 use, which determines the nature of a word. So 
 Hermann (De Emend. Gr. Gramm., p. 161); and al- 
 together in accordance with the dictates of sound 
 judgment. In the mean time the student should 
 know, that most of the so called adverbs may become 
 prepositions ; and that then they usually govern the 
 Gen., but sometimes (in a few cases) the Dative. 
 Thus, in the New Testament, upa, sag, yj>)°k, 'r/^ffiov, 
 syyuq, sfjwrgotfoev, omG%v, are often construed as prepo- 
 sitions ; avsv, ahvays as such ; and so of other ad- 
 verbs. 
 
 PREPOSITIONS. 
 
 § 61. NATURE AND VARIOUS USES. 
 
 (1.) A preposition is not designed to express 
 the inherent condition of things, but only the 
 relation which one thing bears to another ; e. g. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 213 
 
 of attribute to subject, of effect to cause; and of 
 
 union or disjunction. 
 
 (a) Of attribute to subject ; viz. sv, l~l, with the 
 Dat. ; and, a/xp /, irwl 9 with the Dat. and Accusative. 
 (b) Of effect to cause ; as dirb, lg, vto, Kgbg, sWa, with 
 the Gen. ; l~i, {astgc, with the accusative, (c) Union 
 or disjunction ; cvv, [tsrd, with the Gen. and Dat. ; 
 d/jj^i, vsg), vagd } vole, with the Dat. ; craga (besides) 
 with the Ace. ; and crX^v, dvsv, with the Genitive. 
 The reader will note, that several of these preposi- 
 tions govern other cases than those respectively men- 
 tioned ; but then, in such a case, they have not the 
 specific meaning here assigned to them. 
 
 (2.) It results from the very nature of case, 
 (which means, a different ending of a word in 
 order to express a different relation) , that it de- 
 signates essentially the same thing which most 
 prepositions express. But prepositions are de- 
 signed to extend, and to render more explicit 
 and energetic, the expression of relation. 
 
 Note 1. By looking back upon the account given 
 in the preceding pages of the various relations express- 
 ed by the Gen., Dat , and Ace, it will be seen at 
 once, that many of the most important relations be- 
 tween things are expressed simply by the use of these 
 cases alone; and such was the original design of case. 
 But still, three or four cases cannot possibly express 
 all the various, minute, and nicer relations of things. 
 Hence the necessity of prepositions in every language. 
 
214 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 It is obvious, moreover, that even in those in- 
 stances where case alone would express the relation 
 intended, yet a preposition designating the same rela- 
 tion would make the language more explicit and per- 
 spicuous. The Gen. case, for example, is expressive 
 of several relations ; but which of these any particular 
 instance of it is designed to express, must be deter- 
 mined by the context and the nature of the case. But 
 if the writer choose to remove all ground of obscurity 
 and uncertainty from the mind of the reader, he could 
 do this by adding a preposition, the meaning of which 
 distinctly marks the specific nature of the relation de- 
 signed to be expressed. 
 
 Note 2. The custom of many grammarians, in 
 always supplying a preposition before oblique cases, 
 which are without one and not governed by a verb 
 or participle ; seems not to be well founded in the 
 real nature of language. Cases require no foreign 
 regimen, when they stand for expressing the very rela- 
 tion that from their nature they do express. — The 
 older Greek writers make use of prepositions much 
 more seldom than the later ones. Foreigners, writing 
 the Greek language (and such were the writers of the 
 New Testament), would naturally have a less exquisite 
 discernment of the various relations of case in itself, 
 and therefore more naturally employ prepositions with 
 greater frequency, because the relations expressed by 
 them are more obvious and palpable. Hence the New 
 Testament seldom employs oblique cases (out of the 
 regimen of the verb and participle), without attaching 
 prepositions to them. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 215 
 
 (3.) Prepositions govern the Gen., Dat., or 
 Ace.; some likewise two of these cases; and 
 some three ; merely because they have meanings 
 adapted to the respective relations of these se- 
 veral cases. 
 
 Note 1. What prepositions are appropriate to 
 each case, the reader will find under the Syntax of 
 the Gen., Dat., and Ace. cases. 
 
 (4.) Nearly all the usual and original prepo- 
 sitions appear to have had, in their origin, a local 
 sense. The transfer from this to ideas of time, 
 was natural and easy. Then follows the merely 
 intellectual meanings, i. e. the expressions of re- 
 lations conceived of merely by the mind. But 
 the tracing of these, is the proper business of 
 lexicons, 
 
 All local relations may be reduced to two generic 
 ones, viz. a state of rest, or of motion. The Dat. is 
 appropriate to the state of rest ; the Ace, to a state 
 of motion toward a thing ; the Gen. to that of motion 
 from or out of it. Accordingly («) 'Ei/ in, <rapa 
 with, sti on, b-rh over, uirb under, /Azrd between, among, 
 coo before, /xsra after, trig} around, avri against, (none 
 of them indicating motion), do all, in such senses, 
 govern the Dative, (b) E/'g to, Kara, towards, ego? 
 unto, h-i therein, uko thereunder, take the Accusative. 
 (c) ix out of deb from, u-~b from under, Ttard down 
 
216 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 from, rraoafrom withy are construed with the Geni- 
 tive ; Winer, § 51, 3. The temporal and intellectual 
 relations of any of these prepositions, seem to be de- 
 duced from these original meanings. It is, of course, 
 appropriate to the lexicographal department, to trace 
 and unfold these. 
 
 Remark. The confounding of prepositions with 
 each other, and making them to have the same mean- 
 ing, (e. g. Big and Iv, with many others) ; and also the 
 constant appeal to Heb. prepositions in order to illus- 
 trate or justify a supposed anomalous Greek usage ; 
 although this has been very extensively practiced by 
 Schleusner, Haab, and many commentators ; is exceed- 
 ingly injurious to a correct method of philology and 
 exegesis. Winer remarks (p. 312), that " accurate 
 observation shows, in general, how correctly the New 
 Testament writers have employed the prepositions 
 which are nearly related ; and that one is bound to 
 honour them and himself, by acknowledging every 
 where their carefulness." The exceptions to this re- 
 mark are so few and unimportant, that they scarcely 
 deserve to be mentioned. 
 
 (5.) The same Prepositions, in a different 
 sense, may be employed in the same sentence; 
 or different prepositions, and even cases, in the 
 like sense, and in the same connection. 
 
 E. g. (a) Heb. ii. 10, 5/ h...di' ou, on account of whom 
 ...by whom. Rev. xiv. 6. Matt. xix. 28. Heb. xi. 
 29. (b) Hgbg rbv % votov... xa,} ej$ crccvrac roug ayio-jc, 
 Philm. v. 5. 1 Thess. ii. G. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 28, 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 217 
 
 to <rspt -toXXwv, and Luke xxii. 20, to v-ttsp ufiuv Matt, 
 xxiv. 16, sV/ to, ojt], Mark xiii. 14, slg to\ opt\. Dif- 
 ferent cases with the same preposition occur in the 
 like sense ; e. g. Matt. xxiv. 2, 1*7 \ftov, Mark xiii. 2, 
 STt X/'^w* Rev. xiv. 9, svt tov l ttsru)<rov..J<7ri tt,v ys/ca. 
 
 In these and all such cases, we need not resort to 
 the labour-saving solution, that cases and prepositions 
 may be exchanged for one another, ad libitum scripto- 
 ris. Nothing is farther from the truth. The simple 
 fact seems to be, (1.) That in some respects all the 
 cases meet on common ground as to the expression of 
 relation, (e. g. Gen., Dat., Ace, in regard to), so 
 that which case is employed, is in some instances a 
 matter of indifference. (2.) Several of the preposi- 
 tions express, primarily and literally, ideas that ap- 
 proximate very near to each other ; and in some of 
 their derivate meanings they come occasionally to- 
 gether, so that no perceptible difference in sense can 
 be made out ; e. g. ex, and d-rro, si; and trobg, etc. But, 
 (3.) Even in such cases, while the sense is substantially 
 the very same, the mode of announcing it is diverse ; 
 and in this consists a real diversity. E. g. <7rd<f%ziv h 
 6a.P'/J, to suffer in the flesh, i. e. in one's body, ^dcry^nv 
 gocpzi, to suffer by means of the body ; iSa-r/^siv h oogctv, 
 to baptize in the water ; fianTi£itv : J6ar/, to baptize 
 with water. Here the sense is not substantially dif- 
 ferent, and yet the mode of presenting it is not the 
 same. So s-x/ Xftov and kiri X/^w (Matt. xxiv. 2. 
 Mark xiii. 2) can scarcely be separated by any trans- 
 lation that we can make ; yet sV/ with the Dative seems 
 to mean upon in reference to the state of lying at rest 
 upon ; while st/ with the Ace. would, in strictness, 
 
218 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 designate that conception of mind which has reference 
 to one stone having been put or placed upon another. 
 It would be fruitless, however, to attempt the expres- 
 sion of such niceties in our common version; and it 
 may even be doubted, whether they were really ap- 
 prehended by the writers of the New Testament. 
 
 (6.) Prepositions are usually repeated before 
 nouns in the same case, when these nouns are 
 such that the mind naturally classes each se- 
 parately by itself; and therefore they are re- 
 peated, almost of course, when a particle of se- 
 paration (yi dXXd) intervenes. 
 
 E. g. ' Beginning aero Mwftw:, xa/ a<xo Kdvrojv ruv 
 KPtxpqrwv, Luke xxiv. 27. 1 Thess. i. 5. Luke xiii. 
 29, where east and west are one class in conjunction, 
 north and south another. Specially where xu}...xai 
 stand before two nouns ; as Acts xxvi. 29, v.a\ h 
 hy.'tyu), zai h qroWui, Examples with vj or aXhd' <zio\ 
 savrovy 3j frigi Wszow Acts viii. 34 ; obx h <7r£giro{j,f,, a/'/! 
 h azgofiuffriq, Rom. iv. 10. 1 Cor. xiv. 6. 2 Cor. ix. 
 7. 1 Thess. i. 5, 8. Eph. vi. 12. The same in the 
 classics. Yet this usage is far from being uniform ; 
 for the second preposition is not unfrequently omitted 
 where the objects must have been regarded by the 
 mind as diverse ; e. g. dtrb (pofiov xai <?goGdox.ia.$ rojv 
 siregxpfjusmv, Luke xxi. 26. Acts xv. 22; xxvi. 18, a 
 striking instance; xvi. 2; xvii. 9, 15, al. 
 
 Note 1. When a relative pronoun follows a noun 
 with a preposition, and that relative is put in the 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 219 
 
 same case with the noun, the preposition is usually 
 omitted before it; e. g. aV& qcavrw, uv ovx ribvvr^rc, 
 %, r. A., Acts xiii. 38, 39 ; ug rb hyov, o ngoffxsxA7)iu,ai 
 avrovg, Acts xiii. 2. Luke i. 25. — In a few cases the 
 preposition is repeated; e. g. h sxsivy rfj uga, h p 
 dhrev, John iv. 53. Acts vii. 4, al. Both usages are 
 found in the Greek classics. When the same case 
 follows uifr-sp in a comparison, as precedes it, the pre- 
 position is seldom repeated before the latter case in 
 the classics, (Winer, p. 356), but always repeated in 
 the New Testament ; e. g. iv'eirste rb vvzv/Aa rb aytov 
 sV avrovg wg-tsp xai If r^xag, Acts xi. 15. Heb. iv. 
 10. Rom. v. 19. Philem. v. 14. 
 
 (7.) Prepositions are used, in the later Greek, 
 frequently before adverbs, so as to modify the 
 sense of them, or because the adverbs are used 
 in the place of nouns. 
 
 E. g. In the place of nouns ; as cccro vrgwt, aVo 
 rrsPvffi, drr dgri, d<rb rors, sxiraXai, sfjCFgoG^sv, etc. In 
 order to make a compound or modified word ; e. g. 
 vrroxdru, v-rsgdvw, l£aVa£, s~i rgig, etc. 
 
 Note. Prepositions, which are not unfrequently 
 used in a separate state, and as mere adverbs, even in 
 the ancient Greek, are seldom employed in this way 
 in the New Testament. Only one instance occurs, 
 viz. 2 Cor. xi. 23, v-ttsp syoj, I am more. 
 
 (8.) Prepositions, joined with nouns, frequent- 
 ly constitute an equivalent for an adverbial ex- 
 pression. 
 
220 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 E. g. <3/' vko/aovyjc, patiently ; hi dpgoffvvqg, impru- 
 dently ; tig ro rroivrsXsg, perfectly ; it, ddixov, unjust- 
 ly ; s't \tXJ*ih radically; h aXTjSg/a, truly; iv rd^si, 
 quickly ; W dXrfisiug, truly ; %a^ oXov, entirely ; %ar 
 s^ovcf/civ, powerfully ; zard to ofibv, rightfully ; rrfog 
 <p§6w, enviously ; Trfog oeyriv, wrathfu/ly, &c. 
 
 (9.) Prepositions are often joined to verbs in 
 composition. Of course they may then be con- 
 sidered as adverbs; unless, indeed, they retain 
 their own proper regimen of the case which fol- 
 lows the verb, and so may be considered as still 
 having a kind of separate meaning. 
 
 Note 1. In this latter case, there is a three fold 
 construction ; (a) The preposition in composition 
 with the verb, is repeated before the noun ; acnr/wgg/rs 
 ocr 1/j.ov, Matt. vii. 23. Heb. iii. 16, al. saepe. (b) A 
 preposition of similar import with the one before the 
 verb, is put before the noun ; e. g. dvot[3\s-^/ag tig rbv 
 ovoctvbv, Matt. xiv. 19. Mark xv. 46, al. (c) The 
 noun is put simply in the case which the preposition 
 before the verb governs ; e. g. J-T/cr/Vrs/y aurw, Mark 
 iii. 10 ; ews&isi uvroTg, Luke xv. 2, al. saepe. 
 
 Note 2. These various usages are not to be re- 
 garded as being in all cases entirely equivalent. 
 Nicer shades of meaning are often marked by them ; 
 e. g. verbs with dvd in composition take ug after 
 them when up is meant ; ^fog, when to or towards is 
 meant ; hri when on is meant, etc. The designation 
 of these and the like shades, belongs to the lexicon. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 221 
 
 (10.) Prepositions in composition always mo- 
 dify the meaning of a verb in some way or other ; 
 although we may not, in all cases, be able to ex- 
 press this modification in a translation. 
 
 (a) They change the signification of the verb es- 
 sentially ; e. g. z'/ziv to have, snyjtv to endure ; alrsTv 
 to ask ; aieaursa to deprecate ; '/.a\(j--rziv to conceal ; 
 dtfoxaXvirreiV, to disclose, et al. multa. (b) They mo- 
 dify the meaning of the simple verb, so that it spe- 
 cifies some relation or mode which the original verb 
 does not designate; e. g. (1.) Of time; as syvu he 
 knew, Keo'syvc/j he foreknew. (2.) Of space ; as (3a/Ht 
 he goes, avaSaivu he goes up ; /SaXXg/ he casts, xara- 
 /3aXXs/ he casts down. (3.) They express particular 
 relation to subject or object ; as yf/.av to laugh, 
 y.ocraysXav to laugh at ; xgfvw to decide, xaraxgfaiv 
 to decide against, (object) ; SujuJai to think, IvSt^eiw to 
 revolve in one's mind, vosTv to perceive, svvosTv to per- 
 ceive within one's self, i. e. to think of, reflect upon, 
 (subject). (4.) They add intensity, vivacity, efficiency, 
 permanency to verbs ; e. g. <pi\sw to love, xara<piXsw 
 to hold very dear ; 6-zvd^w to sigh, dvaffrsvd^oo to sigh 
 deeply; r^gsTv to keep, Biar^gsTv to keep continuedly 
 or permanently; g&Qsiv to save, dicccdJ^siv to exercise 
 continued protection ; Svfaxstv to die, avtfovqtfxen to 
 die off, utterly to perish ; xrsmtv to kill, avroxrwew to 
 kill off; <psvysrj to fly, expsvysiv, to run away, etc. In 
 all cases there is some modification of the verb, made 
 by the addition of one or more prepositions. The 
 meaning, it is true, often remains substantially the 
 same ; but not the same as to all its relations or mo- 
 
222 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 dijications. In a word, prepositions express circum- 
 stances of time, space, relation, manner, intensity, 
 energy, etc., which are not expressed by the simple 
 verb. Most of our Greek lexicons need a thorough 
 reformation in respect to this nice and delicate, but 
 important point. See the admirable Essay of Titt- 
 mann, on the Force of Greek Prepositions in com- 
 pound Verbs, in the Biblical Cabinet. 
 
 CONJUNCTIONS. 
 
 § 62. NATURE AND VARIOUS USES. 
 
 (1.) Conjunctions serve to express the con- 
 nection of the thoughts of the mind, in all their 
 various modifications. 
 
 Note 1. The definition of a conjunction is a 
 matter of much more difficulty than the unpractised 
 grammarian would be apt to suspect. Hermann says 
 (de Emendat. Gramm. Graec. p. 164, seq.), that 
 " conjunctions serve to designate the modes of 
 thought ;" a definition which seems to need defining. 
 " These modes of thought," he proceeds to say, " are 
 three, viz. verity, possibility, necessity." But as ad- 
 verbs are employed to designate all these, in some 
 respect or other, he endeavours to point out the dif- 
 ference between a conjunction and an adverb. Ac- 
 cording to him, ' a conjunction expresses the state of 
 the persons mind, who affirms, or doubts, or declares 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 223 
 
 a thing to be necessary ; while an adverb only quali- 
 fies the affirmation, negation, doubtful or positive de- 
 claration itself, etc. ;' a distinction tenuous enough, in- 
 asmuch as we can usually know a person's mind only 
 by the nature of the declarations which he makes. 
 More to the purpose is what he says on p. 171, viz. 
 that ' proper adverbs will make a complete sense when 
 taken alone ; e. g. zaXZjg, el, etc., while conjunctions 
 must have some complement.' But even this does 
 not suffice ; for who will not acknowledge, that ad- 
 verbs resemble adjectives more than they do any 
 other part of speech ? And do not adjectives need a 
 complement ? 
 
 Note 2. Let the student note well, that disjunc- 
 tion as well as conjunction, i. e. conjunction or its 
 opposite, comes within the scope of the particles 
 called conjunctions. Better had it been, if the name 
 conjunctives and disjunctives had been given to the 
 two species of particles now ranged under the same 
 general head. 
 
 Note 3. It is not the simple adding of one word 
 or phrase to another, or the mere separation of one 
 from another, which limits the boundaries of con- 
 junctives and disjunctives, i. e. of conjunctions. All 
 the various kinds of connection in the way of ratioci- 
 nation, deduction, dependent sentences, etc., are de- 
 signated by conjunctions. 
 
 (2.) Conjunctions connect simple thoughts 
 or declarations which are in the like predicament, 
 and are connected together by the mind. 
 
224 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 E. g. God is wise, and loves goodness ; where two 
 different assertions are in the like predicament ; i. e. 
 both are simple declarations of opinion. The reason 
 why such declarations are connected, may lie in the 
 mind of the writer only, or it may appear in the 
 context. 
 
 (3.) Conjunctions sometimes connect anti- 
 thetic sentences. 
 
 In this case we render xai (for example) but; as 
 jjuX^tfoe/fcsv upuv, za! ovx ojoyr/jsac^i, we have piped to 
 you, but ye have not danced, Matt xi. 17; vii. 26 ; 
 x. 89 ; xii. 35, al. saepe. Examples like these may 
 be found in ancient Greek writers ; but the frequency 
 of this antithetic usage in the New Testament, ap- 
 pears to be derived from the common use of 1 in He- 
 brew in such a sense. Hence Matthew and Peter 
 employ it oftener than Luke, Paul, etc., in this man- 
 ner ; for the latter had more of a Greek education. 
 Ka/, simply considered, does not mean but ; but the 
 connection in which it stands in some cases, autho- 
 rizes us to express the sense of a whole sentence by 
 rendering it in this way. 
 
 Note 1. Ka; has often the sense of also, even, 
 and even, i. e. it is explicative, intensive, etc. See 
 Passow's Lex. zui, where the reader will find a striking 
 exhibition of the powers of this particle. 
 
 (4.) Co-ordinate phrases or sentences may be 
 joined or disjoined with more than one par- 
 ticle. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 225 
 
 E. g. xa/...xa/ may be put before the first and the 
 second phrase ; and so rs...xa/, rs...rs. The same is 
 true of the disjunctives $...$, ovrs...ours, etc. 
 
 Note 1. To the present hour grammarians and 
 lexicographers are not agreed respecting the compa- 
 rative limits and use of rs and xar see Herm. ad Vig. 
 p. 835. Bernhardy, Synt. p. 482, seq. Nor can 
 this difference be definitely made out in all cases, by 
 any distinctions, however nice. In general, xa/ stands 
 between sentences or words in the same predicament, 
 while rs connects something adjectitious to the main 
 idea. Yet this distinction is not always apparent ; 
 see Winer, Gramm. p. 369, seq. 
 
 (5.) The connection of phrases or sentences 
 with one another is very various, and each has 
 its appropriate conjunctions. 
 
 (a) Antithetic sentences ; between which stand 
 ds, dXXd. As (but) is disjunctive or antithetic as to 
 sense, but at the same time it marks the connection 
 or consecution of sentences, and so holds a double 
 office. 'AXXa is more forcibly antithetic than ds, and 
 has merely an antithetic or disjunctive power, (not a 
 connective one.) Hence dXXd is more generally pre- 
 fixed to a sentence which breaks off the course of 
 thought, or to a question, or an urgent hortatory sen- 
 timent, and often to an apodosis ; while ds is often 
 employed merely as a connective, in the same way 
 and with the same sense as xa/. 
 
 (b) Concessive senterwes, where the conjunction 
 Q 
 
226 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 fAsvrot or o/xw; is employed. Msvrot, yet, however, al- 
 though, still, then, etc., of course concedes what had 
 been said, while it prefaces something in the way of 
 explanation or answer. "O/xwg, although, notwith- 
 standing, still, nevertheless, is a particle plainly of the 
 same nature. "Ofiug [Asvrot (John xii. 42) gives 
 strong intensity to the meaning of o,aws. 
 
 (c) Conclusive sentences, i. e. sentences which ex- 
 hibit the formula of conclusion ; where ovv, aoa, roiwv, 
 8/0, roiyagovv, etc., are employed. Of these ovv often 
 means simply then, etc., as a mere continuative, inter- 
 changed with 7tai and ds employed in the like sense, 
 both in the New Testament and in the classics. "Afa 
 (in a conclusive sense, then, therefore) is of the like 
 meaning with ovv, but is more commonly employed 
 when a conclusion is drawn from what another per- 
 son has been saying. * 'Aga ovv makes the meaning in- 
 tense. Toivvv, then, thence, according to that, there- 
 fore ; and roiyagovv, a mere intensive form of ror/ag, 
 
 which differs not in sense from roivvv are seldom used 
 in the New Testament. 
 
 (d) Casual sentences ; in which on, faon, yao, 
 sometimes ug, zaSwj xa^on, are employed. Of these 
 yao is by far the most multiplex and difficult in its 
 uses ; which have, at last, become the subject of spe- 
 cial notice in the lexicons. 
 
 (e) Conditional sentences take si, ti^zo, lav, etc. ; see 
 §41,3. c. 
 
 (f) Objective sentences, take on, wg (that,) ha, ovrojg, 
 etc. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 227 
 
 Remark. The almost boundless exchanges of 
 conjunctions for each other, e. g. d/.Xcc for yag, si pr,, 
 etc. etc., which is frequently assumed in many of the 
 commentators and most of the lexicons, is to be care- 
 fully avoided. The true solution in most cases of 
 difficulty, is, that the same thought for substance 
 may be announced in a variety of ways, or with 
 various shades of relation, conditionally, etc. Winer 
 has done much in his Grammar (pp. 376, seq.) towards 
 correcting this abuse ; but the detail of such examples 
 properly belongs to the lexicons. 
 
 PARTICLES OF NEGATION. 
 
 § 63. NATURE AND VARIOUS USES. 
 
 (1.) The Greek has two classes of negative 
 particles, ou, ours, oby.zrt, etc., and M f Mrs, w/Jti, 
 etc; the former used in positive and direct decla- 
 rations; the latter in negations that are simply 
 mental or ideal ; the former may be called objec- 
 tive, the latter subjective. 
 
 One might almost call m the conditional negative, 
 because it stands so frequently in conditional senten- 
 ces ; e. g. John iii. 18, ' He who believeth on him ov 
 '/.ohiTai, o ds fi,r\ KHSrzhuv r t 07} zszgirai,' where ov xpiverat 
 is absolute, but 6 ds firi kigtz-juv is a supposed state or 
 condition, which applies to any individual whatever 
 who may be an unbeliever, while 6 oh kkstvouv would 
 mean some particular individual unbeliever. In gene- 
 
223 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 ral, supposed or conditional cases with a negative take 
 iirr positive ones that are facts, take 6u. 
 
 Note 1. Mrj is most frequently employed, (a) Be- 
 fore the Inf. which depends on a verb ; e. g. Matt, ii, 
 12; v. 34 ; xxii. 23. Acts iv. 18, al. saepe. (b) Be- 
 fore Participles used in a generic sense, as 6 fir, &v, 
 whoever is not, Matt. xii. 30; xiii. 19. John xv. 2 ; 
 xii. 48 ; or when they have a conditional sense, as nal 
 fjJi sug/tfxwv, and in case he finds it not, Luke xi. 24. 
 Rom. viii. 4. Matt. xxii. 24. 1 Cor. x. 33. John vii. 
 15. But sometimes fiyj is used in absolute negations, 
 as being occasionally stronger than ov, 2 Cor. v. 21, 
 where the emphasis lies in this turn of thought : 
 ' Who cannot even be supposed to have sinned.' 3 
 John ver. 10. Yet see Acts ix. 9, where /xjj is used 
 in the same manner as ov. 
 
