^ 
 
:/^- 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 r "■ — 
 
 Hh 
 
 
 
 
 .^; ^H 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 fl 
 
 4J W 
 
 ^ ' 
 
 
 # 
 
 c/i S 
 
 
 
 3 • >^ 
 
 
 
 '' -? 
 
 tXOrH C 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 3 00 
 < 00 C 
 
 
 
 : ^ ^ 
 
 00 C 1 w 
 
 rH C CO 
 
 
 
 •§ 
 
 • c\3 r^ 0) 
 
 
 
 to izi 
 
 > x: r^ x: 
 
 
 
 
 --H -M 
 00 •-) 
 
 
 
 
 LO -CI 
 
 PQ -^ ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1^ M 
 
 'H e c ^ ^ 
 
 :; 
 
 
 
 <■ 4-> -H CO ; 
 
 
 
 "^ 
 
 CO -H X CU ' 
 
 
 
 PQ H Ct: 
 
 
 
 €' 
 
 <:^ 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 1" 
 
 
 
 ^^. 
 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 4 . 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 \ -^ 
 
 
 
 \ ^ 
 
THE 
 
 BIBLICAL CABINET; 
 
 HERMENEUTICAL, EXEGETICAL, 
 
 AND 
 
 PHILOLOGICAL LIBRARY. 
 
 VOL. XVIIL 
 
 titxmann's synonyms of the new testament, 
 
 &c. &c. &c. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 THOMAS CLARK, 38. GEORGE STREET 
 
 J. G. dE F. RIVINGTON, LONDON ; 
 
 AND W. CURRY, JUN. & CO. DUBLIN. 
 
 MDCCCXXXVII. 
 
J. THOMSON, I'KINTEll, MILXK SQUARE. 
 
REMARKS 
 
 SYNONYMS 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT; 
 
 DISQUISITIONS ON VARIOUS GRAMMATICAL AND 
 PHILOLOGICAL SUBJECTS. 
 
 BV 
 
 V 
 
 JOHN AUG. HENRY TITTMANN, D.D., 
 
 FIRST THEOLOGICAL PROFESSOR IN THE 
 UNIVERSITY OF LEIPSIC. 
 
 VOL. n. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 
 THOMAS CLARK, 38. GEORGE STREET. 
 MDCCCXXXVII. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 THE SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 INDEX TO THE SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TES- 
 TAMENT .... 62 
 
 ON THE GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY OF THE 
 
 WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 75 
 
 Translated from the Original by Professor Robivso.v. 
 
 ON SIMPLICITY OF THE INTERPRETATION OF 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT . . 1*^8 
 
 Translated from the Original by Professor Robinson. 
 
 ON THE PRINCIPAL CAUSES OF FORCED INTER- 
 PRETATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 132 
 Translated from the Original by Professor Robinson. 
 
 USE OF THE PARTICLE "iNA IN THE NEW 
 
 TESTAMENT . . .183 
 
 Translated from the Original, with Notes, by Professor Stuart. 
 
 ON THE FORCE OF THE GREEK PREPOSITIONS 
 IN COMPOUND VERBS, AS EMPLOYED IN 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT . . 241 
 
 Translated from the Original by Professor Robiwson. 
 
PEIHGE 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT, 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 This is the nature of synonyms, that they ex- 
 press diverse modes of conceiving the same 
 thing, and thus cause hearers and readers to 
 represent to their minds indeed the same ob- 
 ject, (as they call it in the schools), and yet to 
 form varying notions of it. Hence it happens, 
 that among the best and most accurate writers, 
 a twofold use of synonyms is chiefly found, one 
 the logical, which we may call necessary^ another 
 the rhetorical, which may be termed not necessa^ 
 ry. We call that necessary, when the writer has 
 had in his mind a certain definite form of any ob- 
 ject, and has wished that this form be thought of 
 by the readers ; as, for instance, if any one were 
 
 VOL. II. B 
 
2 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 to speak of a man destitute of wealth, and com- 
 pelled to seek his necessary sustenance by hard 
 labour, he ought to call him Tsv/^ra* if he 
 were to use the word --TrToyJiv, the idea of a 
 mendicant, seeking alms, would be raised in 
 the mind of the reader. Those, therefore, who 
 speak accurately, are accustomed to select out 
 of many synonyms, that is words having a kind- 
 red meaning, that term which expresses the 
 precise notion which he wishes to convey. The 
 other use, which we have called not necessary, 
 appears in those passages where two or more 
 synonyms are placed together. This may be 
 done for a twofold reason, first, because he who 
 is speaking may wish that these kindred ideas 
 of the same object be thought of separately 
 by the mind of the reader ; and next, because 
 he may desire to describe the same thing in all 
 its parts, and to exhibit a fuller and more 
 lively representation of it ; which is for the 
 most part peculiar to orators and poets, among 
 whom an accumulation of synonymous terms is 
 a favourite figure. Of the former sort, are those 
 passages, where two synonyms are coupled by 
 a negative particle, as, for example, when Paul, 
 in the Epistle to the Gal. i. 12, says, oho) yu^ 
 lydj rraoa, avd^wTou crafsXaCoi/ auro, (yon sdidd^Ori'y. 
 For he denies both rh Tu^aXajSiTv and rb bthay&rivai. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. O 
 
 These words really differ, as synonyms are ac- 
 customed to do, for they signify different modes 
 of the same thing (knowledge received from 
 another), as we shall shew in a proper place ; 
 but the negative remains the same, for it 
 belongs to the w^ords ra^' ccv^^wto-j. Although, 
 therefore, Greek writers, in similar phrases, 
 were, for the most part, accustomed to write 
 not o'Jrs but ovd'-z, yet in this passage o'jrs ought 
 not lightly to be disturbed."" Synonyms of the 
 latter class occur so frequently, that it is strange 
 how any one should have imagined that, in the 
 New Testament, when two or more synonyms 
 are found in juxta-position, one or more must be 
 considered as a gloss, and rejected from the 
 text, without any authority of MSS. The rash- 
 ness of Wassenbergh has been, of late, in this 
 respect,^ satisfactorily exposed by F. A. Bor- 
 nemann f and our own Beck '^ has, later still, 
 with great acuteness remarked, that additional 
 expressions introduced in the discourse, for the 
 sake of illustration and limitation, ought not 
 always to be considered as glosses, and he has 
 
 " See Scliaefer, App. to Deinosth. III. p. 449. 
 
 ^ Dissert, de Glossis N. T. praemissa \^alkenarii scholiis 
 in libros N. T. Tom. i. p. 1, sq. 
 
 " De Glossemat. N. T. caute dijudicandis. Schol. in Luc. 
 p. ix. sq. 
 
 '^ Conteu. II. de Glossem. quee in sacris libris occurrunt, 
 p. 15. 
 
4 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 adduced as an example, that passage, Tit.iii. 1, 
 where b'rordff<!sffdai and crs/^a^-^g^v, are put together. 
 On this passage, Wassenbergh has remarked, 
 that mi^ap^iTv is a scholium upon the preceding 
 word •j':rord(jGsffdai, for it cannot be supposed that 
 Paul, in such a short Epistle, and in the same 
 place, could have wished to sa?/ the same thing 
 tivice. Bornemann is indeed of opinion, that u-ro- 
 r a (reseda/ refers to cLoyujc, and Ts/^a^p^g/i' to s^ovffiaic. 
 But Beck acutely remarks, that Paul has not 
 repeated the same idea, for ucroraffcsff^a/ and 
 'TTiidaoyjT^ do not signify the same thing. Since 
 we have determined to continue the discussion 
 on synonyms, an opportunity having unex- 
 pectedly presented itself, let us first speak of 
 these words. 
 
 'vTTordsGicjQai, crs/^cc^p^s/V : Beck has most truly 
 said, ■o'xoTddi^irai is used of one who willingly 
 and spontaneously submits to another, having 
 the right to command, and <^ii&a^^yjT^ of one 
 who also obeys, but from compulsion. Both 
 acknowledge the authority of another, and live 
 according to his pleasure, but it is to him who 
 does it of his own accord, without being or- 
 dered and commanded, that i/roracrffera/ applies, 
 whereas 'T2/()ai;>/£/' refers to him who obeys com- 
 mands or laws, and submitting to the autho- 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 5 
 
 rity of another, does what is commanded. 
 What an honourable man, therefore, is ac- 
 customed to do willingly, not being compel- 
 led by violence or fear, — provided the things 
 which are commanded, are just and honour- 
 able, 6 iTn&ao'^v does not do of his own ac- 
 cord, but by the order of another. For in the 
 word uTorao-Csff^a/, the power of the middle voice 
 is also conspicuous, which denotes that one does 
 or suffers something, without being persuad- 
 ed, impelled, or commanded by another. In 
 the same manner, dvn'ka.[j.ZoLviG&ai^ of which we 
 shall afterwards speak, signifies to undertake 
 the management of something spontaneously, 
 whence it happens that ^ortkh may be applied 
 to the inferior animals and things without life, 
 but (xv-tXafj.j3d)/sffdai cannot. 
 
 But that rrnSciP^sTv properly signifies to obey 
 a command given or law prescribed, and to exe- 
 cute the orders of another is clearly shown by 
 this one passage of Lucian : wots i/vv/xh — la-/ rp 
 
 &aoyj;jlMv auroT;.^ Hence, even in the same au- 
 thor, " life is said to obey the laws which nature 
 prescribes," Tu^aoyjl' 6 (3iog oig rj (p-jffig svoixodsrriGvj.^ 
 But we ought not to be surprised that ■jrordffffsff^ai, 
 in the sense of to submit, or subject one's self 
 
 * III. Saturn, p. 392. ^ II. Amor. 20, p. 420. 
 
6 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 voluntarily to another, is found frequently in 
 the sacred oracles, and not among other writers. 
 For it is peculiar to the rules of Christianity 
 that men, spontaneously, without being com- 
 pelled by fear, or urged by desire of gain, ac- 
 custom themselves to perform all the duties of 
 life, to obey the divine will, and to submit to 
 human laws, unless when they order what is 
 sinful. 
 
 Wherefore, in that passage the one word can- 
 not be taken for an exposition of the other, and 
 also in the rest of the passages of the New Tes- 
 tament Tsi&uQyjTv is to follow and obey one who 
 gives orders or advice.^ The Apostles excuse 
 themselves for not complying with the inter- 
 diction of the council, Acts v. 29. In the 
 same manner v'Trordffff&Gdai, unless where it has a 
 passive signification, is used in the New^ Tes- 
 tament of those who spontaneously submit to 
 magistrates,^ to masters,^ to men worthy of 
 honour^ in the cause of humanity,^ to hus- 
 bands,'" to the authority of Christ," to God 
 and his decrees.^ But so much for these. Now- 
 let us speak of some other synonyms, and first 
 of the words, 
 
 R Acts xxvii. 21. *^ Rom. xiii. 1, 5. ' Tit. ii. 'J. 
 
 ^ 1 Cor. XV. 27, 28. > Eph. v. 21. •" Kpli. v. 22. 
 
 " Eph. V. 24. " Rom. x, 3. Heb. xii. 9. Jas. iv. 7. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. V 
 
 of which we lately made incidental mention. 
 
 The}^ agree in as far as they signify to bring 
 aid. But 3^et they differ. For [SorihTv has the 
 most extensive signification, as the German 
 he/fen, succurrere^ to help to succour: avzi\a(j.- 
 fSdvsGdai is to undertake the management, de- 
 fence, or the cause of another : sich jemandes 
 einer Sache^ annehemen : I'xtXaiJjQdviGQoLt is to as- 
 sist some one, as we, using another image, say 
 heistehen to stand by. Boti^sTv is used also of irra- 
 tional animals and other things, but dvriXafj.- 
 (3a,vsffdc/,i and £T/?.a,a/3ai/£(r^a/ only of men. 
 
 ^orjdsTv is therefore truly to give assistance ; 
 that is, to afford succour or aid by our power, 
 by our strength, by our advice, by our intre- 
 pidity, &c. ; in the words avr/Aa/XiSccvsc^a/ and 
 l-zAa/x/SavscrtJa/, the inclination and endeavour 
 to assist are the leading ideas. All phy- 
 sicians undertake the cure of the sick, dvrt- 
 Xa/x/SaKJi/ra/ rojv ]io6o\jvrojv, but all do not render 
 effectual assistance (por^Qovcsi). But it is not 
 necessary to illustrate the signification of ^orikr^ 
 by examples from the New Testament. 'Ai/r/- 
 /.a/x/Sav£(T^a/ is always so used in the New Tes- 
 tament, as that it may be distinguished from 
 BoTTikTv. We have in Luke i. 54, avrOM^iro 'ic^aj^A 
 'TTuibog uijrov. The author did not say s^oridn, 
 
8 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 for God's aid was granted indeed, but in vain, 
 since 6 'jtcui did not receive it ; at all events, the 
 result was at that time uncertain. In the same 
 manner also? hu avrt'ka(M^dvi6&at tZ)v acr^gfouvrwv is 
 employed. Acts xx. 35, for we may all undertake 
 the care of the sick and help them, but we can- 
 not always render the assistance which ^otj&sTv 
 implies. I am surprised in the passage, 1 Tim. 
 vi. 2, that this signification has escaped the no- 
 tice of almost all interpreters, except Wahl, 
 0/ TT^g ihipyssiag dvnAa/xjSavofMsvoi. They have 
 supposed I know not what idea of perceiv- 
 ing, of feeling, and of enjoying, and they have 
 adduced examples of it very little to the pur- 
 pose.'^ Even Schleusner himself was de- 
 ceived by an inept scholium upon Thucy- 
 dides VII. 66, for there the historian means 
 nothing else than to succour. It is a more 
 plausible example, which is given from the 
 Axioclius ofj^ficliines (1,6): o hi ov-/, ujv ovds rrig 
 GTSp'^ffiojg avTiXocfj^lBciHrai. It has been translated, 
 he does not feel ; but why may we not translate 
 it, he does not care, for it is no concern of his. 
 The passage which Eisner quotes from the life 
 of Pericles, in Plutarch, is foreign to the pur- 
 pose, for there the verb is followed by an accusa- 
 
 P See Eisner. Observ. Sacr. upon this passage, and Wett- 
 stein. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 9 
 
 tive. In another passage of Porphyry on absti- 
 nence from animal food, crXs/ovwi/ ridovuv uvriXri-^s- 
 ffdai, the genitive is indeed employed, but j^^ovjj re- 
 quired that case. For dvnXafi^dvsg&ai and like 
 verbs, are construed with the genitive, if they 
 speak of such things as are perceived by the 
 mind or senses. It is for the same reason the 
 middle voice is used. Besides, these who un- 
 derstand the words rrig ivspysffiag d'm7.a,u.j3ai6/Mivci 
 of those who have received benefits, whether 
 they refer them to masters or servants, seem 
 to pervert the sense of the Apostle. Masters 
 cannot indeed be understood ; for if the words 
 on mcroi^ &c. be used of masters, the Apostle 
 would have written in the preceding clause, 
 fMccXXov dovXiusru6av. But if we understand ser- 
 vants, it is foreign to the purpose to say that 
 they serve Christian masters, more cheerfully, 
 because they have received benefits from them. 
 For the true cause why Christian servants 
 ought more willingly to serve their masters, 
 ddsA(poTg, is because they themselves are 'Triffroi 
 xa} dywTrrjToL But the d.ya-~r'oi are the 0/ rrjc 
 svs^ysffiag dvTiXafx(3ccv6/j.svoi. I am therefore of 
 opinion that in this passage also dvTiXaf/.^dvs- 
 (s9at should be understood in the sense of, to 
 have a care, to labour diligently, as Wahl 
 has properly translated it. The sense seems 
 
10 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 to be this : Let those who are compelled to 
 serve masters (not Christians) shew them all 
 proper respect, (ver. 1.) But let those who 
 have Christian masters not despise them, be- 
 cause they are their brethren (equals), nay 
 let them indeed attend to them the more, 
 since they are themselves Christians, and be- 
 loved by their masters, forasmuch as they se- 
 dulously labour for their benefit, that is, study' 
 to deserve well of their masters. The sense 
 will become more clear if it be expressed in di- 
 rect address. Ye, who have Christian mas- 
 ters, do not despise them, because ye are their 
 brethren (it would be improper because they 
 are your brethren) ; rather serve them the 
 more zealously, because ye are Christians as 
 they, and esteemed by them as persons who 
 have endeavoured to deserve well of them. 
 For this is the proper signification of suipyiffia, 
 whence is derived svs^^yirsTv to deserve well of 
 some one. Aristoph. Plut. V. 836. 
 
 ivri^y'irr,(ru, ^icfjLivovs itnv i^iacj; 
 
 CVTUS (Iiif^CliOVt 
 
 In the same manner rr,v 'toXiv svs^yersTv, v. 913, 
 914. The passage is one which deserves the 
 attentive consideration of all those who, in our 
 times, wish to deserve well of their country. El/ss- 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 11 
 
 ysff/av has been applied to servants, in relation to 
 their masters, even by Homer in his Odyss. 
 xxiii.374. In Thucydides, 1. 137, Themistocles 
 writes to the king : y-a.i [mi thz^yiGia h:pu/.iTai, 
 ■/.as vZv 'iyjjyi cs /xsyd/M clyada OPaGai 'rrdostfj^t. There- 
 fore dv-i/.a/M^dvB6^ai svs^yzGiac, is to be very care- 
 ful that you deserve well. 
 
 'E-//.a/x/3a^s(r^a/ in the sense of assisting some 
 one, may seem scarcely to differ from the pre- 
 ceding. But if we consider the proper signi- 
 fication of it a little more attentively, a differ- 
 ence of meaning will also appear, for it is to 
 take hold of, to seize upon. Both phrases, 
 Yj y^uo h-riXafijSdviTai and s-TriAajSi/v rfi yjiPi are used. 
 But s'ri'/M/j.lSdvicdai Tivhg (without any ellipse) is 
 to lay hold of some one. In this sense it is fre- 
 quently employed in the New Testament, as 
 in 1 Tim. vi. 12, 19, and Heb. viii. 9. Hence 
 it is figuratively to render assistance, by tak- 
 ing one as it were by the hand, in which some- 
 thing else is manifestly implied, than in air/- 
 /.a/xlSdvsG&ai, for it signifies present help or ser- 
 vice, by which one is assisted in labour or 
 peril. Thus it is used in Keb. ii. 16, ou 
 ydo hri tov dyysXuv l-iXa/juSd'^STUi, d'/J.d. (r-SPij.aroc 
 'A/3paa/x. Nor is Acts ix. 27 to be taken in a 
 different sense, BaomlSocg d; l'ri}.a!3o/j.ivog av-bv 
 rryccys tpoc rovg aToffroXovg. This passage has 
 
12 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 been interpreted by many, he had entertain- 
 ed him hospitably, but they adduce no ex- 
 ample of this signification, nor indeed is 
 any to be found. Besides, it would have 
 been written, Ba^i/. ds 6 iTrtXa^ofuvog avrhv for 
 the article could not be wanting, but ciurov 
 is to be referred to nyajiv^ from frequent at- 
 traction, s'l'iXaQofJbzvog (auroS) TJyayiv avrov. The 
 sense of Luke appears to me, therefore, to be 
 as follows : When Paul was dreaded by the 
 disciples, so that he endeavoured in vain to 
 associate with them, Barnabas assisted him 
 and led him to them, er stand ihm bey undfiihr- 
 te ihn zu den ubrigen. But I do not remember 
 that sTiXafj.iSdvsffdai is used in the sense of help- 
 ing or assisting any where else, yet (rws'mXu/M- 
 ^dvicQai is often so used in Lucian, and even in 
 Herodotus and Thucydides.'' The scholium 
 upon that beautiful passage of ^schylus, 
 Pers. V. 739, explains the words, 6 "^-hg ewd- 
 ■■mrai by 6 ^sog avrov h'jiXaiJj^dnrai. It belongs to 
 later Greek, and occurs in Ecclesiasticus IV. 
 12. Ernesti has given a very good translation 
 of it in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ii. 16. It 
 is used both in a good and bad sense, as the 
 Lat. vindicare. 
 
 T See Herasterhuis upon Lucian, 1 Proineth, p, 190. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 13 
 
 havT/oi : (u-rrsvavr/o;) sy^^oor avridiartds/ievor dvriXsyrrj- 
 rsc' dvridi'/ior dvrixsi/Mzvor dvriraffgo/jjsvoi. 
 
 So great is the number and diversity of 
 enemies and adversaries, and such is the scarcity 
 of friends, that almost all languages abound 
 with names by which the former are designat- 
 ed, but have very few names expressive of the 
 latter. The Greek language has only one ap- 
 pellation for friends, ((p'A-og-) but many for 
 enemies, of which those mentioned above are 
 found in the books of the New Testament. 
 
 'Evavr/oc, which signifies properly contrary, 
 adverse, has the most extensive signification, but 
 it does not contain in itself the idea of hatred or 
 hostile intention, but simply denotes a man 
 w^ho is not /xsd'' -/i/muv, with us, an adversary, an 
 opponent. In the New Testament it is only 
 once applied to men, 1 Thess. ii. 15, cratr/!/ 
 dv&^uj-TToic svawim^ who oppose all, in which there 
 is the notion of perversity. But in Tit. ii. 8, 
 6 gf bavrlag has no signification of hostile inten- 
 tion. In Coloss. xi. 14. Heb.x.27, v-Trivavrlog 
 also occurs, which may be properly rendered, 
 clandestine adversary. 
 
 In sy^dfog the idea of hatred and hostile in- 
 tention is manifest. There are some who 
 say that in the New Testament, ^xH'^^^ sig- 
 
14 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 nifies wicked, abandoned, dishonest, and that 
 it specially refers to those who are enemies 
 of God Qx^poi ©solJ), but they are mistaken. 
 Rom. V. 10, sxH^' '^^'-^i ^I'e just the same as 
 those who are called, ver. 8, a,«/a^rwXf/, but they 
 do not signify flagrant sinners, but men per- 
 versely opposing God, as the following words 
 shew. For the Apostle says : £%^go/ ovrsg KarriXXd- 
 yrjfMv. But this '/.araXXayii belongs not to God, 
 but to man, as I have shewn in another place. So 
 also in Coloss. ii. 21, it does not signify flagrant 
 transgressors, but men alienated and adverse in 
 their minds to God. But s^^^o/ ^soD, is an ex- 
 pression never used in the New Testament, for 
 God does not hate men, not even the worst. 
 Paul has very truly said, Rom. viii. 7, ^^oi/jj.aa 
 Trig m^Aog £%%« £/; '^sov, which some very im- 
 properly interpret, odious to God, although 
 Paul also adds with equal truth, ver. 8, w sv 
 (Tas'/ii hrsg ^sui d^'sdai ov dv'.avrai. Indeed there 
 are some who take all these words in the same 
 sense, and do not doubt but s%^fa s!g ^sov and 
 iX^pa ^2oC, £%%o; ihai '^iov and ra '^iui, signify the 
 same thing. The Greeks called a man hate- 
 ful to the gods, not sy^C^hg ^swi/ but i%^^^>; roTg 
 '^ioTgJ The matter is made very clear by James 
 
 ' Soj)l:ocl. GEd. I?, v. 133G. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 15 
 
 IV. 4, 5, 7] (fnXia rov zotr/MU S/^^fa rov ^;ov sffriv. og a.\i 
 ouv (SovXrjdfi (p/Xog shai rov Koff/j^ou s^^pog rov ^sov xa&i- 
 ararai, that is, he who is accustomed to love the 
 world, cannot love God, for the love of the 
 world is opposed to the love of God. 
 
 The w^ords w^hich follow, express the various 
 modes in which an adverse, or hostile mind is 
 manifested. And first, then, 
 
 dvTid/aTi&sfism, are those who entertain a dif- 
 ferent opinion, and who ought not to be rebuked 
 and upbraided, but, if they are in error, mildly 
 instructed. Therefore, the admonition of Paul 
 is just, 2 Tim. ii. 25, sv -PaoTTin '^aih-j-tv Toug 
 dwihc/.TikiLVio-jg, This compound word occurs 
 only in this passage, but the sense is plain. 
 Those are more frequently called dtands/Mmi 
 who are in any w^ay affected in the mind, su, 
 xazojg, osivojg, &c. Therefore, avridia-ids/xsifoi, are 
 those who form a contrary judgment, who differ 
 in opinion. Allied to these are 0} anOJiyovTig 
 those who resist with words, who contradict, 
 who speak against. Acts xiii. 45, oc^rz/.s^ovrsg 
 %a] i3\u(}:p7iij.o\j])Tig. In John xix. 12, the phrase 
 avriX'-yu tuj Ka/Va^/, contains a more serious ac- 
 cusation. This expression of Paul is softened 
 by Luther, cler ist des Kaisers Freund nicht^ he 
 is not the friend of Csesar. But those who 
 contradict us, are generally esteemed enemies, 
 
16 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 and seem to injure us, for there are few 
 who bear with patience those who contra- 
 dict them. But much more of the character 
 of enemies is expressed in the phrase oi avri- 
 or^oi, those who carry on a law-suit against 
 another, litigants, adversaries. Thus Matt. v. 
 25. Luke xii. 58 ; xviii. 3, and 1 Peter v. 
 8, didlSoXog is called dvrihixoc, as the accuser 
 of man before God, such at least was the 
 opinion of the Jews. Those who contend 
 against us at law seem, for the most part, to 
 do us injury ; and, therefore, dvrldtxog is taken 
 in a bad sense. ^ But we may also cs^; dixaiuv 
 dvTidixeTv, plead for our right.^ Finally, avr/' 
 xiifAsvoi and dvTiTaffff6/x£]/oi also differ. For dvn- 
 xiif/,im, are those who are of an opposite party, 
 situated as it were on the opposite side, and 
 dvTiraGgo/isvoi, those who Stand opposed, as it 
 were, in battle ; resist us not only with words, 
 but with actions. Thus Luke xxi. 15, -rravreg 
 0/ dvrixiiiMim 'j/j^Tv, who contend against us, adver- 
 saries. So also 1 Cor. xvi. 9, those who block 
 up the way and prevent us from entering, are 
 called uvTiy.sifiivoi did rr\c, ^-joag. And Philipp. i. 
 28, rrrvooiJjivoi v-zh toov dvrr/.si/Ms\iojv^ they who are 
 terrified by those who oppose themselves. Such 
 is also that unknown avr/xs/'/xsvo;. 2 Thess. ii. 4. 
 