 (c) After og av, otfrtg av, offog av, etc., ^ is used, 
 because these words, from their nature, make a con- 
 ditional sentence ; e. g. ijng civ [ayi a%ov6r\, Acts iii. 23. 
 Luke ix. 5 ; viii. 18. Rev. xiii. 15. 
 
 (d) Of course after e/, lav, Iva, o-rojg, etc., /uri is 
 usually employed ; as John xv. 24, si rd sgya, fii) 
 evoirim. Matt. v. 20; xii. 19, al. Where ov follows 
 s/, it should sometimes be joined in one idea with the 
 word that follows ; e. g. si ov dvmrcci, if it is impossible, 
 Matt. xxvi. 42. Luke xiv. 26 ; xvi. 31, al. Yet 
 there are numerous cases where g/' is followed by o> 
 e. g. 1 Cor. xi. 6. John x. 37. 1 Cor. xv. 13 ; ix. 2, 
 al. In fact, ov after s/' is not unfrequently employed, 
 where direct and positive negation is to be expressed, 
 not only in the New Testament, but in the Greek 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 229 
 
 classics, especially in the later ones. Yet in all these 
 cases ou appears to qualify only a subordinate part of 
 the sentence, and not the whole of it ; which would 
 be qualified or rendered conditional by u?i. 
 
 Note 2. Even where the verb in the Imper. is not 
 expressed, but merely implied [j/n is of course employ- 
 ed ; as (jjr\ avayxatfratg, not [i. e. do not feed the 
 flock] from mere constraint,... n.r$i a}<syw%i?hZ)?, nor 
 for the sake of despicable gain, 1 Pet. v. 2. John xiii. 
 9. Col. iii. 2. James i. 22. Eph. v. 15, al. 
 
 (2.) Repeated negation isi members of a sen- 
 tence following each other, is made by ovds... 
 cuds, 6JTS...0VT&, or by ftrife . . .{t^ds, fj,'/jrs.../&'/}re' but the 
 respective limits of these various expressions 
 seem, as yet, hardly to be settled. 
 
 Note 1. Thus much, however, seems to be made 
 out, viz. that ovds and fivjds are disposed of in such a 
 way as accords with the nature of the particle d's con- 
 tained in them ; while ours and /xtjts conform to the 
 use of the particle n. Consequently the latter (cure 
 {j/n~i) are disposed of in couplets, etc. (like rs...rs), 
 so that the use of them in any one case implies a 
 second case of the same word. On the other hand, 
 audi and prids should follow the simple ov, /^. E. g. 
 fin...(Ai)dh.../j,n&, Matt. x. 9, 10, ou... oufil. Matt. vi. 
 26, al. saepe. Let it be noted, that ovds, fiqde neces- 
 sarily imply a preceding oh, /ati, in which they have 
 their support, and that the reading is to be suspected 
 where this is not the case ; excepting, however, the 
 
230 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 cases, in which ovd's or /nib's may be united in sense to 
 a preceding member of a sentence which is of a ne- 
 gative nature. 
 
 Note 2. Ours... ours must follow each other, and so 
 (Ly]n . . ./xyjTS' but not ourg...//,?jrg, nor vice versa; i. e. 
 to use these formulas, there must be a repetition of 
 the same word. Where this is not the case, the text 
 is to be suspected. In a few cases ours follows ou 
 in a preceding member, when this oh has the sense of 
 ovTi' as Rev. ix. 21. John i. 25. So occasionally in 
 the classics, Winer, p. 410. 
 
 Note 3. Oude is occasionally followed by ovrs, 
 Gal. i. 12 ; and/^ds by /xtjts, Acts xxiii. 8. W T hether 
 these readings are correct, seems yet to be question- 
 able. 
 
 Note 4. In some few cases, moreover, after ours, 
 {irjre, (which naturally demand repetition, see Note 2), 
 instead of a repetition occurs a member of a sentence, 
 with a simple copula (xul), as ours avrXri/La £%£/£> xa/ 
 to <p*soiD hri (3otiv, thou hast no bucket, and the well 
 is deep, John iv. 11. 3 John ver. 10. The same usage 
 is found in the classics. 
 
 (3.) A second negative and successive ones 
 are sometimes omitted, and their place supplied 
 by %a/y where it is plain that they must be im- 
 plied. 
 
 E. g. fjuYi xaraxa-jyas^s Ttai -^sbbss^s, i. e. f^rjds -vj/gy- 
 foeSe. See in 2 Cor. xii. 21. Matt. xiii. 15. Mark 
 iv. 12. Acts xxviii. 27. Such is likewise the case in 
 the classics. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 231 
 
 (4.) The negatives ou, ^, are often coupled 
 together in sense, (usually in position, as ou pn 
 XaXyjffstg, but sometimes separated by one or more 
 words, ou...^), in which case the negation is 
 rendered more intense. 
 
 Note 1. Oi» often takes other words into compo- 
 sition with it, as olidsig, ovds, etc. ; but the sense of ou 
 itself is not changed by such a union. 
 
 (5.) Mj? ov has a different sense from ou pq 9 in- 
 asmuch as it either softens the negation, or else 
 entirely removes its force. 
 
 E. g. dsooixa {LYi ou ^dvw, I fear that I may not die ; 
 akXa n,r\ ovz fj didaxrbv r\ aesrfj, but virtue may be a thing 
 not to be taught. But where a verb with a negative, 
 or a negative idea, precedes /j,y\ ou, it then takes away 
 all force of negation ; e. g. ou dOvarai (ir\ ou yao'iZzG^ai, 
 lit. he cannot not give =*= he cannot but give, or he 
 must give. Here, and in all the like cases, the first 
 negative takes away the force of the second, and thus 
 makes the proposition in sense affirmative; as obx 
 %6<rt (xr\ ovx i<&/£/s/, one must eat. So Acts iv. 20, ou 
 dvvu//j&u . . ,/j.ri XaXiTv,we must speak. 1 Cor. xii. 15. 
 
 (6.) Two negatives of the same kind some- 
 times make the declaration affirmative ; and 
 sometimes strengthen the negation. 
 
 E. g. syu mot o*ou ou Xsyuiy mol sfcov dz ou, / do not 
 speak of thee and not of myself i. e. I speak both in 
 
232 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 respect to you and myself. So xui /xri ^sovg n/iuvrsg 
 . . .rroisT&s ^jjoa/xw:, lit. do not act as not honouring 
 the gods, i. e. act like those who honour the gods. 
 
 Note 1. Such cases depend, of course, on the 
 turn and object of the sentence ; and, in accordance 
 with this remark, oftentimes a repeated negative of 
 the same kind makes the affirmation stronger ; e. g. 
 '/ugh sfiou o\j 5vva<&s ovbsv, without me ye can do no- 
 thing at all, John xv. 5. 2 Cor. xi. 8. 1 Cor. viii. 2. 
 Mark i. 44. Luke iv. 2, al. So in the classics ; 
 Matth. p. 1229. 
 
 § 64. MODES AFTER PARTICLES OF NEGATION. 
 I. IN ABSOLUTE SENTENCES. 
 
 (1.) M?7 with the Optative when it expresses 
 the sense of wishing, as m yhoiro. 
 
 (2.) With the Imper. Present ; also with the 
 Aor. or Present Subjunctive. 
 
 E. g. /x'/j ^rjffav^^srs bfiTv iir\ x^/Ws, etc. So /mti xw- 
 '/.■jG'fig' (jj vo^iffyjrs- [An dyavupiv, etc. 
 
 Note 1. Where the Indie. Fut. is used in the like 
 sense with the Subj. Aor. ov is employed ; e. g. oi 
 (povtvfcig* oh fioi^suesig, etc. 
 
 II. DEPENDENT SENTENCES. 
 
 (3.) My, wrs, ha firj, etc., are put before the 
 Subj. when it comes after the Pres., or Impera- 
 tive. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 233 
 
 E. g. vKW7:iu'[ i oo.../j(,7i<7rojc...ysvu{j,ui, 1 Cor. ix. 27. 
 Matt. xv. 32. 2 Cor. xii. 6, "l&i timwv...fifivror£ a 
 rraoadp, Matt. v. 25 ; vii. 6. Luke xii. 58. 
 
 (4.) Before the Optative when it follows the 
 Praeter. 
 
 E. g. BovXri £y£Vzro...{/,rj rig...(jtu<pb r yoi. 
 
 Note 1. But sometimes /t&sj stands before the 
 Indie, where the decided persuasion of the writer or 
 speaker is, that a thing is, has been, or will be ; espe- 
 cially after such verbs as ogaw, <rx<Krsw, fiX'svco, ^o/So^aar 
 as cx&Vg/, j&Tj rb (pug...C/i6rog sariv, Luke xi. 35 ; jS/J-Tsr?, 
 (AT) rig scrou, Col. ii. 8. Heb. iii. 12. Gal. iv. 11. 
 And thus in the classics. But where the thing is 
 such, that the speaker is uncertain in his own mind, 
 he employs the Subj. ; e. g. sV/ffxocroDvrgg, firj rig bi^ot 
 ..Jvoyy.fi, Heb. xii. 15. Matt. xxiv. 4. 2 Cor. xi. 3 ; 
 xii. 20. Luke xxi. 8. Acts xiii. 40, al. Even after 
 the Praeterite, is the Subj. with /myi used in such cases ; 
 as s\j/.a(3ri^iig,..fj J n diaffrac^fi' and so in the classics. 
 
 (5.) The intensive negation ob w is usually 
 connected with the Aor. Subj , or with the Ind. 
 Future. 
 
 E. g. Matt. v. 18, oil pri cagsA.S»j" and so in x. 23 ; 
 xviii. 3, al. saepe. Indeed the Subj., in such cases, is 
 the prevailing usage of the New Testament. But the 
 Fut. Indie, is also employed ; as ob /x^ ocffaov^aojuah 
 Mark xiv. 31. Matt. xvi. 22. John viii. 12 ; xiii.38. 
 Luke xxii. 34, al. 
 
234 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 Note 1. Ob ( ajg stands in both independent and 
 dependent sentences ; e. g. in Matt. xxvi. 29. John 
 xi. 56. Rev. xv. 4, al. 
 
 INTERROGATIVES. 
 
 § 65. NATURE AND USES OF INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES. 
 
 (1.) Interrogation is often to be made in Greek, 
 as in other languages, merely by the tone of 
 voice employed in reading a sentence, when it 
 has no particular interrogative word employed as 
 a sign of it. 
 
 E. g. evdsig ' ' Argeog vYr Son of Atrens, dost thou 
 sleep? 'F^sXsig isvai, ivilt thou go ? Luke xx. 4. Gal. 
 ix. 10. Rora. ii. 4, al. saepe. 
 
 (2.) There is a great variety of particles and 
 pronouns appropriately of an interrogative na- 
 ture, which are either used emphatically, or are 
 necessary to show the kind of question that is 
 asked. 
 
 E. g. rig, ri, irug, toD, ij, nfl, woTog, iro^zv, aga, -rorsgog, 
 s/', etc. 
 
 Note 1. E/ is appropriate to indirect questions, 
 which are merely related ; but in the New Testament 
 it is sometimes employed in direct ones ; e. g. el bXiyoi 
 oi ffwfyfMvoi ; are there few that be saved ? Luke xiii. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 235 
 
 25 ; xxii. 49. Acts i. 6 ; and often thus in the Sep- 
 tuagint. 
 
 Note 2. In several cases, n (or) is used to con- 
 nect a second question with a preceding one that is 
 expressed or implied, and seems to have a kind of 
 interrogative force ; e. g. Matt. xx. 15. Luke xiv. 31 ; 
 xv. 8. Rom. vii. 1 ; xi. 2, al. 
 
 Note 3. r A^a is sometimes employed in asking 
 questions ; and to these a negative answer is naturally 
 expected ; as Luke xviii. 8. 
 
 (3.) In questions that comprise a negative par- 
 ticle, oy is usually employed where an affirmative 
 answer is expected. 
 
 E. g. ov tu> 6& OMOfAan tfgottprirsvGufiw have we not 
 prophesied hi thy name ? Matt. vii. 22. James ii. 6. 
 Matt. xiii. 27. Luke xii. 6, al. In a few cases, ov 
 stands in questions where a negative answer might 
 be expected ; e. g. Acts xiii. 10. Lukexvii. 18. But 
 these instances are rare, and exceptions to the usual 
 custom. 
 
 (4.) In questions that comprise ^.negative par- 
 ticle, (M7\ is usually employed where the answer 
 is expected to be in the negative, 
 
 E. g. fin \foov lirth&tei ctvrw- Matt. vii. 9. Rom. xi. 
 1. Mark iv. 21. Acts x. 47, al. Both ov and fir, 
 have their appropriate force, in the same sentence, in 
 Luke vi. 39, * Can the blind (wn) lead the blind ?' 
 Ans. No. < Will not (obyl) both fall into the ditch ?' 
 Ans. Yes. 
 
236 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 (5.) Where im ov occurs in questions, m only 
 is interrogative ; the ov qualifies the verb. Where 
 oi> m occurs, the negation in the question is 
 merely strengthened. 
 
 E. g. /xrj ovx %'/tovffav is it that they have not heard ? 
 Rom. x. 18. 1 Cor. ix. 4 ; xi. 22. On the contrary ; 
 ov /at) iriu avro; shall I not drink it ? John xviii. 11. 
 Luke xviii. 7, al. 
 
 ELLIPSIS. 
 
 § 66. NATURE AND KINDS OF ELLIPSIS. 
 
 (1.) Ellipsis consists in the omission of a word, 
 which, although it is not spoken, is necessarily 
 implied in order to make out the sense. 
 
 Note 1. Ellipsis may respect the subject, the predi- 
 cate, or the copula of a sentence, according to the 
 usual mode of treating this matter. But as the pre- 
 dicate is in its own nature generally an undefined 
 thing, we can hardly suppose (the case of Aposiopesis 
 excepted) that a speaker or writer would leave this 
 to be supplied. Properly, then, ellipsis respects the 
 subject or the copula of a sentence. 
 
 Note 2. Recent grammarians do not reckon as 
 ellipsis, those cases in which the word to be supplied 
 is already mentioned or suggested in the preceding 
 context ; e. g. liri SX//3o,asSa, vfttg ryg v/muv cwnjo/ac, 
 where SX#/3o/*sSa is mentally repeated before the last 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 237 
 
 clause, 2 Cor. i. 6. 1 John ii. 19. Mark xiv. 29. 
 2 Tim. i. 5. 1 Cor. xi. 1. Rom. ix. 32, al. saepe. 
 For shades of difference in the mode of supplying the 
 ellipsis, see 1 Cor. vii. 19. Eph. iv. 29. Mark xv. 8. 
 2 Cor. iii. 13. John i. 8. Heb. x. 6, 8. Rom. v. 
 3, 11 ; viii. 23; ix. 10. 
 
 (2.) The copula ti/sJ (and also yiyvofiui) is 
 more usually omitted. It is rarely inserted in 
 simple propositions, except for the sake of em- 
 phasis. 
 
 E. g. fxcLxdoiog av/[o, og, ■/.. r. X., James i. 12 ; rl <roi 
 ovofm' Mark v. 9. Heb. v. 13. Luke iv. 36, al. 
 saepe. So in the plural (c/tfr), Heb. v. 12 ; 2d pers. 
 sing. (?/"), Rev. xv. 4; Imper. (eWw), Rom. xii. 9, al. 
 
 Note 1. When other verbs besides those which 
 assert existence, are to be supplied, the context, in 
 nearly every case, will lead the reader at once to the 
 supply of the proper verb ; e. g. Rom. v. 18, where 
 o/JjXSs from ver. 12 is to be supplied, of which the iic, 
 gives notice; comp. s/g itavrcic, in ver. 12. Phil. ii. 3, 
 prjdsv xard, •/.. r. X., where iroiovvrsg is spontaneously 
 supplied. Gal. v. 13, [aovov ^ %. r. X., where zars- 
 yj\rs is implied ; and of course the subject (as well as 
 the copula) is left out here. But this is spontane- 
 ously supplied by the mind, in referring back to the 
 preceding IxX^bjre. So Matt. xxvi. 5, (hi\ h rf} 
 looryi, sc. fi,r} \ro\Jro ygwtdftT]' Mark xiv. 2, id. Touro 
 d's, viz. rovro hs [Xsyw]* comp. Gal. iii. 1 7. 1 Thess. 
 iv. 15, where the verb is supplied ; or the verb <pr\^\ 
 may be supplied ; as in 1 Cor. vii. 29 ; xv. 50. In 
 
238 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 Matt. v. 38, d<p§cc\{j,bv uvri bp^aX/aov, x. r. A., one must 
 look for the verb [duxieig'] in the original connection, 
 Ex. 21, 24. 
 
 (3.) The subject of a sentence is omitted, only 
 where from the nature of the case it is sponta- 
 neously suggested, or may be easily gathered 
 from the context. 
 
 E. g. fioovra, it thunders, i. e. o ZsOg fiooi/ru' dva,- 
 yvuxtsra/, let [the scribe] read. So in the New Tes- 
 tament ; (prjffi, (AagruPsT, Azyst, etc., in respect to Old 
 Testament quotations ; where the meaning is, The 
 Lord saith, or The Scripture saith. 
 
 So where the subject is easily supplied from the 
 context ; as ffy!/Sj>3oi/ xa/ rwv /ioa^ruv, there came to- 
 gether \rrnc, certain] of the disciples. So r\ a/ogiov, y 
 gjjfisgov, r\ itns, where i]/MSPa is readily supplied ; s/'s 
 sifteTav [bdov], Luke iii. 5. So r\ ds^ia [x s 'g]> % fj^f* 
 [y%]> ^^Xi^ L^ w f]> Matt. x. 42 ; rb yXvxu [u5wp], 
 James iii. 11 ; rjj s^ofisvp —rfi skiovgv} -[^«-%a]* sv 
 XsuxoTg \_i>j,arioig], John xx. 22. John v. 2, <Too(3oc.nzri 
 [<ruX?j], etc. etc. 
 
 Note 1. Sometimes the case absolute is used in 
 an impersonal way, when aiftgw-rwi/ or nvuv may be 
 understood; e. g. Luke viii. 20, ccTryiy/sXyj avru, 
 Xsyovruv, it was told him, [some], saying, on x. r. a. 
 
 (4.) Although the predicate cannot be wholly 
 omitted by ellipsis, yet parts of it may be, when 
 those parts are obviously suggested by the con- 
 text. 
 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 239 
 
 E. g. ba.07]6srcu nonces, he shall suffer many jVXfjyag 
 stripes], Luke xii. 47. 2 Cor. xi. 24. But all such 
 cases we may call breviloquence, rather than ellipsis. 
 
 Note 1. Before (lyi or fiqirug, used in the way of 
 breviloquence, ojarg or d'-dor/.ot, f I fear J may be sup- 
 plied by the mind ; often so in the classics. E. g. If 
 God spared not the natural branches, /x^-oir oitde gov 
 peftrerai, [I fear] he will not spare thee' Rom. xi. 21. 
 
 Remark. The unbounded license of the older 
 grammarians, in extending ellipsis to all parts of the 
 Greek Testament, such as is developed in Bos's 
 book on ellipsis, and other works of the like kind, 1 
 is now, by general agreement among grammarians, 
 quite abjured. Adjectives and participles which 
 stand in the place of nouns, are now regarded as 
 nouns, without the feeling that any ellipsis exists. 
 Such modes of expression are considered merely as 
 breviloquence. So the neuters of adjectives and par- 
 ticiples are taken as nouns, when they are employed 
 as such. So in respect to the use of the cases; they 
 are now regarded as expressing relations of them- 
 selves, and not needing prepositions to govern them ; 
 for these only render their meaning more explicit. 
 So in respect to cases governed by verbs ; the old 
 theory was, e. g. that sJvcti nvog required to be con- 
 sidered by the mind, as being equivalent to shai viog 
 nvog- but now the Gen. itself is regarded as indicating 
 
 1 Of this book and of Weiske on Pleonasms, Hermann says : 
 Singulari profecto casu accidit, ut L. Bosii liber de ElUpsi 
 maximam partem sit pleonasmus ; Weiskii de Pleonasmo, el- 
 
 psis. 
 
240 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 the same relation as v'/bg in such a case would express. 
 So too in 'Lwo^p rov *HA/ or MadS Marra^iou, Luke 
 iii. 26,) v/bg need not be regarded as necessary, be- 
 cause the Gen. of itself indicates origin. In a mul- 
 titude of the like cases, we may consider the modes 
 of expression simply as being breviloquent, not as el- 
 liptical. All languages employ a multitude of brevilo- 
 quent expressions ; which, in general, are by reason 
 of usage or by the aid of context, as intelligible as the 
 more ample expressions. 
 
 Specially were the older grammarians prone, almost 
 every where, to introduce prepositions before the Gen. 
 and Dat. cases which follow verbs ; e. g. dvri after 
 verbs of buying and selling ; anb after those of feel- 
 ing, restraining, etc. ; dice before the Gen. of time ; s/g 
 before the Inf. of object or design ; sx after verbs of 
 abounding ; sv before the Dat. of time, place, instru- 
 ment, etc. ; iraoa after verbs of hearing ; hsxn after 
 verbs of displeasure, anger, or before the Inf. with 
 rov- lirl after verbs of ruling, etc., xara before the 
 Ace. of manner, in respect to, etc ; Tgg/ after verbs 
 of remembering, forgetting, etc. ; in all which cases 
 the most enlightened grammarians of the present day 
 speak no longer of ellipsis. 
 
 So also in respect to Conjunctions ; before y\ 
 (rather than) they supplied fiaXXov and so hot, before 
 the Subjunctive, in cases like ri S'eXsrs woifoto b/j,7r 
 which are more easily solved by simple interpunction, 
 e. g. 77, ^sAsrs, to/jjcw bfiTr what ( according to your 
 wish) shall I do for you ? etc. etc. 
 
 One need not deny, that in may cases the sense' 
 would, in some respects, be more explicit, had the 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 241 
 
 writer supplied such words as those th#t have been 
 mentioned. But if breviloquence is to be excluded 
 from language, the great and effectual means of viva- 
 city and energy of style would be taken away. 
 
 APOSIOPESIS. 
 
 § 67. NATURE AND USE OF IT. 
 
 (1.) Aposiopesis (acroovwcnjcv;) consists in the 
 suppression of a part of a sentence, on account of 
 the feelings of the writer, or for the sake of bre- 
 vity, energy, etc. 
 
 E. g. in Luke xix. 42 ; xiii. 9. Acts xxiii. 9. So 
 after u ds il% u ds /itj ys, a part of a sentence, or even 
 a whole one, is often omitted; e. g. vi. 1; ix. 17. 
 Mark ii. 21, 22. Luke x. 6 ; xiii. 9. Rev. ii. 5, al. 
 
 BREVILOQUENCE. 
 
 § 68. NATURE AND USE. 
 
 (1.) In a multitude of cases, the repetition of 
 
 a word or words obviously suggested by the 
 
 context is omitted. Formerly this was put to 
 
 the account of ellipsis ; it is now reckoned as 
 
 breviloquence. 
 
 Note 1. The exact metes and bounds of ellipsis 
 and breviloquence can hardly be defined. They run 
 
242 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 into each other in a certain class of cases. In general, 
 however; the omission of words, where the supply of 
 them is most plain and obvious, and there can be no 
 room for mistake by an intelligent reader, is called 
 breviloijueuce. 
 
 E. g 6-j g\j rr\v 2,iZocy /Satfra^s/c, dXXcc q fyZa as, i. e. 
 jj g/£* [/3«<fra£s/] crs, Rom. xi. 18; xai rig e6ri..Jva 
 OT<rr«i«r« s/g alrov John ix. 36 ; xv. 25 ; xiii. 18. 
 Mark xiv. 49- Phil. in. 13, 14, syw spavrbv ob Xoy'i- 
 Zp^ai, h ds -/.. r. X, i. e. h 3s ["Xoy/^o/^a/*] Luke xxiii. 5. 
 
 Note 2. Under the head of breviloquence or brachy- 
 logy (SwyyXoytu) may be classed the so called con- 
 structlo praegnans ; e. g. coutfs/ slg rqv (3amXi!av, he 
 will save [and bring me] into his kingdom, 2 Tim. iv. 
 18. Acts xxiii. 11, 24. 1 Pet. iii. 20. 2 Tim. ii. 26. 
 Luke iv. 38. Gal. v. 4. 2 Cor. x. 5. Mark vii. 4. 
 
 ZEUGMA. 
 
 § 69. NATURE AND USE. 
 
 (1.) Where a verb is connected with two 
 nouns, and has such a sense that it does not fit 
 them both, but we must supply another verb in 
 order to make an appropriate sense, this is called 
 
 Zeugma. 
 
 E. g, dvsoj^rj fe rb ffrofia, abrou . . .xai q yXZjzacc aii- 
 rov, i. e. 7} yXua<rcc uvrov \_iX\for[\, Luke i. 64 ; ydXa 
 bfxdg eToriffa, pii iSzuiua, I have given you milk to 
 drink, and [have fed you] not with meat, 1 Cor. iii. 
 2. 1 Tim. iv. 3. This is frequent in the classics. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 243 
 
 PLEONASM. 
 
 § 70. NATURE AND USE. 
 
 (1.) Pleonasm means the addition of one or 
 more words in order to designate what is already 
 designated by other words. 
 
 (2.) Of this there exists a considerable num- 
 ber of examples in the New Testament. 
 
 E. g. dirb fAaxpfosv, aero avoftsv, z-ara, f&era tovto, 
 rrdXiv dzvr&gov, iraXiv 1% dsvrspov, KPodga/iwv s/jlkoo&sv, 
 hfidWeiv e%u, ffdXiv dvuTtdfAKTS/v, trdXiv dvaxaivifyiv, 
 oT/'tfw dxoXou0g/v, ug Topo^'pa co^oiu^'/uaiv, rd o;j,oiu)fAara 
 ...o'Aoia, etc. most of which occur also in the classics. 
 So ovz after dgvovfisvog, firi after dvnX'syu. So h.rbg 
 {} /uri instead of £/' /xtj' vfo KgoffuKov (^f) 7) for npb, etc. 
 
 (3.) Different from pleonasm, properly so 
 named, is particularity and circumstantiality in 
 designation. 
 
 E. g. ypd-^avrzg did yji^og" x.ar'/jy"yzi\z did 6r6fj.arog' 
 irrdpag rovg bfoaX/AOvg l^jatfaro* dvoi^ag rb ffrofia au- 
 rov sins' xat eysvsrQ (*fVD °ts 6uvsreXe&v a etc. A great 
 variety of such expressions occurs in the New Testa- 
 ment ; most of which, however, add more or less of 
 colouring to the picture. 
 
 (4.) Repetition of the same words is not pleo- 
 nasm, but designed for the sake of energy in ex- 
 pression, or to shew deep feeling. 
 
244 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 E. g. %boiz, xvgiz ! ' AWa d'rrsXovffu&s, dXku mid- 
 <rcl'/jrs, aXX' sBixcuojOtits. 1 Cor. vi. 11. Col. i. 28. 
 John i. 1 1 ; xix. 10. Mark xii. 30. 
 
 Note 1. The like is the effect of synonymes ; e. g. 
 avdgsg TaXiXaTot, like the classic civdgeg 'ASjjva/o/, etc. 
 
 Note 2. A similar effect is produced by repeating 
 a sentiment both in the affirmative and negative form 
 e. g. w/AoAo'yjjtfg, %cl) ovk rjgvrjffaro, John i. 20 ; i. 3. 
 Eph. v. 15. 1 John ii. 27. Acts xviii. 9. 
 
 Remark. The verbs ci^o^ai, dox'su, SsXw, rcXficcu, 
 sk'x s '£ su > hoXso'mM) and sug/Vxw, which even later com- 
 mentators and recent lexicographers sometimes repre- 
 sent as pleonastic, all give some colouring to the mode 
 of representation, and are not to be ranked under 
 pleonasms. 
 
 In like manner the wg with participles has often 
 been considered as pleonastic ; which is beyond all 
 question a mistake; see § 52, 10. 
 
 ASYNDETON. 
 
 § 71. nature and use. 
 
 (1.) The Greeks named any phrase or sentence 
 dcvvosrov, where the conjunction xai (rs) is omitted, 
 when it would be grammatically appropriate. 
 
 Note 1. This figure is altogether of a rhetorical 
 nature, and not grammatical. As, however, it occa- 
 sions a departure from the common method of con- 
 structing a sentence, it is proper here to notice it. 
 
9 
 NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 245 
 
 (2.) Of asyndeton several classes may be made ; 
 (a) Cases of enumeration, division, and recount- 
 ing of parts. 
 
 E. g. !X/^a<$?j<rae, l<arg/<&»j<rai/, sKsigdc^Gav, x. r. X., 
 
 Heb. xi. 37 ; irgdtszyj rjj dvccyvuxfsi, rfj naoayCkricszi, rjj 
 
 didaffzuX/q, 1 Tim. iv. 13 ; and so Rom. ii. 19, 20 ; 
 
 i. 29, seq. Mark xvi. 17. 1 Cor. iii. 12; xiii. 4—8. 
 
 1 Thess. v. 14. James v. 6, al. saepe. 
 
 (b.) Cases of antithesis, which are made 
 
 stronger by the omission of connectives. 
 
 E. g. tfcrs/gsra/ h dri[Miq y lyzioirui h doi^y 6m'ioira.i 
 h d&svziq, lyii^irai h buvdfizr Gvzigzrai Gufia -yvyr/.w' 
 lytigzrcu cu/iacc Kvsv/xctrr/.bv, 1 Cor. xv. 43, 44. James 
 i. 19. Eph. ii. 8. Mark ii. 27. 1 Cor. iii. 2 ; vii. 
 12. John ii. 10 ; iv. 22. 2 Tim. iv. 2. And thus 
 where two distinct parallels are expressed ; as Ka/- 
 caga hrixzxkr\(Sai, It/ Ka/<raga <roggu<r?j, Acts xxv. 22. 
 
 (c) Cases where a clause merely epexegetical is 
 
 added. 
 
 E. g. iv tZ s^ofisv dirokvrgwaiv, rr\v a<pz6iv ruv a i aagr/wv, 
 Col. i. 14. 2 Cor. vii. 6. 2 Pet. ii. 18. 
 
 (d) Cases where the reason or ground of any 
 thing is suggested. 
 
 E. g. n>r\ <$(poayUr\g roug Xoyovc rqg rrgotpriTziag rov 
 /3//3X/ou Tovrow 6 xaigog syyvg sffnv, Rev. xxii. 10. John 
 xix. 12. 1 Cor. vii. 15. Rev. xvi. 6. 
 
 Remark. In most of these and the like cases, the 
 conjunctive particles are inadmissible ; although in cases 
 
246 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 such as b they are sometimes inserted. For the most 
 part they would greatly weaken the force and viva- 
 city of the expression. — All these phenomena are 
 found in the classics. 
 
 PARENTHESIS. 
 
 § 72. NATURE AND USE. 
 
 (1.) Parenthesis means a word or phrase in- 
 serted in the midst of a sentence, which is thus 
 interrupted or suspended ; after which the sen- 
 tence is resumed and completed. 
 
 Note 1. All clauses with relatives, added for the 
 sake of explanation, etc., might come under this defi- 
 nition, taken in an enlarged sense. But these are 
 not here meant ; although many editors of the New 
 Testament, and critics, have not unfrequently treated 
 them as parentheses. 
 
 Note 2. The same might be said of clauses in 
 apposition ; which, however, accurate philologists do 
 not now reckon among parentheses. 
 
 (2.) Real parenthesis is either, (a) Where 
 
 the words of one individual are recited, and 
 
 those of another are inserted in the midst of 
 
 them. 
 
 E. g. ' That ye may know that the Son of Man 
 hath power on earth to forgive sins (ro'rs Xlyu t<Z 
 rraoaXvrr/.uj') 'Eysc&sig aoov, x. r, X., Matt. ix. 6; 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 247 
 
 'p«S,o/, (o \syvreu egftvpsvopevoii, didaffitaXz), <Z(Z (j^ntc,' 
 John i. 39 ; iv. 9 ; ix. 7. Mark iii. 30 ; vii. 26 ; xv. 
 42. Matt. i. 22, 23. Luke xxiii. 51. John i. 14 ; 
 vi. 23; xi. 2; xix. 23, 31, al. saepe. In respect to 
 time ; Luke ix. 28. 
 
 (b) Where the sentence is suspended for the 
 introduction of matter not directly necessary to 
 its full enunciation. 
 
 E. g. Rom. iv. 11, tig rb >oy/<r^^i'a/...5//ca/oo"jv'/jv, in- 
 terrupts the course of thought ; and so, more or less, 
 in Rom. vii. 1. 1 Cor. vii. 11. 2 Cor. viii. 3 ; xi. 21, 
 23; xii. 2. Col. iv. 10. Heb. x. 7, al saepe, espe- 
 cially in the writings of Paul. 
 
 Remarks. Of course the limits of parenthesis will 
 often be defined by the subjective views of the reader, 
 as to meaning and connection. Hence the great 
 variety in regard to the usage of these grammatical 
 signs ; so that scarcely any two editors or interpreters 
 agree in all cases. It is oftentimes, however, not very 
 material, in regard to the sense of the author, whether 
 parenthesis be inserted or omitted ; for whether the 
 sign of parenthesis is inserted or omitted, cannot ma- 
 terially vary the sense. Hence the subject cannot be 
 of essential consequence ; but still it is connected 
 with perspicuity of representation. 
 
 ANACOLUTHON. 
 
 § 73. NATURE AND FREQUENCY. 
 
 (1.) By anacoluthon (dw/.o/.c-j^ov) is meant, a 
 sentence which, being interrupted by some in- 
 
248 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 serted circumstance, is resumed not with a re- 
 gularly continued construction, but with one dif- 
 fering from that with which it was begun. 
 
 Note 1. In writings full of thought and argu- 
 ment, where the author is more intent on his matter 
 than on his manner, anacoliithon most frequently oc- 
 curs. Paul exhibits it most frequently of all the New 
 Testament writers, in his epistles, although it occurs 
 elsewhere. 
 
 E. g. Mark ix. 20, xal Iduv [6 noug] avrbv, suSsw? to 
 Kvzvfioi hffdgafyv, where the regularly continued con- 
 struction would be : g-j^swj vrb rov Tvsvfiarog s&Trugda- 
 ciro (passive.) Acts xxiii. 30, [A7\vv$zi6v}g ds fioi sm~ 
 Boukrig [V/jj] gig rov avhpa fisXXsiv sWSa/, which would 
 regularly be, psWovtirig scsc&ai. 
 
 Sometimes the construction begun and intermitted, 
 is entirely dropped, and another one commenced de 
 7iovo; as John vi. 22 — 24, 6 o-)(Xog...ihojv...(v. 24), 
 org ovv udov, after a long parenthesis of two verses. 
 Gal. ii. 6, OLirb ds tojv dozovvruv shai ri..J/x>oi yap o't 
 dozovvreg ovdh ffgoffuvs'^ero, where the first construction 
 required the sentence to be completed with a passive 
 verb, but the construction is changed and an active 
 verb is therefore employed. Rom. ii. 17 — 21, where 
 the sentence is begun with g/ ds 6v, z. r. X., and then 
 resumed in ver. 21, by o ovv diddazuv without the ii. 
 Anacolutha may be found in Rom. v. 12, seq. ; ix. 
 23, 24. 2 Pet. ii. 4, seq. 1 John i. 1, seq. Acts x. 
 36, al 
 
 (2.) Anacolutha are frequent, when the con- 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 249 
 
 struction is continued by means of a participle, 
 
 which often appears in a case different from that 
 
 which would naturally be expected. 
 
 E. g. cragaxaXw v/&ug...uvz'X ) 6/j,ew...<f'rovdd£ ) ovrsg, Epb. 
 iv. 1, 2, both participles in the Nom. plural, instead of 
 being (as we should naturally expect) in the Ace. as 
 agreeing with b/Mag. Col. iii. 16, botxeiru Iv bfjjv... 
 diddcxovrsg xai vou^srouvttg, Participles in the Nom. in- 
 stead of the Dat. plural. So 2 Cor. ix. 10, 11. Acts 
 xv. 22. Col. ii. 2. And so, not unfrequently, in the 
 classics. By recommencing (as it were) a sentence 
 with the Nom. of the Part., the meaning of it is made 
 more emphatic and conspicuous. 
 
 (3.) Another species of anacoluthon is when, 
 after the sentence is begun with a participle, the 
 construction passes over into a finite verb, where 
 we should naturally expect the participial con- 
 struction to be continued. 
 
 E. g. Col. i. 26, ro f/,vc>r7jgiov rb u<roxs%yj{A{AZ)/ov . . .vvvt 
 ds IpuvzDOj'Sri, instead of vvvi ds (pavsgofozv. Eph. i. 20, 
 lyshag aurbv...xai IjcaS/csv. 2 John, ver. 2 Heb. viii. 10. 
 
 (4.) Sometimes the Nom. or Ace. at the head 
 of a sentence, has a verb after it which is not 
 congruous with it. 
 
 E. g. raZra, a ^supsTts, sXsvffovrat r t /Msoai, Iv alg oux 
 aps^csra/ Xi%g It/ Xi^uj. Here I should construe 
 thus : ' In regard to these things which ye see, etc.' 
 See also 2 Cor. xii. 17. Rom. viii. 3. 
 
250 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 (5.) It is a kind of anacoluthon, when ph is 
 employed without a corresponding ds. 
 
 In most cases where this is done, there is an ellipsis 
 or aposiopesis as to the apodosis in which ds would 
 stand. The lexicons (under /asv ds) will give a con- 
 siderable number of examples, and the requisite ex- 
 planations. There can hardly be a doubt that /xsv 
 always requires a ds either expressed or implied ; but 
 a considerable number of cases exist, where no ds is 
 expressed. Like to this is the case of yag, which al- 
 ways implies a relation to some preceding thought, 
 and a sequency after such thought ; but oftentimes the 
 particular thought to which yao is consequent, is not 
 expressed but only implied. It should be noted, how- 
 ever, in regard to fisv, that ds only is not always re- 
 quired in the apodosis ; for (in the Greek classics) 
 gVs/ra, xcci, rs aXXa, avrug, /xsvroi, (j.y\\i, sira, (see Pas- 
 sow on ds), sometimes take the apodotic place of ov 
 and often the apodosis is altogether omitted, in which 
 case the sentence is a real anacoluthon. Winer, § 64, 
 II. 2. e. 
 
 VARIED CONSTRUCTION (Oratio Variata.) 
 
 § 74. NATURE, EXTENT, AND OBJECT. 
 
 (1.) By Oratio Variata is meant a departure 
 from a construction already exhibited by one 
 member of a sentence, in another and corre- 
 sponding 1 member that might take the same con- 
 struction as the first. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 251 
 
 (2.) This happens often, even among the best 
 writers; and, in general, the object of it is, to 
 attain more perspicuity or emphasis by the new 
 construction, than would be effected by retaining 
 the one already exhibited. 
 
 E. g. Rom. xii. 1, 2, cragaxaXw bfAuc...'rctg<xffTr l ffar 
 zat firi gvff%rj/j,arJfy<foz...fj,sra, l u,og<po\j<&e, where the two 
 latter verbs stand in the Imper. instead of being put 
 in the Inf. with vapugrrjgai, as they might have been, 
 and as they regularly would be. But the varied con- 
 struction, by adopting the Imper., throws more em- 
 phasis into the sentence. So Mark xii. 38, rwv Ss- 
 Xovruv h groXaTg ts^ittcctsTv, xui dg-7rag/Movg sv raTg ayogatg, 
 where the same construction would have required 
 atfTa^ffSa; instead of dgiragpovg. Phil. ii. 22, on, ug 
 Karg} rexvov, 6vv spot sdovXivffiv elg to svayy'eXiov, where 
 sameness of construction would have demanded ifioi 
 only, instead of <fvv spot* So Eph. v. 27. Col. i. 6. 
 John v. 44. Eph. v. 33. 1 Cor. xiv. 5. 2 Cor. vi. 
 9. Phil. i. 23, seq. Rom. xii. 14, seq. Such con- 
 structions are frequent in the classics. Winer, p. 
 450. 
 
 Note 1. In Rev. xiv. 14; vii. 9, sldov xut Idou 
 take both Nom. and Ace. after them, i. e. the Norn, 
 in respect to ibov, and the Ace. in respect to zldov. 
 
 (2.) A species of varied construction is fre- 
 quent in the New Testament, which consists in 
 a change from the direct to the oblique method of 
 
252 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 style (oratio directa et obliqua), in the same sen- 
 tence. 
 
 E. g. Luke v. 14, * He commanded him fj,rfitv) 
 s/TiTv (Inf.), dWcc, aTiX^uv dsTt^ov,' x. r. X., where it is 
 changed to a direct style, and the Imper. of direct 
 address is used. Acts xxiii. 22, « He dismissed the 
 young man, commanding him to tell no one on tuZtcc 
 ivetpdviffctg Kgos fis, where the last clause according to 
 the indirect style of the first part of the sentence, 
 would be irgbg auroV See Mark xi. 32. 
 
 (3.) Another species of oratio variata, is the 
 transition from the singular to the plural, and 
 vice versa. 
 
 E. g. Rom. xii. 16, 20. 1 Cor. iv. 6, seq. Gal. iv. 
 7 ; vi. 1. Luke v. 4, seq. 
 
 Remark. All these kinds of varied construction 
 are found in the Greek classics. In this respect the 
 New Testament has nothing very peculiar ; except 
 that the Apocalypse abounds, most of all, in style of 
 this kind. 
 
 POSITION OF WORDS AND SENTENCES. 
 
 § 75. NATURE AND DESIGN. 
 
 (1.) The Greek, by the aid of its various end- 
 ings of cases, etc., may depart from the most 
 easy and natural arrangement of words without 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 253 
 
 any special prejudice to perspicuity. The variety, 
 in this respect, depends very much on the mode 
 of thinking peculiar to the several writers. 
 
 Note 1. The most natural order is to arrange the 
 adjective near to its noun; the adverb to its verb or 
 adjective ; the Gen. to the noun, etc., which governs 
 it ; prepositions to the nouns which they govern ; 
 antithetic words opposite to each other, etc. But de- 
 parture from this, for the sake of emphasis, rhetorical 
 effect, euphony, and other reasons, is frequent in all 
 good writers. 
 
 Note 2. it is natural that the historical style 
 should adopt the obvious order of words most fre- 
 quently ; and that the animated, argumentative, ora- 
 torical, and poetical, on the other hand, should most 
 frequently depart from it. Paul uses more freedom, 
 in this respect, than any of the writers of the New 
 Testament. 
 
 (2.) Position often has speciality of meaning 
 attached to it. 
 
 E. g. The adjective is designed to be emphatic, 
 when it is placed before a noun, and does not stand 
 included between an article and its noun ; so <p6(3og 
 fMsyac, 'ioyov dyo&bv, etc., would be the usual order of 
 the Greek, but i*.iya$ <p6f3og, dya%v zgyov would ren- 
 der the adjective emphatic. To this remark, how- 
 ever, an exception must be made of such adjectives as 
 aXXos, slj, 'Jdiog, and some others of the like tenor. 
 But oZrqg citiswrog is plainly different in the shade of 
 
254 ON THE SYNTAX OF THE 
 
 meaning from av^{w~og ovrog, the first being equiva- 
 lent, or nearly so, to this is the man, the second to this 
 man. 
 
 Note 1. This whole subject, rich in information 
 as to the characteristics of respective writers, has, as 
 yet, been but very imperfectly investigated and ex- 
 plained. 
 
 TRAJECTION OF WORDS. 
 
 § 76. NATURE AND DESIGN. 
 
 (I.) Adverbs, other particles, and sometimes 
 other words, are, for the sake of euphony, or 
 other reasons, separated from the words to which 
 they are most nearly related 
 
 E. g. Rom. v. 6, eri Xgitirbg ovruv yjfjbuv ci&ivwv, where 
 'in belongs to ovruv. 1 Cor. xiv. 7, o/tag rd a-^vyjx 
 <puvr t v didovra, when o/iug naturally would come before 
 <pwv7]v. Gal. iii. 15, o/iug dv^ouiTov 7csx.vpu/^svrjv 6/a^x»ji> 
 obfolg d^srsT, where opug belongs to obbug, x. r. X. See 
 John xii. 1 ; xi. 18 ; xxi. 8. 
 
 Note 1. Trajection of a negative particle is not 
 un frequent, even in the Greek classics. In Acts vii. 
 48, ob% is separated by several words from xarous? 
 which it qualifies ; so fui in Heb. xi. 3, from ytyovhcu. 
 
 POSITION OF CERTAIN PARTICLES. 
 
 § 77. VARIOUS USAGES IN RESPECT TO THESE. 
 
 (1.) Mh oh, y&g, y\, (psvovvys,) cannot begin a 
 sentence. As and yd* may have the second, 
 
NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 255 
 
 third, or even fourth place, according to the na- 
 ture of the sentence in which they stand. "Aga 
 (in the classics) cannot begin a clause ; in the 
 New Testament, however, it not unfrequently 
 does this. 
 
 E. g. aoa in Gal. ii. 17, 21 ; v. 11, al. ; and so a( 
 oh, Rom. v. 18; vii. 3. Eph. ii. 19, al. Likewise 
 fisvovvys in Luke xi. 28 ; ix. 20 ; x. 18, al. 
 
 PARONOMASIA. 
 
 § 78. NATURE AND USE. 
 
 (1.) In general this consists of words being 
 ranged together of similar sound, but differing 
 in sense. It is a favourite figure of rhetoric 
 in the best writers of the Old Testament, e. g. 
 Isaiah, and is not unfrequent in the New Tes- 
 tament. 
 
 E. g. Kifioi xal Xoifioiy Luke xxi. 11 ; <?ojriv zai irvoriv, 
 Acts xvii. 25 ; g/xaSsi> uf ojv hra&e, Heb. v. 8 ; ^govov, 
 povov ...atfw'erovg, advv^srcvg, Rom. i. 29, 31 ; qrvevpari- 
 xo?s msvf&artxik, 1 Cor. ii. 13 ; avro! h sauroTg scivrovg, 
 2 Cor. x. 12 ; Ts/^sff^a/...?? ffs/tfjaovj], Gal. v. 7, 8, which 
 last word seems to have been coined for the sake of 
 the paronomasia. 
 
 Note 1. Not unlike to this, but approaching 
 nearer to what we sometimes call playing upon words, 
 
256 SYNTAX OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT. 
 
 are the examples in various places ; e. g. cragaxo^ and 
 v-7razcri in Rom. v. 19 ; xarocro/MTj and ws^to/j,^, Phil, 
 iii. 2, 3 ; d<7roeov{/,svot and e^affogovfizvoi, 2 Cor. iv. 8 ; 
 ley a^o/z-s vows and wegisgyufyfAsvo-jg, 2 Thess. iii. 1 1 ; 
 IxSuffaoSa/ and lsrsi/8o<ra<&a/, 2 Cor. v. 4 ; yiv(Jj<r/,zig o 
 uvayivu)(txng ; Acts viii. 30. Comp. Gal. iv. 17. 1 
 Cor. iii. 17 ; vi. 2 ; xi. 29, 31. 2 Cor. v. 21 ; x. 3. 
 
 Note 2. All these usages abound even in the 
 best Greek classics ; see Eisner, Diss. II. Paulus et 
 Jesias inter se comparati, p. 24. (1821. 4.) See 
 also Winer, p. 431. But let the student beware how 
 he makes the mere 6/^oiorsXiurov of the Greek verbs 
 iuto paronomasia, e. g. such endings as are in e\i- 
 Sao^ffai/, sngit&rjffuv, etc. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 HINTS AND CAUTIONS RESPECTING THE GREEK 
 ARTICLE. 
 
 It may not be amiss, very briefly to suggest the 
 reasons why I have given the title above to the fol- 
 lowing remarks. I call them Hints, because it is not 
 my present purpose to write a grammatical essay in 
 extenso on the subject of the Greek article, in which I 
 might endeavour to exhibit all its various phases and 
 uses ; nor is it my design here to exhibit, in a formal 
 way, even an abridged account of these, which might 
 hold a place in an ordinary grammar. Preparation 
 to write a work of such a nature in extenso, after the 
 labours of Kluit, Matthiae, Middleton, and others, 
 must cost the labour of many years, in case the de- 
 sign should be (as it ought to be) to add something 
 to the stock of knowledge already accumulated. Such 
 labour my duties will not allow me to perform ; and 
 perhaps we shall see some reason to doubt, in the 
 sequel, whether the subject itself is of sufficient im- 
 portance to justify the laying out of such expensive 
 effort upon it. But still, it is my intention to discuss, 
 on the present occasion, some of the leading doc- 
 trines of the Greek article ; and this discussion must 
 
 b 
 
2 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 necessarily take a grammatical hue, because it can- 
 not be conducted in any other manner, so as to be 
 solid and satisfactory. 
 
 I have added the word Cautions to the title of this 
 essay, because of my sincere and full persuasion that 
 the doctrine of the Greek article, has very often 
 been made too much of; for the presence or absence 
 of this little word, has been made the turning point in 
 some of the most important appeals that can be made 
 to evidence, in the science of theology or philology. 
 For example ; Origen asserts, and after him a multi- 
 tude of others have asserted, that in xai %bg rjv 6 Xoyog, 
 John i. 1, §sbg cannot designate the great and supreme 
 God, because the article is wanting, which (in case it 
 designated God supreme) must be supplied. So again 
 in Tit. ii. 13, the phrase Ivnpavs/a r^g h6t,r\g rou i^iya.- 
 Xov $sou xai aojr^pog 9}f/t,uv 'irjffou Xpigtov, has occa- 
 sioned great and long protracted controversy, by giv- 
 ing rise to the question, whether the omission of the 
 article before G^T^og necessarily unites it to §sov, and 
 makes both to relate to one and the same person ; or 
 whether the language, as it now stands, is grammati- 
 cally capable of being understood in such a way as to 
 make a distinction between §sbg and gojtt}^ the former 
 being applied to God the Father, and the latter to 
 Christ his Son. These are only a specimen of the 
 questions that the Greek article has occasioned. Years 
 of laborious effort have been devoted to some of these 
 questions ; and, after all, without satisfactorily accom- 
 plishing the desired end. Much of this labour has, in 
 certain points of view, been lost to the world ; because 
 a little more accurate knowledge of the true nature of 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 the Greek article would have effectually shewn, that 
 in whatever way the investigation might terminate, 
 the labour would in some respects be in vain ; since 
 the presence or absence of the article would, after all, 
 decide nothing in a satisfactory way, so long as the 
 usages of the Greek language would, in most cases, 
 permit either, without any essential variations of the 
 meaning. A true knowledge of this subject, I doubt 
 not, would contribute greatly to narrow the bounds 
 of controversy as it respects the declarations of the 
 New Testament in several respects. Critics also, as 
 well as theologians, would have less controversy than 
 they have had, about many a various reading which 
 has respect to the insertion or omission of the article. 
 Those who reject with disdain this or that reading, 
 because the article is present or absent, as the case 
 may be, might, in many instances perhaps, find that 
 their disdain was more the progeny of unacquaintance 
 with the nicer shades of Greek grammar, or at least 
 the laws of syntax, than of critical skill ; yea, that in 
 many a case, they were making much ado about — 
 nothing. 
 