 * Xeuoph. Apol. 20, 25. ' Xenoph. Memor. IV. 4, 8. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 17 
 
 The expression, however, in a more extensive 
 sense appears to be employed to denote an adver- 
 sary of any kind, 1 Tim. v. 14, and Luke xiii. 17. 
 But dvuraGc^cff^j seems to imply something more 
 than to block up the way and prevent: dv-iraffffo- 
 /Msvoi are those, who, standing in an opposite line, 
 assail and attack. Thus Rom. xiii. 2, 6 dyriraffso- 
 fMsvog rfj s^ovaiccyis not only he who does not render 
 prompt obedience to the magistrate in all things, 
 but injures and assaults his just and lawful 
 authority, and, as it were, wages war with 
 the magistracy. Xenoph. Cyrop. III. 1, 10. 
 TOA/i/ dvrirar70[jjhr,v 'Ttshg stspoov, ^V/c, lirsidccv '/jrTTi&fiy 
 "TTccoa^PT^fMa ru'jr'fi dvr/ rou /xd^scSoc/y rrzldsc^ca ^sXn* 
 In Acts XYui. 6, dvTiTaC)(}0/j,svojv xa/ BXaG^irifio-JvTOJVy 
 is applied to those who resisted, attacked, and 
 assailed the Apostle by words. In the same 
 manner it is also used in the more elegant 
 Greek waiters. Nor can it be doubted that 
 dvTirdeGicdai^ is a Stronger expression than d-jn- 
 ziTady.!, It is said of God, James iv. 6, and 1 
 Peter v. 5, according to the Alexandrian ver- 
 sion, rciig b<zi^r,(pdvoig d'jTirdffgsrat he resisteth the 
 proud. With this corresponds the Heb. r^b'5 
 he renders the counsels of the proud of none 
 effect, and the words, roTg dh raTsmTg didujGi 
 X^'i''-', are properly opposed." The passage, 
 
 « Proverbs iii. 34. 
 VOL. II. C 
 
18 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 James v. 6, xarg^/xacarg s^ovsvffars tov hixaior oux, 
 dvTirdaffsrai hfuv^ is more obscure. With re- 
 gard to it, the sentiments of interpreters are 
 much divided, but I conceive that dvriTdciffsrai 
 ought either to be taken passively, in the 
 sense of, the evil which you have done is not 
 repaid you ; or rather, o hixaiog does not re- 
 pay you for the evil which you have done, he 
 does not, or wall not take revenge. For it can- 
 not be doubted that Christ is 6 dlxaiog, whom 
 the Jews slew, therefore, their countrymen, to 
 whom James wrote, had good reason to dread 
 punishment. The discourse is rapid and short. 
 But it is certain, that in these words, some 
 consolation is to be sought ; for /^ajt^o^t^/^i^ <rar£ 
 ovv, is immediately added. He had upbraid- 
 ed them severely for their crimes and iniqui- 
 tous life, the principal crime was dixaiov ho^iO- 
 
 gars fiaxood-j/jy/](rars ovv. Every one sees that, 
 
 in the intervening words, there ought to be 
 reason, why they should fia-/,oodv/Ms7v, patiently 
 bear the present evils, until the 'rrapo-jff/a rov xvpiou. 
 But if vengeance was to be apprehended, they 
 could not have waited with joy, but would rather 
 have had cause to dread rrjv rraoouciav. There- 
 fore the fear is taken away by these words ; 
 bizaioc, does not revenge the crime, that is, 
 he will not avenge it, for in such expressions. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 19 
 
 the present is very often used in Greek for 
 the future. If we may trust manuscripts, the 
 passage in the Supplices of Euripides, v. 1150 
 (1143), is very similar. 
 
 ag KffTi^ov^^os 'in 9roT uvriratrtrofiat 
 ffov (povov ; 
 
 Supply rifj.ojp'/;(rMv. Canterus supposes that a^r/- 
 r/Vo/^a/ is the just reading. In this passage, in- 
 deed, the idea of vengeance appears from what 
 follows, orav t/Joi dt'/.Tj ca-fwo;, but in James, it 
 is inferred from w^hat precedes. 
 
 Luther translates d-^ps/ovg dovXovg, in Luke xvii. 
 10, unnutze kneclite^ unprofitable servants, and 
 in like manner. Matt. xxv. 30. By the same 
 word he expresses ci^oriffTov, in Philem. v. 11, to 
 w^hich £j;/j'/3(rrov is opposed. He has indeed 
 rendered them correctly, for that word ex- 
 presses both. But theologians, who, in the 
 former passage, interpret slaves to he of no 
 great importance^ as if their labour and zeal- 
 had no value, depart very far indeed from the 
 ture meaning of the Lord. For why ? An ex- 
 ample of a slave is given : who, after his w^ork 
 w^as finished, having returned quickly (evdsojc) 
 from the field is not admitted immediately to 
 supper, but ordered first of all to prepare food 
 for his master, and to serve him at supper. 
 
20 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 When the slave had done this, Christ says, 
 his master .seeins to owe him no thanks, although 
 he did all things properly that were command- 
 ed, ru d/arayjhra. So therefore ye likewise 
 XsysTS on covXoi dy(^^sTot Icfisv. But surely he is 
 not a man worthless and of no value, who 
 zealously does ail ra ha.TayfivTu.. But if he 
 does not what is commanded, we rather call 
 him o.y^iriCT(j^). Indeed our Lord gives the reason 
 why they ought to esteem themselves dyodovg 
 douXoug, namely, because they did only what they 
 ought to do. But in what manner, we con- 
 tend that he, who does properly what he ought, 
 should esteem himself a servant useless, worth- 
 less, and of no value ? I know, indeed, that dy^iTog, 
 is often interchanged with ciy^onffrog, and, there- 
 fore, rendered in the same manner by lcxico(/ra- 
 phers. Still, it is manifest, that in this place 
 dyoiTog is not a man of no value, worthless, 
 and useless. He is rather, as appears to me, 
 properly dy^oiTog — o5 ohz sffri y^'-icc, or rather %f so?;, 
 of whom there is no need ; but ayjr,ffrog, is he 
 whom we cannot employ properly, because he 
 yields no benefit, and is unprofitable and useless : 
 dy^oiTog is a dispensable person (to whom we owe 
 nothing.) ayor,(rrog, unprofitable, useless. Paul 
 says in the Epistle to Philemon, that Onesimus, 
 alluding to the meaning of the word, was for- 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 21 
 
 merly ax^rierog, but now he was i'^xDyiarog. But 
 that servant, Matt. xxv. 30, is also properly 
 called oi-yjzTog, although he had been ax^^riisroc, 
 TovTjfog, xai oy.vTjpog, for he who does no work is 
 not wanted. Doederlin, in his first Disserta- 
 tion on the readings of Homer, thinks the 
 diiFerence between them to be this, that axoriarog 
 is, for the most part, used of things, but dyjsTog, 
 of living creatures ; many examples, however, 
 shew that he is mistaken. 
 
 Since there is no doubt but that ayj'r\<5rog 
 signifies useless (and then 'rrovriohg rather than 
 Xonarhg)^ we shall speak in this place only of 
 dxi^Tog. It is a compound, as I have already 
 mentioned, not of ;;^os/ain the sense of use, 'X^n(^'iy 
 but rather of %^go? or %^£/bc (in Homer x?^'*')' 
 in which sense %?£'« is also used. Hence 
 dx^iM, in its primary signification, seems to 
 denote a thing of which there is no need. It 
 occurs twice in Homer, in this sense ; a%?£?bv 
 /5wv, Iliad II. V. 269, and dyozm syeXa66iv, 
 Odyss. XIII. V. 162, concerning which, see 
 chiefly Doederlin and Eustathius, 217, 25, sq. 
 The Ambrosian scholiast, p. 498, edited by 
 Buttm. upon that passage of the Odyssey, ex- 
 plains a.y-atoov^ fM'/jdsvhg Tooxufisvov (%fsoi;$), ap/^J/oiSss, 
 o-jos TPoc %^s/av kojm(J)iLiwx, In both passages the 
 scholiast seems to think that it signifies what 
 
22 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 ought not to have been done, inasmuch as at 
 that time and place it ought not even to have 
 been done, as we say that, icas not required^ inti- 
 mating that something was done beyond what 
 was necessary, and on that account in an un- 
 seasonable and unbecoming manner. But this 
 explanation of the word does not certainly agree 
 with the other passage, where Penelope dyjuov 
 syi},ac6i. It may be more correctly said, she 
 feigned a laugh, her manner not suiting her 
 words. Nor has Eustathius improperly trans- 
 lated it, p. 1842, 25. An unknown poet, in 
 Brunk's collection of Epigrams, III. 165, has 
 imitated Homer. And Theocritus, in his 25 th 
 Eclogue, 70, sq., has applied it to dogs : — 
 rhv di yspovra dy^PiTov yCkdZ^ov ri mPiffffaivCv ^' krs^u^iv, 
 where it is to bark in a fawning (that is, not se- 
 riously) rather than in an angry manner. Al- 
 though with other w riters dypuog very often de- 
 notes the same thing as dy^vjarog (for of that which 
 is ap/i'/joTov, there is generally ovoh %fJ05), yet in 
 many passages its proper signification also ap- 
 pears, dyoemxai 'vupXs; are joined together in 
 Xen. Memor. I. 2, 54. In I'hucyd. also, I. 84, 
 rd dy^oita are things of which there is no need, 
 and 11. 6, those sent out of the city with the 
 women and children are called o/ dy^sioraroi, the 
 most dispensable^ those who were not necessary. 
 
OF TKE NEW TESTAMENT. 23 
 
 In a word, there is in ax^^f^'og not only a negative 
 idea, of rb ^priffif^ov, but the contrary idea rh 
 cro^/yj^ov is generally contained in it, for it sig- 
 nifies not only that which does no good, but 
 that which causes hurt. In Xenoph. Hier. I. 
 27, ya^.'J'Og ci^pyif^Tog, is not a useless but a trouble- 
 some marriage. So likewise in the QEcon. 
 VIII. 4. But "-Xi-^^^ contains no idea of blame 
 in itself, it only denotes a person or thing of 
 which there is no need, and with which we may 
 dispense, unnotliig, entbehrlicli, words, w^hich 
 of themselves, however, are rarely mentioned 
 without disparagement. For human pride is 
 even apparent in this, that those who have 
 hardly performed their own duty, may think 
 that others cannot want their assistance, and 
 therefore demand the greatest rewards as their 
 right. Hence those perpetual complaints of 
 men, who, thinking that their merits are not 
 sufficiently rewarded in this life, ask of God 
 himself eternal rewards for their virtue. They 
 do not perceive, indeed, that although men were 
 to perform all the duties and commands of God, 
 they have no right to demand anything more 
 by way of a reward, but ought to be satisfied 
 with the consciousness of good deeds, because 
 they have not done God a favour by acting 
 virtuously. By discharging their duty, they 
 
24 THE SYN0NY3IS 
 
 have done, as it were, a favour to themselves, 
 and therefore cannot require that God should 
 hold himself indebted to them, or make a re- 
 turn as if he had received a benefit ; for he 
 confers benefits on men, and does not return a 
 favour. He therefore has admonished his friends 
 to esteem themselves a-/ouo-o- bouXo-og^ not be- 
 cause they are useless or indolent servants, or 
 are esteemed so by God, but because God owes 
 them no favour ; for the Deity oh rrpocd'sirat rmg 
 (Acts xvii. 25), and receives no benefit from 
 man for which he should be grateful. Where- 
 fore Christ has said, ver. 9, that the master 
 does not syjiv xV ^'^^^ ^^t be grateful to the 
 servant, because this belongs to those who have 
 received a benefit, and therefore it is applicable 
 to man but not to God. The words of Luther 
 are ambiguous (at least in common use), but 
 yet they express the sense properly, as danken 
 means to esteem something as a benefit, which 
 is ix-'" YyA^''^' The master would be most unjust, 
 that regards the servant, who has diligently 
 performed his duty, as a useless servant, and 
 thus not of any value (which pride, although 
 it may be found in the masters of tins earth, 
 certainly agrees not with the character of 
 God). But still he justly demands these duties 
 as his right, and deservedly punishes the ser- 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 25 
 
 vant, unless -ro/s? ra bta.TayJhra, he does what is 
 commanded. It notwithstanding becomes the 
 servant, althout^h he has done what was plea- 
 sant to his master, not to regard it as a benefit 
 but as a debt. Nor is the master unjust, be- 
 cause non h/si p^as/v, 7. e. he does not regard it 
 as a favour, although he does not consider his 
 servant d^^sTov, that is, a man who cannot de- 
 mand a reward, because he did only what he 
 ought, for God ou yosiav 'i'^u rmg, has no need 
 of any one, nor Ss^a-rausra/, is he served by men. 
 But this moderation is rare among men, and 
 on that account //>s/A'v]y//a,o/2/a is so much the 
 more frequent. 
 
 John xxi. 15, 17, jSoffxs rd do/ia iJ.ou. It is not 
 by chance that i^os^srj is here used, while 
 'TtoiiJ.rxijziv is found in other places. For in 
 ^offy.siv there is only the idea of feeding or 
 nourishing (whence a flock (3offx,o,(ji.hn, feeding.) 
 But ~oi/Mair,iv is not only to feed, but also to lead, 
 to watch, to manage a flock. Luther has pro- 
 perly translated the above words, iceide meine 
 Idmmer, feed my lambs. The Lord himself i^ 
 6 d^yj'xoiixriv, the chief shepherd, 1 Pet. v. 4. 
 I'jut the care of the flock upon this earth was 
 to be committed to the Apostles ; therefore he 
 immediately adds : To//xa/v£ rcc i-polSard fj^ov. Hence 
 it is very often used of those who preside over 
 
26 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 the church, as for example in Acts xx. 28. 1 
 Pet. V. 2. The idea of feeding is not, however, 
 excluded as in the Epistle of Jude, ver. 12, 
 .kavrovg rrot/j.amvrsg. This figure is very ancient. 
 The expression 'Troi/Mvsg Xauv frequently occurs 
 in Homer. H. Stephen has already remarked, 
 that ^schylus has called kings rrot/^d^ooac. It 
 is found in the tragedy of Pers. v. 239. The 
 same author has applied -oi/MavoPiov, to a flock 
 of men, or rather an army, Pers. v. 73. But 
 both of the words, if we consider their origin, 
 seem to be indeed derived from feeding; there 
 is, however, ground for a distinction. For in 
 the word /3&w, from which comes /SoVxw, the uni- 
 versal idea of nourishing is contained, for which 
 reason it is also applied to men, but -rri/^aa/i/g/v 
 is properly to feed on grass ("o/a), which is 
 suitable to flocks, nor is it ever found properly 
 said of men. But croZ/x^^j and c7o//>tv/ov are very 
 fitly applied to man in a figurative sense, as 
 flock among us. Lucian II. Amor. 457, ap- 
 plies it to grave and supercilious philosophers : 
 as/xvu)v ovoiMciruv zo/X'^ev/j/affj rovg d/Mahlg •Troi/jLaivsruffav. 
 The same author, III. adv. Indoct. 3, p. 112, 
 calls the worshippers of the muses '^oz/xv/a. But 
 it is not necessary to say more. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 27 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 [E schedis nieis pauca passim adscripsi, quae adfu- 
 turum usum, si licuisset, notaveram. Ferant ea 
 viri eruditi. Quae uncis inclusa sunt, ea proprie 
 quidem non esse synonyma videntur, sed tamen 
 quia aut certis locis de eadem re dicuntur, aut 
 vulgo prorsus non differre plurimis visa sunt (ut 
 composita et simplicia) et tamen ejusdem rei no- 
 tionem diversam indicant, non praetermittenda 
 duxi. De formulis synonymis alio loco dicere, 
 si deus dederit, animus est.]* 
 
 est irritum reddere, a7.'oo(Zv auctoritate privare, 
 
 xaraoyirj vim adimere. 
 at/su)' ho^dZ^Cf)' fjjzyaX'ov'j). a/%£w laudo. ^o^a^w cele- 
 
 bro. iLiya/Jov(ii virtutes alicujus extollo. Recte 
 
 Lutherus Luc. i. 46. 
 a'ioiv) {aijja^r'iav) (phuv. Illud est, e medio tollere 
 
 peccatum cum malis ex eo oriundis, hoc est ipsas 
 
 poenas suscipere et perferre. 
 
 ^ It has been thought advisable to leave the brief Latin 
 observations, on this unfinished portion of his work, exactly 
 as the Author left them, as a translation might, in many in- 
 stances, have rather obscui-ed than elucidated his meaning. 
 
28 THE synony:us 
 
 aKS'/jjvoiJjar evr^sirofJi^ccr alg^itv/i' evrpo'Trri' alhujc. Thuc. 
 
 I. 84. aihojg ffM(p^0(rvv7^g TXiTsrov /Mrsy^n, ai<ryrjr^g 
 
 8s 7] su-^u^/a. Male h. 1. intellexisse videtur 
 
 Schol. 
 (axoXoL'^sw* s^a-/,oXov%Cfj.) Postferius tantum in se- 
 
 cunda ep. Petri legitur. Est usque sequi, sectari. 
 
 Proprie non est synonymum, 
 a///;'^j^5* uX'^'^ivog. Non videntur synonyma, sed ta- 
 
 men distinguenda sunt. Nam dXyj^/tg in N. T. 
 
 sensu movali tantum dieitur : ^so; dXr,^7ig. loh. 
 
 iii. 33. Sed cc7.ri'^mjg est, qui non tantum nomen 
 
 iiabet et speciem, sed veram naturam et indolem, 
 
 quae nomini conveniat. loh. i. 19. (pojg uXi^^mv. 
 
 vi. 12. a^rov dXr^ivov. xvii. 3. rov y^wav a/,Yi^m\i 
 
 ^sof. Oceurrit tantum apud lohannem et in ep. 
 
 ad Hebraeos. 
 uj't.ag' iT'cooc. lUud denotat alium, nulla diversi- 
 
 tatis, nisi numeri, ratione. 'irsoog non tantum 
 
 alium sed etiam diversum indicat. aWoc, 'ItjCovc 
 , — sVsgov svwyysXio'^ 2 Cor. xi. 4, sq. 
 c/'/xa' 6/xoL/. Utrumque societatem denotat ; sed aaa 
 
 temporis potissimum, o/JjoZ loci et modi. Confun- 
 
 ditur ay.a cum o/jlov. Rom. iii. 12. 
 ai/aysvvad^a/' dvaxa,ivo\j6^ar dvavsovc^ai (civc/j'^iv yi^- 
 
 r/j^^va/). Sensu morali de eadem re dicuntur. 
 d^ja.7,i^aJ>.oXt\>' d':Tcy,aTa\7M7Tiiv. ad Eph. i. 10, et Col. 
 
 i. 20. 
 d'jr/jMyia- ii'iToo'j. ad Rom. xii. 3, 6. Permutantur 
 
 h. 1. sed non idem significant. 
 a,'jdiivY^(iig' iTTOiJjvririig (ava — ■j7:ofjjfMvr;(f/.iiv). Differunt 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMI.NT. 29 
 
 ut nostra : Andenken et Erinnerung. iJ^^r,!xr,' 
 
 w^rarTOOioCvaA' di/TwroboGi;' szb'r/.r,6ic' iy.or/.iT,. Ilia iu- 
 utramque partem dicuntur, haec ultionem deno- 
 tant. Rom. xi. 35; xii. 19. Hebr. x. 30. 
 
 duTidiari^sfxsvor di/rOJyovTBg' u,yri7aa66ixi\/0i' d.vTiz-i;!,:- 
 vor dv-'ibfAo;' ha'jrlor -o-zvavriot. a.'^Tihia-i^i;jA)/Ot, qui 
 contrariam mentem habeiit, avr/As/o'/rj;, qui con- 
 tra loquuntur, d.v7i-a.mLiJ.t^(ji^ qui contrarias partes 
 sequuntur, d'^rixuihivoi^ qui contra moliuntur, aWt- 
 ciyjjt, qui lite (injusta) contendunt c. al., obtrecta- 
 tores. Widersacher. (6 oiuSoXog. 1 Petr. v. 8) 
 havTioi hi omnes sunt, Gegner, adversarii (j'^i- 
 i/avrki clandestini ? certe convenit locis Colosi--. ii. 
 14. Hebr. x. 27.) 
 
 ct-gp/sr dozzT. ad Marc. xiv. 41, drrsy^ir t^a^sv r^ oiy^a 
 — s/s/^sffSs, ayufj^vj, d'Tti'/ji. Satis est, quod prae- 
 teriit : do^yM^ suffieit, quod adest. 
 
 d-iihiia- dTTiorla, illud ad animum refertur, hoc ad 
 mentem. 
 
 d'TTozoivo/j.ar Ovr6?^.a/A/5ai/c///.a;. Luc. x. 30. Illud est 
 simpliciter, respondere, hoc est, excipere sermo- 
 nem alterius, ut contradicas. 
 
 cioa,' cvii' roivvv. Recte Hoogeven. p. 1002. aocx. est 
 illativum, oxiv conclusivum, ci^a argumentatur, cvv 
 accommodat. rolyjv ab utroque difFert ; conjungit 
 enim id quod tumc fiat aut fieri debeat, quoniam 
 aliud quid factum est. 
 
 «fX^* b-jvuf/^ig' l^ovGioi. cvva,'j.ig vim aUquid efficiendi 
 
30 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 denotat, s'^ovffla potestatem, a^y^^n imperium,quod 
 exercet, qui illis utitur. zvpiorric. 
 
 doy^rr/oc' alriog. Comparanda sunt, quatenus in N. 
 T. de Christo auctore et causa salutis dicuntur. 
 Hebr. ii. 10; v. 9. 
 
 dy^piTog' ciy^^Ttiiroi;. (^duoj^iXyjc.) dy^oitoc, est, cujus nulla 
 est necessitas, ou o\)% sgrt yji'cc. uy^rjcrrog est, qui 
 non solum nuUam utilitatem praebet, sed etiam 
 damnum affert. dy^sToi dovXoi non sunt inutiles, 
 mali, sed tales, quibus, peracto officio, non amplius 
 opus liabet dominus, ut praemium postulare non 
 possint, quia tantum quod debebant, fecerunt. 
 
 (iSaouG^ar ^a^'jvzc^ai.) De discrimiue liorum ver- 
 borum vid. Gataker. ad Marc. Ant. p. 254. 
 
 /3a5o$* oy/ioc. (3doog ipsam gravitatem denotat, etsae- 
 pissime sine molestiae notione dicitur 1 Thess. 
 ii. 7. 2 Cor. iv. 17. Sed oy/.og est [Sd^og, quod 
 molestum est, impedit etc. Semel Hebr. xii. 1. 
 
 iSiog- 'i^MTj. [Slog est vita, quam vivimus, "C^ur,, qua vi- 
 vimus. Hinc ^w/^ a/ojvtog, non /S/or, in N. T. 
 
 /Socxe/r rroi[j.ahitv. Hoc in universum est, curam 
 gregis habere, ducere gregem ; sed /S&Vxs/i/, pa- 
 scere, nutrire. Recte loh. xxi. 15, \7. iSocy.i zd 
 'TT^olSard {u>ov. Christus est 6 rroi/xrjv. 
 
 (/3psD/xa* (3^ajff/g) difFerunt, ut nostra Spcise et Essen, 
 ydy^ o\j /S^w/xa, 1 Cor. iii. 2. (S^oj/xara, 1 'i'ini. 
 iv. 3. /Spwff/g y.cci Toffic, Rom. xiv. 17. 
 
 yivvav riy.rsiv. rUniv in N. T. semper de mare tan- 
 tum dicitur, sed y-vvav bis etiam de f'euiinis Luc. 
 i. 1.3. Gal. iv. 24. ' 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 31 
 
 ywi'LYi' (SouXyj' doyfj.a,. 'y]/u),'j.rjV didovai^ 1 Cor. vii. 25. 
 
 2 Cor. viii. 10, 6v/j.(3ovAs-jiiv. 
 y^riyooeuj' v7]:poj' uyovr^so). Con v. quod non dormire 
 denotant. Sed 7^-/570^4/1/ est, interdiu non dormire, 
 ayovrrvsTt/, noctu, vrifsiv, vigilare, wachsam seyn. 
 ym' {yM^-) ^attb. i. 20. Luc. ii. 5, 24. 
 diTrvov aoiffTOv hoyj]. De prioribus vide Athenaeum, 
 i. 9, 10. In V. boyji nulla est notatio temporis, 
 sed notio excipiendi con vivas. Gastmahl. 
 dsiffidai/j^ovia- svXd[3ita. Act. xxv. 19; xvii. 22. In 
 
 N. T. semper sensu bono dicitur. 
 dtadidovar diao-daai. Luc. xi. 22. Matth. xii. 29. 
 hhaGxaX^a' didoi-^yj. didaffxccAia est, quam quis acci- 
 
 pit, hihayji'> quae traditur. 
 bisrdZziy d'7oosT(j'^ar (s^avrops/tr^a/) dubium animum 
 denotant. ^/ora^s/, qui dubitat, e pluribus quid 
 sequatur, sentiat etc. d'zo^iT-ai, qui nescit omnino 
 quid faciat. 
 bi-^vyog' diXoyog- divrXooc. Incertum horainis, inge- 
 nium denotant. Fallunt hi tres cranes ; diXoyog 
 dictis, hi-TtXoog moribus quoque, vultu, factis etc. 
 hi-^\)yj>g, quoniam ipse non constat sibi, sed mutat 
 sententiam. lac. i. 8 ; iv. 8. 
 hoXog' d-d-'/i. doXog dolum denotat, quam quis struit 
 alteri, d-Trdrrj fraudera, qua alter decipitur. Ver- 
 fiihrung. 
 boioidv rfj XH''^'' ^^f^ccv respondet nostro umsonst. 
 dovvai, Xa/j!.j3dvsiv, dc/j^zdv est, ita dare, vel accipere, 
 ut nihil referas, nulla praegressa causa dandi vel 
 accipiendi. Hinc d(/j^idv d-z-s^oivi non est, frustra. 
 
32 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 temere, sine efFectu, sed sine justa causa. Gal. ii. 
 
 21. Nam si bid. toZ vofMo-j ri dr/iaioGur/i, nulla erat 
 
 causa moriendi. 
 sItcyj' [MaTTi'j. Usurpantur proiniscue. Nam qui iiTtr, 
 
 agit, is plerumque ijArri^^ agit. Illud proprie est 
 
 temere^ ho cfrus Ira. 
 shi^y^r./xar ziG'Tro^i-jo/jMi. Proprie difFerunt ut nostra 
 
 hereinkommen et hinemyelien. 
 h.dcroTv 'zdvTfjT-. Illud tantum dc tempore (6/a- 
 
 -a^vTog) veteres dixerunt. Seriores cravrors et de 
 
 loco. Vide Thorn. Mag. Moerid. et Phrynichum. 
 IxiT^ir hnxj^iv. Mattli. iv. 2L crPo/3a; h/.u&iv. Act 
 
 XX. 13. i'/.c7kv (^'OCA.ovng a.va/Mfx^cL'jiiM. (non est 
 
 ihi h. 1.) Matth. xvii. 20 ; xviii. 36, h /3a(y/Xi/cfc y\ 
 
 'i(XTi ojx sVr/v bjri\)hiv. vid. varr. Lect. ' Luc. xvi. 26. 
 skkKum' s'/.'/.o-ttoj. Rom. xi. 17, 19, sq. 
 sr.%o/x/^w sxfs^oj. Illud de funere, semel Luc. vii. 
 
 12. Hoc latius patet. 
 i-/./.sy-G^ar s^aiPih: In illo imperat notio optandi e 
 
 pluribus (unde in medio) : hoc habet iiotionem 
 
 separandi. 
 £-/.7yAvijjsvor ioU,a,iJ,vjoi^ ad Matth. ix. 36, (vid. V^arr. 
 