 I do not expect that the reader will believe all this 
 on the ground of my assertion ; nor do I wish that he 
 should. If he does not see reason enough, in the se- 
 quel, for such remarks as I have made, then let him 
 cancel them, if not from this book, at least from his 
 mind. I ask for no credit upon trust. I have been 
 obliged, in stating my reasons for the title given to 
 this essay, in some measure to anticipate what I deem 
 to be the result of its contents ; and when the reader 
 shall have gone through with these contents, I ask 
 
4 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 him then to turn back, and read the preceding re- 
 marks again, and inquire whether I have presumed 
 more than I have proved. 
 
 It is one of the most singular phenomena that I 
 know of in regard to language, that the Greek arti- 
 cle has not yet received, as it would seem, a defini- 
 tion which is satisfactory to the great body of gram- 
 marians and critics. Nouns, adjectives, verbs, parti- 
 ciples, and particles, can be defined, and often have 
 been, so that the great majority of those who specu- 
 late in these matters acquiesce in the definition. The 
 verb and participle might, perhaps, be made an ex- 
 ception to this remark in certain particulars. Still, 
 there is no controversy whether a verb is a noun, or 
 an adjective, or other part of speech ; and so in regard 
 to the participle. But in respect to the article, there 
 is still a contest concerning what it is, or at least 
 what it originally was and still substantially is, al- 
 though it may be employed with more latitude by the 
 later than by the earlier Greek authors. 
 
 I cannot do requisite justice to my subject, without 
 entering into this part of it with some degree of par- 
 ticularity. In the way of illustrating what I have just 
 said, let me produce some of the definitions which 
 have been given by some of the most celebrated 
 grammarians and critics. 
 
 Aristotle, whom we might presume to be master of 
 his own language, says : "A&pov de eari <puvr, ciffr^og, 
 r] "koyov uoyjiv % r'sXog rj dioeiti/jjov drjXoT, ohv to py^i xal 
 rb we§i, zai ru uXkcc, i. e. the article is a sound without 
 a signification, which marks the beginning or end of a 
 sentence, or distinguishes, as when we say the [word] 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. O 
 
 <pri/Ai, the [word] arsg/, etc." Middleton remarks on 
 this, that " he despairs of discovering in it any thing 
 to his purpose ;" and well he might say so, inasmuch 
 as his purpose was, to shew that the article is in all 
 cases essentially a relative pronoun, which it would be 
 difficult enough to find in the definition of Aristotle. 
 He conjectures, however, that as the article is usually 
 prefixed to the subject of a sentence, i. e. to the no- 
 minative case, this may tally with the first part of the 
 definition, which refers, as is generally supposed, to the 
 prepositive article ; and the subjunctive article, og, yj, o, 
 which is essentially a relative pronoun, is commonly 
 used only when it is preceded by some phrase or de- 
 claration to which it refers, and therefore may be 
 said to " mark the end of such declaration." But the 
 misfortune is, the prepositive articles are often found 
 in the predicates of propositions, as well as in the 
 subjects, and that the subjunctive article is far from 
 being always placed so as of itself to mark the end 
 of a clause or sentence to which it relates. 
 
 But what shall we make of Aristotle's fmvi uffrifiog, 
 a sound without a meaning ? Are there any such 
 words in any language ? I am not aware of any. I 
 know, indeed, that careless writers or speakers may 
 employ many words that are superfluous and useless, 
 so far as it respects the proper designation of what 
 they mean. But this does not prove that there are 
 any words which have of themselves no meaning ; it 
 proves only that the ignorant and the unskilful may 
 abuse language. 
 
 One may here say, perhaps, that we must under- 
 stand Aristotle as averring, that the article does not 
 
6 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 of itself designate any object, quality, attribute, action, 
 etc. like the noun and adjective ; nor, like the verb 
 or participle, assert of these things any action or ex- 
 istence. But here again, where we seem to have ob- 
 tained some light as to his meaning, we are met with 
 the question : Which of all these does the preposi- 
 tion indicate? And is this a part of speech without a 
 meaning? 
 
 Does he design, then, to convey the idea, that the 
 article, in and by itself alone, has no significancy, but 
 is dependent on its noun, etc. expressed or under- 
 stood, for any and all of its significancy ? Be it so ; 
 but how in this respect does it differ from the true 
 and proper adjective, or the preposition, which in and 
 by themselves alone have no proper significancy, 
 being dependent parts of speech that show quality 
 and relation only where the subject is expressed or 
 understood to which they relate ? If it be said, that 
 the adjective often goes over into the noun, and so 
 may have a significancy by itself; the answer is, that 
 then as a noun, and not as a proper adjective, it has 
 such an independent significancy. Besides, it is true 
 of the article also, that it often goes over into the de- 
 monstrative, and sometimes into the relative pronoun, 
 and has the same significancy with these words. And 
 even the preposition in some cases is used in like man- 
 ner, as where the Greeks say, aya for dvaffrrfii, rraga 
 for croc^z/A/, sV/ for scsot/, ht for hsari, vvra for v-nan, 
 etc. 
 
 Still, my apprehension is that Aristotle did design, 
 by his (pcavri atryj/xog to mark the usual fact, that the ar- 
 ticle in and of itself has no proper significancy like to 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 7 
 
 that of nouns and verbs. But when we rigidly ex- 
 amine this definition, we find it to be defective ; for, 
 in the first place, the peculiarity here noted applies to 
 some other parts of speech ; and secondly, it is true, 
 after all, of the article, that it does usually specificate 
 the meaning of the words to which it is attached, or at 
 least give them a meaning which may be called in some 
 respects emphatic. 
 
 With Middleton we may say, however, that we 
 despair of obtaining from the mighty master of logic 
 and grammar, any just and adequate view of the na- 
 ture of the article, by the definition which he has given. 
 
 The celebrated grammarian, Apollonius Dyscolus, 
 who flourished about a. d. 150, although he has said 
 much of the article, has left us no express definition of 
 it, by which we can learn his views exactly. He as- 
 serts, indeed, that articles and pronouns are different 
 things, and yet, that if the article loses its noun, it 
 then becomes a pronoun. Middleton avers, in respect 
 to him, that " he has many facts, for the most part cor- 
 roborating the theory which he [Middleton] suspects 
 to be the true one.'' This may be so ; but the inquiry 
 of most importance is, whether the Greek language it- 
 self corroborates this theory. 
 
 Let us hear another celebrated Greek grammarian, 
 who lived in the fifteenth century. I refer to Theo- 
 dore Gaza, whose grammatical work was the source 
 and exemplar of almost all the earlier Greek gram- 
 mars in western Europe. " The article,'' says he, 
 "is a declinable part of speech prefixed to nouns. It 
 is, indeed, divided into the prepositive and subjunc - 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 tive ; but properly the prepositive only is the article.'" 
 He then adds, (what is the essence of his definition,) 
 rroiz? S dvairoXrjGiv <7rgos , yvw<r/j,svov rou h rf\ ffvvra^zi, i. e. 
 " it serves to recal that which had previously been 
 known (or mentioned) in the discourse." 
 
 Here, indeed, we have one important remark, viz. 
 that the prepositive article is the only real and true 
 article. Why the so called subjunctive article should 
 ever have been named otherwise than pronoun, it 
 seems difficult to imagine. But we are not brought 
 much in advance upon our way, by the rest of Gaza's 
 remarks. It is a very limited part of the article's office, 
 to refer merely to what has been suggested or recog- 
 nized in previous discourse. Even if the old rule of 
 definition here — a potiori nomen Jit — were applied, 
 we should hardly be able to defend the definition of 
 Gaza. Moreover, the relative and the demonstrative 
 pronouns also serve to recal that which was men- 
 tioned or recognized in the preceding context ; and 
 how does the definition of Gaza serve to distinguish 
 the article from them ? 
 
 Mr. Harris, who in his Hermes has written so many 
 curious and in several respects interesting things con- 
 cerning the philosophy of language, speaks of the ar- 
 ticle as being nearly allied to the pronoun, and re- 
 marks that they may be best distinguished by the cir- 
 cumstance, that " the genuine pronoun always stands 
 by itself, while the genuine article requires a noun for 
 its support." 
 
 Lord Monbodo, who has speculated much and 
 often to very good purpose on language, and who was 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. V 
 
 uncommonly well versed in the writings of the Greek 
 philosophers and metaphysicians, remarks, that " the 
 article is of as subtle speculation as perhaps any 
 thing belonging to the language ; particularly as it is 
 used in Greek." In this he was beyond all doubt 
 correct. He then goes on to show, that " its office 
 is different from that of a pronoun of any kind, and 
 that it deserves to be ranked by itself among the parts 
 of speech." But after all, when he comes specifically 
 to define it, he makes it " the prefix to a noun, de- 
 noting simply that the noun to which it is prefixed, 
 is the same with that which was before mentioned, or 
 is otherwise well known." But these uses of the ar- 
 ticle are far from being the only ones which it sub- 
 serves. The definition, therefore, is incomplete. 
 Middleton objects to this definition, however, that 
 11 it makes the article a distinct part of speech ; and 
 that if it be thus distinct, it is not conceiveable that 
 it should become a pronoun when (as Apollonius 
 affirms) its substantive is dropped ; inasmuch as one 
 distinct part of speech cannot go over into another." 
 But the correctness of this last remark will hardly be 
 conceded. Does not an adjective often go over into 
 a noun ? Do not the primitive prepositions, when 
 they are joined in composition with a verb, become 
 adverbs? Do not forms of the infinitive mode very 
 often become mere nomina actionis — simple nouns ? 
 What then is the difficulty in the case before us ? 
 Why cannot the article, in certain cases, go over into 
 a kindred class of words (to say the least), i. e. into 
 a pronoun, although it be of itself a distinct part of 
 speech ? 
 
10 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 From this brief review of the former ancient and 
 modern definitions of the article, let us come to those 
 of some of our cotemporaries, who are, or have been 
 great masters in criticism, lexicography, or grammar. 
 Dr. Middleton, to whom I have already more than 
 once referred, published, some twenty years since, a 
 treatise on the Greek article, which he entitled : The 
 Doctrine of the Greek Article, applied to the criticism 
 and illustration of the New Testament. In this he 
 says, (p. 4 of the New York edit.) " The Greek pre- 
 positive article is the pronoun relative o, so employed 
 that its relation is supposed to be more or less obscure ; 
 which relation, therefore, is explained in some adjunct 
 annexed to the article by the participle of existence 
 expressed or understood." His meaning is, for ex- 
 ample, that o <pi"k6<fo<pog is in all cases equivalent to 6 
 u>v piXoffotpog' in which case o is the subject of an as- 
 sumed proposition, u)v the copula, and (piXotfopog the 
 predicate. According to him, then, the article stands 
 in all cases, in connection with its noun, in a proposi- 
 tion which differs from one that has a verb, only as an 
 assumptive proposition differs from one that asserts, 
 I. e. as o &v <pi\6<jopog differs from o hn <pi\6(io<pog. 
 
 To explain and defend this definition, he occupies 
 twenty pages of his Essay. 1 have read this part of 
 his work many times heretofore, and recently with 
 all the attention that I could summon, and yet I feel 
 compelled to say, that Aristotle's definition, which 
 has been cited above, and with which Middleton 
 finds much fault, is at least as intelligible to me as 
 that of his corrector. 
 
 What is a part of speech " so employed, that its 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 11 
 
 relation is supposed to be more or less obscure ?" 
 Men employ language in order to clear away ob- 
 scurity ; and they always complain of an unskilful or 
 ill use of it, when it is so employed as to be obscure. 
 The author, however, to do him justice here, means 
 to say, that the relative pronoun 6 is so employed as 
 to be anticipative, (which is sometimes the case with 
 pronouns really relative,) and that the noun antici- 
 pated, i. e. the noun to which the article has refe- 
 rence, is to be fully known only by the mention of it 
 in the sequel. For example ; 6 he ivho (for so, if 
 Middleton be correct, we must translate it, when 
 rigid exactness is applied to it,) stands with an un- 
 certain meaning or reference, 'until ai&gwsros, <pf/j>6o- 
 <pog, or some other noun is supplied. In this way a 
 kind of relative meaning is made out for the article, 
 and on this ground the author in question calls it a 
 relative pronoun; contrary to the great mass of critics, 
 ancient and modern, who, when they admit its pro- 
 nominal quality, always make it, in the main, a de- 
 monstrative pronoun. Matthiae (Gramm. § 292) 
 does, indeed, admit that the article is used for the re- 
 lative pronoun ; but he limits this to the Doric and 
 Ionic dialects, and to the tragic poets only among the 
 Attics. It should be noted, however, that this rela- 
 tive use which he thus admits, constitutes but a small 
 part of the instances in which the article is employed. 
 In fact, if we are to name the article a pronoun in 
 all cases, we must evidently divide the generic deno- 
 mination into several species, viz. into the demonstra- 
 tive, the most frequent of all in ancient times ; the 
 relative, which is less common, and somewhat pe- 
 
12 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 culiar to certain dialects ; and what I would beg 
 leave to name, the anticipative. The two former 
 cases need no illustration ; the latter may be easily 
 explained. When I say 6 cpiXodopog mgivctrs?, with- 
 out having made any previous discourse on this 
 subject, the 6 in this case is anticipative of some 
 noun that is to follow. In one sense, if it be a pro- 
 noun at all, we may call it a relative pronoun ; for 
 it has a relation to a noun which is to follow. But, 
 for the same reason, we might call an adjective a 
 relative part of speech, or a preposition, or an ad- 
 verb ; for none of these are employed but in rela- 
 tion and subserviency to other words. Still, to con- 
 found an anticipative relation, one which in its own 
 nature is so and always must be, with the idea of 
 relative pronoun in the usual grammatical sense of 
 this term, does not seem to be throwing any light 
 upon our subject. In common grammatical parlance 
 a relative pronoun always implies an antecedent, 
 either expressed or understood. I admit that sen- 
 tences are sometimes so constructed in poetry, and 
 occasionally in prose, as that the relative pronoun 
 holds a place actually before its antecedent. But it 
 is, if I may be allowed the expression, only a phy- 
 sical place which it thus occupies. In the order of 
 logic, of grammar, of sense, the antecedent of course 
 must precede the relative pronoun. That there are 
 innumerable cases of the article, in which it is not 
 relative in any other than the general sense above 
 explained, and not in the technical one, need not be 
 proved to any one who reads the Greek language. 
 Indeed Middleton himself admits, and even labours 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GRtfKK ARTICLE. 13 
 
 to prove, that the reference of the article is always 
 anticipative (p. 19.) Yet in this position, the whole 
 matter can hardly be placed. When the article is 
 actually used as a relative pronoun, (and cases of this 
 nature are not unfrequent, Matth. Gramm. § 292,) 
 we may consider it as retrospective in the same sense 
 as the relative pronoun is, for it is in reality a mere 
 relative pronoun in this case. In all cases where it 
 is so used, we may indeed repeat the noun to which 
 it relates; but then, this is never done by good 
 writers, except for the sake of avoiding ambiguity in 
 some peculiar cases. 
 
 To call the article a illative pronoun, then, and 
 yet to make it always anticipative, seems to be nothing 
 more than to change the usual meaning of words, with- 
 out gaining any serious advantage. 
 
 We must delay one moment on another part of 
 Middleton's definition. He says that " the relation 
 of the pronoun [article] is more or less obscure." I 
 admit, indeed, that when the article is altogether an- 
 ticipative, as when it stands at the beginning of a 
 new discourse, chapter, or paragraph, if the speaker 
 or writer should stop with his o, and suspend further 
 declaration, no one else would be able to tell what 
 noun should be supplied in order to make out the 
 sequel. In such cases, I admit also, there would be 
 more or less obscurity. But in the very numerous 
 cases like the following, viz. r\ viang v/jbojv r\ <zobg rbv ©gov, 
 what obscurity is there in the reference or relation of 
 the second r h ? Certainly none at all. It is just as 
 certain that this belongs to ni<sng implied, as it is that 
 the first r t belongs to KtGTig expressed. So in rocTg 
 
]4 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 (pvXaTg raT; sv rvj diaff-rrooa, in ryjg dtuxoviag T7\g s/g ayi- 
 ovc, in ro7g adeXpoTg roTg e% Ifyuv, and a multitude of 
 the like cases. If it should be said that the article is 
 here, in the second instance where it occurs, a rela- 
 tive pronoun ; this will make nothing in the way of 
 vindicating Middleton's assertion. He contends for 
 its relative nature always and everywhere. But how, 
 in such cases as the above, the more or less obscure is 
 to be made out, I am not aware. Never were any 
 cases of relation more plain, definite, and certain, than 
 those of the repeated article above. 
 
 Pass we, now, to some other definitions. Let us 
 examine the brief one exhibited by Passow in his 
 masterly lexicon of the Greek language. " The ar- 
 ticle," says he, " represents its noun as a definite ob- 
 ject, which is not blended with other individuals of 
 the same kind, but is made prominent merely as an 
 independent particular thing." This definition, of 
 course, he intends for the article when conjoined with 
 a noun, as its prepositive. 
 
 It may be said, now, in relation to this account of 
 the article, that it does not reach the whole extent of 
 the case. The prepositive article surely is not limited 
 to those cases only where individuals belonging to a 
 species are specificated. On the other hand, innum- 
 erable cases occur, where it is prefixed to a noun which 
 designates a whole genus ; e. g. 0/ a^airro/, 01 asroi, oi 
 Xbxot, etc. So almost all abstract nouns take the ar- 
 ticle, as it would seem, for the very reason that they 
 are generic ; e. g. v\ aqzr% r\ (piXoffocpia, r\ adix/cc, v\ h- 
 xuiodwri, etc. Then, again, the article is very often 
 used in the case of renewed mention of a thing, where 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 15 
 
 in the first instance, the same thing was mentioned 
 without the article, and where the noun itself is no 
 more specific in its actual meaning in the one case 
 than in the other. Whatever ground there is of its 
 being specific, the basis of this lies in the fact, that in 
 the second case there is a reference to its having 
 been once named ; and the article in this case has 
 principally a demonstrative rather than a specificating 
 power. For example ; Matt. i. 20, ayyz'kog '/.-joiov 
 (without the article,) an angel of the Lord, but in 
 ver. 24, ociyy-Xog xvgfov, the angel of the Lord, viz. 
 the angel, or that angel before mentioned. 
 
 Passow, therefore, has given us only a partial ac- 
 count of the Greek article, in his definition of it ; and 
 this may be said with equal truth respecting the ex- 
 hibition of its uses in his lexicon, although this exhi- 
 bition is distinguished in several respects for its acute- 
 ness. 
 
 Bretschneider, in his lexicon of the New Testament, 
 has given for substance the same definition, although 
 in fewer words. u Articulus...ubique ponitur, ubi 
 aliquid vel definite cogitatur vel enuntiatur, vel sua 
 natura jam definita est." But is not Scozgar'/js a de- 
 finite subject ? Are not §eb$, xvgiog, Xgierbg, x.arJa, 
 adiTticc, dixaioGvn'/}, definite subjects ; definite in their 
 own nature, and definitely conceived of? And yet 
 these and a host of other like words often appear with- 
 out the article. What becomes then of the " ubique 
 ponitur" of the author ? Not to mention that the de- 
 finition of the use of the article is quite too narrow for 
 its limits. 
 
16 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 The definition of that great master in the science 
 of philosophical grammar, Philip Buttmann, is almost 
 exactly the same as that of Bretschneider, and was 
 probably the one which this latter author had in his 
 eye, when he penned his remarks upon o, 57, rb, in his 
 lexicon. It runs thus : " The prepositive article is an- 
 nexed... to every object which is to be represented as 
 definite, either by means of the language itself, or from 
 the circumstances." To remark on this, would be 
 only to repeat what has just been said. 
 
 Come we then to Matthiae, the 6 iruvv of all The- 
 saurus-makers in Greek Syntax. It is seldom, indeed, 
 that he will be found tripping in these matters, to 
 which he has devoted a most laborious life. " The ar- 
 ticle," says he (§ 264,) serves to show, that the noun 
 with which it is connected, designates a definite ob- 
 ject among several of the same kind, or a whole spe- 
 cies." This last clause is an important and essential 
 addition to the definition of Passow and others. But 
 there seems to be still a deficiency in the definition ; 
 for what is the meaning of definite ? Does he mean 
 that the object must of course be monadic ? Certain- 
 ly not; as the sequel of his remarks abundantly 
 shews. He afterwards tells us, that when a person 
 or thing is defined by attributes, qualities, circumstan- 
 ces, office, station, etc. the article may be employed 
 in naming those things which serve as an appellative 
 to distinguish them ; e. g. 6 y'zow, 6 ysgcabc, 6 aya^bg, 
 o't agiffroi, 6 psyctg, 6 vixojv, etc. It would be difficult, 
 perhaps, to introduce all these qualifying particulars 
 into a definition ; but they might at least be adverted 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 17 
 
 to, so that the reader would be put on his guard against 
 excluding them. 
 
 It might also be asked : Do not the thousands of 
 cases in which adjectives and participles (when not 
 used as nouns) take the article, deserve consideration 
 in a definition of this part of speech ? In what sense 
 is a definite individual or a genus marked, when the 
 article is thus employed ? That there is specification 
 of some sort, in such cases, I do not call in question ; 
 my only difficulty is, whether the definition before us 
 comprises it. 
 
 Frederic Rost, who has made a very useful sum- 
 mary of Greek grammar, and especially of its syntax, 
 has not given a formal definition of the article in any 
 one passage; but he has given an account of its 
 usages in such a way, that we may easily gather his 
 definition from it. According to him, " it marks a 
 particular individual belonging to a species ; or it de- 
 signates a genus, when it is regarded as a simple to- 
 tality (without reference to individual parts), or when 
 it is viewed in the light of antithesis to its opposites ; 
 and finally, whatever word designates special condi- 
 tion, attributes, circumstances, or relations, may take 
 the article. Of the first part of the definition, no 
 example is needed. Of the second we may give oi 
 av$Poj<7roi, 01 asrot, etc. for the first particular ; for the 
 second particular, we may take 6 ^okifMog ovx avsu 
 xtv&vvcav, y\ ds slgyvri axivdvvog, i. e. " war is not without 
 perils, but peace is not perilous." Now, if the first 
 part of this sentence were to be asserted, without sub- 
 joining or meaning to subjoin the second or antithetic 
 part, the form of it would be anarthrous, i. e. without 
 
18 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 the article ; as croKsfMog ovx sttnv civsu xivduvuv. The 
 article then has in some cases, yea, in many, an em- 
 phatic and antithetic power and design. 
 
 As to the last part of the definition, it may be 
 easily illustrated. Examples may be found every 
 where, such as 6 y'sguv, 6 copbc, 6 rz^vrixug, 6 n'kovffiog, 
 6 r>.y}/iuv 9 etc. In a word, any designation which 
 markspeculiar condition, circumstances, relations, qua- 
 lities, actions, etc. may take the article, and thus be 
 rendered in a certain sense emphatic, or specially 
 worthy of notice. 
 
 We seem to be making some progress by the defi- 
 nitions of the two last named writers. Perhaps it 
 would be difficult to produce a definition, to which 
 one might not make as many objections as he could 
 raise against that of Rost. I am well aware how 
 much easier it is to pull down than to build up, in 
 matters like that before us. If the reader should in- 
 sist upon it now, that, after criticising so much on the 
 definition of some of the great masters of Greek litera- 
 ture, I am myself under obligation to offer a de- 
 finition which would exclude the faults on which I 
 have animadverted, he would summon me to a task 
 which I fear would not be satisfactorily performed. 
 I have no pretence to hope that I should succeed, 
 where those who are so greatly my superiors have 
 failed. My full persuasion is, that more time and 
 study are requisite in order to do justice to this sub- 
 ject, than either myself or others have yet bestowed 
 upon it. That " truth is the daughter of time," 
 seems to be applicable to this matter, as well as to 
 some other matters of greater importance. 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 19 
 
 It seems to have been the conviction of Scaliger, 
 that little of terra firma could be won, by efforts 
 upon the Greek article. At least, when he called it 
 loquacissimae gentis flabellum, we may suppose him 
 to have been in an attitude of mind not unlike to the 
 one attributed to him. This is, to be sure, a sum- 
 mary process with the whole matter; but not one 
 which is adapted to give much light, or excite to 
 much inquiry. 
 
 If I were to describe the office of the Greek article 
 in the most generic terms that are admissible, I should 
 say, perhaps, that "it is a declinable part of speech, in- 
 tended to serve the purposes of specification, either 
 on account of individuality, or of quality ', condition, 
 or circumstances." Adverbs, adjectives, and partici- 
 ples (used as adjectives,) may qualify ; but they can 
 hardly be said to specify. Pronouns, personal and 
 demonstrative, may specify individuality, but they 
 are not used for other specifications in the same man- 
 ner as the article. It is true, that the article often 
 serves a purpose like that which they subserve ; and 
 then, when the article and pronoun are both used, 
 they render still more specific and emphatic the 
 word with which they are united. For example ; h 
 sxeivT) rjj ijfAegq is more intensive than h rjj tj/asou. 
 But there are innumerable cases where no pronoun 
 could serve the same purposes of specification as the 
 article. In respect to oi dsroi, 0/ cifoguKoi, etc. it is 
 plain that the sense would be entirely changed by 
 writing ovroi usroi, ovroi av^gwjroi, or shzTvoi asroi, sxeTvot 
 avtyunoi, etc. In the last case there would be in- 
 evitably a reference to enrol or avSwcroty express or 
 
20 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 implied, which had already been brought to view. 
 But when the article only is employed before these 
 nouns, this is not necessary. It may indeed be em- 
 ployed in case of the repeated mention of a thing ; 
 bat it may also be employed where a genus or an in- 
 dividual is specified, to which no reference has yet 
 been made ; and employed for the purpose of distin- 
 guishing an individual or a species in some respect or 
 other, either on account of individuality, or of rela- 
 tion, attribute, circumstances, etc. It answers, there- 
 fore, many a purpose which demonstrative pronouns 
 do not ; and consequently is not to be confounded 
 with them, although, since it often approaches so very 
 near to the same use with theirs, it not unfrequently 
 is said to put on their nature. 
 
 The proper article always serves the purpose of 
 specification in some respect or other. When we 
 say i] <tt6\is, it refers either to the metropolis of the 
 country, or to some neighbouring city to which the 
 mind of speaker or hearer is most naturally turned, 
 or else to some city that has already been adverted 
 to in previous discourse. In the last case, there is a 
 near approach to the ancient demonstrative use of the 
 article, of which so much is said by many of the re- 
 cent grammarians and critics. The difference, in 
 such a case, between the city I mentioned and that 
 city I mentioned, either in Greek or English, would 
 be little or nothing, excepting in the mere form of 
 expression. And so, in all the cases where an indi- 
 vidual belonging to a class is distinguished by the 
 article, it is of course specification. 
 
 It is equally so when a generic noun has the arti- 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 21 
 
 cle ; e. g. oi dirol, oi ai&pwro/, etc. Here oi dirol is 
 not distinguished from other dzro) ; for such there are 
 not, the designation dirol itself comprising the whole 
 of these animals. But yet there is specification in 
 this case, as plainly as in the other ; for oi dsrol, gene- 
 rically considered, is a totality that is monadic or 
 one, and as such it is distinguished from other classes 
 of birds or any other animals. As a. genus it is just 
 as distinct among other genera, as rj -xo'X/g, designating 
 an individual city, is distinct from other coXt/c. It is 
 the logical conception, then, i. e. the idea of generic 
 totality or unity, which the article marks, whenever 
 it is prefixed to nouns in the plural that have a ge- 
 neric signification. Such a genus, taking into view 
 the manner in which the mind conceives of it, is just 
 as much specific as a single individual is. The same 
 law, therefore, in regard to the use of the article, evi- 
 dently applies to each. And from this it results, that 
 generic nouns may be anarthrous, whenever the idea 
 of specificating is not in the mind of the speaker or 
 writer ; and this, whether they be in the singular or 
 plural. For example ; in Kohi^og ovx scnv civsv zivdv- 
 vw, the word voXs/Aog is intended to mean, not war 
 specifically, or in distinction from something else, 
 but war of any kind, or at any time, i. e. any war 
 whatever. But in the phrase, 6 noXspog ovx avev xtv- 
 ovvw, 57 <5s s/^tJvjj dzivdwog, war is specifically conceived 
 of in distinction from peace, and therefore the article 
 becomes necessary in order to specificate. Thus also 
 in the plural, euros zaxorotzT dv^PuiToug, this man abuses 
 mankind, i. e. any man or all men with whom he is 
 concerned or, (in other words) he is a habitual abuser 
 
'22 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 of his fellow-men. But ourog xaxoKon? roiig aidgfe- 
 ■ttous would mean, that this one abuses the man or the 
 men, who had already been mentioned or referred to, 
 or who for some reason were already marked out or 
 specificated in the speaker's mind. 
 
 In the same way may we explain the use of the article 
 in such cases as 6 y'sgav, 6 a^iarog, 6 rXrjfiuv, etc. Here 
 the individual who is distinguished by such an appel- 
 lative, is conceived of by the mind as distinguished by 
 the attribute or quality to which these names (and 
 others like them) refer. He is therefore specificated 
 by the article. It is not individuality merely, as con- 
 stituted by being one among a class of the like beings, 
 which the article is employed to mark. Any attribute, 
 quality, office, condition, relation, or circumstance, 
 may also be marked by the use of the article, when- 
 ever either of these is designated by an appellative 
 significant of it. 
 
 On the like ground we may account for the usage 
 of the article in other cases. When employed before 
 a neuter adjective which becomes an abstract noun, 
 as to xaXbv, rb xaxbv etc. it is in reality used with a 
 generic noun having the sense of totality, and there- 
 fore (when thus considered) of unity ; and moreover, 
 in all such cases there is a particular specificating 
 power in the article, inasmuch as it serves to dis- 
 tinguish the quality or attribute to which it is affixed, 
 from other qualities and attributes which exist at the 
 same time. The plurals of such adjective nouns are 
 subject to the same laws as the plurals already noticed 
 above. 
 
 The same thing may be said, also, in relation to 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 23 
 
 the article as used before a noun with the pronominal 
 adjectives ovrog, sxsTvog, cbg, ifibg, etc., all of which, 
 from their very nature, make the noun with which they 
 are united to be specific. For example ; 6 efibg v/bg 
 would mean simply my [only] son, or a son of mine 
 who had already been the subject of preceding thought 
 or discourse ; while s/ibg v/bg would mean simply a 
 son (i. e. any son) of mine. In like manner nag and 
 vdvrsg admit the article when they mean generic to- 
 tality, or when the noun with which they are con- 
 nected has been previously mentioned ; but they re- 
 ject it. when they mean only every one in the sense 
 of any one, whoever, etc. 
 
 It is common, moreover, for adverbs to become 
 adjectives or nouns, by prefixing the article. There 
 is nothing strange in this. We have already seen 
 that appellatives very often take the article, and 
 usually do so when they are designed to attribute 
 any quality, condition, etc. in a special manner to 
 any person or persons. Now, adverbs partake alto- 
 gether of the nature of adjectives, as they always 
 designate some quality, circumstance, relation, etc. 
 When employed, therefore, by a license of language 
 derived from common parlance, for nouns or adjec- 
 tives, they become appellatives or attributives, and of 
 course follow the same laws as these words do, in 
 regard to the article ; e. g. c/ trdXai the ancients, ru 
 avoo the upper regions, r\ ecvgtov the morrow, etc. 
 
 The article is also put before the Infinitive mode, 
 when this is employed (which often happens) as an 
 indeclinable noun, or a nomen actionis vel passionis. 
 But the principle in this case of employing the article, 
 
24 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 does not seem to differ from its common usages. The 
 nomen actionis from its very nature is abstract and 
 generic ; and whenever the genus of action designated 
 by it is intended to be marked in distinction from 
 other classes of actions, or in such a way as to make 
 it emphatic, then the article may of course be regular- 
 ly employed. 
 
 Finally, the article is employed by the Greeks, 
 when they cite a word, or a sentence, or a clause of 
 a discourse, or use a word simply as such, without any 
 reference to its signification. For example ; rb 
 '~EXkac the word Hellas; rb cc, the letter Alpha; 
 " Then, said I, one thing yet remains, rb, qv wefauftev 
 {yxac, tog yj>r\ v/iag, acpsTvat, [which is] this, [viz.] if 
 we can persuade you that it is expedient to dismiss us;" 
 " What else means this saying rb, ovz s%ca o n ^jjcw/xa/ 
 roTg Xoyoig, [viz. the saying] that ovx i%oj %. r. A." In 
 these cases the demonstrative nature of the article is 
 apparent ; and, of course, its specificating power is 
 quite plain. We might solve these and all other like 
 cases, by the supposition that the article is used ellip- 
 tically, i. e. that some noun to which it belongs, and 
 which is naturally supplied by the mind, is implied. 
 The like happens in cases almost without number ; 
 e. g. 6 O/X/Vtou the [son] of Philip cross us<&a/ z/g rr,v 
 ' AAi-dvdoo'j to go into the [country] of Alexander. 
 Very often such nouns as -TraTg, vibg, ^-j-ydrrjP, -/jSioa., 
 or/Ja, odbg, 57/x^a, ^owr, 'ioyov, xeayfi.a, etc. are omitted, 
 while the article supplies their place. Or we may 
 solve them, by taking the whole clause that follows r6 
 as constituting what is equivalent to a noun. But in 
 all these cases, the nature of the article itself appears 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 9:S 
 
 to be the same, and the use of it to be subjected to its 
 ordinary laws. 
 
 In illustrating my views of the nature of the Greek 
 article, I have, almost unconsciously, gone over near- 
 ly the whole extent of its usage. I advance these 
 views, however, without any overweening confidence 
 in them. I know too well, from past experience and 
 from the example of others, on what slippery ground 
 I am treading ; and that while I may seem to have 
 made out some plausible theory to my own satisfac- 
 tion, a disinterested and acute observer may find 
 cases which will at least seem to contradict the prin- 
 ciples that I have assayed to explain and defend. 
 Be it so. I shall still, have the consolation, if my 
 effort should call forth any sound criticism on the 
 subject that will abide the test of thorough examina- 
 tion, of having contributed, even by my errors, to the 
 advancement of knowledge in respect to the Greek 
 idiom. I can only say, that no one would more sin- 
 cerely rejoice than myself, in such an effort on the 
 part of any one who does not accord with my views. 
 
 Before I quit, however, the general subject re- 
 specting the nature of the Greek article, I must add a 
 few considerations which seem to be of importance. 
 
 In all the languages of which I have any know- 
 ledge, the parts of speech are essentially the same, 
 the article only excepted. Their use, moreover, is 
 substantially the same. In all languages we find 
 nouns, verbs, adjectives, participles, adverbs, preposi- 
 tions, conjunctions, and interjections. The form and 
 derivation of some of these parts of speech, are in- 
 deed somewhat diverse. In some languages a lati- 
 
26 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 tude, for example, is given to adverbs, which is not 
 found in others. But I do not see how a language 
 can exist, unless it has in substance, if not in form, all 
 the parts of speech just named. By usage then, at 
 least, they are essential parts of speech. 
 
 Not so, however, with the article. In Latin there 
 is no such part of speech. In Syriac and Chaldee it 
 can hardly be said to exist. Yet the Hebrew, the 
 Greek, the English, German, French, Italian, etc. 
 make it a kind of indispensable constituent. There 
 is something singular in this phenomenon, and it de- 
 serves our attentive consideration. 
 
 It is clear, from the examples of the Latin, Syriac, 
 and Chaldee, that the article is not an essential part 
 of speech. The demonstrative pronouns in these 
 languages, do indeed serve to supply to a certain ex- 
 tent the deficiency of the article. Ille, iste, hie, etc. 
 in Latin, will of course cover that part of the ground 
 belonging to the Greek article, which is occupied by 
 its demonstrative power. But aquilae Mae would 
 answer but poorly to o'i asro/, when used merely as 
 descriptive of the genus of the bird in question. The 
 eloquence of Cicero, and all his power over language, 
 could not enable him to translate adequately and 
 fully, into his own mother tongue, the simple words 
 
 01 CfATOl. 
 
 Another circumstance, moreover, deserves especial 
 consideration. This is, that no two languages which 
 do employ the article, are throughout like to each other 
 in their mode of employing it. The Greek introduces 
 it in many cases where the English does not. The 
 same is the case with the French and German. No 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 27 
 
 two are bound by the same rules. Indeed there is so 
 much that is idiomatic in each language, in respect to 
 the use of the article, that an Englishman or Ameri- 
 can will find himself, in endeavouring to write or 
 speak any of these foreign languages, as often in fault 
 with regard to the article as in respect to any other 
 circumstance whatever. 
 
 All the preceding considerations taken together 
 serve to shew, that the article is not an essential part 
 of language ; nor, in cases where it is employed, is it 
 always subjected to the same uses, or at least it is 
 not in all cases deemed to be of the same, or even of 
 any, importance. The Greeks used it often where 
 we do not ; yea, where the idiom of our language 
 absolutely forbids it. 
 
 Further light may be cast on this part of our sub- 
 ject, which is very important to our purpose, by con- 
 siderations drawn from the early usage of Greek au- 
 thors. The assertions of ancient and modern critics 
 in regard to its use in Homer, are well known. So 
 long ago as the time of Aristarchus, it was believed that 
 the article of Homer is always a demonstrative pro- 
 noun ; for that critic asserts this (Matth. Gramm. § 
 264, 5.) Wolf, Koeppen, Heyne, Buttman, Rost, 
 Passow, and many others, assert the same thing. 
 Heyne indeed goes so far that when he finds cases in 
 Homer that will not bend to this theory, he calls in 
 question the genuineness of the reading, or rejects the 
 verses which exhibit them as spurious. Wolf, how- 
 ever, after making the like assertions in his Prolego- 
 mena to Homer, revokes his decision in a note to 
 Reitz de Prosodia (p. 74); where he says: "Pin- 
 
28 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 guius quaedam scripsi de Homerico usu articuli, etc." 
 Middleton (c. ii. § 1), and Matthias (Gramm. § 264, 
 4, 5) have assailed the opinion of Aristarchus and the 
 late critics ; and, as I must believe, with most con- 
 vincing evidence on their side. The poet says, II. a. 
 11, Ovvs'acc r o v Xeuff/jv rir/^rjff aoy\rr\oa, where Heyne, 
 Buttmann, and others translate rbv Xovg^v by that 
 Chryses. But, as Matthias very justly observes, on 
 this ground the poet must be supposed to appeal ex- 
 pressly to something as well known, independently of 
 his poem ; which is as little congruous with the man- 
 ner of his poem, as with historical narration. So 
 again, II. <p', 317, ru rrj^scc %aka, Odys. o, 10, rbv 
 t,sTvov d-jffTTjvov, Odys. /, 378, 6 f^oyXbg sXd'ivog, that 
 beautiful armour, that mihappy foreigner, would 
 give, says Matthias, a streak of modern sentimentalism 
 to the passages ; and that olive-ivood would designate 
 a particularity which would be altogether incongruous, 
 since every one knows what wood is meant. 
 
 The numerous examples he produces of the ordi- 
 nary usage of the article in the Iliad and Odyssey, in 
 § 264, 4 of his Grammar, it would seem, must put 
 this long agitated question to rest, if rest could ever 
 be given to critics on the father of epic poetry. Still 
 it is not so. Passow explains them all away thus : 
 rbv aoiffrov him — the bravest, rbv dvtirqvov him — the un- 
 fortunate, oi aXkoi they — the others, etc. In like man- 
 ner do Buttmann, Rost, Heyne, and others, explain 
 the same phenomena. But what is plainer than that, 
 on the very same ground, one may eject the article 
 from Plato, Xenophon, or any other Greek author, 
 always making it a pronoun personal, relative, or de- 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 29 
 
 monstrative, and its noun a mere epexegesis, put in 
 apposition with it? Is this arguing philologically ? 
 Or is it forcing our way through, in spite of all ob- 
 stacles, in order to support a theory. 
 
 One thing is conceded on all hands, viz. that poetry 
 employs the article much less frequently than prose ; 
 that the oldest poetry employs it least of all ; and that 
 poets not Attic, seem to have omitted or inserted it 
 almost at pleasure. Buttmann (§ 124, Note 4) as- 
 serts, that the use of it among them was altogether a 
 matter depending on their own choice. 
 
 How can all this be true, if the article is an essen- 
 tial part of speech ? I am aware, indeed, that poetry 
 takes great liberties ; in particular that poetry which 
 depends for its rythm on the quantity of syllables. 
 But are none of the liberties of poetry allowed to 
 prose ? Does not that part of prose which approaches 
 near to the language of conversation, take the same 
 liberties which abound in the latter? We may very 
 reasonably believe this ; and we may also believe, that 
 among other liberties taken by speakers and writers, 
 that in respect to the article, which is so common in 
 poetry, may also have been taken in prose, especially 
 in such pieces as exhibit conversation-style. 
 
 The insertion or omission, then, of a part of speech 
 not absolutely essential, cannot be expected to be 
 fixed by the same certain laws which govern the use 
 of the essential parts of speech. If poetry could omit 
 or insert the article at pleasure, and yet sacrifice no- 
 thing of importance in regard to its perspicuity and 
 propriety of language, we may well expect to find 
 something of this in prosaic usage. The sequel will 
 
30 * HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 show that such an expectation is not without some 
 solid ground to rest upon. 
 
 I beg the reader's indulgence, while I make one more 
 remark, which may serve to cast some light on the facts 
 which will be presented in the sequel. This is, that 
 the definiteness or distinction of an object cannot be 
 rationally supposed to be always dependent merely 
 upon the real definiteness or distinction of that object 
 in itself considered, either in regard to its individuality, 
 or in respect to its attributes, relations, or circum- 
 stances. If the writer or speaker merely imagined or 
 supposed it to be definite, or distinct, or intended to 
 represent it as distinct, he would of course speak in 
 the same manner as though it were really so. What 
 he supposes, imagines, or intends, is reality to him. 
 His subjective views are to him as objective ones. 
 Hence it is not enough, in any particular case, for us, 
 in order to exclude or introduce the article in any text 
 of a writer, to show merely what was reality in regard 
 to the distinctness or the specificness of any object 
 named by la noun, but we must be able also to per- 
 ceive the state of the writer's mind, and to tell what 
 views he had of the distinctness of the object in ques- 
 tion, before we can venture to say, with any good de- 
 gree of certainty, whether he inserted or omitted the 
 article. A due regard to this matter would probably 
 compose not a few disputes of critics, about the inser- 
 tion or rejection of the article in many a passage of 
 Greek authors. 
 
 We shall see, moreover, that in a multitude of 
 cases the essential meaning of a passage is not at all 
 affected by the presence or absence of the article. So 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 31 
 
 it is in our own language. When I say : ' Sight is 
 more perfect than any of the senses,' does this differ 
 essentially from the assertion : ' The sight is more 
 perfect than any of the senses ?' Certainly not. Still 
 there is a slight difference between the two cases. 
 The sight is more specific, and therefore more empha- 
 tic (in one sense of this word,) than sight. The two 
 assertions differ a little in the costume, while, if I may 
 be allowed the expression, the person is the very same. 
 And why may it not be so in Greek ? It is undoubt- 
 edly so ; at least if the reader doubts it, I hope to 
 overcome his doubts before I finish the present dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 The way is now prepared to commence the execu- 
 tion of the main purpose of this essay. I am in the 
 sequel to shew, that the article, as we might expect 
 from the general survey which we have taken of its 
 nature, is very often inserted or omitted pro lubitu 
 scriptoris ; at least, that so far as we can discern, the 
 use of it is much more extensively left to the judg- 
 ment, feelings, taste, or peculiarity of writers, than 
 has been generally supposed or admitted. If this 
 can be shown, the important bearing that it will have 
 upon criticism in respect to the text of Greek books, 
 and also in respect to doctrinal controversies about 
 the meaning of particular passages, must be very 
 evident. 
 
 It would carry me quite beyond the bounds of such 
 an essay as the present, to notice in succession all 
 the instances in Greek, where the article, when ap- 
 parently in the same circumstances, is sometimes 
 inserted and sometimes omitted. Enough, if I bring 
 
32 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 to view all the great and important principles that 
 respect the usage of this little word, and summarily 
 glance at the rest. 
 
 I must make one other remark. The reader is 
 not to suppose, where I produce but few examples, 
 that only a few can be found. I purposely limit my- 
 self in most cases to a few clear and plain examples, 
 in order that I may not tire his patience. When I 
 deem it important, I shall point out the books, where 
 he may find examples in greater abundance. As my 
 object is not a controversial view of the article, I 
 purposely refrain from frequent reference to those 
 books (such as that of Middleton and others), that 
 treat of the article, and lay down rules, often without 
 any exception or modification, which are here called 
 in question or contradicted. My object is rather to 
 inquire what is true, than to show that others are in 
 the wrong. 
 
 1. One of the first and plainest rules respecting 
 the article is, that it is prefixed to names of monadic 
 objects, i. e. objects that exist singly and of which 
 there is but one, or at least only one that, from the 
 nature of the case, would probably be thought of. 
 
 Examples may be found on almost every page of 
 Greek, in the New Testament and elsewhere ; 6 ijXtog, 
 r, y% r\ dtxaioffuvrj, rb aycfobv, etc. To establish the 
 principle, that the article may be inserted in such 
 cases, needs not any effort. Even the most common 
 observer of Greek idiom must perceive it. 
 
 Yet wide as this principle reaches, and extensive 
 as is its sway, directly the opposite principle reaches 
 almost equally wide, and has a sway scarcely inferior. 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 33 
 
 I begin with the New Testament for the proof of this ; 
 for this, the reader will continually keep in mind, is 
 the main object of my present inquiries. 
 
 Here then a multitude of monadic nouns may be 
 found, which occasionally are without any article ; 
 e. g. of concrete nouns or names of actually existing 
 objects, as ijXios, y?j, ovpavbg, §oi\a<?Gu, rot,, dyopd, uypoc, 
 !^jo£, wvsvfAa ayiov, varfjP, ocvrjp, <xg6<foj<7rov, ixxXjjtf/a, ds?- 
 mov, §d,varoc, §vpa, v6/JjOC, vzzpoi, zofffj^og, w?a, Wf%1j * u ~ 
 p/og, hidSoXog, etc. Whether such nouns as a«^, wga, 
 and some others are realty concretes or not, is of no 
 consequence to our present purpose. The principle 
 is equally clear in regard to undoubted abstracts : e. 
 g. dixouoffvvrj, aydv?}, triffric, xetxfa, grXeovelj/a, aiMiPria, 
 etc. I have not subjoined the places where these are 
 to be found in their anarthrous state, because every 
 one's Greek Concordance, and for the most part his 
 Lexicon, will so readily supply them, that I do not 
 deem it of any importance to mark them here. 
 
 What shall we say now to this great law of the ar- 
 ticle, viz. that monadic nouns demand it? What can 
 we say, when the usage is almost equally divided, and 
 in not a few cases predominant on the anarthrous side ? 
 Let the reader examine the cases in which the article 
 is sometimes inserted and sometimes omitted, without 
 any imaginable difference in the idea to be attach- 
 ed to the noun itself, and then he will himself be satis- 
 fied, that the article in such cases is inserted or omit- 
 ted mostly pro lubitu scriptoris. W T hen the writer 
 wished to make the definiteness of the monadic ob- 
 ject named, more obvious or more striking, he added 
 the article ; when he was satisfied that the word itself 
 d 
 
34 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 was as specific as he wished it to be, he omitted the 
 article. But in many of these cases the reason must 
 have been subjective and not objective ; for it is in 
 vain that we look for the grounds of his decision in 
 the nature of the thing itself. 
 
 Nor must the reader suppose these apparently con- 
 tradictory principles to belong only to the Greek of 
 the New Testament. They are widely spread through 
 the circle of even the very best classical Greek. 
 " When the noun," says Matthise (Gramm. II. p. 545,) 
 " is of itself sufficiently specific, so that no distinction 
 from other like things is required, the article may be 
 omitted ;" i. e. one might almost be tempted to say, the 
 very reason why the article is demanded, is the reason 
 why it may be omitted! And yet to say this would not 
 be quite correct. The simple truth seems to be, that the 
 names of specific and definite objects may be distinct- 
 ly marked by prefixing the article, if the writer or 
 speaker pleases so to do ; but if (for brevity's sake) he 
 chooses to omit it, there is no hazard in doing it. The 
 usages of the language permit him so to do. 
 
 This, indeed, gives a different view of the matter ; 
 one like to a multitude of cases in our own language. 
 If I say : " The sight is more perfect than any sense ;'' 
 or, " Sight is more perfect than any sense ;'' either 
 is good English, and either conveys my meaning with 
 about the same force. All the difference that I can 
 perceive is, that the one is more specific than the 
 other in the mode of its diction. When I say the 
 sight, I indicate that I am viewing this sense directly 
 as compared with my other senses, and therefore thus 
 distinguish it; when I say sight merely, compari- 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 35 
 
 son is not indicated by this expression, but merely by 
 the sequel of the sentence. These are, indeed, some 
 of the nice shades of language ; but they are not the 
 less real because they are nice. 
 
 So again I may say : " The thing I desire," or, 
 " The thing which I desire." The former is indeed 
 elliptical ; but who will forbid ellipsis, especially in 
 poetry and conversation, and indeed in all that requires 
 breviloquence ? Whether I insert or omit the which, 
 makes no important difference whatever in the sense. 
 When inserted, you may say that the sentence is more 
 exactly put in full grammatical costume. 
 
 If the reader, now, will apply the substance of such 
 principles as are concerned with these and the like 
 phenomena, to the case immediately before us, he 
 will cease to wonder at the presence or absence of 
 the Greek article, in cases such as those that have 
 been specified. Of one thing, however, he must be 
 duly advertised before I shall consent to let him go. 
 This is the ivide extent of the principle in question, in 
 the language of the Greeks. 
 