 Lectt.) Lutherus : languidi et dispersi. Imo 
 
 bioluti, vagantes et dispersi. 
 {ly-ihoi' cr^org/i/w.) Act. xxii. 25. cpoers/vsi/ al)7(i\> ro/g 
 
 /aac; non est, caedendum tradidit, sed vinctis 
 
 inanibus protendi jussit ad caedcndum. 'i/xa; non 
 
 est lorum s. flagellum, quo caeditnr. conf. v. 29. 
 iKfolSog- bfJi>(po^og' hr^o/xog. Hebr. xii. 21. sV/Ja/x/Soi. 
 (sAcyJ/s* iZ-'-y'/J'^-) 2 Petr. ii. 16. Hebr. xi. 1. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 33 
 
 hdixog' dUaiog. lllud est, gesetzlich, lege constitutus, 
 
 legitimus, hdixog x^ifftg, lege promerita. 
 svdvofxur TSDijSdXXofia/. Quamqiiam promiscue di- 
 
 citur in N. T. ivd-osc^ai et 'jn^i^aXKiG^ai ifiuTtov, 
 
 tamen difFerentiam ostendunt loci ubi hdvic^ai 
 
 tropice dicitur. Luc. xxiv. 49, etc. 
 Ivsdpa' s'7n(3ouXyi. Utrumque tantum in Actis ; sensu 
 
 malo, quamquam posterius fMsaov est. 
 hioysw iTTirsXiOj. Philipp. ii. 13. Eph. i. 11, no- 
 
 tanda vis propria v. svspysTv praesertim propter 
 
 formulam svs^yiTv h rivi. 
 b'syjM' svsd^svM' Wzyja. Postreraum levissimum est ; 
 
 hzyu^ rivi est, observare occasionem alteri nocen- 
 
 di, ivsd^svs/]^ insidias ipsas struere. • 
 hi(Syjj(ti' svduvafiooj' (^S'TTig^voj. Luc. xxiii. 5.) v. iff^Cg 
 
 et bbvaixtg. hi6yjjii\) est, vires reddere, reficere, 
 
 restituere, lvbuva[i,oZv vim dare. Luc. xxii. 43. 
 
 Philipp. iv. 13. 
 tvvoia' h'^v/xTjffig. Hebr. iv. 12. lUud mentis est, hoc 
 
 animi. 
 sV-raA/xa' svroXyj- smrayfi' hrsXAo/j^ar s'Trirdffffoj. Auf- 
 
 trag. Befehl. Gesetz, — Anordnmig, — commission. 
 
 command, law. — order, 
 hnu^tg' sv^a^iGria ad 1 Tim. iv. 5. 
 s^aXii^oj v. d'^irsu. Coloss. ii. 14, conf. Eurip. 
 
 Iphig. Aul. V. 1486. 
 JJaT/va* i|a/pr/i$' f^wjT^g. s^d-:riva, repenfe, (non ex- 
 spectato) proprie, s^a-Trivi^g, sgarr/j/a/wr, vid. Thorn. 
 Mag. s^ai(pvrjg, subito, improviso. eg avr^g statim 
 post, illico. 
 
 VOL. II. D 
 
34 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 (ijaro^gw d<7ro§su.) 2 Cor. i. 8 ; iv. 8, ccxo^oxjfiim, 
 
 «/.>.' OX)'/. S^a'70P0V/M]>0l. 
 
 sfafr/^w rsXs/ow 'zX'/jpooj' (zaraPT/^w.) 2 Tim. iii. 
 
 17. Act. xxi. 5. 
 s^sXzw diXsd^oj. lac. i. 14. Egregie Lutherus. 
 s^s^svmoj V. l/cj>jr£w. 1 Petr. i. 10, ijs^si/va, qui 
 
 vestigia quaedam sequitur rei quam quaerit, stc- 
 
 (!^rirs7; qui quaerit nee cessat quaerendo. 
 (i-^ayysXXw s^ayysXAOj' biayy'O.Xoi.) icrayy^A/a, k'z- 
 
 dyyi\[j.a' respondent nostris; ankiindigen, ver- 
 
 kundigeUi — to publish^ make known. 
 s'rdv sirsibdr s<rsr I'Trstoyj. I'TTitbri'KZ^ vid. Hermann, 
 
 ad Viger. p. 784, sq. J'Ts/ propriam significa- 
 
 tionem habet etiam Rom. iii. 6. Hebr. x. 2. 
 (f'Trai'a'ra'Jo/xa/* d\>a'7:a{joiMat.) Rom. ii. 17. 
 J-tz/Sasctw s'TriG'/A'T'rofj.ai. lllud studium, hoc operam 
 
 designat. 
 sTtysiog' ^o'/xog. smyuog est, qui in terra est, fit, 
 
 nascitur etc. hiriyuog o/V./a roD CKrj\/ovg. 2 Cor. 
 
 V. 1. 6o^ia s'jriysiog. lac. iii. 3. x^'iyCag^ qui ex 
 
 terra est. 1 Cor. xv. 47. Ille terrester^ hie ter- 
 
 renus. 
 (sTiori/Mw s7.briiJ.iOi' d'xobri/jbsoj.) Posteriora signifi- 
 cant, abesse a patria, prius est, in peregrina terra 
 
 iiabitare. 
 (It/^jjtsw v. sx^'/iTsw.) sT/^'/^Ts/i/ studium rei indicat. 
 
 Et potissimum flagitare, postulare. 
 s'zi'^^amriog' *)i/y/Toc. Ille est morti proximus (ad 
 
 mortem jam damnatus), 1 Cor. iv. 9. ':^vriT0Cy na- 
 
 tura sua mortalis. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 35 
 
 Im'kaiJ.^avofLar (Sori^sM. Act. ix. 27. S'7riXa(3ofji.ivog 
 non est hospitio excipere, de quo nusquam dici- 
 tur, sed : curam ejus habuit, ut nos dieimus : sich 
 eines Fremden annehmen^ Hebr. ii, 16, 17. 
 
 h'Tricraij.ar oJdcc Intelligo (novi Act. xix. 15.) — scio. 
 Marc. xiv. 68, ovk o7da, oudi l-Tr/Vra/xa/. 
 
 s'TnGTOfj^t^w (pi/jt^oM. Hoc est, efficere, ne quis ore sue 
 utatur ; illud est, efficere, ut nolit loqui. 
 
 i'TTirwy^dvu. Xwy^dvoi}, d'7ro'kafx(3dvcfj. DifFerunt ut 
 nostra : erkalteti, hekommen^ empfangen^ — to 
 get, obtain, receive, Rom. xi. 7. o iTcit^fiTu — 
 o'ox Wzrxjyiv. Act. i. 17. 'iXay^z rov xXrj^ov. Luc. 
 xvi. 25. d'TTsXa^sg rd dya^d gov. 
 
 '^yoij^ai- iJTtCfj. s^^ofjjdi venio, tixw, veni, adsum. 
 Recte Lutherus Marc. viii. 3, /j^ccxoo^iv tj-aovGi, 
 sind von feme gekommen, — have come from afar. 
 Conf. Luc. XV. 27. loh. viii. 42. s7i to\j SsoD 
 iJJjX^ov Ttai ri%M, non, natus vel missus, sed adsum. 
 Hebr. x. 7, 9. (ex Psalmo xl. 7, Hebr. ^DK^i) 
 eodem modo vertendum erat. 
 
 zhhoTiicc' dyd'TT'/j. Phil. i. 15, 17. 
 
 s-j^gwg* £i/S-JS* st,avT7^g' ray(iug vid. i^d-rivcc. sU^vg et 
 s-j'^scag sunt nostrum : gleich, sogleich, statim, nulla 
 mora, rayjug fit, quod fit brevissimo tempore, 
 schnell. 
 
 (guXoy/cc* ihya^KSTia.^ 1 Cor. x. 16. 
 
 sxjvoiM. Matth. V. 25. s'Trizixrig. 
 
 iU'Tsi'^Tig' s'Trnr/iyig. lac. iii. 17, vide ibi Lutherum. 
 Wettstenii exempla probant, rorrsi'^rig nusquam 
 significare aliud quid quam obsequiosum. 
 
36 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 sv^v^uDog' 'TrXarvg. Matth. vii. 13, weit und breit, — 
 
 far and wide. 
 roGYiiMi' <pano6g. 1 Cor. xiv. 9. 
 sudTrXay^^vog' •/pidTog. Eph. iv. 32. 1 Petr. iii. 8. 
 ih6yj]ix,(j)y' vjyaoi(S7og. decorus — acceptus et gratus 
 
 ob morum castitatem. Coloss. iii. 15. 
 ihTgairCk'ia; (MOi^oKoyia. Eph. iv. 5. cudyotikoyioL. 
 
 Col. iii. 8. siir^acrsX/a est nugax dicacitas, ,awco- 
 
 'koyia fatua, aic-x^ooXoyia obscoena. Lex. Gr. 
 
 Aug. §61. 
 fW5* [Miyroi' V. a%g/. sw; finem s. terminum indicat, 
 
 sed comprehendit hunc ipsum terminum. Vide 
 
 de loco Matth. i. 25. Vulgari explicationi obstat, 
 
 quae praecedit, negatio, quae non est negligenda. 
 ^0^05* GxoToc. Differre videntur ut nostra Dunkel- 
 
 heit et Finsterniss. Zji^og ro\J ^-/.oToug. 2 Petr. 
 
 ii. 13. 
 y^uoyovsw ^woTo/sw. Act. vii. 19. Luc. xvii. 33. 
 
 In priori loco Z^uioyomG^at est vivura conservari. 
 
 In posteriori, si lectio sana est, conservare vitam. 
 
 Sed ^woTo/:-?i' est vivum reddere. 
 yjXixog' crrXr/.og' O'-^oTog. Priora proprie quantitatis 
 
 notitiam inferunt, postremum qualitatis. rroffoc, 
 
 ToTbg, 'rroTcC'Tog. 
 '.)avuT6oj' U'^ozTiivoj- viZPooj. ^avuTOj^sig — ^ucroir^sig. 
 
 vi'A^ovv est pp. reddere vckdov, i. e. cadaver, viribus 
 
 omnibus privatum. ('TrroJ/MCi.) Vivum cadaver, 
 
 i/£/CPOj ro/'g r:aoa-Tu)/Maffi. 
 '^av,adff/og' ^av/xaffrog. Proprie ''•)au,<idaiog est, in 
 
 quo est aliquid, quod possimus admirari, '^uv/xa- 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 37 
 
 GTo:^ quern admiramur. wunderlich w ^avfxdffis ! 
 
 wimderbar — Permutari tamen solent. 
 %mr'/ig' ^ioTYii, Rom. i. 20. Coloss.ii. 9. Gottlich- 
 
 heit — Gottheit, — Divinity — Godhead. 
 ^g^aTS'jw }do[j.at. difFerunt ut nostra helfen et heilen. 
 
 ^ioairzbzG^at d<7ro tmv da^svstojv. idc^ai rovg dc^svouv- 
 
 rac. 
 ^Ai^sG^ar %a%o-oyji'6%ai. Hebr. xi. 37. 
 ^Xi-^ti' 6rsvoyjjosia' G'jvoyri zaedJag. Rom. ii. 9. 2 
 
 Cor. ii. 4. 
 ^vy}r6g' vzn^og. Sv/jm aojiMctra. Rom. viii, 4. Col. 
 
 vi. 1 2. Nusquam %jrirog est idem quod vizoog. 
 "^{joa' 'TT-jXr,. Nusquam in N. T. permutantur, neque 
 
 Actorum iii. 10, vid. Hebr. xiii. 12. 
 '/'ds' idov. Vid. ad Lucian. Soloec. iii. p. 572. et 
 
 Thom. Mag. lacobi iii. 3, 4, 3. 
 'Jdiog- oiKsTog. 1 Tim. v. 8, vid. ad Act. iv. 23 ; xxiv. 
 
 23. 
 (/e^ars/a- /s^arsii/xa.) Illud functionem sacerdotis 
 
 denotat ; hoc sacerdotium in abstracto, i. e. indo- 
 
 lem, dignitatem eorum, qui sacerdotio funguntur. 
 
 Priesteramt, Priesterthum. 1 Petr. ii. 3, 9. 
 (^Kcc^aPiff/jjog- -Ad^aPiJja.) Ilia est actio purgationis, 
 
 hoc est, quo purgatur, piamentum. 1 Cor. iv. 1 3. 
 
 vid. Phavorinus. 
 (xa^>3/xa/' /caS/^w.) DifFerunt ut nostra sitzen et 
 
 setzen. ;tcc^/^g/i/ semper transitive dicitur. Luc. 
 
 xxii. 30, etc. Mattb. xxv. 31. 
 xa^icTYiiJjr Tia^lffra/xar y/vofioii ad Rom. v. 19, conf. 
 
 lac. iii. 6 ; iv. 4. 
 
38 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 xa/V 'xv^ou. Illud est nostrum hrennen active, hoc 
 neutraliter. 
 
 /Lokxi'Tmiv' Ttob'TrTiiv (/taraxaXucrrg/f.) Non confun- 
 denda sunt. 2 Cor. iv. 3. Luc. xviii. 34. Hinc 
 a<7roxaX-j<:rTsiv est revelare, d-Troyt^v-Trrs/v abscondere. 
 Vis praepositionis eadem est, sed verborum diversa 
 notio. Nam xaXv-Trniv est, rem, quae in conspectu 
 est, tegere, ut conspici non possit, xgucrrs/v, e con- 
 spectu earn subducere. ■/.ocra'/.aXv'TrTSG^ai, non 
 xarax^v'Trrsff^ai dicitur 1 Cor. xi. 6, 7, recte. Male 
 Hesych. xaraxaXv'Trruv' xaraytphrtruv. 
 
 xaoirhv (pzptr (hih6vai^%ce,D'7ro(poD27v' xup'ttov rtotih. Utrum- 
 que Graeci elegantiores dixerunt, sed diverse 
 sensu. x-aoTTov (p'ioztv est, fructus ferre. loh. xv. 
 16. Sed xa^Tov touTv est, proferre, gignere fruc- 
 tus. Hinc Ceres apud Euripidem Rheso v. 964. 
 xa^'TTOToiog non xaocro!p6^og appellatur, gignit enim 
 fructus, non fert. Aristotel. de Plant. I. 4, et c. 7. 
 r/vw!/ fMsv 01 xa^'TToi 'j'oiovgi ydXa,. Itaque elegantis- 
 sime Matth. iii. 8. <7roirj<faTs xa^rrov u^iov ri^g fisra- 
 voiac. conf. vii. 17, sqq. Aristot. de plant, ii. 9. 
 
 xaTocxsi/jyar (^xsT/xar dvdxsi/Mar) xaraxXlvo[x>ai. Illud 
 et de convivis dicitur, et de aegrotis ; hoc tantum 
 de convivis, qui consederunt {Iv xX/vrj, sed recte 
 xocTaxAi'^pg sJg rriv rrPOjroxXiffiav, sick auf den ersten 
 Platz seizen) ad cibum capiendum. 
 
 (xardx^ifMa' xardxoicig.) Rom. viii. 1. 2 Cor. iii. 9. 
 
 xrjL7(x(Lav^dv(jy xaTuvoiiti. Illud semel Matth. vi. 28, 
 conf. Luc. xii. 24, 27. DifFerunt tamen, Act. vii. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 39 
 
 31. lacob. i. 23, 24. Rom. iv. 19, conf. Alex. 
 
 Hiob. XXXV. 5. 
 zarccva^xdoj' xaralSaPiM. 2 Cor. xi. 8, 9; xii. 13, 
 
 14, 16. Hieronymus xarai^apxai; Cilicura esse ait. 
 
 vid. Wetsten. Tom. II. p. 206. 
 ;iara(rx£'ja^&j* to/sw. ad Hebr. iii. 2, 3. 
 ('/.araro/M'^' Ti^trofMy].^ ad Philipp. iii. 2. In con- 
 
 temtum Apost. rj^v <rrsoirofjjriv tojv 'lovdaiuv vocat 
 
 zaraTOfX'^jv, quasi mutilationem. 
 (;>tara^/X£w (piXsu.) Praepositio rion abundat. Matth. 
 
 xxvi. 48, 49. Marc. xiv. 44, 45. Discrimine 
 
 observato, quis non magis etiam sentiat ludae 
 
 perfidiam ? 
 xars^oKC/a^w zarazu^isvu. Matth. xx. 23. Marc. 
 
 X. 42. Illud de iraperio, hoc de potestate et 
 
 auctoritate intelligendum. o/ aP'^ovTsg -Aara'/.v- 
 
 ('/.arsy^oj' £%w.) 2 Cor. vii. 30. Quaeratur de locis, 
 ubi vulgo dicunt, '^arsynv esse impedire, v. c. 
 Rom. i. 18. Mihi sensus esse videtur : qui pos- 
 sidebant rriv dXrj^iav cum iraprobitate, i. e. ha- 
 buere veram cognitionem, et tamen improbe vixe- 
 runt, ut xoLi^Biv sv '^Xi-\\^si, 'rXoursTv h irma et similia. 
 Certe sententiae Pauli melius convenit haec in- 
 terpretatio. 
 
 '/.aTYiykoi' didd&Tioj. Differunt ut nostra : unterrich- 
 ten et lehren. Tertio, quo nos utimur, unterweisen, 
 Lutherus expressit v. so(piGai. 2 Tim. iii. 15. Xoyoi 
 6iGo<pt6iJjhoi. 2 Petr. i. 16, non sunt fraude et 
 
40 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 astutia excogitati, sed qui ab aliis traditi sunt. opp. 
 
 yM.TO'TrT^iZpix.ar opciu. 2 Cor. iii. 18. semel. xaToif- 
 Toil^iG^ai neque est clare cognoscere, neque ex 
 parte, sed quasi in speculo considerare aliquid et 
 ooav, conspicere. Artemidor.ii. 7. xaro-rr^/^sa^a/ 
 xa/ b^^v TTiv sauTov slxom. In gloria domini re- 
 tecta (v. 13.)nostrara do^av conspicimus tamquam 
 in speculo, et rriv avrriv zlxova /xo^^pov/j^i^a d'rrb 
 
 do^rjg 
 
 s/g doPav. 
 
 (xai/p^Tj/xa* y.avy(^rj6ig.) der Ruhniy das Ruhrnen — hoasU 
 boasting. 
 
 xsi^tar o^ovia. Utrumque vulgo male interpretan- 
 tur ifascias, ut ff-ra^yavouv, Luc. ii. 7, 12, involvere 
 fasciis. Ksi^iai pp. de fasciis, quibus mortuorum 
 pedes manusque constringebantur, o^ovia sunt 
 lintea quibus, totum corpus involvebetur. ff'ja^- 
 ydva, et (f-rot^yavouv tantuni de recens natis. xsi^/at 
 sunt rd svrd(piu dsff/jjd. (quamquam etiam crs^/ 
 ■Akivojv) non tantum ex o^ovioig facta. Etym. M. 
 p. 508, 12, le Moyne ad Var. Sacr. p. 298, sqq. 
 
 xiipaG^ar ^vpdc^^au 1 Cor. xi. 6, sq. differunt. vid. 
 Dresig, de verb, med.v. ^vpuo^^ai. Lex. August. § 36. 
 
 xgi/og* fj^draiog' xivug- /xaraioog. differunt ut inanis et 
 vanus. 1 Cor. xv. 14, 17. 
 
 y.ivoipmia. (LarciioXoyia. Utrumque tantum in Epp. 
 ad Tim. 1. vi. 20; 2 ii. 16 ; 1 i. 6. 
 
 x£voai* xaragygw. Rom. iv. 14, v. a^27£?v. 
 
 xX»jgow Xdyyjivw 7uy')(dv(a. Lex. Graec- August. 
 § 46. Vid. supra sTtT'oKyJivu}. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 41 
 
 nXivTi' TLod^^arog. Act. v. 15, vid. Phrynich. Thorn. 
 Mag. et Pollux Lib. x. cap. 7, s. 35. 
 
 Ttomc' dza^aPTog. de cibis utrumque Act. x. 14. 
 vid. Marc. vii. 2. 
 
 xoXXolSiiTTrig' T^acrs^/V^g. Recte posterius positum 
 est Matth. xxv. 27, nam de foenore sermo est : 
 sed illud suo loco legitur ibid. xxi. 12. Marc. 
 xi. 15. loh. ii. 15, differre eodem niodo viden- 
 tur Romanorum nummularius et mensarius. 
 
 xhitog' ijAy^og- 'jrovog, ] Thess. ii. 9. 2 Cor. xi. 27. 
 2 Thess. iii. 8. Tto'xog et iJ^oy^og junguntur. 
 
 xofffMS(/j' zaraffxsvd^oj. Matth. xxv. 7. 
 
 ■kpT/xcc' x^i(fig. vide loh. ix. 39. 
 
 zrdo/Mai' 'iyu. In N. T. x.rda'^ai semper habet pro- 
 priam significationem, acquirendi (lucrandi) et 
 possidendi, etiam Act. i. 8, et Luc. xxi. 19. h 
 rfj •JTOfj.or/j vfJvUjv %ry]6iG^i rag -^-jyag v/j^uv. 
 
 (/iCfj(p6g' dXaXog. (xw^og /xoyiXdXog. Marc. vii. 32) 
 Marc. ix. 25. rb t^su/JjO, dXaXov %«/ 7ioj(p6v. XM<pbg 
 neque in N. T. denotat mutum, sed surdum.) 
 
 Xoyifffjjog- v6ri,fMa. 2 Cor. x. 4, 5. Xoyia/j.og ratioci- 
 natio est, s. judicium (mentis operatio) sed v6ri/j.a, 
 est sententia hominis, qui aliquid decernit. (xaxa 
 vosTv rr/i) Sic i/o'/^/xa semper apud Homerum. Recte 
 vo'^l^a opp. rf] v--rcc-/.ofi toZ X^igtov. Erat Apostolis 
 dimicandum contra judicia perversa hominum, et 
 vanam superbiam sapientiae humanae, et contra 
 lubidinem propria sententia, suo arbitrio vivendi. 
 Xoyiff'MOvg, j-vj^w/xa za^aiPouvTsg, zai alyf/MAMril^oV' 
 
42 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 ng <xav vo?j/xa s/g rriv l)'7raxor,v tov Xo. ut non suo 
 arbitrio, sed Christi vivant subject! imperio. 
 
 /M'TTov jUbsKkov. rh y.oiirhv xa^gj^grs. Matth. xxvi. 
 45. Marc. xiv. 41. ug ro fjt>sXXov. Luc. xiii. 9, 
 quod superest, restat, — postea. to Xoi'ttov facere 
 aliquid, est, facere usque ad finein, pergere facere. 
 iJg TO fjLsXXov est postea, in posterum. rb Xoimv 
 ■/.a^sudirs ; (interrogative) num pergitis dormire ? 
 schlaft ihr noch immer? Aristophan. Eccles. v. 
 555, 557. 
 
 }.ovoj' vhroj. loh. xiii. 10. Differunt ut nostra : ba- 
 den et waschen. Ergo vhrsG^ai de quaque parte 
 corporis dicitur, non tantum de pedibus mani- 
 busve ; Xo'jGaG^ai de toto corpore. Act. ix. 37. 
 col. Homer. II. w. v. 582. 
 
 X-jw Xurgow. h-juv est solvere, liberare aliquem, Xu- 
 T^ouv est facere (dare) aliquid ut alter liberetur. 
 Tit. ii. 14. 1 Petr. i. 18. 
 
 'j,a/.aziu' voffog, Mattli. iv. 23, Wh est a egritudo, hie 
 
 fjbaXXov 'TrKiTov. /mua.Xov est magis, potius ; Matth. 
 X. 6. Marc. vii. 36 ; x. 48, irXiTov est plus. 
 
 fhiXiraoi' [Mzoiixvdo}' (poovriZ^c/u (fMsXii /xoi.) ip^ovri^si, 
 qui alicui rei prospicit ut recte fiat, fMs^i/Mvd, qui 
 dum curat, dubitat, veritus ne frustracuret ; fxsKn 
 itoi^ euro, rationem habeo, [jjiXzruM, operam do, 
 ut aliquid facere postea possim. Marc. xiii. 11. 
 [MT] rr^o/Moif./.vaTs /x?j6= //sXgrarg. Luc. xxi. 14, f/,ri 
 TPOfMXirav, 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 43 
 
 luCToi' TX^yjC' ysfMOJV. fxsffrog, refertus, quum de 
 horainibus dicitur pr. in deteriorem partem sural 
 videtur, 'zXyjorig in meliorem ponitur. Sed in N. 
 T. illud etiara in bonam partem dicitur. Rom. 
 XV. 14. lacob. iii. 17, vid Hemsterhus. ad Len- 
 nep. V. /Ascrog. ys/Mn, qui ita crX'/^^^jg est, utsuper- 
 fluat. 
 
 /asm* 6-jv. /jbsTcc comitatum denotat, gvv conjunctio- 
 nem et unionem. Quamquam dicitur : /mctcI rmg 
 et Gvv Tivt ihai, [Mzra tiHi' vo/xwv et 6-jv 7o7g voiiotg, 
 etc. tamen differunt. DifFerentiam docet usus in 
 corapositis. /jtsra/^a/x/Savs/v, (juXhafx^dvuVy (jjiTsy^siv, 
 ffvvs'^nv. all. Dicitur <ruv ^sw, non item eodem 
 sensu, ^sra ^soD. Nam quod afFertur e Platone 
 /Mra '^SMV /SaC/Xsa ffTTjffao^s, Ep. viii. p. 355, fin. 
 id non est, adjuvantibus diis, sed potius e senten- 
 tia deorum, i. e. quem ipsi dii regem fieri volunt. 
 Sic apud Xenoph. Oecon. XI. 20. I^Im/xsvov ug l-i 
 TO 'TTCAv 6i>v roTg %oTg. Si scriptum esset, fMsra r, 
 ^swv, sensus esset : una cum diis. Convenit for- 
 mula 6VV ^sui s/^^&srai, apud Aristoph. et illud 
 Herodoti i. 86. cag o'l s'/ri ffvv ^soD iior,;j/svo\i. Vid. 
 Valckenar. ad Herodot. III. 153. Xenoph. Cyrop. 
 VIII. 6, 6, ( 1 2.) h[jjag bi — 6uy aya^oTg roTg fii^' 
 vfiMVj sfiol ffvfM/Jbd^ovg sivai. Act. xiv. 27, oca 
 s'XOtrjGsv 6 ^zbg /J,ST avTiov. v. 12. di' avrcov. opp. 
 avsv Tivog. vid. Abresch. ad Thuycd. I. 128. Dilu- 
 cidat. 130. 
 
 ixsraXccfilSdvsiv v. s'Ttrvy^avsiv (a'TroXa/j^iSuvsiv.) est 
 percipere, participem fieri. 
 
44 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 IJjiTavozTv' I'TTiST^Z'^zc^ar [xsravoia' l7rigr^o(prj. Com- 
 parentur de vitae mentisque emendatione. 
 