 W 7 ide indeed is the range of monadic objects, con- 
 crete or abstract, which may receive or reject the 
 article, as the writer on the whole judges best. It 
 embraces all the great objects in nature or art that 
 are single ; it comprises all the names of arts, sciences, 
 trades, peculiar employments, virtues, vices, affec- 
 tions ; yea, all the proper names of specific objects, 
 whether of men, animals, or any other thing. Hence 
 we have no difficulty when we find Plato saying, h 
 (ptXoaopia turn, Phaed. p. 68 ; or Xenophon assert- 
 ing, hyatfiav iivat xai kiritfTrj^riv zgaricrqv, ysusyiav, 
 
36 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 Oecon. 6, 8. All is easy of solution, too, when we 
 find such nouns as /•tt/x^, puvrixri, etc. anarthrous ; 
 and so the large class of nouns like bixuiofrovri, trwpgotvvri, 
 aPirri, xaxicc, axoXatf/a, d'eog, etc. in such writers as 
 Xenophon and Plato. So likewise okiyagyja, /ao- 
 vuoyja, dyipoxgariat, and the like ; v6Xig, dyfog, etc, 
 when the nature of the case shews what city or field 
 is meant ; also diZ-vov. varfig, yvvr], <7ra,?dsg, fiaaiXrjg, 
 and a multitude of the like things, when from the 
 connection in which they are mentioned, they are 
 plainly of themselves specific, may take or omit the 
 article at the pleasure of the writer. So in Plato's 
 Phaed. pp. 68, 69, ffu<ppocv^ dr/jaocvvr}, etc. with and 
 without the article. In some cases it is omitted, even 
 where the noun is made as specific as possible by an 
 epexegetical clause ; e. g. vZv yap v-irzg -^uyuv rojv 
 b/nerspuv 6 dytuv, zai vveo yr\g h r\ spun, xcci uwsg oIxojv sv 
 olg s-od<py}~e, xai irsoi ywcuxwv ds xa; tsxvmv. Here 
 -^vyoov, yqg, o'/xuv, yvvcuxuv and tsxvojv, are all as de- 
 finite as possible, and yet not one of them has the 
 article. The passage is in Xenophon's Cyrop. 3, 3, 
 44. 
 
 In a multitude of instances which are of this nature, 
 the form without the article, and this moreover in case 
 of a monadic object, is even the law of the language. 
 Thus sv xvoiu) in the New Testament, in such phrases 
 as o/ sv xvpiw thus sv (piXoffotpia ^fjv, sv Gopiq rrp&rrsiv, 
 and almost all cases where the noun is used in a kind 
 of adverbial way. So too among the Attics, qysT&ai 
 %ovg, to believe in the gods ; while Euripides says, 
 Hec. 800, rovg §sovg riyov^a. The reason is, that 
 he wishes to give a little more definiteness than was 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 37 
 
 usually necessary, to the appellative ^zovg. How 
 much Zer splitter ung the observance of this simple 
 and widely extended principle would have saved 
 Middleton, Wahl, and some others, in their exceed- 
 ingly numerous canons respecting the article, must be 
 plain to every considerate reader. 
 
 Proper names have often been the subject of much 
 remark. The more general principle seems to be, 
 that in cases of original mention they are without 
 the article; and in cases of renewed mention, the 
 article is added. But here exceptions to both prin- 
 ciples may be found without number. For example ; 
 the genealogical catalogue in Matt, i., inserts the ar- 
 ticle throughout when a name is first mentioned, and 
 omits it when the name is repeated; as ' AfiguafL 
 syevvqtfs rh ' Icrctax. 'l<raaz ds sysvvrjGs ~bv'la%u)f3, x, r.X. 
 Middleton says, that " this is wholly foreign from 
 the Greek practice." It may be, that no example 
 like this in a Greek genealogy can be produced ; but 
 then the form of the Greek genealogy is different, 
 and more like to that in Luke. But as to the prin- 
 ciples here exhibited, a multitude of examples may be 
 found in Gre*ek to justify the insertion and the omis- 
 sion of the article. No law of the language is tres- 
 passed. If the writer of the genealogy in Matt, i., 
 wished, in each case, to specificate in a particular 
 manner the son of each individual named as a father, 
 he has chosen an effectual method of doing this. 
 Having once done this, he chooses, it would seem, to 
 omit any further specification as unnecessary. And 
 this he might do, without transgressing any law of 
 the Greek language. Undoubtedly he might have 
 
•38 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 chosen the opposite course, had he thought it expe- 
 dient. What remains then, except that the article 
 was inserted or omitted at the will of the writer ? 
 
 And so in a multitude of cases in the New Testa- 
 ment, in Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, and others, 
 in respect to proper names of persons, or of countries, 
 towns, etc. In the New Testament, however, the 
 names of countries more usually take the article. 
 Yet A'/yvKrog never has it ; and in many other names 
 the usage is variable. The names of towns more often 
 exclude the article ; yet here there is no fixed prin- 
 ciple, even in regard to the same words. And as to 
 the names of persons, there is confessedly no rule that 
 can be laid down. 
 
 How large a proportion of all the words which may 
 receive the article, is included in nouns that are pro- 
 perly monadic, it would be difficult to say. It is per- 
 fectly evident, however, that a very wide circle of 
 words come within the descriptions above named. In 
 respect to all these, any decision by a dictum magistri, 
 whether the article is to be admitted into the text or 
 rejected, is altogether aside from the proper sphere of 
 criticism. As the article may, so far as the nature of 
 the Greek language is concerned, be inserted or omit- 
 ted, so the question whether it belongs to this word 
 or that, when designating a monadic object, must be 
 a question for the most part of mere fact, viz. whether 
 the best Codices admit or reject it. Decisions on 
 grounds a priori, or from the genius of the Greek 
 language, or by virtue of high critical skill, would 
 seem, one and all, to be out of place. 
 
 It is equally plain, also, that nothing important in 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 39 
 
 an exegetical point of view, can in cases of such a na- 
 ture, be built upon the presence or absence of the ar- 
 ticle. The amount of all which can be said, is, that 
 the writer or speaker who emploj^s it, has given a 
 specificness to his phraseology which is intensive ; 
 while the definite nature of the noun itself would 
 have authorized him to omit the article, if he did 
 not wish to render prominent the specificness in 
 question. I do not aver, that a people of so nice a 
 taste as the Greeks, had not their right and their 
 wrong, in respect to the use of the article in most 
 cases. But much of this seems to be within the pro- 
 vince of rhetorical taste or Aesthetics, than within the 
 province of exegesis. That their best writers differ 
 so much in the use of the article ; nay, that the same 
 writer differs oftentimes with himself, is evidence 
 enough that no inconsiderable portion of the ground 
 occupied by the article depended more on the will of 
 the writer, than on an imperious law of the language 
 itself. 
 
 2. Intimately connected with the principle already 
 developed, is a second phenomenon in Greek syntax. 
 This is, that when a word is rendered particularly 
 definite by some adjunct connected with it, it may 
 admit or dispense xoiili the article. 
 
 A Genitive case following a noun, as jip'sgu ooy^g- 
 or a pronoun personal or possessive, as wpoffwov /xov, 
 cog ircvrfjO' also some adjectives, like Tguirq, etc., and 
 so of some other words ; manifestly render the ob- 
 ject with which they are connected specific. For ex- 
 ample ; 7)1/100, b^yr\g is, from the very nature of the 
 case, distinguished from other kinds of days, such as 
 
40 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 days of joy, feasting, etc. and even from common 
 days that are not distinctly marked. So irgoffuvov 
 /io-j is individually specific ; as is cog varrig, ^;msooc 
 Tgdjryi, etc. We might expect, therefore, that ac- 
 cording to a common principle of the Greek language, 
 such definite nouns would take the article. And so 
 they often do ; and we may even say, that they more 
 usually take it. But still, as has been explained 
 under No. 1, the very fact that the adjuncts in ques- 
 tion render the noun specific, is the reason why the 
 article may be omitted. 
 
 Thus Matthiae states the principle in his Gram- 
 mar, § 265. He remarks, also, that nouns coupled 
 with the pronouns demonstrative, ovrog, ods, sxsmg, 
 often take the article; which, in such a case, renders 
 their specific nature still more prominent. But in 
 this case also, he adds, the article is often omitted, at 
 least in poetry. Of this he produces examples ; viz. 
 rovfc avdgog, cvrog uv/jg, etc. In prose, when the de- 
 monstrative precedes the noun, the latter usually takes 
 the article ; and such seems to be the New Testament 
 usage, nearly if not quite throughout, where cvrog is 
 used as a pronominal adjective. But when the de- 
 monstrative follows the noun, the latter may omit the 
 article ; e. g. xivqffig cvvry\, atria avrrj, Ivci yqv rfjvds, etc. 
 At least this idiom is often employed in the classic 
 writers, although I do not find it in any incontrover- 
 tible reading of the New Testament. 
 
 The cases in the New Testament, where the ar- 
 ticle is inserted before the noun coupled with an ad- 
 junct that renders it definite, are to be found every 
 where. Thus I open my Greek Testament at Matt. 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 41 
 
 iii. and find in quick succession, raTg ri/xsgaig ixs/vaig, 
 ry) epfjfiu) Trig 'Ioudaiag, r\ /3ac7Xs/a ruv ovgavuv, rr\v odov 
 xvpiov, rag rgifiovg avrov, ro hov^a avrov, rriv bffpvv avrov, 
 r) TPotpvi avrov, rag a/Ma^r/ag avruv, x. r. >.. But ex- 
 amples just the reverse of these, in respect to the 
 article, are to be found in abundance ; e. g. Matt. 
 xvii. 6, ski Kgoffwrov avrov (So Sept. Is. xlix. 23, sV/ 
 'zoogoj'ttov rr\g yr\g^) Luke i. 51, h S^a^/iovi avrov. Eph. 
 i. 20, h bit,ia avrov. Luke xix. 42, ccto ofouA/Auv Gov. 
 
 1 Cor. ii. 16, vovv zvpjov. Luke ii. 11, s/g <t6Xiv Aa/3/o. 
 
 2 Thess. ii. 2, h ijjiiha rov Xeiffrov. Act xii. 10, 
 <pv\azrjv vgwrw and so in a multitude of cases noted 
 by Winer in the third edition of his New Testament 
 Grammar, § 18, 2. 
 
 Nor does this belong to any negligence or want of 
 skill in the New Testament writers. The classic 
 Greek exhibits the same phenomenon ; e. g. m^l 
 zaraXvfcojg rr\g 6rgar/ag, Xen. Cyrop. VI. 1, 13 ; h 
 xaraXvfci rov (3iov, id. Apol. Soc. 30 ; scr/ rsXsvrp 
 rov (3iov, id. Mem. I. 5, 2 ; (3iov avruv, Lucian, Scyth. 
 4; vnb fj^'/jzovg ruv bboov, Strabo, XV. p. 719; and so 
 oftentimes elsewhere. 
 
 The reader will observe, that in a great many of 
 these cases the noun by itself is definite and specific ; 
 yet in others it is not, but merely of a generic nature, 
 and becomes specific only by reason of the adjunct. 
 When, however, it is specific, whether by itself or 
 from some extraneous cause, the article may be in- 
 serted or omitted. I will not say that it is a matter 
 of entire indifference whether a writer insert or omit 
 it. This I should hardly be willing to admit. But 
 thus much we may say, viz. that unless the writer 
 
42 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 wished to make specification emphatic, he was at liber- 
 ty to omit the article. No essentially different mean- 
 ing is conveyed in either case ; it is only a modifica- 
 tion of the degree of specificness which is marked. 
 
 We have now considered, under the two heads 
 above, a great proportion of the cases in which the 
 Greek article is employed. Both these heads belong 
 essentially to the same category, so far as the principle 
 respecting the insertion or omission of the article is 
 concerned. They differ from each other, however, 
 in this respect, viz. that No. 1. exhibits only cases 
 where the noun is in its own nature specific ; while 
 No. 2. embraces other nouns of a different nature, and 
 the specific nature of the noun is here considered 
 principally as determined by its adjuncts. 
 
 The importance of the principles developed under 
 these two heads, will be more distinctly seen when 
 we come, in the sequel, to make an application of 
 them to some contested cases in the exegesis of the 
 New Testament. 
 
 3. In most treatises on the article, we find it laid 
 down as a rule, that the subject of a proposition must 
 have the article, and the predicate omit it. 
 
 So much, no doubt, is true with respect to this 
 canon, viz. that the subject is, much oftener than 
 the predicate, a specific and definite thing or agent. 
 In a multitude of cases the object of a proposition is 
 to shew, that a particular subject belongs to this or 
 that class of things or persons ; in which case of course 
 the subject would take the article and the predicate 
 omit it. But the insertion or omission, in these cases, 
 depends not at all on the mere fact that a noun is the 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 43 
 
 subject or predicate as such, but on the simple fact 
 whether the writer means to specify or not, in either 
 case. Consequently we may expect, that if in any 
 instance he wishes to make a specific predicate, he 
 attaches the article to it. Thus in the New Testa- 
 ment ; oZrog Igtiv 6 t'sxtuv, Matt. vi. 3 ; exsTvai sgti rd 
 xoivovvra, Matt. vii. 15 ; ovrog Igtiv 6 -/XriQovo^og, Matt. 
 xii. 7 ; r) ds «rsrga y)v 6 XoiGTog, 1 Cor. x. 4 ; r) afiagrUx 
 sgtiv 7] dvo/xta, 1 John iii. 4 ; r) dbva/xtg rr\g a,aagr/ag 6 
 vo/xog, 1 Cor. xv. 56; uvrog sgtiv r\ uor^y] rj,u,uv, Eph. ii. 
 14 ; and so in cases very numerous, as fully establish- 
 ed by Winer, § 17, 5. In some instances the very 
 same construction in respect to definiteness exhibits 
 and omits the article ; e. g. John viii. 44, on [o did- 
 fiohog~] -^zvGTYjg sgti zai 6 <7rarr l o abrov. Matthiae re- 
 marks, also, that in some cases it is a matter of indif- 
 ference, whether the article be inserted or omitted in 
 the predicate ; as [ksTgch Qsovor l v'] gov hyov, or gov tovp- 
 yov, i. e. to sgyov. 
 
 So far, then, is the alleged rule from being univer- 
 sally true, that the reverse, in a certain sense, is true. 
 The predicate, or the subject, takes or omits the ar- 
 ticle with equal certainty, whenever the nature of the 
 case is such as to require it. Propositions in which 
 both omit it, are very common ; e. g. vdvrojv %grifidruv 
 fj&rgov uv^puvrog' zaXbg ^rjcauobg ^ag dvdei GTovdcciw Xjdg*$ 
 cxpsiXo/xsvrj. In other cases the subject may omit the 
 article and the predicate take it ; e. g. si^vtj sgtI rdya- 
 $6v (to dyo&ov) tout avrb r, '/.oXccGig sgtiv tout! to zoa- 
 viov i) 'EX'svri sgtiv, where, however, the subject also has 
 the article. 
 
44 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 Glass and Rarabach long ago called in question the 
 rule that we have now been examining ; and Winer 
 and Matthiae have most fully shown how small a 
 claim it has upon our acknowledgment. 
 
 4. A fourth principle usually laid down in respect 
 to the article, is, that an appellative subjoined to 
 another noun by way of apposition, when it is asyndic, 
 i. e. without a conjunction before it, takes the article. 
 
 That such is the usual fact I admit. But the rule it- 
 self needs much limitation, before it can be called even 
 tolerably correct. If the object of the appellative, i. e. 
 the word put in apposition, is to specify and distinguish 
 the preceding noun as only an individual belonging to 
 a class which is designated by the noun in apposition ; 
 or to shew that the attribute, quality, or office desig- 
 nated by the noun in apposition, is appropriate only 
 to the person or thing in question ; then the word in 
 apposition takes the article ; otherwise not. Thus, 
 for example, ' Ky^iritag 6 (3ci<?i'hvjs i 'luuvv7is o fiaamtfrvlg, 
 and in the classics, Kva^d^g o rov ' Atfrvdyovg <ra?g, 
 Ihrraxbg 6 MunXqvaibg, etc. Examples may be found 
 every where, so that it would be superfluous to exhibit 
 more. In the first example here, Agrippa is named the 
 king, because he is thus distinguished from other indi- 
 viduals, of the same name ; in the second, John is 
 called 6 fiawrrrfrfig, because the office of baptizing was 
 appropriate in a specific manner to him. In these 
 and all the like cases, the object of the noun, adjective, 
 participle, or whatever it may be, which is put in ap- 
 position as an adjunct designed further and particu- 
 larly to describe the individual or the thing already 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 45 
 
 named, should take the article, in order to answer 
 fully the intention of the speaker or writer with re- 
 gard to the design of specification. 
 
 But if a word is added in the way of apposition, 
 when the writer has no particular purpose of speci- 
 fying, but only a general one of giving without em- 
 phasis an appellation that is often or usually bestowed, 
 then the noun in apposition does not take the article ; 
 e. g. 'Hoodoroc ' AXixagvacfffevg, GovTcvdidvig ' A^tjvuToc, 
 Bosvvog TaXaruiv j3a<rtAsvg, etc. In the New Testa- 
 ment we find the same usage ; e. g. S/'/xoiv (3ugGsijg 9 
 Acts x. 32 ; "Avva -ooffing, Luke ii. 36 ; Td'/og AsoQaTo;, 
 Acts xx. 4 ; Tifiegiov Kafoagog, Luke iii. 2 ; <J>aocc&; /3a- 
 GiKsojg. Acts vii. 10, etc. The omission of the article 
 in such cases does not destroy the designation of 
 individuality ; for in each of these cases that fully 
 remains. But the writer, when he omits the article 
 before the adjunct, shows that he does not intend to 
 give any peculiar prominency to that adjunct. He 
 names it in order to remove doubt as to the person 
 intended ; but he omits the article, because he does 
 not wish to urge upon the reader's mind the particu- 
 lar consideration of the attribute, etc. designated by 
 the adjunct. Thus we may translate lifim (3ve&vg, 
 Simon a tanner, i. e. who was one of the class of 
 tanners ; and so in other cases, Anna a prophetess* 
 i. e. one who belonged to this class of persons ; Gaius 
 one of the Derbaeans ; Tiberius one of the Ccesars, 
 etc. All that need to be said in these and the like 
 cases, is, that the writer did not mean to be particular 
 in specification. 
 
 It is plain enough from these examples, how much 
 
45 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 the rule under examination must be modified. But 
 we have not yet done with the subject. We may go 
 a step further, and say that examples may be pro- 
 duced, where just the reverse of the practice which 
 the rule recognizes, takes place. In all the cases 
 hitherto adduced under this head, the reader will per- 
 ceive, that the original or first noun, to which an ad- 
 junct is made, or with which another word is put in 
 apposition, omits, or (we may say) rejects the article. 
 Buttmann (§ 124. 3) says expressly, that " the article 
 is always omitted [in the proper name,] when that 
 proper name is followed by a more definite attribute 
 with the article." This may be true; and, so far as 
 my observation goes, is true. But if he means that 
 the adjunct itself always has the article (for this is 
 the general fact,) and that the proper name which 
 precedes, is of course destitute of it, this will not abide 
 the test of examination. Homer himself, at the very 
 outset, presents us with a usage which is just the re- 
 verse of this : Oyvsxa rbv XevGrjv 7irifj,?}G aor\rr\oa, II. a. 
 1 1. Here Xgucjjv has the article, and the adjunct og*j- 
 ttjocx. is without it. But you may say : This is poetical 
 licence. I answer in the negative ; for Herodotus, 
 Thucydides, and Xenophon exhibit the same usage. 
 For example ; 6 "AXuj iroraphc, Herod. I. 72, 75; Im 
 rh Trioiav irorafhh, Thucyd. VI. 50 ; !•-/ rbv Zafiouov 
 norafibv, Xen. Anab. II. 5. 1. Not unlike is 6 Styg 
 Ksvruvgog, in Soph. Trach. 1162. In this last case, 
 we may say that JLevravgog is used with the liberty so 
 common to proper names and monadic objects, as ex- 
 plained under No. 1. above. In the other cases, the 
 proper names with the article, are very specific. The 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 47 
 
 addition of -rora/^og merely would, to all intents and 
 purposes, be specific enough to distinguish Halys (for 
 example) from any lake, town, etc. of the same name. 
 And this seems to be all that the writer aimed at. Or 
 we may regard the whole as a kind of compound 
 name, (such as we form in English when we say de- 
 rivation- ending ', termination-change, etc.) and the 
 article as standing before this composite noun. 
 
 The reader must begin by this time, if not before, 
 to suspect that there are few rules concerning the 
 article, which do not admit of modification and ex- 
 ceptions ; or rather, which do not imperiously demand 
 them. In the case just reviewed, how often must the 
 insertion or omission of the article depend entirely on 
 the subjective view and intention of the writer ! If he 
 designed to make the adjunct attributive a matter of 
 speciality, and to render it prominent to the reader's 
 mind, he gave it the article ; if he did not, he omitted 
 the article ; while the real nature of the noun and its 
 adjunct might in either case remain the same. What 
 is this but saying that, the article in such cases is very 
 much dependent on the will of the author? And who 
 can prescribe a law for this? 
 
 From the consideration of nouns added by way of 
 explanation and put in apposition, we may naturally 
 advance to the examination of other words added 
 with the like design and placed in similar circumstan- 
 ces. These may be adjectives, or participles, or nouns 
 connected with prepositions, or in the genitive with- 
 out them. Let us examine these in the order sug- 
 gested. 
 
 (a) The adjective is often placed between the arti- 
 
48 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 cle and the noun which it qualifies ; e. g. 6 uyo&bg 
 a&pwrrog, 6 ffoipbg fiaffiAsvg, r\ f^sydXri voXjg, etc. In 
 this case the noun and its adjunct (adjective) are vir- 
 tually made one, and but one article therefore is re- 
 quired, where the article is employed. But different 
 from this, in regard to the mode of structure (if not 
 of signification,) is the ease, when the adjective, as is 
 very common, is put after the substantive ; as o 
 av^owrog 6 ayofohg, 6 (3a.ai7.svg 6 ffocpbg, r\ <7r6\ig r, /xsyd/.r h 
 etc. In this latter case, there is a kind of apposition, 
 altogether of a nature similar to that which exists, 
 when one noun is put in apposition with another. 
 And here the principle that the adjunct, when an ad- 
 jective, should take the article if the noun has it, is 
 very general ; most grammarians say, universal. 
 
 Yet there is some doubt hanging over this canon, 
 notwithstanding the ingenious efforts of Buttmann 
 and others to explain it away. In 1 John v. 20 we 
 have r, fyjri a/wwog, although with variation of Mss. 
 In Luke xii. 12, Griesbach and Schott give rb ydo 
 •TvsD/xa ayiov instead of rb yag ayiov ffvevpoh In 1 Cor. 
 x. 3 we have an undoubted reading of the like kind, 
 viz. rb avrb (3poJ{J,cc <7rvsvfia.rix.bv — rb avrb irofjjO, <7rv-vfL.a- 
 rixov. In Gal. i. 4 we have rov svstSrurog aiuvog rrovr,- 
 gov. Winer solves these last examples, by saying 
 that " the adjective and the noun flow together into 
 one word." But this is rather cutting the note, per- 
 haps, than untying it. We might better say this, 
 when two nouns come together like 6 " AXvg vrora/abg, 
 or when an adjective is manifestly designed for close 
 connection, like the case of rj fMsydXri <7r6kig. I am 
 unable to see any good reason here, why irmtfiarixov 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 49 
 
 and mvypou would have a different meaning, if the 
 article were placed before them. 
 
 Examples of the like nature occur in the classics. 
 In Soph. Oedip. Tyr. 526, we find 6 fidvrtg roug \6yovg 
 -^/Buds/g \zyzt. Matthiae (§ 277, 6) says, that we are 
 to translate this in the following manner : " The pro- 
 phet utters words, which are false? That we may so 
 translate it, is no doubt true ; that we must is less 
 certain. And in like manner he solves the numerous 
 cases of this kind, which he produces from the classics. 
 So Buttmann also (§ 125, Note 3) resolves the like 
 phenomena. In cases such as oXjjv rr t v m-atcc, %y%i rfo 
 ~'-\y/.-jv oZ-jtutov, he holds the adjective to be a kind 
 of predicate of the sentence, so that if we were to 
 translate the night which is whole, or the whole, the 
 axe which is very sharp, we should then, and then 
 only, come very near to the meaning of the Greek. 
 
 But not to insist here, that between a very sharp 
 axe and an axe which is very sharp, there is at least 
 no very great difference, certainly not an assignable 
 one, what shall we say to the suggestion which is in- 
 volved in this theory, viz. that the article which 
 serves almost every where to render words definite 
 and emphatic, would here deprive adjectives of the 
 emphasis, which Matthiae and Buttmann assign to 
 them when they are without the article? I can in- 
 deed imagine, that in pronouncing the words rbv 
 srsXsxun o^vrarov, the speaker may pause a moment 
 after uttering yreXexut, and, then throw emphasis into his 
 voice when he utters o^vrarov. In this way, I suppose the 
 repetition of vsXsxw by the mind would naturally be 
 suggested, and o^vrarov may agree with this implied 
 
50 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 noun, and may, as we have seen under the preceding 
 head, dispense with ther article. But that the mere 
 fact of omitting the article should make the adjective 
 emphatic in its meaning, or give it a speciality of 
 meaning by making it a predicate, is somewhat diffi- 
 cult of explanation. What is the meaning of oXtjv 
 as a predicate, in oXriv rqv vvxra? 
 
 I should deem it arrogance hastily to pronounce 
 sentence against the decision of such judges in respect 
 to a question concerning the Greek idiom, as Matthiae 
 and Buttmann. But if we may resort to analogy in 
 the case now before us, where shall we find one to 
 justify the idea, that the omission of the article ren- 
 ders the meaning more emphatic or energetic? And 
 if I rightly understand the object to be attained by 
 making the adjective a predicate in the cases above, 
 it is this, viz. that a special force of assertion or em- 
 phasis is thus thrown upon the adjective. 
 
 But Buttmann has adduced other examples, which 
 seem to speak more favourably for his mode of repre- 
 sentation, than those which I have presented above. 
 He says, that fjdzro sir! 'rrXou&ioig roTg irok'iraig does not 
 mean : " He rejoiced on account of the wealthy citi- 
 zens," but, " He rejoiced on account of the citizens 
 because they were wealthy." So too, W axgoig roTg 
 optGi does not mean : " On the mountain tops," but, 
 " On the mountains where they are highest." In this 
 last case one is tempted to ask, Where then are they 
 highest, except at the tops ? It might be said, indeed, 
 that there are, on most ridges of mountains, higher 
 and lower summits ; and that to say on the mountain 
 tops might mean some of the lower ones. But who, 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 51 
 
 in speaking of the top of the White Mountains, would 
 think of any other peak than that of Mount Washing- 
 ton ? Or who, in speaking of the tops of the Andes, 
 would think of any other summits than those of Chim- 
 borazo and some of its compeers ? This example, 
 therefore, does not seem to make much for the object 
 on account of which it is adduced. 
 
 As to the other, one might say, indeed, that there 
 is a difference between rejoicing on account of the 
 wealthy citizens, and rejoicing on account of the citi- 
 zens because they are wealthy. In the first case the 
 expression might indicate, that the rejoicing was (for 
 some cause or other not explained) merely with, or 
 on account of, that class of citizens who were wealthy ; 
 in the other it might mean, that the rejoicing was 
 because the citizens in general had become wealthy. 
 But is not the meaning of such an expression rather 
 to be explained by the context, than by the mere 
 force of the words themselves ? In the case before 
 us, Buttmann does not give the source of the ex- 
 pression, and therefore I cannot resort to the context 
 for examination ; but, from the very nature of the 
 case, I venture to say, that previous narration of some 
 kind or other explains the manner in which the phrase 
 quoted is to be understood ; and I venture also to 
 add, that it is rather on this ground, than on that of 
 the omission of the article, that the exegesis in ques- 
 tion rests. My reason is, that there are cases pre- 
 sented by Matthiae, and by Buttmann himself, and 
 also some exhibited above which are contained in the 
 New Testament, where we are either obliged to for- 
 sake the idea of making an adjective a. predicate sim- 
 
52 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 ply because it is anarthrous,, inasmuch as the sense 
 will not bear it, or elsewhere the meaning is scarcely, 
 if at all, modified by such a procedure. May we not 
 make the probable inference, then, that the explana- 
 tion of such cases, as presented by Buttmann and 
 Matthiae, is at least exposed to some doubts that are 
 not easy of solution ? 
 
 If the reader begins to think that some apology is 
 due for dwelling so long on what he may deem one 
 of the minutice of Greek grammar, I regard it as 
 sufficient to say, that when any one ventures to call 
 in question the opinions of such men as Buttmann and 
 Matthiae, respecting a point of Greek idiom, he is 
 bound by a sense of decorum to give reasons for tak- 
 ing such a step. 
 
 (b) Participles, one would naturally expect to 
 follow the rules either of adjectives or of nouns with 
 regard to the article, when they constitute an ad- 
 junct to any substantive. And such is in general the 
 fact. But when participles put on the simple nature 
 of nouns, (a case which is very frequent,) then they 
 are of course treated as nouns ; and the reader has 
 only to look back in order to see the general princi- 
 ples by which in such cases they are governed. For 
 example ; 6 crsioc/7oov, 6 a-rsigojv, etc. are by usage mere 
 nouns indicative of particular agents. A very large 
 class of participles, are those which are used as attri- 
 butives, i. e. words which designate some quality, ac- 
 tion, station, condition, etc. that distinguish a particular 
 class of men ; e. g. sfoh o'i Xsyovrsg, there are those who 
 say ; o\jo 6 vwapfj^wv oift' 6 zojavsovj vaga, no one is pre- 
 sejit who will help or hinder, Soph. Elect. 1 197. Here 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 53 
 
 we might translate, thesayers, the helper, the hinder er ; 
 although the English would scarcely be tolerable. But 
 the idea is given by such a version ; and at the same 
 time the reason is shewn, why a certain class of partici- 
 ples may be called attributives. Now, when they be- 
 come so, and when they thus appropriate certain actions, 
 qualities, condition, etc. to a particular individual, or 
 to a particular class of men, we may of course expect 
 them to follow the rules of specification, i. e. to take 
 the article as a general thing. Examples besides those 
 already produced, may be found every where ; e. g. on 
 /xs?.Xoisv "A^vc/joi aioua^at rbv howra, that the Athe- 
 nians would choose the speaker, i. e. the individual who 
 is to make the address; while in English we should 
 more usually sa} r , a speaker. So uyj. rove cv/j.'Tra^rio'ovrag- 
 " / /a\z<7r(jjrsgov...sboi7v rovg (3ovXofMSvovc a^yjiv, r t vvv roue 
 fAijdh dso/j/svovg. In the New Testament, examples offer 
 themselves every where ; e. g. (tzrarfte&s avrb rov xaXe- 
 cavrog u/accc, Gal. i. 6 ; nvsg zifftvoi ragaGGovrzg bfiag, Gal. 
 i. 7, a striking example, inasmuch as one might naturally 
 say, that ring of course makes the proposition of an 
 indefinite nature. This indeed is true, so far as ring 
 is concerned ; for stopping with nvsg ilci we should 
 render the phrase, there are some. The addition of 
 o/ raoucrmreg, however, limits the ring to a certain 
 class of individuals, viz. that class who make distur- 
 bance or occasion trouble. In Gal. ii. 6, oi oozovvrzg is 
 descriptive of a class of persons, whose appearance, 
 or at least whose reputation, betokens them to be su- 
 perior persons : and so, in countless cases, participial 
 attributives take the article, because they specificate 
 
54 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 an individual or a class as being distinguished by cer- 
 tain qualities, actions, etc. 
 
 Yet even here there are exceptions to the rule. 
 E. g. Ke/A-^ai irgoxctruXq-^o/tAsvovs ra a%%a, Xen. Anab. 
 1, 3, 14. Other cases are referred to in Matthiae, § 
 268. In general, however, it is sufficiently plain, 
 that participles when they stand not connected with 
 any noun as qualifying or modifying it, but as de- 
 scriptive of a class of persons or things (in which 
 case we usually translate them by he who, they who, 
 etc. do this or that, Latin, is qui, etc.), are in fact 
 real attributives, which take the nature of appella- 
 tive nouns, and should have the article whenever it is 
 needed for the purpose of specification. As this is 
 the usual purpose for which such participles are em- 
 ployed, of course they commonly take the article. 
 But we have already seen, that the usage is not im- 
 perious. If a writer meant to use a participial ap- 
 pellative in a way like that of a noun when it is an- 
 arthrous, he was at liberty to make the participle 
 anarthrous in the same manner ; e. g. (3o7iffag one who 
 cries, i. e. any one, Odys. s, 473 ; vofaag an intelli- 
 gent person, i. e. any intelligent man, Hesiod, "Epy. 
 init. bij,oXoyu)v f&h adixzTv, d-7ro^v7jazst, any one who con- 
 fesses wrong, dies, Lys. p. 104, 28. Nay, in the 
 very same sentence the great master of Greek style 
 mingles both constructions : dicctp'egsi ds rrd/x^oXv ixct- 
 $ojv /xrj /AO&ovros, xa! 6 yv^vccffafLivog too /mtj ysyv^cc- 
 Sftevov, he who learns, differs very much from him who 
 does not learn ; and he who is practised, from him 
 who is not practised, Plat. Leg. vii. p. 795. In Eng- 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 55 
 
 lish we render both clauses alike as to their definite- 
 ness; but in the Greek /j,o&&v> etc. is without the ar- 
 ticle, while 6 yv{jwa(?a,[A£vog has it. But enough ; he 
 who desires more abundant confirmation, may con- 
 sult Matthiae, § 271. Anm. 
 
 The cases already presented of the use of the par- 
 ticiple, are substantially one and the same, although 
 at first view they may seem to be a little diverse. 
 To be distinguished, however, from both these, and 
 really discrepant in some important respects, are those 
 cases of the participle which are immediately connected 
 icith nouns, and which are employed to qualify or mo- 
 dify them in various ways. These require, therefore, 
 separate and distinct consideration. 
 
 Participles, as qualifying nouns, may become, or 
 at least be employed, as mere adjectives, and may as- 
 sume the same intimate connection by position with 
 the noun that they qualify. For example ; 6 nyfisic 
 (Satf/Xsvs, Matt. ii. 2, where reyfisig is to all intents and 
 purposes disposed of as a mere adjective, although 
 we can hardly make an adjective of it when we come 
 to translate it. So again in the sequel : rbv ^ovov rou 
 <pccivo[j,svou aarsgog, v. 7, where (paivofihov is construed 
 as an adjective ; rr t g ^iXXovffyig ogyjfc, Matt. iii. 7 ; rbv 
 Xzyo/Asvov Hsroov, Matt. iv. 8 ; et saepe alibi. 
 
 But this construction does not need our renewed 
 attention, since the nature of it has already been noticed, 
 p. 48. We come to a construction of more difficulty, 
 and where the usage varies perpetually in the Greek 
 language. This is where the participle follows the 
 noun or pronoun which it qualifies or modifies ; in 
 which case it takes or omits the article, according to 
 
56 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 the purpose of the writer, as it would seem, to give 
 the idea which it designates more or less specification 
 and emphasis. The insertion of the article gives it 
 Anhebung, i. e. elevation, prominency, emphasis ; the 
 omission denotes that the writer did not intend to 
 make specially prominent, the meaning which it con- 
 veys. Thus in Eph. i. 13, s/g to uvou y\[xag e/g eiramv 
 ...rovg vgoYiX-TTi/ioTag h tOj Xg/crip, where the idea con- 
 veyed by rovg KgoY)\Kr/.6rag is designed to be promi- 
 nent. So in Heb. iv. 3, o) vttirsveavreg* and so o'i 
 xaroupvyovreg, Heb. vi. 18 ; roTg ...'TrsgiKaroixriv, Rom. 
 viii. 4 ; o'i marsvovreg, 1 John v. 13 ; i) c-rnXovca, James 
 iii. 6, and in many other instances. 
 
 On the contrary ; participles often follow nouns 
 and modify them, which omit the article ; e. g. rbv 
 avboa. rourov cuXX^^svra, Acts, xxiii. 27 ; 6 §ibg dva- 
 ffry] (rag, Acts iii. 26 ; but in Heb. xiii. 20, 6 §ebg....o 
 dvayccyuv, and then again in v. 21, with the same sub- 
 ject (6 %bg) we have toiojv. So ®t\i<jr'ffou..Jivro$, Acts 
 xxi. 8; 7)...o\/igol3-j6Tia...TeAou(>a, Rom. ii. 27 ; 6'l^aoug 
 xexoffiaxug, John iv. 6 ; rr t g yvvar/.bg (ActorvgovffTig, John 
 iv. 39 ; ttjv ddsXcprjv oZ<sav, Rom. xvi. 1 ; rovg XuTgsvovrag 
 ...xsxcticLPfAsvovg,- Heb. x. 2 ; et alibi saepe. In Pet. v. 
 10, is an example that is instructive : 6 $zbg, 6 naXsaag 
 7]fAag...6\/yov votiovrag. Here 6 xaXsgccg throws em- 
 phasis by its article on the idea which it conveys, 
 while oXiyov qra&ovrsg omits the article, because special 
 stress is not here to be laid on the idea conveyed by it. 
 
 Pro arbitrio scribentis, then, may the article be 
 employed in respect to participles, in a multitude of 
 cases ; for a multitude depend on his own intentions 
 to render this or that idea emphatic. In many in- 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 5/ 
 
 stances also, it would seem, does it depend on the 
 subjective views only of the writer, whether the ar- 
 ticle shall be used or omitted ; for, to say the least, 
 no particular reason in many cases is discoverable by 
 the reader from the nature of the context, why the ar- 
 ticle was inserted or omitted. Indeed the examples 
 already suggested will serve to satisfy the reader of 
 this. If he has any doubt, let him consult Winer, § 
 19, c. where he will find an accumulation of examples, 
 from writers both sacred and profane. 
 
 It may not be amiss here to suggest, that as par- 
 ticiples so often put on the nature of mere adjectives, 
 and generally have so much resemblance to them, so 
 the construction of them with or without an article, 
 almost ad libitum scriptoris, may serve to cast light 
 on the case of adjectives that are anarthrous, when 
 put before or after a noun that has the article ; a sub- 
 ject that has been discussed under the preceding head. 
 So far as analogy goes in this case, it seems to be 
 against the theory of Matthiae and Buttmann. 
 
 (c) We come now to another species of adjuncts, 
 which are very often employed to qualify or modify 
 some principal noun in a sentence. I refer to adjuncts 
 made by means of nouns with prepositions, the sense 
 of which may be regarded as equivalent to that of an 
 adjective. For example ; when Paul says, n icitmg 
 bfjbuv r\ vfog rbv §sov the clause r\ rrfog rbv ^sbv qualifies 
 siting and specificates its particular nature. It serves 
 the purpose, therefore, of an adjective. And in this 
 respect, the versatility of the Greek language is truly 
 wonderful. It abounds, indeed, in proper adjectives. 
 But numerous as these are, still they do not by any 
 
58 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 means reach all the wants of the speaker or writer. In 
 the case cited, for example, what is the adjective that 
 would express the same relation ? A/a would not, for 
 this means simply divine, qualifying the nature of a 
 thing or person, and not expressing the object towards 
 which the affections or feelings of such a person are 
 directed. To Ss/a the same objection may be made. 
 Of course the qualification which the Apostle designed 
 to express, must be expressed in the manner he has 
 chosen. 
 
 The example adduced serves to illustrate the na- 
 ture of the case which we now have under considera- 
 tion. Let us see how the article is treated in cases 
 of this description. 
 
 It is a very common, and indeed the general fact, 
 that where the principal noun has the article, the 
 article is also prefixed to a subordinate clause which 
 qualifies it. Examples are every where to be found ; 
 ry\g diaxoviag rr^g etg roug ay/ovg, 2 Cor. viii. 4 ; rcug 
 OuXaTg rccTg h rrj 6/ceffvroga, James i. 1 ; roTg adsXpoTg 
 roTg s<* e^vuv, Acts xv. 23 ; rr^g mgrsug rqg h rf\ dxoo- 
 jSvgTia, Rom. iv. 11; and so on, in a multitude of 
 cases. But cases also occur where the usage is dif- 
 ferent, the second article being omitted. For ex- 
 ample; ruv (Fvyy&vuv xaru, tfagxa, Rom. ix. Hi ; rov... 
 Zr\\o\> vnsg h^oi), 2 Cor. vii. 7; rr\v vritiriv ...sv Xg/ffrw, 
 Col. i. 4 ; ra '£$vr\ sv tfagx/, Eph. ii. 11 ; rbv 'Itgarfk y.arcc 
 tfagjca, 1 Cor. x. 18 ; rr\v aKkorgiorrira, <rgbg 'Poj/xa/o-jg, 
 Polyb. iii. 48, 11. It will not be asserted, I trust, 
 that there is any notable difference of sense between 
 the two diverse modes of constructing adjuncts of 
 .this nature, i. e. of constructing them with and with- 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 59 
 
 out the article. Then, of course, the insertion or 
 omission of the article, in these cases, must have de- 
 pended much on the will of the writer. 
 
 (d) As kindred to this last head, we may produce 
 the case where the principal noun omits the article. 
 Here usage varies again. The rule, we may say, is, 
 that when the principal noun omits the article, the 
 subordinate adjunct also omits it ; e. g. tig [AtraXry^iv 
 fjjtra zbya^iGriag, 1 Tim. iv. 3 ; ayai:r\ 1% xotiaguc 
 ■/.azdiag, 1 Tim. i. 5 ; ycnoa h <mevp,ari ayioj, Rom. 
 xiv. 17; and so very frequently, both in sacred and 
 profane authors. 
 
 On the other hand, the adjunct sometimes takes 
 the article when the principal noun omits it ; as 
 -iffrsi rfj tig s/ms, Acts xxvi. 18; ayuKri rp h Xo/<jt<Z, 
 2 Tim. i. 13; sgyuv tojv h dixaioGvvyj, Tit. iii. 5. A 
 flood of examples is produced of this nature by Winer, 
 in § 19, 4, of his Grammar. 
 
 (e) One more qualification or limitation of a prin- 
 cipal noun by a subordinate one, remains to be con- 
 sidered. This is the case where the principal noun 
 has a genitive case simply connected with it ; as 6 Xoyog 
 rov §sou, or Xoyog 3soD. The rule here, as laid down by 
 grammarians, is, that where the principal noun has 
 the article, the subordinate one must have it; and 
 where the first omits it, the last rejects it ; i. e. both 
 must have, or both reject, the article. But one need 
 not read far in any Greek author without finding this 
 rule frequently violated. Thus in Luke viii. 7, h 
 fAttiff) ruiv axatiuv and so r,bovuv rov (3iov, Luke viii. 14 ; 
 togXCdV rrig avvayuy^g, Luke viii. 41 ; Xtirovsybv rqg 
 X^uag fMov, Phil. ii. 25 ; and thus in a multitude of 
 
60 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 cases. I am aware that it has been said, that the 
 article is left out in the principal word in such cases, 
 because of some other rule or principle which would 
 justify the omission. It may be true, I grant, that the 
 omission can be justified, in the cases adduced and in 
 others of the like nature ; but is it demanded f and 
 especially, is it demanded in opposition to the canon 
 which we are now contemplating, and which is often 
 laid down with little abatement and exception ? Mid- 
 dleton says, he is " not aware that any Greek prose 
 writer, except the florid Philo Judaeus, disregards this 
 canon," (p. 30.) But what would he say to the fol- 
 lowing sentence from Xenophon ; cuvsaaXstrs %ai '/xt'suv 
 7tai kz^wv 7tai ao/xarwv rove, rjysfxovag? Cyrop. vi. 3, 8. 
 And what can be said to such examples as these ? viz. 
 'ttspi xaruhvcsojg rJjg orgar/aj, Xen. Cyrop. vi. 1, 13; 
 sv /taraXiffs/ rov (3/ov, Apol. Soc. 30 ; It/ nXivrfj rov 
 (3iov, Mem. i. 5, 2 ; ii-b f/jYizovg ruv odoov, Strab. xv. p. 
 719; duff^spzia rov votjfj/iarog, Soph. Philoct. 888; et 
 saepe eodem modo alibi. 
 
 In general it must be philosophically true, that 
 where the principal noun is specific, some quality or 
 circumstance marked by a following genitive will of 
 course be specific. But there are cases where the 
 writer does not mean to make specificness, either as it 
 respects the principal noun, or else in regard to the 
 subordinate one. In such cases, he accomplishes his 
 design by omitting the article before either, as cir- 
 cumstances may require. 
 
 We have now gone through with the classes of 
 words usually added to modify, limit, and qualify the 
 principal nouns, in any sentence ; and we have seen 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 61 
 
 that there is scarcely a single rule in regard to the 
 use of the article, that does not admit of exceptions, 
 many or most of which seem to depend more on the 
 design of the writer, than on the absolute nature of the 
 things concerned. 
 
 There is still remaining, however, one or two cases 
 in respect to the insertion or omission of the article, 
 which have been the subject of much dispute, and 
 which, from the importance thus given to them, should 
 not pass unnoticed. 
 
 6. Several nouns standing in the same case, and 
 being connected by a conjunction, take each the a*r 
 tide when the gender of them is diverse. 
 
 Such is the general principle. As examples may be 
 adduced, rag ffsfiofihag , yvva?xag...Jtai rovg rrsdjrovg rr\g 
 ■TroXsojg, Acts xiii. 50 ; sv roTg <7rapa<7rru)[Aa<ji xai rfj axoo(3v- 
 ziq, Col.ii. 13; rb dixcciovxai rr,v isorrira . . .^a^yj^z, Col. 
 iv. 1 ; d'-b rod vofiou rr\g d^a^riag xa.1 rou ^avdrov, Rom. 
 viii. 2. This principle is common, moreover, to clas- 
 sic Greek, as well as to the New Testament. 
 
 Yet imperious as this law may seem to be, even 
 from the nature of the case and the importance of 
 being perspicuous, it is still far from being universal. 
 E. g. rd hrak[i*ara xtd dtdaczaXlag ruv d&zto-rwv, Col. 
 ii. 22 ; g^sXSs ug rag odovg %ai (pgwy/iovg, Luke xiv. 
 23; rqv dvva/iiv xal wXourov, Rev. v. 12; roug ivroXaTg 
 ■Atxi dixai(Aifia,ffi, Luke i. 6; 0/ yvw6roi...xal <yvvct7xeg f 
 Luke xxiii.49. So in the classic writers ; rfj itfrtrfjf&fi 
 xctt s.oyw, Plat. Repub. ix. p. 586 ; 01 -aTb'sg rs xal 
 yvvaTxsg, ib. p. 557 ; 6 (tupoovuv xal ffupgovovtta, Plat. 
 Leg. vi. p. 784 ; rag ovvdfistg xal toXs/aov, Agath. xiv. 
 12; and so not unfrequently in other writers. 
 
b'2 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 Whatever now may be said of the insertion of the 
 article before each noun, in cases of such a nature, the 
 o??iission of it must surely be ad arbitrium scriptoris. 
 Let the student note here, as we shall have occasion 
 in the sequel to appeal to this head of illustration, that 
 when the second noun is clearly and altogether dis- 
 crepant from the preceding one, both as to gender 
 and meaning, it still may, and not unfrequently does, 
 omit the article. 
 
 7. Several nouns connected by a conjunction, and 
 being in the same case and of the same gender, usually 
 omit the article after it has been once inserted, viz. 
 before the first noun. 
 
 E. g. /Jjiru tojv KPSfffi-jTSPuv xai y^af^fiarsuv, Mark xv. 
 1 ; <5/a ?r\g piXoaopfag xai %ivr\g d<Ta,Tric, Col. ii. 8 ; srri 
 ri\ ^vcicc %al Xuro-jpyia, Phil. ii. 17 ; and thus in a multi- 
 tude of cases, both in sacred and profane authors. 
 The case extends to adjectives and participles con- 
 nected in the like way, as well as to nouns ; e. g. rov 
 ayiov xal dinatov, Acts iii. 14 ; ttjv fisydXyv xai etfKpawjj 
 Acts ii. 20; oi ...Xarpsvovng xai xav%U)tj,zvoi ...7tai ...~i- 
 voftorsg, Phil. iii. 3; o ft>agrupuv...7tal ypu-^ug, John 
 xxi. 14. 
 
 Yet the number of cases is almost equally great, 
 where the article is inserted before the second noun, 
 etc. as well as the first; e. g. oi dpyjsPiTg %<xl oi bryjp'srat, 
 John xix. 6 ; rw civ's/Mo xai ru> jcXu^wv/, Luke viii. 24 ; 
 <toj irorijgiou %cl\ rou mvaxog, Luke xi. 39. The reader 
 may find a multitude of the like cases, both in sacred 
 and profane writers, collected by Winer in his Gram- 
 mar, § 18, 5. 
 
 The general principle that seems to predominate 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 63 
 
 through cases of such a nature as those in Nos. 6, 7, 
 appears to be this, viz. that where the several things 
 enumerated belong, either actually or as viewed by 
 the writer, to one and the same class or genus, the ar- 
 ticle may be omitted after the first noun; but if they 
 are. distinct, and are intended to be distinctly and se- 
 parately represented, then the article is inserted or 
 omitted (as the case may be) before them all. Yet 
 this last rule, which would seem to be almost imperi- 
 ous for the sake of perspicuity, is often, very often 
 neglected. Thus, for example, ov...oi xXanTg olio 
 tvgvvuroi, Soph. Ajax, 649, where ovde renders the dis- 
 tinction certain ; Xoyw fisv sd^Xci, ro?6i d' hyoiGiv xaxd, 
 Soph. Oedip. Col. 782 ; zi-ttov xai GotpoTg xai roTfft pauXo/g 
 hdixug, Euripides Phoen. 495 ; y\ did, rqg o-^sojg zed o/' 
 d-/.or,g r,dor/j, Plat. Hipp. Maj. p. 302. So also with 
 participles; e. g. r£ rovg \6yovg Xsyovn xal r/,aw,asvai, 
 Eurip. Orest. 913. The same with adjectives ; e.g. 
 rh oaiov xai [L7)> Plat. Eutyph. p. 9 ; the contrary of 
 which is elsewhere exhibited, as rd rs sucs/SJj xai ogiu 
 xal rd /jbri, ib. p. 12; oGiov za/ rb dixaiov, Eurip. El. 
 1351 ; i&Xd rs xal rd %s££/a, Horn. Odys. </, 229. 
 More examples the reader may see in Matthiae, § 
 268. Anm. 1. 
 
 I have now exhibited all the very important cases, 
 in which the article is either inserted or omitted. I 
 must merely advert, in the briefest manner I can, to 
 other cases in which the insertion and omission seems 
 to be, in some good degree, ad arbitrium auctoris. 
 