 IMzra'xsfjj'TToiJMr ijjiTay.cu.soj. Utrumque in Actis tan- 
 tum legitur. vii. 14. arroaTZiXag ii,zrz'/.a7^z(SaT0. xx. 
 17. cg/A-vl^ag iLZTV/i. X. 5, 32 ; xxiv. 24, 25, 26. 
 Ibi non temere permutantur. 
 
 /A/a/Vw fMoXvvoj. (cc/Xsw.) Tit. i. 13. 1 Cor. viii. 7. 
 fj^iaivsiv est nostrum verunreinigen, fj^oXvvsiv besck- 
 mutzen^ airiXoZv beflecken. fMiahsiv pr. est colore 
 alieno tingere s. inficere (Iliad. d\ v. 141.) deinde 
 contaminare, integritate nativa privare (violare 
 Virgil. Aen. XIl. v. 67.) unde jSiog Tta^cc^og xai 
 aitiiavTog, ya^og d/xiccvrog, apud Plutarch, et Pau- 
 lum. fjLoXvvsiv est sordibus conspurcare, sordes 
 contrahere e luto etc. &-TXog pr. maculam denotat, 
 unde (Tc/Xoui' potissimum de vestibus dicitur quae 
 maculantur. Recte 2 Petr. ii. 10. s-Tn^ufMiu 
 fMiccfffiou, sed 2 Cor. vii. 1. /jboXve/Mou ffaoxog. 
 
 tLvud' fJ^^iniJ^ri' (J^viia. est Erinnerung^ Andenken^ re- 
 cordatio. /ai^j^/x^ Geddchtniss, memoria, v. dva/nvr,- 
 ffig. vid. Thorn. Mag. v. (mvt^'JjYi, Valckenaer. ad 
 Ammon. p. 95. Lex. Graec. August. § 5.^) 
 
 fMyig' ijjokig. [j.6yig interpretatur Thomas Mag. fxtra 
 ^iag, fioXig durl rou (S^adsug. Vide ibi VV. Was- 
 sium ad Thuycd. I. 12, et Hemsterhus. ad Lu- 
 cian. Tom. I. p. 86. Dorvill. ad Charit. L. III. 
 C.9. 
 
 * Quod edidit e Cod. Au^stano Hermamms noster post 
 Libr. de emendand. graec. gramm. rations, p. 319, sq. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 45 
 
 [ui')(jxo!Jjai' (jjOiyz-jM. Thomas M. iM(ji-)(aTat 6 av/;^, 
 fioi^svsrai r] yvr/j. Non semper observatur hoc 
 discrimen in N. T. 
 
 !J^oo;pr,' 6yjiij,u. Phil. ii. 6, 7. C-/r\n.ci(, latius patet 
 {[Mop^uaig. Gal. iv. 19. Rom. ii. 20.) 
 
 vaog' h^ov. In N. T. semper observatur discrimen 
 hh. vv., ut hso'J sit, totus locus sacer, cum omnibus 
 atriis, conclavibus, areis etc., sed vah<; ipsa tantum 
 aedes sacra, in duas partes divisa, (per rh -/Mra- 
 Tsrao/xa rov vaoZ, Matth. xxvii. 51.) ay/ov (yah) 
 et udvrov. In priori sedebat synedrium, Matth. 
 xxvii. 8, banc ingressus est Zacharias Luc. i. 9. 
 Sed tota aedes haec sacra intelligenda Matth. 
 xxvii. 51. Marc. xv. 38. Luc. xxiii. 45. De 
 adyto non dicitur mog in N. T. Recte Matth. 
 xxiii. 35. Zacharias necatus dicitur [jjtra'^u roZ 
 vaov -/tai rou '^u(}iaffTyj^iov. Nam ^uGiadrrj^iov erat 
 ante rh vaov, Iv 6-a*3ow. loseph. A. I. VIII. 3, 3. 
 Contra rc^ov nunquam tov vccov aut adytum denotat. 
 Loci, quos Schleusnerus attulit, id ipsum demon- 
 strant. Eodem modo losephus semper mov et 
 'n^hv distinxit. Insignis est locus Ant. lud. XI. 4, 
 3, ubi Samaritanis petentibus negatur avy'/cara- 
 O'AvoaGai rhv vaov, sed perraittitur d(pr/,vovfJijSvotg sig 
 TO hpov (TSjSsiv rov '^sov. 
 
 vo/MiC^oj' o7ofjLar v--:ro7,ccfji(3dvc>j. vo/JjiI^u arbitror, puto, 
 censeo. (de sententia animi, vo/jjog) olo/j.ai credo, 
 opinor, existimo. v--7roAafjyj3dvu, suspicor. (ple- 
 rumque de mala suspicione.) 
 
 vocf/^w x/J-rw. Illud est pr. nostrum unterschla- 
 
46 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 gen, partem rerum redden darum IbioironTv. Act. 
 V. 2, 3. Tit. ii. 10. 
 
 vixrra^w Tia^su^w. Matth. xxv. 15. vosraZiiv statum 
 dormientium potissimum denotat ; hinc ad ani- 
 mum translatum (opp. rp ir](pnv.) est, segnem 
 tardum, socordem esse. 2 Petr. ii. 3. Aristoph. 
 Avib. V. 639. 
 
 ^ivi^ofMar ^a'j/xa^w. Recte Lutherus. 1 Petr. iv. 
 12. /JjYi Jsw^gff^s — lasset euch — nicht hefrem- 
 den^ — think it not strange, item v. 4. Non est 
 i. q. ^ay^a^w. Qui gsi/Z^sra/, ^ay.aa^g/ quidem, 
 sed wg ^sfoy rmg ahroj fiu/x(3alvovToc. 
 
 gsvoc- '/.amg. vide supra zamg. In v. Bfoc, non 
 novi notio imperat, sed peregrini, quod aliunde 
 venit, neque ad nos pertinet. 1 Petr. iv. 12. 
 
 ^si/os* dy.XoT^iog' rra^s'Tridrifj.og. Hebr. xi. 13. 
 
 ohibct)' obomoDSCf)' odoi'TTOPia' odog. Conveniunt in eo, 
 quod dicuntur de itinere, quod fit per terram. 
 Sed odiUiv latius patere videtur ; dicitur enim de 
 quocunque itinere terrestri, sive pedibus sive cum 
 equo, fiat, oooiitops/v autem de pedestri tantum 
 itinere dictum videtur. Herodian. VII. 3,9. ode-jsiv 
 curru. Sed tamen idem V. 4, 13. bhoi'xoPii'v. 
 
 odup/Mog- 70.a\j~^ixog. Matth. ii. 18. lamentatio — 
 fletus. 
 
 o/'/isTog' 'ibiog. 1 Tim. v. 8. u 6i rig ruv /oluv >.ui 
 IxdVjGTa TCuv o/Ziiojv oh 'ttpovosT. (o/;c/axoc.) Christus 
 ijg TU 'lOia ?5>J}£, xal o'l )bioi oh '7raosXa(3ov ahrov. Non 
 scribi potuit o/ oIxsTot. sed Christiani sunt oIxsToi rov 
 %ov. Eph. ii. 19. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 47 
 
 otov b'j)^ar6r ohv hrij fieri licet (ob qualitatem) bv 
 mrov IffTi, fieri potest (ob quantitatem.) 
 
 oTcvriPoc' apyog. aoylc est, qui nihil facit, oxv/j^os qui 
 tarda facit, piger, quem piget laboris,^^/ — ver~ 
 drossen. 
 
 byjyog' iM-Aooc. Illud et de magnitudine dicitur, ///- 
 ■/Sog potissimum de quantitate. 
 
 OA0X/.7J305* rsAs/oj* (j'/.oTc'/Sjg. 6Ao%?.7jcog est integer suis 
 partibus. 1 Tliess. v. 23. riXnog est perfectus, 
 absolutus omnibus nuineris, Jacob, i. 4. oXoTuJig 
 est omni ex parte perfectus, ut 'Trviu/jyO, xa/ 55 -^vy^r, 
 ■/Ml TO Goj/xa dfMS/xrrroog r^j^'/j^s/yj. 1 Thess. v. 23. 
 
 o}.og' crag. oXog est, cui ad quantitatem nihil deest, 
 Trag numeri plenitudinem denotat. 
 
 o/wOic" rrdvTOjg- iig to 'jravrfKic. oXwg est prorsus, 'rdv- 
 TC/jg omnino, s/'j to TmTSAsg plane, ut nihil desit. 
 Luc. xiii. 11. Hebr. vii. 25. Posteriori loco 
 etiam futuri temporis notitiam habet. cravr^s^ic 
 rrdyTMg jungitur ap. Aesch. Sept. c. Theb. v. 118. 
 
 o^a/3|o$* bsTog' ^^oyj], (Apoc. xi. 6. ha [j^r^ (^i,^yji 
 liTog.) imber, pluvia, nimbus. 
 
 hlho'i'^iiiat: oiwioTTtg- {jjij.oloj(jig.) Male dicunt haec tria 
 idem significare. oij^oioTr^g est ipsa similitudo, die 
 Aehnlichkeity 4<^o/w(r/j imago, ad quam aliquid con- 
 formatur, biJjoioi[j.a ipsum simulacrum. 
 
 hiibog' aiGyJjvri. huhog est, quod ab aliis tibi expro- 
 bratur. Luc. i. 25. aiayjjvn (aJayog) cujus te 
 ipsum pudere oportet. Schmaeh und Schande. 
 Sterilitas omhog erat inter ludaeos. 
 
 hT(f)g' d'ATj^uig, ovrug dicitur, quum quid omnino 
 
48 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 esse cogitamus. uXtj^u);, quum tale esse agnosci- 
 mus, quale esse cogitatur. Matth. xi. 32. 6V/ 
 hrug '7:^o(pr,TY^g ^v, revera est propheta. Luc. xxiii. 
 47. ovTMi 6 civ'^^oj-rog olrog dixaiog rjv, hie homo 
 revera erat Justus. Sed loh. i. 48. 7os aXri^oog 
 'lffDari}jTi^g, en verum Israelitam. Si scriptum 
 esset ovrojg 'Iffo. inepta sententia prodiret ; da ist 
 wirklich ein Israelii, Xenoph. Hist. Gr. III. 4, 
 17 ; iv. 8, 4. oi/rwg refertur ad verbum, aXy^o^g 
 ad objectum. (Vide de usitatiori ru) oVr/.) Lu- 
 cian. III. Dial. mer. XI. 310, fin. ak7\^Zig ffvv- 
 ufjLsv. Euripid. Ale. v. 805. 6 (3iog dXn^uig oh 
 jSiog, Iph. Aul. V. 1622. 'i^n ovTOjg sv ^soTg ofii- 
 X/'av. Ion. V. 223. 
 oj6r Ta%uc. ogi)$ est pp. qui aptus est (acutus), 
 ut brevi tempore aliquo penetret, {po6(iog oji); ein 
 scharfer Lauf.) rayjjg^ qui celeriter aliquo tendit. 
 Illud motum indicat {schnell) hoc tempus {gesch- 
 wind.) 
 o'jrr]- GTrriXaiov. Hebr. xi. 38. caverna — spelunca. 
 vid. Valckenaer. ad Lennep. Etymol. L. Gr. p. 
 912. 
 o'Torg* on. Non idem significant. o~6rs respondet 
 nostris : damals als^ wenn einmol, oVs simplici uls 
 et wenn. Luc. vi. 3. l~oir}(rs Aa[3id, OTors icrs/- 
 vacg, fecit tunc quum esurire. Si scriptum esset, 
 oVs I'TTihaas, incertum esset an non saepius hoc 
 fecerit sed fecit semel tantum. Contra Matth. 
 xxi. 34. ore rjyyiffiv 6 xai^bg ruv xag'Twi/, uTSffniXi 
 Tovg dovXougy scribi non poterat o-on viyyiffiv^ i. e. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 49 
 
 quutn aliquando adesset etc. Manifestum est 
 discrimem in loco Homeri Iliad, o. v. 230. Hfi 
 
 ATifMvuj 7csvsa'j')(ssg yiyo^uac^s. vid. Hoogeveen. de 
 
 Part. p. 827. Hermann, ad Viger. p. 916. 
 (ooxw/o-oc/a* o^-/.og.) o^xw,a&(y/a est solemnis affirma- 
 
 tio s. promissio, quae fit o^^w. Recte ponitur 
 
 Hebr. vii. 20, 21, 28. Non est idem quod of/,og. 
 o\j' o\j')(l et reliqua v. /xtj. 
 xxpsiXsryjg' p^o£wp£/Xgr>jg. Illud latius patet. Rom. i. 
 
 14; viii. 12. Gal. v. 3, etc. 
 <)-\j^//xo$* o-vlz/oc. vespertinus, serus. o-^idg yivo[Mvrig 
 
 — bsrog o-^ifMog. 
 'TTccibayoiyog* Taidsuri^g. Non in v. Taibayc/jyog inest 
 
 notio durioris disciplinae, (1 Cor. iv. 15. Gal. 
 
 iii. 24, 25), sed potius in v. rraihiurrig. Hebr. 
 
 xii. 9. 
 'Ttakaiog' do-^a7og. 'raXailg est, qui dudum fuit, vetus. 
 
 aoyjxiog^ qui ab initio fuit, priscus, antiquus. 
 TaXa/o'w aY.\)om. Hebr. viii. 13. 
 rra^diSaffig' ':raoa,-/.orj. Hebr. ii. 2. Rom. iv. 15. 
 ■ra^cczaXsCfj' '7:cc^afj,-j%o/j,ai (^■Trrxor^yo^ia). 1 Thess. ii 
 
 11. Coloss.iv.il. 
 'Xa^oc'/i'jTrTOij' s/M[3X£'7ru. Luc. xxiv. 12. loh. xx. 5. 
 
 1 1. lacob. i. 25. Vix synonyma haberi possent, 
 
 nfsi plerumque illud jungeretur cum actione vi- 
 
 dendi. Sed proprie ei non inest notio visus. 
 
 loh. viii. 6. Neque inest ellipsis. 
 ^apdXiog' 'xaPcc^aXuffffiog. Matth. iv. 13. Luc. vi. 
 
 17, ita difFerre videntur, ut craedXiog oppo!]atur 
 
 tSj [MZ(ioyu'^, et dicatur de regionibus raaritimis, 
 
 VOL. II. E 
 
50 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 sed 'rrccoa^aXdasiog de iis quae sunt in litore ma- 
 rls, urbibus, hominibus etc. Thuycd. I. 3. ruv 
 (SupISupoov 01 b Tj'TTsiPUj iTaoa^akdccnoi, conf. II. 56. 
 
 -aoa6'A.i-jdZ^M' iro/,aa^w. Utrumque parare denotat : 
 sed g-o/,aa^£/y est parare aliquid, ut adsit, cra^a- 
 (?xgya^g/i/, ut aptum sit. 
 
 'rraoauri/ta' 'jtaoay^oriiJ.a. 'Trapavrixa fit, quod in prae • 
 senti fit. Polyb. II. 33. 'z-aoavrr/.a /x?i/ s/Mimv, 
 
 fMTcc ds ravra 2 Cor. iv. 17. rb 'rraoavrlxa 7r\i 
 
 liX/'-vpsw;. Thucyd. II. 64; IV. 54. ro rrapuv- 
 •r/xa za/ to i-eira. Ta^a^^-^aa fit, quod statim fit, 
 quum aliud quid factum est. Matth. xxii. 60, etc. 
 Thuycd. I. 22. sg to racap/s/j/xa dzovstv. II. 17, 
 conf. Polyb. III. 31. 
 
 c:apa(psPo/j.ar -rg^/^soo/xa/. Hebr. xiii. 9. Ditferunt 
 sane, /tin und her — herum treiben. Sic nos quo- 
 que de nubibus, Ep. lud. v. 12. 
 
 ■■xaoiP'/oiJjar <:Ta^arTOPs{jo/xai. vid. sp^o/xai. Proprie 
 dicitur, Matth. viii. 28. 
 
 ■rdosffi;' d(psffic. Illud uno tantum loco, Rom. iii. 
 25, in rehquis a(peffi;. Scite Alberti in Glossario 
 p. 97, observavit, Apostolum studio hoc tantum 
 loco adhibuis.^e videri vocem T.dpiffiv, quam com- 
 mode praetermissionem vertas. Errat, qui dicit, 
 errare eos, qui differentiam statuant. SciUcet 
 longe aliud est, de quo Ap. h. 1. loquitur, quam 
 quum ci(piffiv celebrat. Nolo 6oy/xar/^gffSa/ in in- 
 terpretatione ; sed nunquam credam, Apostolum, 
 (|ui semper v. ci^piffig utitur, etiam in ipsa ad Rom. 
 epistola, hoc uno loco temere rrd^sffiv scripsisse. 
 Nimirum sententia Ap. haec est : deus roog^gro 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 51 
 
 iXa^rrj^iov, ad indulgentiam suam demonstrandam 
 propter s. ob praetermissionem ruv 'x^oyiydvirm 
 aij^a^rniMarm^ i. e. ut praetermitteret, missa faceret 
 peccata olim, i. e. sub lege, commissa. Nou 
 poterat autem locum habere haec -Traosc/g, nisi per 
 Christum : ergo ostendit rj^v diy.aio(ivv7iv aiirov dice 
 T'^v cagfeC/v. Nori scripsit bia T7\g <^aosffsc>jg, sed 
 dta TYiV IT. Nam t] 'ttdooti^ dia^-^Kri sublata est per 
 Christum. Hebr. ix. 15. Sed de his alias. In 
 ejusmodi vv. saepe erratum est. Similia sunt, 
 sed non idem significant. 
 
 ra^{jvo,u.a,r 'ttu^ov/xui. Utrumque metaphor, de men- 
 tis animique hebetudine dicitur. Sed sic differre 
 videntur, ut Tayhn^^ai indicet mentem, quae 
 ipsa tarde se movere potest, crw|ou(y^a/ animum, 
 qui quasi callo obductus, rebus aliis parum aut 
 nihil movetur. 'iraypg est tardus, (opp. ^uzvoc) 
 'TTiiruouj/Msvog, qui sensu caret, hebes. ■■xs-7ru)^uvTai 
 o'l cxp'^aXfjLo/. lob. xvii. 7, quasi callo obducti. 
 Hinc Suidas. Tw^wc/g' rv(pXojGig. 
 
 ■rrsi^dcti' 'Tru^dZo). 'ffg/ga^s/i' plerumque in malam par- 
 tem dicitur. (etiam Act. xvi. 7, de irrito consi- ^ 
 lio.) 'Xii^at^dijjivog est, qui maiis pressus ad peccan- 
 dum incitatur, Tsi^djfMivogy qui jam expertus est 
 mala, iisque ferendis exercitatus. 
 
 •rsvyig' crruy^og. pauper, mendicus. 
 
 Tsoag' reXog. m^ag pp. loci est, rikog temporis. 
 -igaj avriKoyiag. Hebr. vi. 16. Ad hunc locum 
 spectat glossa Hesychii : ir'i^ag , . xa/ i] Xvffig, nee 
 debet sollicitari. 
 
52 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 ■TTsoiaioiC/j' dcpaiosoo {afxaoT'iag) vid Hebr. x. 4, II, 
 sacrificia non possunt unquam prorsus tollere 
 peccata, ideoque repetenda sunt. 
 
 ■n^ixcc^aPtjM' TSPi'-^yj/jjU. 1 Cor. iv. 13. Notandum 
 erat, non simpliciter dici, sed addi xoffjuov et crav- 
 Twv. De hominibus, qui a plerisque tamquam 
 pessimi contemnuntur, comparari possent nostra, 
 Auswurfet Abschaum. 
 
 ■rXsovs^iu' (piXaoyj^'ia. Longe peior est 77 rrXsovs^ici. 
 Coloss. iii. 3, dicitur eidojXoXarsda, est aviditas, s. 
 amor sceleratus habendi, Selbstsucht, verissima 
 sJduXoXar^da. Apud Herodot. VII. 149, denotat 
 arrogantiam, et Xoyog rrXso/sKrrig eodem sensu 
 ibid. c. 158. 
 
 '■TrXriv. De hac part., quam dicunt vulgo vicem sus- 
 tinere diversissimarum particularum, aXXa, ofMuc, 
 apa, fMovov, etc. vide Hoogeven. 
 
 (ToXL/.ag^wg* 'uoXvr^o'Trug.) Hebr. i. J. Recte Lu- 
 therus : manchmal und mancherley Weise. Glos- 
 sar. Gr. Alberti 'jroXv/xsPcog' dice, rrXsioiMv sc. ^p6- 
 vuv. 
 
 rroXursy.yji' croAjn/xog. Marc. xiv. 3. loh. xii. 3. 
 
 nr^ucsoi' 'TTOisu. DifFerunt fere ut nostra thun et 
 machen. agere ei facere. Quintil. II. \'6. J. Ter- 
 tium est icya^gcSa/, quod proxime accedere vi- 
 detur ad nostrum handeln, eo sensu, quo signi- 
 ficat thdtig seyn. 6 crarrio /xov sug upti ioydZsrui. 
 Dicitur sine objecti notitia, ilia non possunt. iZ 
 (xaXJDg, y.anojg etc.) rronTv, TPdffffnv (^X^iv) certis- 
 sime differunt. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 53 
 
 rTio6hi')(oixai' v. s'/Js^o/xcci. Differunt ut nostra er- 
 warten et abwarten. 
 
 •i:o()6%oij.ijja: GxdvbaXov. Rom. xiv. 13. t^oGKO/M/j^a yi 
 (S'/tdvbaXov. v. 20. o/a '7r^o(t7i6/LL(xarog sff'^/nv differunt 
 lit nostra Anstoss et Aergerniss. v. 21. 'rr^^osxo'rmi 
 
 '7p6(pastg' a(pop/jjy]. 1 Tim. v. 14. d(po§/.iriv didovai. 
 
 vid. Valckenar. de Aristobul. p. 65. De v. tdo- 
 
 (paffig recte Schol. Euripid. Hec. v. 43, proprie 
 
 non est occasio s. causa. a/V/a est causa, d(po^,'xr, 
 
 Veranlassung, Atilass, '7ro6(pa,6ig Vorwand, Ge~ 
 
 legenheit. 
 rrralw a/xa^rai/w. ■ttittoo. Rom. xi. 11. i^ij 'i'rrroLi- 
 
 6av ha. cicwc/. 
 '^To'soiJjOLt' rrrbooixat. s/M(po(3og ylvo/J.ai. Luc. xxiv. 37. 
 
 TToriffiv (po^ih'^a.i, 1 Petr. iii. 6. 
 TuvSai/o/xa/' hurdoj. Conveniunt in notione scitandi, 
 
 sed differunt ; nusquara permutari possunt. Ne- 
 
 que temera rrv^^avsG^ai in medio tantum dicitur ; 
 
 sich erkundigen. 
 ea/S5/^w ^acr/^w. Hoc latius patet usu. ;coXa^/^w. 
 
 Matth. xxvi. 67. Matth. v. 39. vid. Henr. 
 
 Steph. in Append, de Dial. Att. c. 4. 
 pccbiov^yia' doXog. Act. xiii. 10. v. cavoyoy/ct. 
 ojj.aa* Aoyog. pi/j^a verbum est, sed Xoyog res ipsa, 
 
 quae verbis inest, sermo, oratio. Manifestum est 
 
 discrimen in usu pluralis. ^yjfj.arcx, ^soD dicuntur 
 
 non },6yot r. S. 
 lo/x(paia' ^i^og- /judy^ai^a. Proprie ita difFerre viden- 
 
 tur, ut '^l(pog sit, quo punctim, ,'j.d^aioa, que caesim 
 
54 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 liostis petitur. hoiMpciia secundum Hesych. fuit 
 ensis longior Thracicus vid. Eustath. ad Iliad. N. 
 V. 577. In N. T. ixayjuoa, gladius, suo loco 
 ponuntur. /xa;/a/^ai' (poozTv. Rom. xiii. 4. (jus 
 gladii) ^/fog non occurrit, sed ejus loco est ^o,a- 
 (pala. Apoc. i. 6. ^o/x^. dlffro/jLog. Luc. ii. 35. 
 rrjv -^Myj])) tfou duXsvazTai ^o/j,(pata. 
 
 ga'ivM' -/.oXax,ivctj. ad 1 Thess. iii. 3. Gccincf^at sv 
 '^Xi-^sgi, est, in calamitatibus blanda vitae commo- 
 dioris spe et desiderio pellici,[ut deseras officium. 
 Nunquam %ov(SsTa^ai (ut Chrysostoraus) aut ra- 
 odma^ai denotat. Alieni sunt loci, qui afferun- 
 tur. Recte Elsnerus ad h. 1. 
 
 gr/do/Mur ffiwTruoo. vid. Ammon. v. ffiojrr'/i. eiyad&at 
 est tacere, c/wTrav silere. Luc. ix. 36. hiyrjaccv^ 
 xal oudsvi d'Trvjy'yuXav. XX. 26. Sau/xaCavrg? soi- 
 yi^gotv. Act. xii. 17. xaratfs/Vas ffr/av. Luc. i. 
 20. sg'fi (JiWTTuv zai (MTi dvvd/Mvog Xakriffai. Act. 
 xviii. 9. Xdy.u -/.at /xij ffiuTrjcrig. vid. Valckenar. 
 ad Lennep. Etym. p. 883. 
 
 (To^/a* yvug/g- (p^ovrjffig, Eph. i. 8. Aristot. Ethic. 
 Lib. I. c. ult. Conf. Raphel. Ann. Polyb. 
 
 (TTrovdd^oj' (S'TTsudu. (^■■rsvdiiv est festinare (de tem- 
 pore) g'TTovbdZiiv properare i. e. festinanter et se- 
 dulo aliquid^cere. 2 Petr. iii. 12. 'TrDoebozojvrag 
 xa/ (S'Tiiiihovrag, i. e. acriter et avide exspectantes, 
 quod est festinantium. Recte Lutherus Eph. iv. 
 3. CiToubdZowig rri^sTv r. svorrjra r. rrianojg. Seyd 
 Jieissig, sedulo date operam, conf. 2 Tim. ii. .5. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 55 
 
 Iiiest tamen etiam v. a-rrovddZ^nv notio festinatio- 
 nis s. potius sedulitatis. 
 
 anvo'^ojpso^u.ai. ^XijSofjjai. 2 Cor. vi. 8. sv 'rrav-i 
 ^AijSufxsvoi, a>\X oh Grivoyjji^oijiMivoi. Quum meta- 
 phorice dicuntur, ^XZ/Sscl^a/ dicitur, premi (undi- 
 que) vexari malis, sed (rr2vo;)/a;os/b't)a/ de iis, qui 
 ita in angustiis versantur, ut de exitu desperent. 
 Egregie Lutherus, 2 Cor. vi. 12. sich dngsteii. 
 Rom. vii. 9. ^Xi-^tg tlci} CTvioyjaoia^ Truhsal imd 
 Angst. 
 