 8. I shall arrange these under different heads for 
 the sake of perspicuity and convenience. 
 
64 HINTS RESPECTING THE GEEEK ARTICLE. 
 
 (a) Verbs substantive and nuncupative, i. e. verbs 
 of existence and of naming, usually have anarthrous 
 nouns after them. Yet here exceptions are numerous. 
 For verbs substantive, see No. 3 above; of verbs nun- 
 cupative, the following are examples, viz. to ovb/ta... 
 Xsy-rai 6 u^ivSog, Apoc. viii. 11 ; xaXsTrcci rb ovofia... 
 6 /.oyo; rou SsoD, Apoc. xix. 13 ; so also dvaxaXovvrsg 
 rbv i-jspysrrjv rov avboa, rbv dyaSov, Xen. Cyrop. 3, 3, 4; 
 rbv As^/vrvTOV, dvazaXovvrsg rbv Toodoryjv, Anab. 6, 6, 7. 
 See Matt. Gramm. § 268, and Winer, Gramm. § 
 17, 6. 
 
 (b) Toiovrog, joined with a noun, admits or rejects 
 the article ; 2 Cor. xii. 2, 3. John iv. 23. Matt. ix. 
 8. Mark vi. 2. 
 
 (c) Numeral adjectives, which of course are definite, 
 may take or omit the article ; e. g. Matt. xvi. 21 ; 
 xvii. 23. Mark ix. 31 ; xv. 25. Acts ii. 15. 
 
 (d) Pronouns possessive often take, and often omit, 
 the article ; Matt, xviii. 20. Mark viii. 38. John iv. 
 34 (in the predicate.) In the New Testament the 
 cases of omitting the article are rare, when the ] 
 nominal adjectives are used, but frequent when <e 
 pronoun itself is employed in their stead ; comp. 
 under No. 2 above. Matthiae produces a flood of 
 examples where the article is inserted, and others 
 where it is omitted, when pronominal adjectives are 
 employed, § 264, 4, Vol. II. p. 543. 
 
 (c) With demonstrative pronouns the article is 
 often joined, and not unfrequently omitted, because 
 they are of themselves sufficiently specific. See 
 Matt. § 265, 1. 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 65 
 
 (f) Even s'Aaffrog, which one would naturally take 
 to be indefinite, not unfrequently admits the article, 
 although it is generally without it ; Matt. § 265, 5. 
 
 But I need not pursue the subject any further. 
 Enough, I trust, has been said, to show how little is 
 to be thought of confident and positive declarations, 
 in a multitude of cases, respecting the insertion or 
 omission of the article ; enough to show, how little 
 claim a great part of Middleton's canons have, to the 
 universality which he has generally given to them, 
 and to the imperious nature with which he has often 
 invested them. 
 
 I should fail, after all, of the great object that I 
 have had in view, or at least I should be exposed to 
 misinterpretation, if I should stop here, without making 
 some reflections, and subjoining some cautions, in re- 
 lation to what has already been exhibited. The 
 reader will, therefore, as I hope, indulge me with the 
 liberty of adding such remarks as I deem of import- 
 ance to the accomplishment of my design. 
 
 ^irst, I would caution him against supposing, that 
 a. i in all cases a matter of indifference whether the 
 article is inserted or omitted. Nothing can be more 
 certain, than that the article often changes the rela- 
 tion of some words, and that they are definite or in- 
 definite, according to the insertion or omission of it. 
 But still, it is equally true, that where this definiteness 
 or indefiniteness is not a main or an important object, 
 in the view of a writer or speaker, he of course is at 
 liberty to insert or omit the article, in cases where it 
 is grammatically admissible or omissible. And where. 
 
 / 
 
66 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 we may now ask, is it not so ? We have been the 
 whole round of examples or cases, in which the arti- 
 cle is employed, and we have not found a single rule 
 that is without exceptions ; unless we regard the rule 
 respecting the adjective as being so. There is no 
 case which in itself is so imperious, that it may not 
 at times be disregarded. But this must not be mis- 
 interpreted. I do not mean to say, that the insertion 
 or omission of the article, in many cases, would be 
 equally proper. Most certainly not. Its insertion, 
 for example, before participles, where the practice 
 varies so much, would in some cases give a false em- 
 phasis to the participle and elevate it too much into 
 notice. In other cases, this elevation is a specific 
 object with the writer, and therefore the article is 
 demanded. 
 
 In many cases the relative meaning of words is en- 
 tirely changed by the presence or absence of the ar- 
 ticle ; e. g. aXXo/ others, indefinite, i. e. any others ; 
 but oi as.Xoi the others, the rest, in case of some de- 
 finite division into parts. So nohXoi many, inde- 
 finitely ; but 0/ woXXo/ means either the greater num- 
 ber in any particular case, or else the great mass of 
 the community. And thus it is with a multitude of 
 other words. The presence of the article indicates of 
 course a definiteness or specificness of relation. 
 
 Beyond all question, moreover, the well cultivated 
 mind of a native Greek would often be susceptible of 
 a feeling of propriety or impropriety, with regard to 
 the admission or exclusion of the article, to which we 
 can at present make no claims. Every language that 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 67 
 
 employs the article has some niceties in respect to it, 
 which belong to no other language. We have already 
 seen, that no two languages agree in all respects with 
 regard to its use. This fact alone would serve to show, 
 that there must be something schwankend, as the Ger- 
 mans say, i. e. variable, not stedfast and uniform, in 
 regard to the nature of the thing itself. The definite 
 article must of course be for substance the same in all 
 languages. Yet the custom of making this or that 
 object definite or specific, t. e. of conceiving of it and 
 representing it as such, appears to be quite different. 
 We say : Nature does this. The Greek would say : 
 roZro -oi$7 r, <pv<Tig, or tovto rronT <pi>6ic. The French 
 would attach the article to Nature in this case ; so 
 also the Germans. In English the omission is indis- 
 pensable, in a proposition of the kind before us ; in 
 French the insertion is indispensable ; in Greek the 
 speaker has his choice, for if puc/g be viewed as an ab- 
 stract or concrete noun, it is monadic, and the article 
 may therefore be inserted or omitted. <&-jgic used in 
 the way of personification, would of course naturally 
 claim the article. 
 
 The number of cases in which the Greek inserts the 
 article, where we omit it in English, is almost beyond 
 computation. Yet our the is like the Greek 6, and 
 answers the very same purpose, where the use is com- 
 mon to both languages. This simple fact is enough 
 to show, that much which respects the article, must 
 be arbitrary, i. e. must depend not on the nature itself 
 of this part of speech, but on the particular usages of 
 each language in which it is employed. 
 
68 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 Nay, we may without any hazard venture farther 
 than this. Not only do different languages vary in 
 their use of the definite article, but different indivi- 
 duals, who use the same language, vary not a little 
 from each other. Thus the four Evangelists almost 
 always say, 6 Xgidrog- while Paul and Peter generally 
 say, Xgiarbg simply, unless the word is in the geni- 
 tive after another word which has the article. Both 
 usages are abundantly sanctioned by the laws of 
 classic Greek. 
 
 Nor need we confine ourselves to the New Testa- 
 ment for examples. We have already seen, that the 
 contest has not yet ceased among the very first class 
 of Greek scholars, whether Homer employs the pro- 
 per article at all. For substance likewise, the same 
 question is pending in regard to Hesiod. Then we 
 may come to the Greek tragedians, whose measured, 
 lofty, polished style, is designed to exhibit the very 
 perfection of the Greek language. And truly, I can 
 form no conception of polish in language, beyond 
 that which Sophocles exhibits. Yet here, the article, 
 as all agree, is seldom employed ; I mean, seldom in 
 comparison with its frequency in Plato, Xenophon, 
 Thucydides, etc. How can such facts as these exist, 
 and to such a wide extent, and yet a question be 
 made whether the article may not be omitted by one 
 writer, in a multitude of cases where another inserts 
 it? 
 
 This, after all, does not prove, nor is it alleged to 
 prove, that it was in all cases a matter of indifference 
 whether the article was inserted or omitted. In a 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 69 
 
 multitude of cases, to say the least, the insertion of it 
 would give a new turn to the sense of the word 
 which should receive it. In others, the omission 
 would also occasion the loss of specification and em- 
 phasis. 
 
 But still, this note of specification may be dispensed 
 with in a multitude of cases, on the very ground that 
 nouns are already either specific in themselves, or 
 are made so by adjuncts attached to them. There is 
 yet another class of cases by no means inconsiderable, 
 in which the omission or insertion of the article de- 
 pends entirely on the subjective feelings and views of 
 the writer or speaker, and not at all on the nature of 
 the things which he describes or asserts. We must 
 not confound all these cases together. There is 
 great need of patient examination in order to ascer- 
 tain to which of these categories a thing belongs, be- 
 fore we pronounce any sentence in respect to the 
 article that might or might not accompany it. Here 
 is one of those cases, in which biayivtitiTtuv ra ha$'i- 
 govTcc seems to be altogether indispensable. 
 
 I purposely omit the details concerning the article 
 when it is used as a pronoun demonstrative or re- 
 lative ; for both of these uses it has, as every good 
 lexicon and grammar will shew. Its insertion or 
 omission in such cases, must depend on the same laws 
 that govern pronouns of the like nature. 
 
 That many interpreters and lexicographers have 
 represented the article 6 as being sometimes indefinite, 
 like our English article a, seems singular. How can 
 a part of speech, the very object of which is to mark 
 
70 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 dejiniteness, or at least to specify in some respect or 
 other, at the same time be the sign of indefiniteness ? 
 The ground of mistake, however, in this case, may 
 easily be pointed out. Critics who have avowed such 
 a principle, do not seem to have sufficiently reflected, 
 that the usages in respect to the definite article are 
 variable in different languages. What the French or 
 the Germans often express definitely, i. e. with the 
 article, the English often express indefinitely. But 
 this does not make the French or German definite 
 article to possess an indefinite nature. By no means. 
 It only shows that the mode of expressing the same 
 thing may, to a certain extent, vary among different 
 nations. If I say, Evil has evil consequences, I mean 
 to convey the idea, that whatever is evil will be fol- 
 lowed by bad consequences. But if I say, The evil 
 (to /ta/cov) has evil consequences, I express, indeed, 
 the very same general idea ; but at the same time I 
 naturally indicate, by this mode of expression, that 
 the word evil is here viewed in opposition to good, 
 which has already been mentioned, or is distinctly an 
 object that was naturally supposed to be before the 
 mind. Nothing can be more incorrect, then, than to 
 prescribe laws for the use of the Greek article from 
 the usages of the German or English tongue. Nor 
 can it be consonant with sound criticism to aver, that 
 because a word which has the Greek article before it, 
 must be rendered into one of these languages with the 
 omission of the article, that therefore the article is in 
 its own nature indefinite. 
 
 I have proceeded as far in the development of this 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 71 
 
 subject, as the patience of my readers will permit. I 
 shall conclude the whole by exhibiting a few con- 
 tested cases in respect to the insertion or omission of 
 the article, which have an important bearing on some 
 of the great doctrines of theology. 
 
 So long ago as the former part of the third century, 
 Origen intimated that in John i. 1, Ssoc %\> 6 Xoyog, 
 the writer did not say 6 §ebg because this would de- 
 signate the supreme God. Often has this been ap- 
 pealed to, in order to shew, that only a os-Jncog §z6g 
 is meant by the declaration of the Evangelist ; for if 
 more had been meant, the presence of the article, it 
 has been asserted, would have been necessary. 
 
 How obviously incorrect it is, to build such a theory 
 on the absence of the article in this case, is sufficiently 
 plain by a comparison of the cases which occur in the 
 very chapter that contains the expression before us. 
 For example ; ver. 6, " There was a man sent cro^cc 
 SsoD* ver. 12, rexva Sbot> ver. 13, sk ^soD- ver. 18," 
 " No man hath seen §ebv, at any time." In these, 
 and in a multitude of other cases, there is no doubt 
 whether the supreme God is designated, and yet the 
 article is omitted. 
 
 On the other hand, if the writer had said, 6 §sbg yv 
 6 \6yog, it would have rendered it doubtful here 
 whether 6 Xoyog or 6 §sbg was the subject of his propo- 
 sition. Or if 6 Xoyog were to be taken as the subject, 
 then the assertion would be, that the Logos is the 
 God ; an assertion which the writer did not mean to 
 make, for this would exclude the Father and the Spirit 
 from being truly divine, or else make them one and 
 
72 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 the same in all respects with the Logos. Nor is the 
 assertion of the Evangelist to be taken as meaning 
 that the Logos is a God merely ; but that he is God, 
 i. e. that he is divine, that he possesses a divine nature. 
 This is all that is required; and all, indeed, that the 
 nature of the proposition admits. 
 
 The passage in Tit. ii. 13, " Looking for the 
 blessed hope, za! zKKpdvziav rov {Myakou §sou zal ffw- 
 rr t oog tj^ojv 'I^gouXoigroZ" has been the subject of long, 
 learned, and animated contest. One party avers, 
 that the absence of the article before coorTJPog neces- 
 sarily unites it to %zov and makes it predicable of the 
 same being. Mr. Wordsworth has shewn, in his 
 treatise respecting this form of expression, that the 
 Greek Fathers generally understood this passage in 
 such a way ; Middleton says, he has shewn, that "all 
 antiquity were agreed on this question," p. 307. 
 This may be so. But if it be, there still remains a 
 doubt whether they were guided by theological or 
 philological reasons, in forming this opinion, so far as 
 the article is concerned. Nothing can be plainer, 
 indeed, than that a Greek would naturally say, rov 
 §tov xai ffwrrjooc, if he meant to predicate both ap- 
 pellations of the same person. But if the reader will 
 now turn back to No. 7, he will see that nothing can 
 be plainer, also, than that a Greek might have used 
 the same expression, in case different persons were 
 intended to be designated. When two nouns are of 
 the same gender and in the same case, this is reason 
 enough for omitting the article before the second, if 
 the writer pleases ; and this, whether they both re- 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 73 
 
 late, or not, to the same individual. Middleton says: 
 " It is impossible to understand ^sov %cd iturrjgog other- 
 wise than of one person," p. 307. The reader, by re- 
 examining No. 7, can judge how little ground there 
 is to assert this, so far as the absence of the article is 
 concerned ; and it is in reference to this, that Mid- 
 dleton makes the assertion. 
 
 But in addition to this, there is another reason which 
 may be given for the omission of the article ; and this 
 is, that the pronoun tj/xuv of itself specificates cwrricog, 
 and therefore renders the insertion of the article un- 
 necessary, even in case the writer meant that (furqgos 
 should be considered as distinct from rou §eov. The 
 reader has only to look back upon No. 2, above, in 
 order to become fully persuaded concerning this ob- 
 vious principle with regard to the Greek article. 
 
 On two accounts, then, the absence of the article 
 in this case cannot prove any thing important ; for, 
 as we have seen, it might be dispensed with, whether 
 the writer meant to put ffwrrjoog in apposition with §sov, 
 or to designate a different person by it (compare No. 
 4, above ;) or it may have been omitted because of the 
 pronoun qftwv which of itself specifies. It would seem, 
 therefore, that there was no good ground for the great 
 contest which has existed in this case, in respect to 
 the presence or absence of the article. If the writer 
 designed to make <rurfyo; merely an explicative or 
 attributive of §sov, in this case he would, beyond all 
 doubt, have expressed himself as he now has ; but if 
 he did not design this, but meant to make the usual 
 distinction so often made in Paul's epistles, between 
 
74 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 God the Father and Christ, he might still have used 
 the same expression. The whole argument then, on 
 either side, so far as the article is concerned, falls to 
 the ground. 
 
 Not so however, in my apprehension, in regard to 
 considerations deducible from the context. Where 
 in the New Testament, is the hirupdvua of God the 
 Father asserted or foretold ? It is Christ who is to 
 appear " in the clouds of heaven, with great power 
 and glory." It is " the Lord himself who is to come 
 with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and the 
 trump of God ;" it is " he who shall come with the 
 clouds, whom every eye shall see, and they also who 
 pierced him." It is he then who was pierced, that is 
 to make the iKKpdvzia on earth, I know of no New 
 Testament analogy for any other than he, who is to 
 make such a development of himself. How can I 
 then refer this smpdveia in Tit. ii. 13, to God the 
 Father ? Reasoning a priori, or party views, might 
 lead me to do so ; but the analogy of the New Tes- 
 tament throughout, would forbid me to do it. 
 
 On other and very different grounds, then, than 
 that of the presence or absence of the article in this 
 case, I arrive at the full persuasion, that roD /xs/aXou 
 %ou xat tf«r*;go$, are both appellatives applied in this 
 case to 'lv}(foZg Xeiarog. If I am pressed with the 
 question : Where is any thing like this in all the New 
 Testament ? My answer would be, that xai §sog 7Jv 
 6 Xoyog, John i. 1 ; 6 uv sti <zdvrwv §sbg, zvXoyrjrbg e/g 
 rovg alojvag, Rom. ix. 5 ; eCftsv h rtZ aXrfiivui, sv tuj 
 y/co auroD'l>jcroS Xpiffrw, ourog stfnv 6 akrftivbg ^soc y.ai if] 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 75 
 
 4 
 
 Zpri a/time, 1 John v. 20 ; are altogether analogical. 
 In this last case, I would not rely so much on the 
 grammatical connection of ovrog with X^gtQj as its 
 antecedent, as I would on the attributive 57 ^w^ a/'w- 
 viog. Who is appropriately so called by the apostle 
 John, except Jesus ? Let the reader compare John 
 i. 4 ; v. 26 ; xi. 25 ; vi. 35 ; xiv. 6. 1 John v. 1 1, 12. 
 Thus is' Christ called 6 Xoyog rr^g fyng in 1 John i. 1 ; 
 and in i. 2 he is not only called ^m but ri fyr, yj a/w- 
 viog, the very appellation given him at the close of 
 the epistle. If now any writer may be permitted to 
 explain himself, I should think John had done so in 
 the case before us. Consequently I find in him and 
 in Paul, analogies for a case like that of rov {xsyuXov 
 SsoO ?tai Gojrri^og... , I'/jGou Xg/tfroS. But, as will be seen, 
 I do not trust the Greek article as being the depo- 
 sitary of arguments, in a case of such magnitude as 
 this. In almost all cases it must be a slender sup- 
 port for any conclusion ; but here especially it is not 
 worthy of the trust which so many have reposed 
 in it. 
 
 In the same manner as Tit. ii. 13, may the case 
 be solved which occurs in Jude v. 4, viz. rbv /xovov 
 bsfr-oTTtV zai xxjotov r t fjjujv 'irjffovv Xg/ffroi/ agvo't/jMVOi. 
 Whether rbv osc-oV'/jv and xvgiov both apply to Xzigtm, 
 cannot be decided by the absence of the article 
 before xug/o£. To give the reasons specifically, would 
 be merely to repeat what has just been said. 'Hpujv 
 of itself specificates xvgiov, and the article might 
 therefore be omitted, even if the writer meant that 
 jjgtfjrorjjv and xup/oy should be taken separately ; and it 
 
76 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 would almost of course be omitted, if he meant that 
 both should be merely attributives of Xgiarog. Con- 
 sequently nothing can be made out of the absence 
 of the article, which is satisfactory. The word ag- 
 vovfievoi, however, gives us a clue, as it seems to me, 
 by which we may arrive at the true sense. The 
 New Testament is full of the idiom which applies 
 the word deny to the rejection of Christ ; e. g. Thou 
 shalt deny me thrice, Matt. xxvi. 34, 35. Mark 
 xiv. 30, 31, 72. Matt. x. 33. 2 Tim. ii. 12. Luke 
 xii. 9. John xiii. 18. Acts iii. 13, 14. Rev. xiii. 
 8, and often elsewhere. Once only in the New 
 Testament do I find the word deny applied as de- 
 signating the rejection of God simply ; and even 
 here the mode of expression is peculiar : " They 
 profess to know God, but in works they deny him," 
 Tit. i. 15. When I compare, therefore, the expres- 
 sion in Jude v. 4, with the texts above named, and 
 in particular with 2 Pet. ii. ], deny the Lord that 
 bought them ; and also with 1 John ii. 22, 23, I 
 cannot hesitate to believe, that rbv j&ovov dsffKorriv xai 
 xvgiov do both refer to I. Xgt<rrbv. Nothing can be 
 more characteristic of Paul's mode of representing 
 Christ, than this mode which presents him as the 
 reigning Lord of the universe. 
 
 The case in 2 Thess. ii. 12 appears to me to be of 
 a different nature. Here we have rr\v %ag/v rov ^eou 
 Vf&uv %oA zugiov 'I. Xptffrov. But in a connexion of this 
 nature, and in phraseology like this, we often findSsog 
 unequivocally distinguished from xvgtog; e. g. 2 Thess. 
 i, 2, Xapsc^.d^b^teov <rargbg rjfAwv, xai xvoiov 'I. Xoitfrofr 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 77 
 
 eorap. 1 Thess. i. 1. Col. i. 2 (Text. Recep.) Phil, 
 i. 2. Eph. i. 2, etc. Yet this text (2 Thess. ii. 12) 
 has been adduced by Granville Sharp and others, as 
 a proof text for the doctrine of the Trinity, on the 
 ground that the want of the Greek article before 
 xug/ou must necessarily attach zveiov to §eov. In this 
 case then, if such a conclusion is legitimate, it would 
 follow that varpbg t](aZjv is also an appellative of 'I. 
 Xgiffrog- but where in all the New Testament is there 
 any analogy for this ? 
 
 On the other hand, the case in 2 Pet. iii. 18, is 
 very clearly of the opposite character. Here we 
 have, rov zvoiov '/j/aojv '/.ui ffojr^Pog 'I. Xgiffrou. That 
 -/.a! acarrjgos is an attributive or explicative of xvt/ov, 
 and that both belong to Xoitrov, there can hardly be 
 any room for doubt. Both are the familiar and 
 usual appellations of Christ; and they are often united 
 together elsewhere, as well as here ; e. g. Tit. i. 4. 
 2 Pet. i. 11; ii. 20 ; iii. 2, al. 
 
 But my limits compel me to desist from more ex- 
 amples. Those on which most stress has been laid, 
 and which have been the subjects of the longest and 
 sharpest contests, have been already adduced. Should 
 I go beyond these bounds, I should not know where 
 to stop. The exemplification of principles laid down 
 in the preceding essay, may be found, of course, on 
 every page of the New Testament. Most readers, 
 tolerably familiar with Greek, will, as I trust, be 
 able to put them to the test. At all events, I must 
 think that these principles are at least more intel- 
 ligible and more firmly supported, than those of Mid- 
 
78 HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 dleton. I have read his book until 1 despair of get- 
 ting to the light ; so often does he deal in the claro- 
 obscure, and so often utters unguarded assertions, at 
 least such as are incapable of solid defence. 
 
 Passow has some good remarks in his Lexicon, 
 respecting the article ; and so has Bretschneider, who 
 seems to have laid out some effort upon this part of 
 speech. Wahl has endless subdivision, seemingly 
 without any steadfast principles under which he at- 
 tempted to arrange his facts. Buttmann, in his 
 Grammar, has only a few hints ; Rost has made a 
 very brief but a striking digest of general principles. 
 Matthiae alone seems to have made the subject one 
 of attentive, deep, and thorough study ; and he has 
 more facts respecting it, than all the others put to- 
 gether. Winer seems to have fully and thoroughly 
 studied and comprehended him ; but he has not 
 taken the requisite pains to classify the subject in 
 general. The parts of it that he has exhibited, are 
 done in his best manner. 
 
 I make these remarks merely for the sake of 
 readers, who may wish to study the subject, and not 
 for the sake of indulging in criticism on the efforts 
 of others, which is far enough from being the parti- 
 cular design of this essay. The reader who has not 
 leisure or opportunity to read all which has been 
 written on the Greek article, will naturally wish to 
 be informed where he may read to the best advan- 
 tage. I have ventured, in the above remarks, to 
 give him my views respecting this question. 
 
 « But — mutato nomine de te fabula narratur ; the 
 
HINTS RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 79 
 
 next writer that rises up, may find as many faults 
 with your theory, as you have with other theories." 
 So methinks I hear some of my readers say. Be it so, 
 is my reply. I have but one wish respecting the sub- 
 ject; and this is to come at what is true, if there be 
 any such thing as finding it. If my remarks should 
 excite some one to correct my errors, and to throw 
 more light on this subject, so long neglected, and so 
 little understood by most Greek readers, I shall be 
 among the foremost to tender him my congratulations 
 and my most cheerful approbation. 
 
 In the mean time, it is not amiss to give a hint to 
 theologians and critics, that important conclusions 
 in either of their departments ought not to be built 
 on the presence or absence of the article, until the 
 metes and bounds of this part of speech are much 
 more definitely settled, and better understood. No- 
 thing can be more certain, than that a large ex- 
 tent of the ground is arbitrary, at least it is in a great 
 measure so ; and the limits to which it is so, remain 
 to be fixed more definitely, before we can say — ultra 
 quos nequit consistere rectum. Our faith then, in 
 matters of belief or exegesis, should not, for the pre- 
 sent, have for its basis this " loquacissimae gentis 
 flabellum." The context, the idiom in general, and 
 the nature of the case, are always, and ever must be, 
 better guides. Them let us follow ; at least until our 
 new guide attains to a character more fixed, more 
 uniform, and more trust-worthy than it has at pre- 
 sent. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
J. THOMSON, PRINTER, MILNE SQUARE. 
 
THOMSON, PRINTED, MILNE SQUARK.