 (irsoiow crjjo/^w g^svooj. Solidmn reddere, firmum 
 sistere, ponere collocare — robustum facere crrr 
 liZzi'i T^ocw-oi/ ocOroD, non est obfirmare faciem, 
 quod nihili est, sed firine intendere fticiem ad ali- 
 quid, sich etwas fest vornehmen. Luc. xix. 51, 
 quasi figere oculos aliquo, tamquam in metam. 
 Apud Themist. Or. XIII. tooj ffs arsw^s/v %a.\ 
 
 Cuv/C^/vw iy'/ioivo). 2 Cor. x. 12. 
 
 cui/sff^/V (i-jiJj(pay(ti' {cuvbu-rvlo).) vid. siraplicia. 
 
 U'jvzvdoxsw ffw^do/Mui. In v. 6vvriho[iai inest non solum 
 notio probandi, quae est in v. cui^su^o^Jw, sed 
 etiam laetandi, voiuptatem capiendi ex aliqua re. 
 Paulus probaverat quidem caedem Stephani, jus- 
 tam putaverat, riv Gvvivdo'/Sjv. Act. viii. 1, sed non 
 dicitur laetatus esse eo facinore. Contra ipse 
 scripsit, Rom. vii. 22. cuv/ido/Mai rui v6/JjUi^ voiup- 
 tatem ex ea capio . . Nescio, quibus exemplis 
 demonstrent, in v. (jvjsvbozs/l/ inesse etiam notio- 
 nem oblectationis. 
 
56 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 ffuvisvar vosTv. DifFerunt ut nostra : verstehn et mer- 
 hen. Marc. viii. 17. d-o'Kt/i vosTrs ovds auvkn. 
 Eodem modo difFerunt acbvirog et uvo'^toc, de qui- 
 bus supra. 
 
 Guvrd^GO)' 'ir^offraffffw svrsXXofJbat. rr^offru^ffst, qui rem 
 ipsam praecipit ; Gvuraffffn qui etiam modum fa- 
 ciendi praescribit. Nam Matth. i. 24. siroiriCiv 
 ug itPoSiTa'tiv o ayysXoc, sensus est: fecit id quod 
 jusserat ang. ut viii. 4. -Trpoosviy'/is to du^ov, o 'Tr^oa- 
 gragg Mwff^c. Contra xxvi. 19. sToii^ffay ug (fuvs- 
 ra^sv. et xxvii. 10. manifesta est notio, quam 
 dixi. Sed sv-sXXsSai est dare mandatum et po- 
 testatem aliquid faciendi. Matth. xxviii. 20. Vid. 
 Hebr. ix. 20. Moses scilicet acceperat manda- 
 tum feriendi foederis, ota^'/j'/.rig rjg svBrstXaro t^o? 
 avTovg 6 %og, quod mandavit deus facere vobis- 
 cum. Nee putem, temere Apostolum pro v. 
 dis^sTo, quod habent Alex., et usitatiori, imo so- 
 lemni in hac causa, scripsisse hsrs/Xaro. 
 
 (c-jvrs/Mvoj' G-jvTsXs'jj.) Rom. ix. 28. Sequutus est 
 Ap. Alexandrinos, qui toto coelo ab hebr. aber- 
 rarunt. Sed Xoyov illi nou dixerunt pro decreto. 
 
 raXui-TTOJ^ia' (TTBvoy^oj^iu. vid. (Jrsvo^c/joso/Mau In vv. 
 ruXai-TTOj^sUj raXai'jru^ia, raXahu^og, inest potissi- 
 inum miseriae, quae ex nimio labore [quo frustra 
 defatigamur,] nascitur, notio. Recte Rom. vii. 
 24. raXai'TTUPog syoj o. -pw-to^, miihselig^ qui frus- 
 tra laboro. 
 
 ru^dggw Tu^(3d^u. Luc. x. 41. vid. Schol. Aristoph. 
 Equ. V. 311. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 57 
 
 TiXuQUi' <7rXi^c6oj' (rgXsw.) nXnovv est perficere, ut 
 nihil faciendum restet, sed res, opus, tsahqv sit. 
 ^"kri^ouv est complere rem, ut ei nihil desit. Matth. 
 i. 22. et al. ha irXrjPu^fj to ^tj^sv, Apud lohan- 
 nem tantum semel xix. 28. iVa rsXnu^fi. Vide 
 formulas rsTiXsiM/Mvoi (sig sV. loh. xvii. 23.) crs- 
 tXi^^m/msvoi, quomodo differant. rsXsoijv est finire, 
 ad finem et exitum perducere, peragere. Diflfert 
 a prioribus formula Luc. xviii. 31. rsXsa^TjCsrai 
 Tavra ra yiy^a/x/j^sva et aliae. 
 
 TOTTog' %woa. Quamquam ro-rog dici potest pro %wpay 
 tamen %w^a non ponitur pro rovog. Matth. iv. 
 16. loh. xi. 54. To-rog convenit nostro Ort^ 
 X'^l^ ^st Platz, ( GegendS) Posteriori inest notio 
 spatii. 
 
 Tsv:pd!f)' ccraraXaw. lacob. v. 5. rov(pav potius tnol- 
 litiem vitae luxuriosae, s-rctraXav petulantiam et 
 prodigalitatem denotat. Corrige Suidam : (yra- 
 ra.>//) 7] TPv^prj. Leg. T^u(pr,. Hesych. c-ara/.a* 
 yoy^ia. 2 Petr. ii. 13. ridovriv riyovfjijsvoi rr^v h 
 yi'jjioa rD\)(p7}v. 1 Tim. v. 6. 
 
 v'xao'^ig' •/.rnix.a. Act. ii. 45 ; v. 1, 3, 8. Illud 
 latius patet ; estque scriptorum seriorum : veteres 
 ra ii'Tdp^ovra, ut alias in N. T. 
 
 ■j-Ttdoyjji' iiiMi. differunt sic, ut zhai simpliciter ease, 
 brd^')(iiv conditionem aliquara denotet, qua quis 
 esse cogitatur. i)-7:doyiiv sv rm, et u^rdpy^et fLoi. 
 
 ■j'razovM' Tg/^o/xa/- i/rsZ/cw. Conveniunt in notione 
 obsequii. Sed v-toc-aousi'j (proprio sensu Act. xii. 
 13), est dicto obtemperare, gehorcheri; crs/Ssc^ai 
 
58 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 monita sequi, folgen ; urs/xs/i/ vi s. auctoritati ce- 
 dere, unterihdnig seyn. Hebr. xiii. 17. 
 
 •j<rivdvT/og' v. avridmog. UTTBvdvTtog et evdvr/og certe 
 sic difFerunt, ut illud denotet adversarium, nulla 
 manifestae vis notione, s. potius contrarium. 
 
 t/T£^£p/w dia(psooj' (^nvog.) h'-ioiyjiv est excellere 
 aliqua re, ha^phu^ rmg aliquo esse praestantiorem. 
 Philipp. iii. 8. ro V'Tios-^ov rrig yvujffsug Xp. non 
 est praestantissima cognitio Chr. sed ipsa exeel- 
 lentia cognitionis. Haec excellentia causa est, 
 cur omnium bonorum reliquorum jacturam facien- 
 dam esse putet. 
 
 ■j<z6dyjfji.a' ffavddXwv. Vulgo dicunt in N. T. promis- 
 cue dici de eadem re. Sed dicant illi, cur bis 
 tantum Marc. vi. 9. Act. xii. 8. ffavddXioi, tri- 
 buantur iter facientibus, v'rodrjfj.ara nusquam. Et 
 Marc. vi. 9. jubet dominus Apostolos pedes 
 tantum munire sandaliis, sed Matth. x. 10. Luc. 
 X. 4, de apparatu itineris ibidem loquutus, vetat 
 b'jrohrifj^ara. Scilicet li--xoh7^!JjaTa sunt pr. soleae^ 
 quae commoditatis causa pedibus subligabantur 
 extra domum, in spectaculum, coenam etc. eunti- 
 bus, servisque custodiendae aut ferendae trade- 
 ban tur (/3a<7ra^£/v ra V'-x 001] [Mara, Matth. iii. 11. 
 coll. Luc. iii. 16). Sed sandalia caligae erant, 
 quae non plantam tandum pedis, sed ipsum pe- 
 dem usque ad taleam tegebant,quibus et in itinere, 
 et ornatis mollibusque delicatiores utebantur. 
 Caligis s. sandaliis, non autem soleis, in itinere 
 f)pus erat. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 59 
 
 v-roxoho/jLccr vrroffrsXy.ofiai. simulo, fingo — dissimulo, 
 reticeo. Plut. de discr. ad. et am. fjj7]dh viroffrsX- 
 
 •jTOfMiVM- Wzyjfi. h'Z^yjiv (semel Ep. lud. v. 7), sim- 
 pliciter est sustinere, hrAy]v vTsy^siv, laere poenam ; 
 sed v-TTo/jbhtsv animum in perferendo significat. 
 Vid. sequ. 
 
 iiro/Movri' v. ai/o;/?;. avs^sff'^ai de iis dicitur, qui se 
 ipsos cohibent, quo minus indignentur aut ul- 
 sciscantur. Itaque avoyji rou ^soD, Rom. iii. 26, 
 in tolerandis, nee statim ulsciscendis peecatis sita 
 est, et Rom. il. 4, junguntur avoyJ\ et fiaK^o^vfila. 
 \j<70(M0'j7i ipsam animi constantiam et patientiam 
 denotat. Quare non dicitur ii'zofxovTi r. '^sov. Sed 
 ^io; rrig V'TroiiLO'./T^g, Rom. xv. 5, non est deus, qui 
 postulate sed qui largitur bvrofj.or/iv, ut Ssog rrig 
 s/orjvrjc. u.nyj(f^ai est nostrum ertragen, (uvsys- 
 <r3a/ d^oovc^v.) v'zofMhsiv, geduldig, ruhig, aushar- 
 ren. 
 
 :pavXog' ytazoc,. (pccvXa -puffffuv. <pav}.o\/ crody/j^a. (paZ- 
 Xov si'TTsTv 'TTsoi rmg. (pccvXoc est nostrum schlecht. 
 svTsXTig. ohboLiMmg. Vid. Thom. M. Ruhnken, ad 
 Timaeum, et Menag. ad Diog. Laert. III. 63. 
 (p'^oyyog- (pojy/j. Illud 1 Cor. xiv. 7, de ipsa voce, ut 
 videtur, Rom. x. 15. (p'^syyic'^^ai est sonum aii- 
 quem edere. (pomTv vocem edere, potissimum hu- 
 manam. 2 Petr. ii. 16. b'Troy-jyiov a(puvov hj 
 d]/%^U)-7rov (pmri (p^sy^d/Xivov, p^oyyog Ton, fw- 
 vr^ Stimme. 
 
60 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 <puXdgSS(^ur o^av 'rpocs'/^nv Qui (pvXdgffsrai, is ooa 
 {m) et 'rr^oGiyiu Matth. xvi. 6. 
 
 '/lir\(irog' y^or,(Si!Mog. y^oriarhg est benigrius, ad benefa- 
 ciendum aptus et paratus. Hinc ^u/og %g?3<rro5, 
 Matth. xi. 30, iion est jugum suave (melius Lu* 
 tiierus : sanft)^ sed benignum. conf. Luc. v. .39. 
 '/jlTisHrriC, 7. ^2ou est benignitas dei, ad benefacien- 
 dum hominibus potius parata, quam ad punien- 
 dum. Diflfert a v. %%$• In hac enim, certe in 
 N. T., imperat notio benevolentiae et gratiae, 
 quae nihil merentibus bene facit. yj^yif^iiJ^oi est 
 utilis. vid. dyouoc,. 
 
 yjjftM' /cy/Aog. Q,uamquam yj^i^/M latius patet, 
 dieitur enim etiam de manibus ut nostrum lahm^ 
 tamen ytuXkhg in N. T. de manibus dieitur pro- 
 prie, Matth. xviii. 8. Marc. ix. 43. 
 
 yjaiiTr hzyja'^ai. yoo^iTv est capere (spatiura) ds- 
 y^sff^ai sumere (ad se) excipere. Itaque dieitur 
 y^u^iTv cum accusative rei quae capitur. loh. ii. 
 6 ; xxi. 25. Matth. xix. 1 1, sed etiam sine objecto 
 (neutraliter dicunt) cum sola notione loci quam 
 res capit., y^^^^v s'lg ti, sv rivi, habetque significa- 
 tionem eundi, locum capiendi. (apud Homer, 
 cedendi, desistendi). unde dvayuoiTv. 
 
 '^\jyj]' Ti'sD/xa. Quum de homine dicuntur, ita dif- 
 ferunt, ut nostra : Seele et Geist. rrnXiii.a. ipsam 
 naturam spiritualem denotat, -vl/iyp/j^ vim animaleni, 
 qua vivimus, sentimus etc. Hinc -^-oyjTLul parum 
 difFerunt a ga^xixoTg (nam naturalis homo p^ovsi'Toc 
 7rig ffu^Ko;) sed opponuntur roTg rrv-v>MaTixoTg. -^y^jyn 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 61 
 
 anima est, qua vivimus, itn\)[xa animus, quo sapi- 
 mus. Sed usus vitae communis non semper ser- 
 vat discrimina verborum, quibus res, quae sensu 
 tantum percipi possunt, judicantur. Nos quo- 
 que dicimus : Unsterhliclikeit der Seele. 
 ojhiv o&jvr,. ojbiv propria significatione accipiendum 
 etiam Act. ii. 24. Suidas totum locum Psalmi 
 explicat. Respondet Hebr. bnn, quod ipsum 
 
 quoque de doloribus parturientium dicitur. (semel 
 de aliis doloribus, Hiob. xxi. 16,) neque confundi 
 debebat cum h'2'n, quod funera denotat. Vid. 
 
 Lamb. Bos. Exercitt. p. 69, et Valckenar. ad 
 Lennep. Etymol. v. ud/v. Contra Steph. le Moyne 
 ad Var. S. p. 296, sqq. 
 
62 
 
 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 Tbe following list of Synonyms, with the exception 
 of those which have the paging attached, were 
 left by the Author without any explanatory ob- 
 servations — but they are considered of sufficient 
 importance to be inserted, as they will point out 
 to the student, those w^ords which Dr. Tittmann 
 esteemed to be of synonymous signification. 
 
 ' Ayu^og- dizaiog, vol. i. 29. 
 dya^ospyiTv uya^orronTv, 
 
 i. 97. 
 aya^ar (piXuv^ i. 90. 
 ayiaCsiv aynCiir aytoc. 
 
 ayvog, i. 35. 
 ayaTTTiTug'' sxAiTtrog. 
 dyiOGuiYi' ayvua: ayv't'Czir 
 
 ciyvog' xa^apog' dfj^iav- 
 
 rog, i. 35. 
 dy^v-'/su v. yPTjyofsM. 
 ddi^/MOvsTv v, sKrAyjffGsffdai. 
 ddizs/v ddr/Jcf v. diXiCioT'ia^ 
 
 i. 79. 
 ddixog' dvo/xog' dfMa^rojXog. 
 cc^srs/i-' dzvpouv y.araoysTi'' 
 
 st,o!,Xit<pstv, ii. 27. 
 did'og' a/u)viog, i. 65. 
 
 ii. 27. 
 
 a'hzt)^ (dfj^aoTiav^ (^'-onv, 
 
 'ii. 27. 
 aiGyrjvcjijjrir svr^sTO/J^ar 
 
 aiGyjjwi' hToo-Ttr; aidojg, 
 
 ii. 26. 
 
 ai(/jr ypovog' woa* xa/goj, 
 
 i. 68. 
 aiuiviog' di'diog, i. 65. 
 dzaDa^ffia' d.ffiXysia' '^ro^- 
 
 vs/a, i. 260. 
 d'/id&ciorog' dcurog. 
 dxazog' dxspatog, i. 46. 
 (dxoXov^soj' sB,azoXou6su,) 
 
 ii. 28. 
 d'/tv^ovv V. d&iTiTv. 
 d\aXj)ng' v-7rs^r,:pavor b- 
 
 ZptGrai, i. 129. 
 dXyi^ng' dX'/j^mg, ii. 28. 
 dXXog' g'rs^oc, ii. 28. 
 dXXor^iog' dXXoysvrig' dX- 
 
 Xo^'jXog. 
 diLCf.' o^aoD, ii. 28. 
 d[JM^iTg' dffrrjoizror d- 
 
 G^iviTg' uopojffToi, i. 133. 
 dfMix^r)g- dffOvirog. 
 d/jjaordviiv ddiKiTv. 
 oc/xaor/a* ■raod-rrru/j^a' d- 
 
 vo/jj/w ddiTiia (^ddi'/,7]/u/.,) 
 
 1. 79. 
 d/Ma^TCfjAog' dsi'^rig. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 63 
 
 a/xs/AT-roj* aiJMfJbo:, i. 50. 
 
 arPs--roy jSsjSaiov, i. 152. 
 u/jJavTog' xa'^apog' ayi-o's, 
 
 i. 35. 
 dvayiwdf/^ccr dvotzanoij- 
 
 a'^ar dvavsouc^ai (^diOJ- 
 
 '^sv 'ysvy/j^rivai), ii. 28. 
 dvcc-/ts(pa}'.o\jv' acro^caraX- 
 
 Xdrrsiv, ii. 28. 
 dvakoyia' [MiT^ov, ii. 28. 
 dvdfx\/ri<jig' v-7r6fxvr]Gic^ ii. 28. 
 d]/S'y/tXrirog- dinrriXyj-Trrogy 
 
 i. 53. 
 
 dviw X^i'^i ^' ^^^' 
 dvoia' dyi'Ota' fj,Moia' 
 
 d(pPO(Jv\iri, i. 247. 
 dvofMia.' dijjaoria, i. 79. 
 
 i'/cdixi^ffic- szdf/isTv, i. 29. 
 d.vTa'TrozoivofMou' avTh-rc/j' 
 
 d'j-tX'sycf), 
 dvribiari'^sfMS'^or dyriX'syov- 
 
 7rA.ii[j.ivor avridrz-og' s- 
 
 vdvrior v-svd^vrio/.'u. 13. 
 dvriXafju8dvs6^^ar ^or^iTv 
 
 ?-/Aa/X|8av£(j-^i«/, ii. 7. 
 d^/oDv V. rtfj^av. 
 draXXdrrsiy acozaraX- 
 
 Xdrrsiv, i. 176. 
 
 a-Trdri^' doXog' ■:x'Ka'vr{- 
 
 {^iZhog^ 
 di-'sy^ii' do/tsTy ii. 29. 
 d-TTsihia' driffria, ii. 29. 
 d-TrXorrjg' s/Xtzpi'juw d^- 
 
 sXiicc. 
 ocTrXovg, i. 46. 
 d';roxaoadoyJa' l'i\-nig, i. 
 
 187. 
 dyTTozPivo/JjUi' lyToXot/x/^a- 
 
 ^o/>ta/, ii. 29. 
 d-7ro'/.aT0.XXd(fciiiv v. ai/axs- 
 
 d-roXvTPMffig' dXiCig djULUP- 
 
 TIUV. 
 
 d'ToosTff^ar v. diGrdt^av. 
 door u\)Y Tojvjv, ii. 29. 
 UPie-ov V. osa:ti'01'. 
 do^ahg' ■rraXa.iog. 
 doyyj' bbvaijjig' st,ovaia, ii. 
 
 '29. 
 (7.op^>3yo^' alnog, ii. 30. 
 dGs(3rig V. dfJbccProj'Aog, 
 d^GsXyna.' dy.a^r/.oaia' acw- 
 
 r/cc, i. 160. 
 aff^sv^jg* acrr^c/x-Osji. 133. 
 aG-zoi/dog' dffvv^STOC, i. 132. 
 aGTOoyor dviXir^i^wzg. 
 dffvviTog' d;j.a^r,g. 
 a'J^dhrig. 
 
 d(piXorrig' acrXorjjj. 
 d.:p^oGv-^ri' dvoia' dvoT/rog, i. 
 
 247. 
 dyoiTog- dyPYjcrog- (dvc>j- 
 
 ^pXric,) it 19, 30. 
 
64 
 
 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 {^a^iTo^ar jSa^uviff^aiy ii. 
 
 30. 
 jSd^o;- oyxog, ii. 30. 
 jSaGiAiia ^sov' oboocvuv. 
 
 l3s(3aiog, i. 152. 
 ^sl3r}Xog. dvoffiog. 
 iSlog- (^uTj, ii. 30. 
 (SXiTsir hoar oVrsff^a/* 
 
 ibiTv ^sw^s/i-, i. 192. 
 (Soffxs/y '7roi,a,uivnv, ii. 25. 
 iSovXri' ^sXri/jjU. 
 lBouXo,(Mar 5sXw, i. 214. 
 (j3^oo,'j.a- (Souxrig), ii. 30. 
 (ysfsa* '^iysc/a* ysvvrjffig.) 
 yswar ri'/trsiv, ii. 30. 
 (^yivji^^yjuar yiviC^ai.^ 
 (yvt^fiYi' (3o-jXrj' doyfia, ii. 
 
 31. 
 yvoj^i^Cfj' bsixvvu)' 
 yvoj(Sig' (^s'TriyvuGig') v. cro- 
 
 ii. 31. 
 
 yjvy)' {yjil^-> ii' 31. 
 
 osr V. ;>/^?j. 
 (diixvou. s-ndiixvjoj.) 
 osTrrvor d^iffror hoyjiy ii. 31. 
 dsiffioai/Movia' i-jXdjSiicc, ii. 
 
 31. 
 biXsal^o/zar v. gjs/.xo/xa/. 
 oiadibomr S/aoTcctra/, ii. 31. 
 oiuxovog' V. oouXog. 
 
 (diaXXaTTsadur zaraX- 
 Xdrrsffdai), i. 176. 
 
 diuGoapiTv biayvu}oi^iir 
 btccyysXXztr <7:a^ayyiX- 
 Xiiv hicKpriijji^iiM' £X- 
 XaXsTv s't,iiys7a6ar xjj- 
 
 (biaadJ^siv ffoJl^siv.) 
 biardGGiir biaffrsXXiffdai, 
 
 i. 149. 
 btbaffx.aX/a' bibayr^, i. 31. 
 (biioc^rar ssmtcIv.) 
 bizaiog, i. 29. 
 ^/cra^s/i/' d'zo^iTff^ar (It^oL- 
 
 ToosTs^ai), ii. 31. 
 oZ-vj/'j^os' biXoyog' bi^XCog, 
 
 ii. 31. 
 boyijja' V. yvdofj^rj. 
 boKsh/' TiyiTcdat. 
 boXog' d'Trdrri, ii. 31. 
 
 ^o^cci^g/r V. ahsTv. 
 bovXog' ^g^acrwr bidxovog' 
 
 ■j'TrTj^sTrig, 
 boyji' V. bsTTTvov. 
 b-jva/jjur JffyJoo' biivarai 
 
 'rroiiTv ri 6 iGyym. 
 b'j'jcc'ug' bo'i^oc,^ svs^yeiu- 
 
 £t,ov0/a' iGyJig v. d^^yji 
 
 (xuoiorng.) 
 boiifMU' v--rs^u)Ov. 
 bujpsd' yjdiig' bu)^ov. 
 boupsdv rfj ydotri, ii. 31. 
 syxodriia' 6u<ppoGv]>i^. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 65 
 
 i//t>j' /JjcItt^v, ii. 32. 
 s/Vw XaXsM, i. 139. 
 slffhyo/Mur iiff-iropsvo/j^cn, ii. 
 32, 
 
 kxd(fTOTs- rrcivroTS, ii. 32. 
 hdsyo/jjai- (d-7rsx.ds-)^ofMar) 
 
 'TTooad'syo/icar 'TPOffdoy.soj. 
 
 '/iaoadoz'sc/j' (^diroxaoa- 
 
 boTiitti.) 
 
 sTtba-TTdy&r (^da'rravdv.) dv- 
 
 aXiff/isiv. 
 'r/,ds^o/xat v. ^ivi^Cf). 
 sKdiKSOj V. dvrccTrodidM/jji. 
 ixsWiv Ivrsukv, ii. 32. 
 sz^yirsw s^spvjvdoj' (s'tti- 
 
 s'/iXccziTr sxAvso^au 
 izzXaM' sxxo-irru, ii. 32. 
 S/ixXivoj' (psvyc/j. 
 ixxo/jji^oj' iKp'sou, ii. 32, 
 sx.XaXiTv V. diaffa(psTv. 
 i'/iXsysff^ar s^ai^iTv^ ii. 32. 
 JxXsxro;* dyairrirdc; dyiog. 
 s-/cXzXvfjjS\/or s^^Pi/M/Mvoi, ii.32. 
 ix-XvcG^ai V. sx,'/.u'A,iTv. 
 l-/C'7rX7j(rffs6dccr s'/Jcx.fjj(Bs/'ffdar 
 
 s^iffraGdcii, i. 235. 
 sx.'To^ivof^ar \^zoyjjn,aA v. 
 
 i.]Giiyj>ix>u,i. 
 hrccpdffGC/y h'TrXTirrw sx- 
 
 (Ixrg/i/w T^orsivu), ii. 32, 
 (sxTiX'sw reXsoj' s'lrinXsu.) 
 
 (Jx(prjyoi V. (pivyM.) 
 VOL. II. 
 
 sK(^)o(3og' 'i/j,po^og' hr^o/j^og, 
 
 'ii. 32. 
 (D.s/J/s- £X£7;;^o$), ii. 32. 
 sXssM' olxrsipor sXiruMm. 
 
 o/zri^fxoj'j. i. 122. 
 iXzvoj' Gv^oj. i. 99. 
 havrr i/jj'ZPOG^sr svavrloy 
 
 svoj'Triov. 
 hhiKog' dixc/.iog, ii. 33. 
 hdvfMU' hbvGig' 'ifiATiov i- 
 /xotriGfjjog' sG'^yig' zG^riGig. 
 svdvofj^ar •yggz/SccAXo/xa/, ii. 
 
 33. 
 svsdoot.' sm^ouX^, ii. 33. 
 hhysicc' (hs^y/jfj^a) vid. 
 
 diivafMig. 
 svspysu. s'TriTsXBOj, ii. 33. 
 sv'sy^c>y svsd^svw S'?rsyoj, ii. 
 
 33. 
 sviGyvM' Ivdumfj^OM, ii. 33. 
 iv]/sbg V. x.cj(p6g, 
 svvoia' h&{j/j.yjG/g, ii. 33. 
 (^hoixsM- oJxiCfJ.) 
 hraXfMo,' svroXyj' S'Trirayrj' 
 
 svTiXXoixoLi' STTirdGGoj) ii. 
 
 33. 
 hrsv^tg' royaoiGr'ta, ii. 33. 
 hrPS'TTOJ' hr^O'rrri v, alGyor/j. 
 svcoiT/ov V. havri. 
 (st^KyysXXoj' i'jrayysXXoj.) 
 (sgaxoAOLi^sw dxoXov^soj' 
 
 s'^aXiipM V. dSiTsoj, ii. 33. 
 
 s^d-ziva,' s^a'iprig- s^avTTjc, 
 ii. 33. 
 
66 
 
 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 (^s^wzopsw d-ropsu), ii. 34. 
 s^a^Ti^oo' tsXsiocjJ' TArjPow 
 
 (xarapr/(^w), ii 34. 
 s't,'sX)iOij' ^sXsa^w, ii. 34. 
 s^spiuvdu V. ix^Tjrsw, ii. 34 
 
 S^S^^OfMUr S'/CTTO^iVO/Mai V. 
 
 s^riysofxat v. diaffa,(psu. 
 ^^iffrr,/xi V. sx(po3iu. 
 i^OfMOAOySM' ibyaoiGTioo. 
 l^ov^ivio) V. xarcc(ppovsoj. 
 s^ovG/a V. d^y^rj, 
 (s-TrayyiXicc' STdyysXfMa.) 
 il'i:ayy'iKk(ji' s^ayysXXoj' 
 
 dtayy'sXXu), ii. 34. 
 (ivrax&Xo-j^sw v. dxoXov- 
 
 srdv S'TTStddr i~sr stsiOtj, 
 
 ii. 34. 
 (^Izavoe'Travoij'Mj' dva-rravo- 
 
 /ji>oci), ii. 34. 
 
 szsP^ofMar smyhofj^cci. 
 (s-rs^ojTuu' V. s^urdu' dn- 
 
 ^ojrdoj.^ 
 STi^o) V. ivsp^w. 
 sTi^dXXoj- k<rm^riiM. 
 sTijSXs'^U' tiriGTis-ro/jjai^ 
 
 ii. 34. 
 Irrr/siog' y^o'ixog, ii. 34. 
 S'rrr/ivo/Mar srrsoy^ofMai. 
 (^s-Tiiyvuaic,' yvuai;.) 
 
 orj/j/iu, ii. 34. 
 
 s-7riiix'/i; V. suTTg/^^^. 
 (sTT/^jjrgw V. e7t^»jrgw), ii. 
 
 34. 
 s-Tri&avdriog' ^t^toc, ii. 34. 
 s-TTi'^ufMia' s'iTi^-jfjjOviJ.ar 0^5- 
 
 yoi^ai' loipc^ i. 233. 
 STizov^ia' fSorj^sia. 
 S'mXaiui^lSdvofj.ar (Boridsu, ii. 
 
 7,35. 
 fT/'ToSsw V. }/xsioof/,ai. 
 {smvibo}' jcarai/s-jw.) 
 s'7ri(rx.S'7rro,uai v. stSasttoj. 
 £T/Vra,aa/* oJBa, ii. 35. 
 s'TriGTO/j^i^M' (pi'jjooj, ii. 35. 
 sTiffwayuyy} (^ffwayuyrj'") 
 
 STriffvGTafftc. 
 sTirayri v. hTOAr,. 
 
 (S-ITSXSCO V. SXTJASW.) 
 
 sTiTi^i^,(Mi V. irrSdXXb). 
 smri/xdoj' d-TrsiXiOj. 
 smTvy^dvoj' Xay^dvw 
 
 drroXafji^^dmy ii. 35. 
 s<7ri(p^oj V. S'xdyu. 
 (sTov^dviog V. ov^dviog.) 
 hyd^sff^ar '7roisT\'"rodffGiiv. 
 f^yov rrpdy/j^a. 
 5^£w V. XaXsCfj. 
 sp/^sicc- 'i^tg ((piXcvsixia.) 
 i^y^o/jjar '/jxu, ii. 35. 
 i^C/jrdw disoojrdw s^icu' 
 
 raw sz-spojrdw ■7rv\>':.)d 
 
 VOf/jCCI. 
 
 sffd/jg V. //xdrm. 
 Ic&iu)' (pdyoi. 
 hs^og V. dXXog, 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 67 
 
 sro;' sviavTog. 
 
 cvdoy.s/li' Gvy'/iarariQid&ai. 
 
 ihboKla' dyd-r), ii. 35. 
 
 ■■ji^yiffia' rjTOita. 
 
 i'Jhrog' /-/.avog' ^oyjffifjjog. 
 
 iv^sMC, ii. 35. 
 
 {ih'Koy'ici' zbyaPtGria,) ii. 35, 
 
 i-jvosM, ii. 35. 
 
 sv-mit^Tjg' s-in-/.yjCf ii. 35. 
 
 su'Zoua,' i\Ji^yi<Sia. 
 
 iliovy^uoog' rrXarvg, ii 36. 
 
 i-jffij3rig' rjGSjSna,' roXaSrig, j 
 
 i. 252. ! 
 
 i'j6riiJjog' (pcx.vso6g, ii. 36. 
 svavAayyvog' y^yjGTog^ ii. 
 
 36. 
 iliGyjfiiLm' suyd^iffrog, ii. 
 
 36. 
 -\jTi>a-Xc/Ja.' fMOJoriXoyia, ii. 
 
 36. 
 ihya^KSria v. ih'Koyia. 
 spjivsof^ar Taoayivofxar 
 
 hjg- ijlzyoi V. a;)^o/, ii. 36. 
 
 {Ji^og- G'/.orog, ii. 36. 
 t^uoyoiioj' ^ojo'TToisuy ii. 36. 
 '^yoijiMat V. doxirj. 
 ri'/iu V. iD')(OiMUi. 
 Tj^jKog' -TrriXixog' o~oToc, ii. 
 
 36. 
 "^■TTiog' 'TTPdog, i. 244. 
 YiOiiMog' YiGvy^iogy i. 114. 
 
 ^ai/arow d'Troznl'yOj' vs- 
 xoow, ii. 36. 
 
 ^aD/xa* GrjfjjsTor rs^ocg. 
 ^av/j^dGiog- ^C6u/xa<yrdc, ii. 
 
 36. 
 ^jatr^a/, i. 192. 
 ^iaT^i^oj''7:a^ahiiy[i<ji,7iZ(/)» 
 ^s/or^j;* ^2or?3$, ii. 37. 
 
 SsAw (3ouXofj.ai, i. 214. 
 SiPars'jw /ao/>ta/, ii. 37. 
 ^siia-wv 6oD?.oj' oiy.STYig* 
 
 b'TrriosTrig. 
 '^sMosoj- (3Xs-7ru, i. 192. 
 ^Tjfraup/^w Guvdyu. 
 ^}Jj3sG9ar xaxovy^iTG^ai, 
 
 ii. 37. 
 ^X/'-vj^/;' Gnvoy^ojpia, ii. 37. 
 (^v^jcxw dTohrjGKU.) 
 '^vTjTog' nx^og, ii. 37. 
 ^j/xos" o^/J?, i. 229. 
 ^6oa* ttuXtj, ii 37. 
 }do[Mui V. ^s^aTg-jw. 
 73s* /3o0, ii. 37. 
 73/o$* oiKsTog, ii. 37. 
 Qioania' ispdn-jf/^a), ii. 
 
 '37. 
 /£|&i'* caog, i. 35. 
 /fjjdriov sG^rjC' hdv/MU. 
 t/j^iiPOfMar STi'To&BOij. 
 ha' ooGrz. 
 
 i^X^i^^ V. iG-xyg' iGyrjM v. 
 d-jvarog' hbvaixig' hi)\a- 
 
 I /AOC/. 
 
68 
 
 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 {7(,aQaoi(S[jj6g' xddaPfia)^ ii. 
 37. 
 
 (xu^vj/xar Ka6i^u, ii. 37. 
 ■/.aJIffrri/Mr xadiffra/xar 
 
 yhof/.ai, ii. 37. 
 ■/.ahjjg V. xa&d'XiD. 
 ■/.aivog' ]isog, i. 106. 
 ■/Mjojjg' a/wy, i. 68. 
 (y.aiToi' '/.aiToiyi.) 
 y.al'ji' '^T'j^ooj, ii. 38. 
 zoc'/Ja' 'TtovYiDia.' xaytdg' 
 
 rrovYiPog. 
 y.azo'Trd&ita' ii-o/xovyj' (mu- 
 
 zsodvfj^ia. 
 ■/.a'/.o-TToisu V. dyados^ysoj. 
 '/.a/,6g' dyadog. 
 xaXuTTBiy zov'TT'Tiiv, ii. 38. 
 zd/jt^vw s^ydt^ofj^at. 
 
 za^rrh (p's^siv, ii. 38. 
 (zaTa(3o(,ivu' xars^'^o/jja/.) 
 zcirayy'sXXo} v. oiayysXXu. 
 ■/.araytvoJazcA)' '/iarax^ivM' 
 
 zardyc/j v, dyoj. 
 zardzsifiar zaroczXho/xai, 
 
 ii. 38. 
 (xaraxp//xa* zaTdzoicig, ii. 
 
 38. 
 (zocrazvPiivw zvphvoj.) 
 xaraAaXid' zaraXccAsw 
 za-aXdXogv. -^i^u^iffrai, 
 
 i. 128. 
 
 (ddvu.) 
 zaraXXayyi v. haX\a.yn' 
 
 d'xaXkayr,. 
 zazcOJ^dcGO)' bidKkd660). 
 
 i. 176. 
 xaraX^aa* ^ivoboyjToy 
 
 zaTaiMaM&dvM' zuravoiu^ 
 
 ii. 38. 
 zaravapzdw y.ura^aosoj, 
 
 ii. 39. 
 zaravsvoj v. i'zivsvcfj. 
 zara^ysoj v. a^srcw. 
 ;jara^r/^w tsXsiou- (5ri- 
 
 ^SOOO' dvaTATjOOOJ. 
 
 zaraffZivd^M' 'rroiiu, ii.39. 
 zaraffvooj v. sXzvu. 
 (xararo/x/y* •TrsPiTO/j.Tj), ii. 
 
 39. 
 zarcKps^u v. z,ardycfj. 
 (zccTa(pBvyu* d'::o(pi'jyCfi' 
 
 diccipsvyoj' £X<pevyc*} v. 
 
 {zaTa(piXi(/)' (piXsu)f ii. 
 
 39. 
 zara(p^oviTVf i. 175. 
 xarsva^T-/' z.arsvdo'Tiov v. 
 
 jcars^oyC/a^w zaraz-j' 
 
 ^nvoj, ii. 39. 
 (^zaTBPydC^o/Mur ^^7«^'^' 
 
 /xa/.) 
 zars^^ofMar xara/Sa/vw. 
 (?tad;i^w £;^c«;), ii. 39. 
 xar?5^£W bthdczo), ii. 39. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 m 
 
 y.aTO-Trroi^ofjbar opdo), ii. 40. 
 'Acc&Gi^og, i. 35, 43. 
 
 40^ 
 
 -/.n^iar (j&oMia, ii. 40. 
 Tii'isac^ai' yvpasdai^ ii. 40. 
 zsvog' fMdraiog, ii. 40. 
 '/,svo(poma' [jMraioXoy'ia, ii. 
 
 40. 
 xsvoV xccra^yeoi, ii. 40. 
 
 '/Xr\o6ct)' 7Myy^dvM' r-jyyjj.- 
 
 vu, ii. 40. 
 y.XivTj' '/todiSiSarog, ii. 41. 
 '/.oivog' d^ddcc^Tog, ii. 41. 
 /CoXa^&r ri/xojpsoj. 
 xoXkv^iSTrjg' roa'riQryig, ii. 
 
 41. 
 xo/x/^w ^soct; V. sz/COfx/^u. 
 'Aorrog' /xoydog- rrovog, ii. 41. 
 xoo/Asw xaT-acptsua^w, ii. 
 
 41. 
 Ko&'Mog' ulojr doyuv rov 
 
 zod/jjou — TO"j cciojvog. 
 z^d(3j3aTog V. xX/vjj. 
 xooci^w /Soccw* zouvydi^o). 
 z^ai-TdkYj' [MiQri. 
 •/.oaroLici'j}' \syJjM. 
 K^otrsTv ri et xoaTiTv nvoc, 
 
 i. 156. 
 zpdrog v. dvva'jLig. 
 ■/.oi'ij.u: -/.Piffig, ii.4]. 
 '/.ou'TTU V. x.cfJ'.-j'Trru. 
 zrdo/xar s'p/w, ii. 41. 
 ztI^uj v. cro/iw. 
 
 XTiGTrjg' rroirirrig. 
 (^•/iTiffig. xrifffxa.) 
 xv'kXog V. yuXog. 
 Tivmg- biC-OTYig. 
 ■/.vPiOTng V. aop/97. 
 •/.oo7^oi>' (Tw/o-a* 'TTTcio/xa. 
 %wfo;* aAa/.oc, ii. 41. 
 Xayydvu V. yXYiom. 
 
 j.sw, i. 139. 
 "kaij.^dvu V. k'Ztr-jyyjiv(ri. 
 
 Xaog' Uvog. 
 
 Xa-oiiu' dovXiiw Xarpsuw 
 
 Xsyw V. XccXsu. 
 Xiirovoyioj' hoctrroo)' >.£/- 
 
 Xoyi6[jjog' v67]iMa, ii. 41. 
 
 Xuyog* hriixci. 
 
 Xoi'TTor fXiXXov, ii. 42. 
 
 Xo-JW vI'TTTOJ, ii. 42. 
 X-jfj^a/vo/Mar ^XditTW 
 
 (pds'iPM. 
 Xuw XvT^ou, ii. 42. 
 fMuxPodvfMia V. dvoyyj. 
 li>aXa%\u,' j/oVoc, ii. 42. 
 [idXXor iiXmv^ ii. 42. 
 IJM.raioXoyia v. zsvopuvicc, 
 l^draiog v. xsvo's* /^ara/e- 
 
 (j^drTiV V. s/xTj. 
 [j,dyi6^ai' [jAyoLi, i. 116- 
 
 [x,iyaX\j\i(f) V. uh/iu. 
 H-'i&ri V. '/.oatrrdy.ri. 
 
 i. 116. 
 
70 
 
 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 ratPC/j' fiiraivsu. 
 
 [LikiTao)' fjbi^tfjjvduy ii. 42. 
 ,'j/sfj,<po/Mar /xw/xso/xa/ v. 
 
 afjjcijjrTTog. 
 liiPilMvav [j^zkiTu.))^ i. 239. 
 /xstfrog* 'TrXrjOYig' ys/xwi/, ii. 
 
 43. 
 /xsra* g'jv, ii. 43. 
 /xsraxaXsw v. ^agra-Ts/x- 
 
 lurakaiM^umv^ ii. 43. 
 iizravoiTv^ ii. 44. 
 lurarriiM'TroiMai, ii. 44. 
 ijjiTiyjji' xo/^w^^w• /xsrop^oj" 
 
 ovdiig. iM7ibs'::ori' oudi- 
 iroTi. fiTjXSTr ov'/isrr 
 firj'Trorv oii'^ors. fjLrj'uW 
 ov'rru. [xrirv ovn, i. 
 170. 
 
 (naivw fioAvvu, ii. 44. 
 
 fj^ifn^T/jg' ^rjXuTr,g. 
 
 (/Mic'^og' luo^ojiia.) 
 (/jL/a^iog. [UG^^OiTog. 
 ,av£/a* (M\ir,fJ^ri, ii- 44. 
 fMoyiXdXog' aXakog v. xw- 
 
 <p6g. 
 [Moytg' /xoX/f, ii. 44. 
 IMOiyaofiai' iJ.oiyi(j(/j, ii. 
 
 45. 
 
 /MOAVVOO V. fUC/JVCf}. 
 
 [J^o^^rr 6yji[j.a^ ii. 45. 
 fj^dy^og V. xo-roc. 
 fMvdog' Xoyog. 
 fMOjfxso/jLar fjLS/ii(pofiai. 
 /JbUPia' d(ps:0Guvri' avoicc* 
 [Mu^og- d\)6r,Toc, i. 247. 
 mo:* /£^6i', ii. 45. 
 ^£05• y.cimg' viujTS^og' (^ea- 
 iz/xoc) vi(f)TiPiy.6g' vi()7r,g' 
 xanorrig, i. 106. 
 v£^sX?5* i/£^oc, i. 145. 
 v?5-/o$' a^^wr cczXovg' d- 
 vorjTog, i. 247. 
 
 (vixTj- vTy.og.) 
 
 Vl'TTTU V. Xot/W. 
 
 i/o'/j/^a V. XcyiG/jjog. 
 vofj,i^Ui ii. 45. 
 i'C;/>tc;$* ivToXrj, 
 voGog V. fjLaXuxia. 
 voG(piZcfj' xAETrw, ii. 45. 
 moTa^w xaOivdcij, ii. 46. 
 ^£i'/^o^a/'Sai;/^a^6j,ii.46. 
 ^if&e* xaivog, ii. 46. 
 ^£1/0$' dXkcT^tog, ii. 46. 
 o;^xo$ V. (3d^oc. 
 obzvoi' oboicrophj, ii. 46. 
 63l/1'?j v. dibiv. 
 obvpfxoc' xXavOfxogy ii. 46. 
 oi'KiToc' '/'biog, ii. 46. 
 oi'/irrig v. SfPacwi/. 
 (o/XTj/xa* b'r/.r,Gig' cixriTri- 
 
 Piov oJ-Kia V. olxog.) 
 {oixoboixri' oixobo/xia.) 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 71 
 
 «;xrs/^gw, i. 120, 122. 
 
 fj'toiiai V. vojuZui. 
 o/or 5ui/aroy, ii. 47. 
 OKv'/jDog' doyog, ii. 47. 
 ohiyog- fJ^r/,o6c^ ii. 47. 
 fjXoTcXrj^og' rsXsiog, ii. 47. 
 
 oXo5' '^occ, ii. 47. 
 oXcor cravrc/jg, ii. 47. 
 o//',<3oor •t^«7-o$' ,/3po;i/95, ii. 47. 
 o/x/xa- opdaXfj^og- ISki-rrM, i. 
 
 192. 
 o,(Moiog' h[X(tic/ig v. /Cwc. 
 o.ao/a»/xa* oiMoiorrig^ ii. 47. 
 
 oviidog' aidyyvfi, ii. 47. 
 oj-rws* aXrtdMC, ii. 47. 
 0^6$* Tctyyc^ ii. 48. 
 OT?;' (T-TjAa/ov, ii. 48. 
 
 O'TTOTi' OTS, ii. 48. 
 
 orou* oy, i. 170. 
 
 orroixai v. /S/i-w, i. 192. 
 
 oTwg* wVrs* /Va. 
 
 (o3a,aa* o»affig.) 
 
 bodctj V. (S/A-Troj, i. 192. 
 
 op^Tj* ^o/y-o?, i. 229. 
 
 o^syoiJ,ar i-idv/jjov/xar o- 
 
 fs^/g* s'^ridu'Ji.la, i. 233. 
 hoQoivog' rr^u))\og' (o^doioc' 
 
 TOW/'/XOC* ~|ou/'o;.) 
 ()^i^oy rdffaoj. 
 (6o7i(fjfjLorrIa' op'/,og, ii. 49. 
 oV/o;' 0(ji6Tr,g' o(riuc v. dyioc, 
 
 i. 35, 41. 
 
 (orav org.) 
 o'i* ou;^/ V. ,</,>j'. 
 oj V. oVou, i. 170. 
 
 o^s/XsrTjs* yi'g&j^s/Xsr)].', 
 
 ii. 49. 
 (62)«/?w?j' 6^g/X'/j,«/a.) 
 c(pdaXfjtj6c' o;x,'j/CC v. /SAi-rw^ 
 
 i. 192. 
 o-vj^/^ao;* o-vj^/o;, ii. 49. 
 
 'Tratda.yojyog^ 'a-aih6rr}g, ii. 
 
 49. 
 TCi/w V. r-JTrw. 
 rraXaiog' doyjuog^ ii. 49. 
 TaXa/ow axu^ow, ii. 49. 
 cravovpyta' '^adiov^yicc do- 
 
 X6c'. 
 rrapdfSuffig' 'irasw/.o'^, ii. 
 
 49. 
 irctoayy'iXX^ v. diccffa(psT'j. 
 rra^axocXsw '^raoafMvfsc- 
 
 /Af/j, ii. 49. 
 craPotKV'TrTU' tfJ^^Xsiroi, ii. 
 
 49. 
 TaodXiog' cra^a.'^aXdffffiog, 
 
 li. 49. 
 'xccpaij.v^so/xat v. craoaxa- 
 
 Xsoj. 
 'TTasavo'ua' rTusd^a-Gig'ira" 
 
 i^d.-rTTOiiMCL' dvOlMCL V. 
 
 li. 50. 
 
 'raoa-jrixa' craoayfJj^aa, 
 li. 50. 
 
72 
 
 THE SYNONYMS 
 
 ii.50. 
 
 'ira^S'-zidTj/Mog' 'Trdoor/.og v. 
 I'svoc. 
 
 fxai, ii. 50. 
 cra^sc/r a^gff/?, ii. 50. 
 rrccooi'jAri' rrapajBoAyj. 
 
 crag V. oXog. 
 
 'Xardc<soi' 'TtaiM' 'jrXrjaGM v. 
 
 Tayvvofiar Tw^ou/xa/, ii. 
 5l. 
 
 'Xiidcc^yin' ■j'Trordffffiffdaiy 
 
 ii.4^ 
 Tii^uw Tg/Pcc^oj, ii. 51. 
 
 '7rs\'^g' TTuyog, ii. 51. 
 rrs^ag- rsXoc, ii. 51. 
 Tsoiui^soj' d(paioicjj) ii. 52. 
 Tioi^dXXu V. hhijoi. 
 'TTBDi^oXaiov V. s!/^u,aa. 
 ■reoixd^ci^fj^cc' TSH-^vj/Jja, 
 u 52. 
 
 mffTivu V. 'TTii^ofiau 
 'TT/Avvj' d-rrdrri' ooXog- -^sv- 
 
 dog. 
 'xXsovs^ia,' (piXupyj^ia^ ii. 
 
 52. 
 tXJj^oc v. o;)^X&$. 
 TA^v, ii. 52. 
 
 'xoiiw 'TTc^dffffw hydX^afjjaj. 
 'jToi'Mahitr (Soffy.siv, ii. 25. 
 To>.s/xsw /j,d,yjj/Mai. ToXfe- 
 
 /Ao;* (xdyji^ i. 116. 
 (toXl'/xscw;' rroXuToo'Tug), 
 
 ii. 52. 
 'TroX-jTiXr/g' rroXvri/jjog, ii. 
 
 52. 
 TTovTi^ia' x-axiw irovri^og' 
 
 •/.ctxog. 
 iroGog' 'rroTa'^dg. 
 ■7Tpdyij.a' iP^yov cr^a^/c. 
 'jr^aoTTig' 'rr^airi^g v. ^V/oc, 
 
 i. 244. 
 
 TodOffM' 'TTOISCf), ii. 52. 
 C7^au5* cri'a'jrjjc, i. 244. 
 'TTos-mr yp'/j v. ^s/I 
 'TTPoynojCiKiir T^oog/^g/v 
 (o^^/'^s/i/.) 
 
 'TT^OSldoj' 'TTPOyiVOJffXOiJ. 
 
 T^os/Vw Tpos^soj' T^oXeyu 
 
 V. XccXsoj. 
 rr^oedsyofxar rrPCffXa/ufSd- 
 
 VOJ. 
 
 crooffdsyofiar £x6eyo/xa/,ii. 
 ' 53. ^ 
 
 rr^06syco v. (puXdrro/Jba/. 
 <7rp('j(jX0f/j/jja' ffxdi/daXoVy ii. 
 
 '53. 
 ^^6(pa6tg' d(poo/Mri^ ii. 53. 
 'rra/w afMUPTd^ct), ii. 53. 
 TTo'so/Mar TTUPO/Mcci, ii. 53. 
 ■rrruyog v. 'Trsnig. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 73 
 
 ':rvXr}' (-r/Xwv) v. Supa. 
 iruv&dvo'xai' hurdu, ii. 53. 
 rrv^ooj V. ytaioj, 
 ^a/3(3/^w ^a-/^w, ii. 53. 
 habio'ooyia' doXog, ii. 53. 
 oJj/Aa* Aojog, ii. 53. 
 hou,(paia- ^i(pog' /jjdyatoa, 
 
 'ii.53. 
 pU'Tog' a-TrTXog. 
 
 o•at^w• '/ioXaytzboi, ii. 54. 
 (TaXs'jw (Ts/oc raodsffoo. 
 caoyjKog' -^uy^ixog- (<rap?c/- 
 
 vog.) 
 cstw V. GaXiVM. 
 GYiiMOLhoy dsizvvw ffyjfMnou. 
 Gy}/jjsTov re^ag' rsyMrj^iov. 
 G^svocti' Grr^oil^oi' Ouva/z-ow 
 
 ffiydo[i>ai' Giojrdca, ii. 54. 
 
 G'/j^rdoy dXXo/Mai. 
 f7xX?5jog V. au5Ty}o6g, i. 242. 
 GTiO'jrio) V. (3Xi~c/j. 
 Gloria' (^GZOTog) v. <^6(poc. 
 Gf)(pia' yvujGig, ii. 54. 
 Go(p6g' GwiTog' Go^ia' gvvs- 
 
 Gtg. 
 GrTXog v. ^v-rrog. 
 Gifkdyyyci' giktioimi, \. 120. 
 G-rodog' 7s:poa' (xovig.) 
 G-nO-jbd^Cf}- G-Ts-jdoo, ii. 54. 
 GTivoyc/j:>so,'J^cx,r ^KijSofxai. 
 
 ii. 55. 
 GrsvoyMPia' ^Xi-^tg. 
 
 GTs^sooy GTTjoii^o}, ii. 55. 
 G'jyAPi'joj' sy'/ipivcn), ii. 55. 
 GvyyjM'raodGGM, l^iGTrifjji, 
 
 G-jiX'-Ka^iW G[J\U}divW GVGTi- 
 
 vd.C^c/j. 
 Gv/x-^vyor ofj,6(ppovsg' to 'iv 
 
 (ppovovvreg, i. 119. 
 Gvv&oysM V. ^ori&'iU). 
 GUViG^iu' Gu/Mcpdyoj' (CL/V- 
 
 diiWso}) V. simplicia. 
 
 Cuvsroj V. Go(p6g. 
 Gvvs-jdo'/.soj' Cyv^^o/xa/, ii. 
 
 55. 
 Gvvisvar vosn, ii. 56. 
 
 Aofjjrxi, ii. 56. 
 (cui/rj/Avw GwriXsctj}, ii- 
 
 56. 
 cy !< w3 u v w (Tu/xcra (J";)/ w • tf y (Tr £ - 
 
 GVPOJ V. sX/C-JW. 
 
 ii. 56: 
 
 ra^uGGoo' Tvp(3d^ojy ii. 56. 
 
 TUGGaj' opi^oj^. 
 
 rdycc' Taysci>g' Tctyjj vicl. 
 
 rzx'LYiq^ior r'soag v. Gi^fMm. 
 TSAiioM' 'jrXriPocij, ii. 57. 
 r5^a$ V. GrjfJ!.im. 
 r Sip Pa V. G'TTodog. 
 TiZTstv V. yswav. 
 ri/xdcA)' r/u) v. d^/ow. 
 TOtrjv V. ajoc. 
 r&Voc* yjjyooi^ ii. 57. 
 TPvpdoj- G-araXdoj, ii. 57. 
 
74 
 
 THE SYNONYMS, &C. 
 
 Touyybi' (pdyoj v. hdloj. 
 ruTTW rT'kri66'j). 
 T\)oSa.Zi6^cci V. rapdgfficdat. 
 
 u-ira^'^ic' y.TYiiLa^ ii. 57. 
 ii'jdoyjf}' iJ/M, ii. 57. 
 ■j-raxo-joj' ■Treidoij.ai, ii. 57. 
 VTsvavriog v. d\/ridiy.oc, ii 
 
 58. 
 O-TTg^sp/w diaiDiPUj, ii. 58. 
 v-rsprjOaHa v. i>/3^/?, i. 129. 
 
 •j'7riD:p^ovi7v, i. 173. 
 i-TTodi^/xa,' (javddXioVj i. 58. 
 iiToxoivo/^ar v<7roaTsXXo/xai, 
 
 ii! 59. 
 UToXa,a(3dvoj v. drroxom- 
 
 (Lai. 
 L/To/xsvw b':Teyjfi, ii. 59. 
 bcro/xovrj v. dvoyfj^ ii. 59. 
 i)TOffTsXXo/jjai V. b'^TOMbo- 
 
 (lat. 
 v'jroTdgffiGdar 'jrzi&aoyiTv, ii. 
 
 4. 
 ^dyoi V. sff&ioj. 
 (pavXoi' xccy.og, ii. 59. 
 ^g^w V. a/'pw. 
 
 (pdoyyoi' <pcf)vr}, ii. 59. 
 ^/?Jw dyocTduj i. 90. 
 ^oov>3(y/g V. 6o(pia. (ppovi/j^og' 
 
 Go(p6g. 
 (ppovsTv, i. 120. 
 (p^ovrl^siv V. (Moifjjvav^ i. 
 
 239. 
 (ppov^sn- (p'oXd.dGUv. 
 (p\jXd66i(^ai' opcly Tooc'e- 
 
 yji^ ii. 60. 
 
 ;^e?j V. a^r. 
 
 yori<sr6g. yor]6iij,oc, i. 244. 
 Ti. 60. 
 
 p/fiovoj V. a/'oiv, i. 68. 
 yojXoc' '/.vXXocy ii. 60. 
 yoj^cc V. roToc. 
 ;^W|£/V' 5£;)/gff^a/, ii. 60. 
 p/ojj/s V. ai/£i>, i. 163. 
 •^/sD^os V. d':rdrri. 
 '^i^VPifffxog' TcccTaXaXla,' 
 
 ■^I'^vPtaTyig' xardXaXo;, 
 
 i. 128. 
 ■^vy/i' rri^iufia, ii. CO. 
 -^vyixog V. ca^x/xoc. 
 w6/i/* 666i/;5, ii. 61. 
 w£C6 V. a/wv, i. 68. 
 
GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY 
 
 WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 Among the imperishable merits of Luther, in 
 relation to the church of Christ, it must, no 
 doubt, be reckoned the greatest, that he again 
 laid open the fountains of divine truth, which 
 had been for many ages concealed or corrupted ; 
 and vindicated the use of them, not only to 
 teachers and to the learned, but also to all Chris- 
 tians. But as in many other things, in which 
 he could only make a beginning, so also here, 
 he left to posterity the duty of becoming more 
 thoroughly acquainted with the sources thus 
 restored to them, and of freeing more and more 
 the doctrines drawn from these fountains from 
 the inventions of human opinions. That this 
 was not done by Luther himself, no one can 
 wonder ; although such was his genius, that had 
 he not been deprived, by the multitude of his 
 
76 ON THE GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY 
 
 other severe and pressing labours, of that lei- 
 sure which the study of ancient literature par- 
 ticularly demands, he would probably have been 
 superior to all his contemporaries in the true 
 interpretation of the New Testament. 
 
 But that after three centuries, and after the 
 labours of so many distinguished men, the in- 
 terpretation of the New Testament should not 
 yet have been regulated by any certain laws ; 
 must surely be matter of wonder to all, and 
 would seem hardly credible, unless one were 
 acquainted with the difficulties of the subject, 
 and the causes of the errors under which it still 
 labours. The number and magnitude of these 
 difficulties become more known, the longer and 
 more diligently the sacred writings are studied. 
 The nature of the errors and faults to be avoid- 
 ed is such, that the more experience one seems 
 to have in interpreting the writings of the New 
 Testament, the more difficult does it become 
 to avoid these errors. They grow indeed by 
 practice, and are so impressed by daily habit, 
 that unless the interpreter shall have been pre- 
 pared in the best manner, he is constantly more 
 or less influenced by them. Those therefore 
 who in youth, have become imbued by severe 
 study with a deep knowledge of the ancient 
 languages; and the labours of whose future 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 77 
 
 lives have left them leisure and strength to 
 fulfil the proper duties of an interpreter of the 
 New Testament, enjoy a rare felicity. The 
 lot of very many, however, is widely different ; 
 they have been able formerly to read but few 
 of the Greek authors ; and having acquired no 
 insight into the genius of the Greek language, 
 are compelled to acquiesce in the decisions of 
 the lexicons, however unsatisfactory and worth- 
 less ; and are thus unable, through want of 
 leisure and books, to make good in after life, 
 that which they have neglected in youth. On 
 the other hand, those philologians who would 
 seem to be the best qualified for the interpre- 
 tation of the New Testament, have often such 
 a distaste for the reading of the Scriptures, 
 that they most gladly abandon it to the theo- 
 logians. But although it may be doubted, 
 with Valckenaer,^ whether those who have ac- 
 quired their knowledge only in the monuments 
 of the profane writers, should on that account 
 be prohibited from the emendation and expla- 
 nation of the sacred books ; still, it is greatly 
 to be wished, that all theologians, who are in 
 a manner regarded as the only legitimate in- 
 terpreters of the New Testament, should be 
 
 a Valckenarii Orationes, Lugd. Bat. 1784, p. 288, sq. 
 
78 ()N THE GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY 
 
 able to sustain a comparison with those great 
 men, who have been so much distinguished by 
 their zeal for the study of languages, by learn- 
 ing, sagacity, and sound judgment. 
 
 A principal reason why the science of inter- 
 preting the New Testament, is not yet firmly 
 settled on its proper foundations, seems to lie in 
 the fact, that many regard the interpreter of 
 the New Testament as having nothing to do 
 with the niceties of grammar. Hence it hap- 
 pens, that even those who have best understood 
 the genius of the Greek language, have in ex- 
 plaining the sacred books paid no proper regard 
 to the laws of grammar or to the analogy of 
 language ; and the same thing has therefore hap- 
 pened to them, that has usually deterred mere 
 philologians from treating of the Scriptures. 
 They have taken it for granted, that the sa- 
 cred writers were far removed from that gram- 
 matical accuracy, the laws of which are founded 
 in the nature of language and the use of the 
 best writers ; and therefore, in explaining their 
 writings, they have supposed there was little 
 or no use in applying those laws. Indeed it has 
 even been imagined, that in seeking the true 
 sense of the sacred writers, he was exposed 
 to err the most widely, who should endeavour 
 to sul)ject their words and phrases to the ordi- 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 79 
 
 nary rules of the Greek language. Hence the 
 direction, now to take refuge in Hebraism ; or 
 again, where there is no place for Hebraism, we 
 are referred to the barbarous dialect of Alex- 
 andria ; or at last, if there is nothing similar to 
 be found in this dialect, we are told that the 
 words of the sacred writers, so incongruously 
 composed, and construed in a manner so con- 
 trary to the laws of language, must be explain- 
 ed from the connexion, and by reference to the 
 object of the writer. Inasmuch now as this 
 mode of proceeding is most pernicious, and not 
 only renders the wdiole interpretation of the New 
 Testament uncertain, but delivers over the 
 Scriptures to the caprice of every interpreter, 
 it may be worth while to spend a few moments, 
 in endeavouring to form a proper estimate of 
 the grammatical accuracy of the sacred writers. 
 Our first object will be, to explain in what 
 we suppose this grammatical accuracy to con- 
 sist. This seems the more necessary, because 
 there is here more than one error to be avoided. 
 It is therefore first of all to be remarked, that 
 we are not to treat here of that elegance of style, 
 which we admire in poets and orators. This 
 quality, w hich consists partly in the choice of 
 words and phrases, and partly in their proper 
 connexion and arrangement in sentences, it will 
 
80 ON THE GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY 
 
 be easily understood, is not to be sought for in 
 the sacred writers, any more than it is required 
 in the discourse of unlearned men. An elegant 
 selection of words, indeed, demands, in the first 
 place, that there should always be at hand a 
 copiousness of words, sufficient to express all 
 the thoughts ; so that we may not only com- 
 prehend what the writer thought, but also the 
 very manner in which he thought it, and in 
 which he wished to present it. This however 
 is a thing so difficult, and that too from such 
 a variety of causes, that although it is properly 
 expected from an author who professes to be a 
 master of the art of writing ; yet it cannot be 
 required of an unlearned man, who utters with- 
 out preparation what suddenly arises in his 
 mind, or who is compelled to write for others 
 who are destitute of all cultivation. That the 
 sacred writers are of this character, no one will 
 deny. 
 
 In the next place, it is also requisite for an 
 elegant selection of words, that the words of 
 the language employed, should suffice to ex- 
 press with perspicuity the things in which 
 others are to be instructed; so that the writer may 
 not be compelled, either to employ improper 
 words in an unusual sense, nor to choose expres- 
 sions which have only a cognate meaning. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 81 
 
 That the sacred writers were compelled to do 
 both, needs not here to be demonstrated. 
 
 Lastly, that elegance which lies in the choice 
 of words, requires that the mind of the writer 
 should neither be excited by the novelty of his 
 subject, nor agitated by the magnitude of his 
 purpose, but composed, tranquil, and never for- 
 getful of himself ; especially at the moment of 
 committing to writing the thoughts which he 
 has excogitated. But the sacred writers, re- 
 gardless of applause, and unmindful of popular 
 favour, always striving for this end alone, that 
 all things should be ':rfog o/xodofj^riv, neglected so 
 much the more this elegance of words, because 
 their minds were aroused and inflamed by the 
 magnitude of the things either done by others, 
 and especially by their divine Master, or yet to 
 be transacted by themselves. 
 
 In regard also to that elegance of style, 
 which consists in the proper construction and 
 arrangement of sentences, there is probably no 
 one w^ho W' ould demand an elegance of this sort 
 in the sacred writers. It is only in authors 
 whose chief object is to give delight, or who 
 wish to please while they instruct their readers, 
 that this species of elegance must not be w^ant- 
 ing. In those writers who desire only to in- 
 struct, and to impel to the practice of that 
 
 VOL. II. G 
 
82 ON THE GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY 
 
 which is honest and good, nothing more is re- 
 quired, than that they shall speak with perspi- 
 cuity and in a manner adapted to persuade ; for 
 the power of persuasion lies not in those allure- 
 ments of words, but in the weight of thought, 
 and in the force of a mind imbued with a sense 
 of important things, and filled as it were with 
 a divine spirit. So Paul has truly judged, 1 
 Cor. ii. 4. 
 
 I do not here fear that any should charge 
 me with doing injustice to the sacred writers. 
 That occasionally the most elegant expressions 
 and forms of speech are found in them, is ap- 
 parent to all ; and these have been sought out 
 with the greatest avidity by those defenders of 
 their style, who have been more sedulous than 
 judicious. These single forms of elegance, 
 however, cannot constitute an elegant style. 
 But as is the case with many who bestrew a 
 bad Latin style with elegant phrases, like 
 flowers, and still are as far as possible from the 
 true elegance of that language ; so here, the 
 use of well-turned phrases and elegant forms of 
 expression, can never cause the writer to be re- 
 garded as exhibiting that elegance of style, for 
 which poets and orators are celebrated. In- 
 deed, if there be in the writers of the New 
 Testament any elegance of style, it is that 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 83 
 
 which consists not in art, but springs from the 
 simplicity and greatness of the thoughts them- 
 selves ; and the less it is sought for, the more 
 certainly and deeply does it affect those to 
 whom it is addressed. That this species of 
 elegance exists in the sacred writers in the 
 highest degree, is well known to those w^ho 
 have examined the subject. 
 
 From all this it will be easily understood, 
 that while we take a liberal estimate of the 
 grammatical accuracy of the writers of the New 
 Testament, we by no means assent to the 
 opinion of those, who have attempted with 
 more zeal than success to shew, that these 
 w'riters have employed a pure Greek idiom. 
 But would that all those, who have complained 
 of the impure Greek of the New Testament 
 writers, had either themselves understood, or 
 at least explained more perspicuously than has 
 commonly been done, in what this purity of the 
 Greek language consists ! Had this been done, 
 there w^ould have been no ground for many and 
 long disputes. At present, however, we will 
 not enter upon this subject ; but rather express 
 our general acquiescence in the cautious direc- 
 tions of Ernesti :^ To inquire respecting words. 
 
 ^ Institutio Interp. N. T. Part I. Sect. II. c. 3, § 0". 
 Biblical Cabinet, VoL I. p. 102. 
 
84 ON THE GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY 
 
 and phrases^ expressing tlnngs about ivhich tJte 
 Greeks icere accustomed to speak ; and firsts 
 whether such single icords are spoken in the same 
 sense in ichich the Greeks used them ; and then, 
 whether such phrases have not only the syntax of 
 the Greeks but also the same sense which Greek 
 usages attributed to them. As to the mention 
 of syntax here, Ernesti does not seem to have 
 so understood it, as if purity of style were to 
 be principally estimated in reference to the le- 
 gitimate construction of words and phrases. 
 It is one thing to observe the grammatical laws 
 of syntax ; and it is a different thing to follow 
 the practice of approved writers and men of 
 cultivated minds, so as to express the same 
 things in the same words that they have used, 
 or in the same way, or at least in a similar and 
 congruous manner. 
 
 Whether this is actually done, is not so easy 
 to be determined as is generally supposed. For 
 a habit of speaking or writing with purity and 
 correctness, although it may appear to be un- 
 restained, is nevertheless limited by necessary 
 laws ; the reason of which is often so obscured 
 by usage, and so changed in the progress of 
 language, that it cannot in every case be en- 
 tirely ascertained. Hence it happens, that 
 words and phrases used by the most approved 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 85 
 
 writers, appear to many to have been at first 
 received without ground, and as it were b}^ ac- 
 cident ; than which opinion, none can be far- 
 ther from the truth. But syntax, properly so 
 called, consists in the mode of correctly joining 
 together all the parts of style, and depends on 
 other grounds than purity of style ; although 
 there are some things common to both. Thus 
 the principal laws of both are deduced from 
 reason, the common source of all languages. 
 We wish it therefore to be distinctly under- 
 stood, that the question about the purity of 
 style in the writers of the New Testament, is 
 entirely foreign to our present discussion ; so 
 that no one may suppose, that we rashly desire 
 to renew this ancient controversy. We are to 
 speak only of the grammatical correctness of 
 the writers of the New Testament, and we can 
 now more easily explain in what this accuracy 
 consists. 
 
 It is obvious here at the first view, that the 
 grammatical accuracy of any writer must con- 
 sist in the observance of the grammatical laws 
 of the lanofuagre which he uses. What these 
 laws are, and on what causes they depend, 
 seems to be less obvious ; inasmuch as those 
 who attempt to expound the grammatical laws 
 of a language, often expend all their labour, 
 
S() ON THE GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY 
 
 either in explaining single forms and parts of 
 style, or in shewing how these may properly 
 he joined together in order to make out a 
 whole sentence. But why this should be done 
 in this particular way, and in no other, they 
 leave unexplained, and rest satisfied with hav- 
 ing proved, by a multitude of examples, that 
 it is often so in classic writers. And although 
 the assiduous perusal of many waiters is neces- 
 sary, in order correctly to observe the laws of 
 syntax in a language ; yet the causes of those 
 laws are not to be discerned, except by a dili- 
 gent comparison of the genius of the language 
 in question, w ith the necessary modes of think- 
 ing and speaking common to all languages. 
 He, however, who is ignorant of the causes of 
 these laws, cannot properly understand their 
 use ; much less can he teach with clearness the 
 mode in which they are to be applied, nor to 
 what extent they may be changed by usage. 
 Such is the case with many interpreters ; they 
 know sufficiently well, how a word or construc- 
 tion usually is, but not 7ch?/ it is and ought to 
 be so ; and consequently, when they sometimes 
 find it otherwise, they are troubled by the un- 
 commonness of it, and cannot explain w4iy it 
 ought not to be so ; or they tfdve refuge in a 
 farrago of exceptions, as they are called. On 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 87 
 
 this account, it is proper here to treat, in a few 
 words, of the causes and sources of all gram- 
 matical laws, before we proceed to shew, how 
 far we suppose the writers of the New Testa- 
 ment have observed them. 
 
 There are in every language two kinds of 
 laws. The first kind are in their very nature 
 necessary, so that they are and must be found 
 of the same or of a similar character in all lan- 
 guages. The other kind consists of those laws 
 which spring from the peculiar genius of any 
 particular language. The former kind are ne- 
 cessary, because they arise out of the very na- 
 ture of all human language, that is from reason 
 itself, and can therefore never be violated, but 
 must always be observed. So that if any one 
 should speak in a manner different from what 
 these laws require, he would compel his hearers 
 to connect in thought things which cannot be 
 so joined even in thought ; as if a father should 
 say, ^^yhvYiGo, <tou; or if any one should call him 
 who is the son of Philip, ^iXi-r-rrov --aloa. Here 
 it is not possible, that he who has begotten 
 another, should at the same time be conceived 
 of as having the cause of generation .in that 
 other, which is the force of the genitive ; or 
 that he who is to be represented as the son of 
 
88 ON THE GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY 
 
 Philip, should really be conceived of as a son, 
 when no relation to a father is indicated. The 
 reason of these laws is particularly conspicuous 
 in the Greek prepositions, where their own 
 peculiar force demonstrates the cause, why 
 they are to be necessarily joined with one, two, 
 or three cases. Thus if we accurately consider 
 the proper signification of each preposition, it 
 will not be difficult to see, why d~o ij and t^o can 
 only be joined with the genitive, and £/'; only 
 with the accusative; as also why dia and xara 
 not only may be, but also ought to be con- 
 strued, sometimes with the genitive and some- 
 times with the accusative. 
 
 But there are also other laws, which, as 
 springing from the nature of a particular lan- 
 guage, and being in a manner peculiar to it, 
 are not in the same degree necessary ; so that 
 it is possible to conceive of a sufficient reason, 
 why a style may be complete and perfect, 
 although these laws are neglected. Hence it 
 arises, that idioms, which are introduced by 
 usage contrary to the general laws of a lan- 
 guage,*^ are not to be regarded as faulty ; and 
 that what may appear as solecisms to the un- 
 learned, are sometimes in fact the most elegant 
 
 " See Hermann ad Vigeium, Leips. 1822, p. 80'5. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 89 
 
 figures ((r;^^/xara) of style.^ The reason of 
 these grammatical laws then, although in it- 
 self perhaps obvious, is often greatly obscured 
 by opposite usage ; so that it is not wonderful, 
 that the precepts of grammarians respecting 
 this part of syntax, should either not have been 
 understood by those who judge of the nature 
 of language only by number and case ; or 
 should not have been sufficient to enable us in 
 all instances certainly to determine, whether 
 one has written correctly or incorrectly. It is 
 obvious, however, that in estimating the gram- 
 matical accuracy of any writer, these different 
 species of grammatical laws must be distin- 
 guished. If a writer violate those laws, of 
 which reason and the nature of things always 
 require the observance, he cannot be said to 
 use the language of man ; but if he neglect the 
 other species of laws, we must first examine, 
 whether there is not some probable cause for 
 this neglect. On this account it will be well 
 to treat of the two species of laws separately. 
 
 In the first place then, although it mav be 
 taken for granted that the sacred writers have 
 observed the necessary laws of the Greek lan- 
 guage, — otherwise they would hardly seem to 
 
 ^ Compare ApoUonius Alex. De Constructione Orationis, 
 L. III. p. 197. ed. Bekker. 
 
00 ON THE GRAM-AIATICAL ACCURACY 
 
 have spoken like men endowed with reason, — 
 yet it may be worth while to look more closely 
 at the subject, than has usually been done. 
 There are those who, in interpreting the New 
 Testament, care very little for the observance 
 of any laws ; and if the words of any writer in- 
 terpreted grammatically, that is, according to 
 the laws of language, express a sentiment fo- 
 reign to their system or to their private opi- 
 nions, they do not hesitate to disregard entirely 
 those laws, and, neglecting the proper force of 
 the words, contend, that the writer has said 
 what no one in his senses ever could have said 
 by means of such words. And we could show 
 by a multitud.e of examples, how many false 
 interpretations which have sprung up out of a 
 hatred of orthodoxy, rest solely upon the opi- 
 nions of men, who, because they have taken it 
 for granted, that the sacred writers did not ob- 
 serve even the necessary laws of language, 
 have supposed that their words might be made 
 to signify just what they themselves pleased. 
 Inasmuch, however, as the interpretation of the 
 New Testament would be destitute of all cer- 
 tain rule and method, unless we observe at 
 least those laws of language, the neglect of 
 which implies also incorrectness of thought, we 
 will endeavour to show by some examples, that 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 91 
 
 the sacred writers have observed even those 
 laws in which few require accuracy or can 
 judge of it. 
 
 To begin with the prepositions ; for there is 
 no signification, however repugnant, which has 
 not been assigned to each of the prepositions 
 in the New Testament ; and moreover we shall 
 learn to estimate more correctly the accuracy 
 of the sacred writers in a grammatical view, if 
 we find them paying a strict regard even to 
 those laws, which, although necessary, are yet 
 by few regarded as necessary. The nature of 
 the prepositions, as I have remarked above, is 
 such, that they can either govern only one 
 case, or they admit two or more cases ; in such 
 a way, however, that, according to the variety 
 of their signification, they require necessarily 
 some one particular case. I do not however 
 fear, in asserting that this nature of the pre- 
 positions has been accurately observed by the 
 sacred writers, that any one will consider me 
 as on this account attributing a refinement to 
 the style of unlearned men. It is necessary 
 rather to be on our guard, lest in denying to 
 the sacred writers those things which are re- 
 garded as peculiar to men of more cultivated 
 minds, we should seem to approach them with 
 
92 ON THE GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY 
 
 faults which are scarcely to be excused in per- 
 sons even of the lowest class. 
 
 The force of the prepositions, as Hermann 
 has justly remarked, '^ does not depend upon 
 the cases which they govern ; but it is to be 
 explained from the verbs on which the prepo- 
 sitions themselves depend. It follows from 
 this, that a preposition, even if it retain the 
 same signification as to the general notion of 
 the thing expressed, may yet require a diffe- 
 rent case, provided the verb on which that pre- 
 position depends, changes in any way the mode 
 of conceiving the relation of that thing. For 
 if prepositions serve to indicate the relations of 
 ideas, the cause is apparent, both why they 
 govern cases at all, and why they govern only 
 one case, or why they govern different cases, 
 if the verb on which they depend changes the 
 mode of conceiving that relation. Some go- 
 vern but a single case, because the idea ex- 
 })ressed by the verb on which they depend, 
 necessarily demands that case ; for the force of 
 these prepositions is such, that if other cases 
 v.ere joined to them, the very idea of the verb 
 would be contradicted. Others again govern 
 more cases, because the idea contained in them 
 
 f Hermann, De ejnejidenda ratioiie Graecae Grainniat. 
 J,. 102. 
 
or THE NEW TESTA-MENT. 93 
 
 is such, that it may be conceived of in various 
 relations, though in a different manner ; and 
 hence they may be joined with verbs of diffe- 
 rent species, which govern different cases. 
 
 By verbs of different species, I mean those 
 which indicate the diiferent modes in which the 
 relation of two things may be conceived. Thus 
 ihai and "cc.y^zG'^at are different species of verbs ; 
 for when we couple the notion of any two 
 things by means of ihai, we signify nothing 
 more, than that these two notions are in some 
 way connected ; but h-xis^"-' properly indicates 
 motion, by which the relation of place is chang- 
 ed. Now^ motion may be conceived of in a 
 threefold view, as either z??, or from, or to a 
 place ; and therefore the verb i^yja^at governs 
 also three cases, and calls to its aid those preposi- 
 tions, which serve to express those different 
 relations. A person is, therefore, correctly 
 said u-o'Wo-j ilvai, and O-o 'ix/w, when he is under 
 (at, near) Ilium ; but if he is to be represented 
 as coming to Ilium, so as to be under it, he is 
 said v~b "l/jov soyjff^iau The reason, therefore, 
 why Homer says : alcyjs-og bz d\ir,o l-o "iKiov tjk^z, 
 is to be sought in the verb ^X^s. Had he said 
 uto'Ia/w v-^f? it would have signified that he 
 came to Ilium, but that being under Ilium, he 
 had come to some particular place there. For the 
 
94 ON THE GRAiMMATICAL ACCURACY 
 
 same reason we find, Luke vii. 6. ha ii-b -//v 
 G-syr,'j 2/V£a3?5?. In the following passages the 
 reason of the construction is different ; Mark 
 IV. 32, i/To rr,v ffzidv aurov ra cnrnvu roii ov^avou 
 ■7raTaff-/.'/jvovv, John l. 49, O'/ra 'u~o rri'j ffvxriv. 1 
 Cor. X. 1. ij'Tb rrt'j vipXrjv rim> In these instan- 
 ces the verbs xaraffx-zji-oDi/ and g?w./, seem to re- 
 quire not the accusative, but the genitive or 
 dative ; so that at first view one is tempted to 
 suppose that the writers have erred against the 
 necessary laws of language. But there is 
 either a probable reason why vto should be 
 joined with the accusative in a relation of this 
 sort, or else the best writers have erred in like 
 manner. So Xenophon, Anab. III. 4, i:p n^ r, 
 ■/.UTufSadi; riv s/g ro -soiov Herodotus II. 137, ovrs 
 yao \i'7ri6Ti 6/>.>;,aara jto yriw In Homer also and 
 other writers, Ocro is very often construed with 
 the accuative, when the verb from which it 
 depends seems rather to require the dative. 
 But if we carefully look at all the examples of 
 this sort, it will easily be seen, that the accu- 
 sative is used in order to make more conspi- 
 cuous the fact, that a thing or person is so con- 
 nected with another thing, that the latter is to 
 be conceived of and regarded as an adjunct or 
 accident of the former. The noun, therefore, 
 which is put in the accusative, is such as de- 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 95 
 
 notes either the p/ace in which any thing- is or 
 happens, or the time at which it happens ; for 
 time and place are necessary adjuncts in all 
 things. So when it is said (1 Cor. x. 1,) 
 that the fathers were all uto rttv vspXr,v, we are 
 to bear in mind, that while they were journey- 
 ing, the cloud was always with them ; but had 
 it been b-b vspXri;, it would have expressed no- 
 thing more than that they had been once under 
 a cloud ; which was not the intention of the 
 writer. 
 
 Should any one be disposed to regard this 
 distinction as more subtle than true, let him re- 
 flect why all good Greek writers say v-h yuzra, 
 vp" riH,ioav, and not C'TO vu-/.Th;, ■j;p' r^fji^spixgy when 
 they wish to express that any thing was done 
 by night or in the day time. Not unfrequently 
 we are able to see why a thing ought to be said 
 in a certain way, when we perceive that the 
 same could not have been said in any other way. 
 
 The principle is also the same, in regard to 
 the preposition o/a. When dia, governs the ge- 
 nitive, it denotes the cause h?/ or tlirovgh which 
 a thing is or exists, or the manner in which a 
 thing is done or becomes such as we would re- 
 present it. With the accusative, on the other 
 hand, oia marks the cause on account 0/ which 
 a thing is done or conceived to be done. Thus 
 
96 ON THE GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY 
 
 in Heb. ix. 12, it is properly said, Xpiarhg did 
 ^ou ihiox) a'iiMarog s/V^X^si/ iig tol dyia, for it is the 
 mode in which he entered that is here spoken 
 of. So also it is correctly said in Rev. xii. 11, 
 Wr/.Ttda'j rev '/.arriyooov did ro ai[i,a rov -doyiov zai hid rh 
 }.6yov T7\c, /MUPT-j^iag oJjtoov. Here we are to con- 
 ceive of them as overcoming out of regard to 
 ro r/j/xa x.ai rov Xoyov, as if these were the cause 
 on account of which they were impelled to 
 conquer; for they did not regard their own 
 lives, as is immediately subjoined : ouz rjyd-rjGa.^ 
 rr,v •\\)yjiv ah-m, dyj^i '^avdrov. And although the 
 cause which impelled them to conquer, also 
 gave them strength and power for the victory, 
 yet the mode of conceiving of it in this first 
 relation is different. Here therefore we are to 
 think not only of the efficient cause, which 
 enabled them to overcome, but also of the im- 
 pelling cause, which induced them to under- 
 take the contest. The case is similar in 1 John 
 ii. 12, on d(psuvrai u^(mTv a) dfj^aoricci did rh o>o,aa avroZ, 
 For if John had written did rov ov6/xarog, we must 
 have supposed ro ovo/jju avrou to be the effi- 
 cient cause of the remission of sins ; which, 
 however, is not the meaning of the apostle ; and 
 we are to regard them as having obtained re- 
 mission on account of\ for the aahe of, his name. 
 And when it said, John vi. 57, xayw ^&; did rov 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 97 
 
 cannot doubt that dice denotes not so much the 
 efficient cause, (certainly not that alone,) as 
 the end or object in which the reason of living 
 is to be sought ; for as the reason why Christ 
 lived on earth was in the Father who sent him, 
 (since it was the object of his life to fulfil the 
 commands of the Father,) so those live because 
 of or on account oj Christ, who yield obedience 
 to his doctrines. 
 
 The same holds true also when hd seems to 
 denote the impulsive cause, as it is called : as 
 bicc (p'^mv^ did ff-rrXdy^va sAsoyg SsoD- very similar tO 
 which is also John x. 32, oid --oTov t^yov Xi'^d^sT: fxs. 
 It is obvious, if he had here said did miov l^yoy, 
 we must have thought, not on the deed on ac- 
 count o/'which, but on the manner in which, they 
 wished to stone him ; just as if one should say 
 Old }j^uv Ki'^dt^iiv. Here also, then, did denotes 
 not per, but propter ; and is correctly joined 
 with the accusative. On the other hand, in 
 Acts iii. 16, 7] 'jTiGTig 7} 6/ au-ou is not t/ct/c dg 
 avrov, but the Tiffrtg of which he is the author 
 and cause. In 2 Pet. i. 3, piocXkavTog rj/xdg did 
 du^ng Ttai a^srJjc, it is not he who calls us to do^av 
 yea! d^iTTjv, that is meant ; but he who calls us 
 through do^av zai d^srriv avrov, ha did rovrm rr.g 
 ^iiag -/.oivuvoi pvdCfjg ysvu)/M^^a, V. 4, comp. 1 Pet* 
 H 
 
98 ON THE GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY 
 
 ii. 9. For the highest ooga xa) doirri of God are 
 exhibited in this vocation. Had it been the 
 purpose to direct our attention to the object or 
 end to which they are called, it must have been 
 written bia rr.v ^o^av xoci d^sTTiv. But the mean- 
 ing of the formula did d6t,rig in 2 Cor. iii. 11, is 
 the same as is found in many other instances, 
 where bid either denotes the mode in which a 
 thing is done, as bid vz-o,(Movr,g, Rom. viii. 23 ; 
 Heb. xii. 1, and bid v6/j.ov zpi^/iffovrai, Rom. ii. 12 ; 
 or it indicates the cause through or by which a 
 thing is done, as bid rrig caoythg^ Rom. v. 19 ; viii. 
 8, and bi^ o\> xa/ rr]v 'x^odaytayrtV scy^7i'/.ocfXiv, Rom. V. 
 2, comp. V. 1, 11. Hence we understand why 
 Peter could say correctly in 2 Pet. iii. 5, yri ij 
 vbaTog zal bi' vbarog ffwicruffa ruj ro\j SsoD aojuj. 
 Here Jg vbarog signifies that the earth arose out 
 of the water, as if water were the material. 
 This was done 6/ vbaroc, through the efficacy of 
 the water itself, in the omnipotent w ill of God. 
 What is subjoined in v. 6, 6/ &v 6 tots xCs/Mog vban 
 zarayj.va'^slc d-'djl-iro, has been rightly interpret- 
 ed by Markland (ad Lysiam p. 329 ed Reisk.) 
 in the same manner as a thing is said to be 
 done bid nvcc, i. e. durinc; the existence of 
 something else ; as in the passage itself of 
 Lyias, yvu)^i/Mg yivC/Xivog bid rrig sy.sivov buva- 
 GTsi'ag, i. e. durante fjiis pof estate. So also 
 in Rom. ii. 27, rhv bid ypdfM/x/j.Tog xui m^i-0- 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 99 
 
 fhv\g^ and iv. 11, rm cT/ffrs'joi/rwv bi dx^oSvcfriag. 
 Lastly, in the celebrated passage, Rom. iii. 25, 
 Paul has correctly said, that God constituted 
 Christ }Xaff-y]oiov dia r/i; 'Tiffnu;, (for the }Xaff^lg 
 comes through faith,) and has thereby mani- 
 fested rriv dr/i(xw(S-j\/7jv aurou bta r7\v ^dpsffiv ruiv d[i,a^- 
 rri'j.d-oi'j, i. e. on account of (propter) the pardon 
 of sins ; plainly as in Rom. iv. 25, og cra^sSo^'/j 
 bia. ra <7:aoai:TiS}iJ^aTa 7]fJi,U)V zai rr/sp^T} did r^v dixaidj^iv 
 Tifj^Mv, on account o/'pardon and salvation, or that 
 we might obtain pardon and salvation. As the 
 apostle says in 1 Cor. viii. 2, hid rdg rroomag 
 s'/taffTog TTjv suurou ywuTza sy/-ru, {i. e, on account 
 of, or in order to avoid, fornication,) so also in 
 the above passage he has correctly said ; o ^so? 
 rr^oi^iTo a\i-h ikaffr/jPiov did rrig •T/Vnwc, s/g hhit^iv 
 rrig dizaioavr/jg cciirov did rr^v ■:raps(riv ruiv dfj^asrrifMdr'jr,' 
 for this is the end of rJj; dr/,aio(fJ'jrig, that we may 
 obtain pardon. 
 
 These examples suffice to shew, that the 
 sacred writers have observed at least the ne- 
 cessary laws of language with more fidelity 
 than is generally supposed. We pass there- 
 fore to the other species of laws, or those pe- 
 culiar to the Greek tongue. This topic is a 
 very ample one, and covers, so to speak, the 
 Avhole usus locpiendi, of that language ; and it 
 cannot therefore be expected, that we should 
 here explain every thing in which the inter- 
 
100 ON THE GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY 
 
 preters of the New Testament have found a 
 departure from Greek usage. The subject of 
 Greek idioms, for instance, has not yet been 
 so clearly explained and settled, that every 
 idiom may be at once referred to a certain rule ; 
 nor so that the causes can every where be as- 
 signed, in consequence of which usage has 
 correctly introduced forms and modes of speak- 
 ing, which are contrary to the grammatical laws. 
 In general, the genius of the Greeks was so 
 active and rapid, that their language abounds 
 in forms and figures of this sort, more than any 
 other ; and as these do not rest on the autho- 
 rity of law, and seem often to depend on mere 
 taste or caprice, they render this part of Greek 
 grammar exceedingly difficult, and are regard- 
 ed by the unskilful as faults. Hence, even the 
 ancient grammarians have sometimes named 
 those forms of speaking solecisms, which, when 
 occurring in the best writers, they have called 
 Jigures, 6')(7ifMaTa^ of the Greek language. And 
 since those who have formed their estimate of 
 that language from the jejune precepts of these 
 grammarians, have of course not understood 
 the nature of these cyjuxaTci' they have often 
 regarded the sacred penmen as writing incor- 
 rectly, when they have only used the same 
 license which is found in the best Greek au- 
 thors. The sacred writers duly observe the 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 101 
 
 laws of grammar ; but not always the laws of 
 the grammarians. And it is truly said by 
 ApoUonius Alexandrinus, De Constructione 
 OratlOJiis, III. 2, ou d'/j yi ^ri^oriGn ric, akoyoxjg rag 
 7oice.'jraz ffvvrd^sig (pdvat, ruv sXXoyifAurdrojv dvdouv 
 -^o'/jffafjjsvuvj xai ro\J Xoyo'j ovk sfATodt^ovroc,' ^^Xov ouv 
 'Jig Tj Kara -oX'j ysvofMsvri ffuvra^ig d<7rrjvsy/caro rriv ovo- 
 fMaGiav o5 Xoyw x,ai aXka Kara tXsov s'riK^drTjds, '' No 
 one indeed will undertake to call such con- 
 structions improper, since they are employed 
 by the most approved writers, and are not con- 
 trary to reason. It is manifest, therefore, that 
 the predominant construction has borne off the 
 name, just as other things also prevail by 
 numbers." 
 
 Thus, for example, when it said in the Apo- 
 calypse (i. 5, 6,) d'n'b 'Irjffov XPiffrov, 6 /j^d^rvg 6 
 ■TTiffrog, — xaiod^^uv ruv^affiXsuvrjjg yr^g' rw dya^xr^tsani 
 rjijjdg Tcai Xouffavri r}fidg xai s'Tro/rjffsv yj/Jjdg jSasiXsTg' 
 auru) Ti do'^a z. r. X. there seems, at first view, to 
 be almost as many solecisms as there are 
 words. Sed salva res est. We grant, indeed, 
 that this form of apposition is somewhat un- 
 usual ; and if it had stood og /Mdorvc, no objection 
 could have been made. As to the solecism 
 which is commonly found in the following 
 words, as if the dative rw dyaTrimvn were to be 
 referred to octo, this comes not from the apostle, 
 
102 ON THE GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY 
 
 but from the transcribers. The full sentence 
 is completed with y^c, and the datives are to 
 be referred to the following avru) ri 6oJa* for 
 nothing is more common than the insertion of 
 this pronoun, referring back to the article at 
 some distance before it. There remains then 
 nothing to give offence, except the consecution 
 of the indicative after participles ; and there 
 are probably those who hold this to be an error 
 of the apostle. But even* this is not without 
 some probable grounds. For since the parti- 
 ciple partakes of the nature of an adjective, it 
 is easy to see, that he who says 6 a^aT^aac, 
 means nothing more than he who loved ; which 
 is the same as if he had said og Yr/d':TYi6iv. There 
 is, therefore, no incongruity, in referring an 
 indicative joined with a participle in the same 
 period, to the same subject ; because in both, 
 there is the designation of an adjective or pre- 
 dicate. Nor was it necessary that the Ig which 
 is implied in the participle, should be repeated 
 before J^or/j^r since it is necessarily understood. 
 The omission of a word does not render the 
 style incomplete or incongruous, provided it be 
 plainly implied in what is said ; neither does a 
 change of case produce this eifect, unless there 
 should be no word expressed or implied, which 
 may properly govern one ortheotherofthecases. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 103 
 
 But if there be any thing faulty in figures of 
 this kind, then the writings of the prince of 
 poets swarm with errors ; for in Homer such 
 constructions are very frequent. So II. VI. 
 509, 510. 
 
 — -j-^ov 5j '/.doyj "i'/it, cc[j.:pi 3s yjx7rat 
 oiijL<pa s yovva <p?^ii . 
 
 " He bears his head aloft, his mane floats 
 around his shoulders; but he, trusting in his 
 beauty, his limbs lightly bear him," etc. 
 So also 513, 514. 
 
 *' He advanced exulting, and his swift feet 
 bore him." 
 
 But here follows a passage, in which all the 
 constructions occur, that have given so much 
 offence in the Apocalypse ; II. VI. 479, ff. 
 
 Ttai rroTs rig s'Jrrrj 6v 'jrar^og 3' oys 'ttoXXov d/j^sivuv ! 
 SK 'TToXsjuov dviovra' (pisoi 3' svasa (Soorosvra, 
 zrsivag d'/j/ov dvdpa. 
 
 " And then may some one say, He is far 
 braver than his father, him returnins: from bat- 
 tie ; and may he bring back bloody spoils, hav- 
 ing slain a foe." 
 
104 ON THE GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY 
 
 In truth, it is the very nature of such figures 
 as these, to render the style, which would 
 otherwise be encumbered by too many words, 
 more adapted to express the ideas. The power 
 of language does not consist alone in this, that 
 the same idea should be excited in the mind of 
 the hearer, which existed in that of the speak- 
 er ; but also that it should be perceived, and, 
 as it were, felt in the same manner and degree 
 by the former, as it presented itself to the mind 
 of the latter. If now any one will reduce 
 those words of Hector to the rules of syntax, 
 he will at once see, that they express indeed 
 the same ideas, but in a manner far different 
 from that in which those images affected the 
 mind of Hector himself. 
 
 Should it now be said, that figures of this 
 sort, in orators and poets, are artificial and ob- 
 jects of research, but are in the apostles unde- 
 signed and accidental ; it may be replied, that 
 the question is, not what is said with art and 
 study, but what is said correctly. The best 
 writers, whether poets or orators, or historians, 
 are applauded, not because they have studious- 
 ly sought for single words and forms, but be- 
 cause they have, as it were, naturally and in- 
 stinctively, written or spoken in the manner 
 which the subject required, and not necessarily 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 105 
 
 in that prescribed by the syntax of the gram- 
 marians. 
 
 It has also been objected to the sacred pen- 
 men, that while different classes of authors 
 usually have characteristics peculiar to them- 
 selves, the style of the writers of the ^ew Tes- 
 tament is mixed up from every kind of writing ; 
 that while the peculiarities of tragic authors, 
 for instance, are foreign to the style of the ora- 
 tor and historian, in the New Testament all is 
 found mingled together. This representation 
 is not without the appearance of truth ; but the 
 objection may be easily removed. For first, 
 the nature of the style of the sacred writers is 
 such, as to approach as near as possible to the 
 common usus loquendi of ordinary life. But 
 this usus^ which governs alike the learned and 
 the unlearned, is of such a nature, that it sub- 
 mits with difficulty to the fetters of syntax, so 
 far as the laws of this latter are not necessary 
 and essential ; either because the thoughts are 
 uttered in an unpremeditated manner and as 
 rapidly as possible ; or because the mutual in- 
 terchange of thought does not require or bear, 
 either a multitude of words, nor fulness of 
 construction ; or because, when speaking in 
 the presence of one another, men do not need 
 to express every idea fully in words, since tone. 
 
106 ON THE GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY 
 
 and expression, and gesture can then aiFord 
 their aid for the full understanding of what is 
 uttered. It is therefore not surprising, that 
 this mixed kind of writing should be found in 
 the New Testament ; and of him who best 
 understands the causes of this style, we should 
 not hesitate to say, that he is the best inter- 
 preter of the sacred writers. It is also to be 
 borne in mind, that those peculiar modes of 
 speaking, as they are called, are not so exclu- 
 sively appropriated to particular classes of 
 writers, but that they may be employed by all 
 those whose minds are aifected in the same 
 manner. The modes of expression found in 
 poets, are not peculiar to them merely because 
 their language is regulated by numbers ; but 
 because their thoughts are of such a kind as to 
 require, or best to bear, these modes of ex- 
 pression ; and therefore he who should think 
 the same things in the same manner, might 
 properly apply the same species of language. 
 The sacred writers, therefore, are not to be 
 censured, because they have promiscuously 
 employed every species of expression, provided 
 only their style has sufficient symmetry and 
 congruity. On this point, it is more difficult 
 to form a judgment than many suppose, who 
 declare that the sacred writers paid no regard 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 107 
 
 to grammatical accuracy, because they appear 
 sometimes to have used middle verbs for pas- 
 sives, or to have erred in some other manner. 
 This last question, however, refers not to the 
 observance of grammatical laws, but to purity 
 of language, as has been remarked above. 
 
 Such then being the result of our inquiries, 
 it follows, that in order that the interpretation 
 of the New Testament may not be left in a 
 state of entire uncertainty, every interpreter 
 should prescribe it as a rule to himself to pay 
 a strict regard to the nature of the grammati- 
 cal laws, and never in any case to depart from 
 them, nor have recourse to Hebraisms, until 
 he clearly sees, that a passage interpreted 
 according to those laws alone, must be despair- 
 ed of. 
 
SIMPLICITY IN THE INTERPRETATION 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 That the church of Christ is governed not by 
 the will of man, but by the Spirit of God, we 
 are admonished by the approach of the holy 
 festival, on which we are to celebrate the re- 
 membrance of that Pentecost, when the apos- 
 tles were first divinely imbued with this same 
 Spirit, in accordance with the promise which 
 our Lord had given them at his departure 
 from the world. At that time, indeed, it was 
 the case, as often happens to those who seek 
 the hope of safety or the cause of fear in the 
 external vicissitudes of things, that the full im- 
 port of the high benefit which the apostles 
 then received, was understood by very few. 
 
OF THE NEAV TESTAMENT. 109 
 
 Kor was it entirely comprehended at a later 
 period, when the church had become corrupted 
 by the lust of power and the authority of mere 
 human opinions. But in this our day, when 
 we behold all things governed by an external 
 power, and the laws of right reason haughtily 
 contemned, it is very seldom that men raise 
 their minds to the contemplation of the holy, 
 pure, divine, internal, and eternal kingdom of 
 God ; but borne down under the sense of pre- 
 sent evils, they either acquiesce through tor- 
 por in those things which they see and feel to 
 be inevitable, or are compelled, however un- 
 willingly, to yield to them the service of their 
 whole lives. ^ There are also not a few^ so for- 
 getful of the promise of our Lord that he will 
 bestow TO crv2L//xa TTiC dXri^siug upon his church, as 
 to regard the church of Christ as little other 
 than a human institution. But this opinion is 
 refuted by the voice of time ; for never has the 
 Spirit of God wholly deserted the church, even 
 in the periods of her greatest danger ; and never 
 will the same Spirit cease to direct and govern 
 her in future, but will preserve her, though sur- 
 
 a There would seem to be in this sentence a general allu- 
 sion to the pohtical thraldom and despondent feeling of Ger- 
 many, at the period when the article was written. — Ed. 
 
110 SIMPLICITY IN INTERPRETATION 
 
 rounded with eminent perils, until the final 
 consummation of all human things. 
 
 It is however the duty of all, especially in 
 these our days, to watch and see how^ the in- 
 fluence and power of the divine Spirit may be 
 preserved and augmented among Christians. 
 It is incumbent particularly on those who have 
 consecrated their lives to learning, to beware, 
 lest through their fault this light of human 
 life should be obscured or extinguished. This 
 may happen, it is to be feared, chiefly through 
 the neglect of those, by whose erudition and 
 zeal the word of God, that instrument through 
 which the Holy Spirit operates, ought to be 
 daily more thoroughly understood and made to 
 illuminate more and more strongly the life of 
 man, that thus the Gospel may be preserved 
 in its purity in the church for ever. For if 
 the Spirit of God operates through the power 
 which is inherent in the word of God, it is ob- 
 vious, that this divine gift can neither be pre- 
 served, nor the church remain secure, unless 
 the sacred Scriptures, correctly interpreted by 
 men of real learning, are open and accessible 
 to all Christians, so that they may draw from 
 this pure fountain the precepts and principles 
 that are necessary, in order to the right dis- 
 charge of all their duties towards God and 
 man. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 111 
 
 This subject of the interpretation of the 
 New Testament, however, although exceed- 
 ingly ample, has yet been so often treated of 
 by learned writers, that there seems scarcely a 
 remaining topic on which to make suggestions 
 relative to the true method of interpretation. 
 Inasmuch, however, as the most useful pre- 
 cepts can avail nothing, unless the interpreter 
 possess that disposition and those qualities 
 which enable him rightly to employ them, we 
 therefore do not fear that we shall lose our la- 
 bour, should w^e dwell for a few moments on 
 some of those qualities of which an interpreter 
 must not be destitute, and thus attempt either 
 to excite the learned or instruct the ignorant. 
 Other writers, and especially Ernesti, have 
 spoken of the manner in which the judgnient 
 of the interpreter is to be exercised and formed. 
 But in regard to the general qualities, charac- 
 ter, and disposition of mind, which are required 
 for the proper interpretation of the New Tes- 
 tament, there seems yet to be room for other 
 remarks ; especially on that simplicity which 
 all recommend in interpreting the New Testa- 
 ment, but which very few understand, and to 
 which still fewer have attained. This topic, 
 therefore, we will now briefly discuss. 
 
 It will first be necessary to define and deter- 
 
112 SIMPLICITY IN INTERPRETATION 
 
 mine in what simplicity in the interpretation of 
 the New Testament consists. It differs from 
 that facility which, when conjoined with sim- 
 plicity, Ernes ti does not hesitate to call the 
 chief excellence of an interpreter.'' This faci- 
 lity? which requires an interpretation to be 
 such as to present itself spontaneously to the 
 mind, has indeed thus much in common with 
 simplicity, viz. that the interpretation must 
 not be sought with art and subtilty, but must, 
 as it were, voluntarily offer itself to the mind. 
 It is however possible, that an interpretation 
 which is difficult to be made out, may at the 
 same time be extremely simple; while others, 
 less simple, may put on the appearance of 
 facility. Indeed an interpretation in itself 
 simple, often requires great skill and study in 
 order to arrive at it. The facility of an in- 
 terpretation, moreover, consists not only in the 
 circumstance, that it may seem to be found 
 without labour, but also therein, that it pre- 
 sents a facile sense, i. e. a sense which connects 
 itself easily with the views, object, and cha- 
 racter of the writer. In this view also simpli- 
 city is connected with facility ; and both are 
 
 ^ Institut. Interp. N. T. P. II. c. 1. § 22. ed. Ainmon. 
 See Biblical Cabinet, Vol. I. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 113 
 
 opposed to every thing that is subtile and 
 forced.^ Indeed the term simple implies that 
 which is perfect and consistent in all its parts ; 
 just as we speak of simplicity of character in 
 a person, in whom the different virtues are ex- 
 hibited in completeness and harmony. The 
 Greeks, who were much more exact in marking 
 the distinctions of ideas than the Romans, ap- 
 pear to have designated that quality of simpli- 
 city which thus consists in completeness, by 
 the term rh oXozXriPovy and the other by rb d(piXsg, 
 eveimess^ and metaphorically, that ivhich gives 
 no occasion for censure. And simplicity may 
 properly be called dpXna, in so far as there is 
 nothing plain and certain, which does not ac- 
 cord with that from which it arose, or to which 
 it is to be referred, i. e, with its source or with 
 its object ; just as we call men uncertain and 
 insincere, whose words and actions do not cor- 
 respond with their views and purposes, but are 
 often inconsistent one with another, and re- 
 pugnant to those very things on account of 
 which they appear to have been spoken and 
 done. 
 
 But since nothing is or can be entire and 
 
 '^ See Tittmann on the Principal Causes of Forced Inter- 
 pretation. 
 
 VOL. II. I 
 
114 SIMPLICITY IN INTERPRETATION 
 
 consistent in all its parts, which comes from 
 any improper source ; it follows that simplicity 
 is to be sought in the circumstance, that every 
 thing springs from the source from which it 
 ought to be derived, while nothing is engrafted 
 as it were from any other quarter, which is not 
 in itself inherent in the nature of the person or 
 thing in question. A necessary adjunct also is, 
 and this is a principal mark of simplicity, that 
 nothing be found present, except what could 
 not possibly be absent. Art and subtilty, on 
 the other hand, are easily detected, when any 
 thing is introduced, the necessity of which is 
 not apparent. It is thus that simplicity is so 
 pleasing in the fine arts ; when we see each 
 and every part essential to the completeness of 
 the whole, and find nothing which is super- 
 fluous, or that could be spared. So also we 
 applaud the simple elegance of a poem or other 
 work, w hen it exhibits nothing which does not 
 seem to belong to it. In the same manner, then, 
 must we form a judgment respecting the sim- 
 plicity of an interpretation. For that interpre- 
 tation only can be called simple, which gives 
 to the words of a writer such a sense as seems 
 to be the necessary one ; so that when this 
 sense is presented to us, we are immediately 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 115 
 
 conscious, that the author could not have meant 
 any thing else. 
 
 It will perhaps be said, that such an inter- 
 pretation is to be called necessary rather than 
 simple. Indeed the simplicity lies in the very 
 circumstance, that nothing extraneous is inter- 
 mixed, but all is necessarily consistent and ac- 
 cordant with the nature of the thing itself; and 
 therefore just as we term the words of a person 
 simple, when they are the necessary signs of 
 that which he has in his mind, so also may we 
 properly call that a simple interpretation, which 
 derives from the words of a writer that sense 
 which appears to be the necessary one. 
 
 This necessity, however, requires some fur- 
 ther illustration. When we say that simplicity 
 of interpretation is manifested in the circum- 
 stance, that it proposes no other sense than 
 what seems to be the necessary one, it may be 
 thought that our definition is more obscure 
 than the thing itself which is to be explained ; 
 inasmuch as this necessity would seem to be 
 something ambiguous and uncertain in all 
 WTitings, and especially in the New Testament. 
 The whole subject is indeed much embarrass- 
 ed, and requires very great caution, as we shall 
 afterwards see ; but still it may be easily dis- 
 entangled and developed in a twofold method ; 
 
116 SIMPLICITY IX INTERPRETATIOrN 
 
 of which those who either do not know, or do 
 not well weigh the nature and importance of 
 the duties of a grammarian, appear not to be 
 at all aware. 
 
 In the first place, if words be the signs of 
 ideas, and that not arbitrarily, but have be- 
 come fixed through the usus luquencU and by a 
 sort of necessity, it is obvious that we can have 
 no doubt in regard to that which is necessarily 
 signified, or that of which the necessary signs 
 are exhibited to us ; provided we are acquaint- 
 ed with the USH.S loquendi, (the extent and in- 
 fluence of which is much greater than is usually 
 apprehended,) and with that necessity which, 
 inasmuch as it depends on and consists in rea- 
 son, the inventress of all languages, may be 
 properly termed the logical necessity. There 
 are however not a few interpreters, who after 
 having read a few^ books, and got by rote the 
 common rules of the grammarians, and turned 
 over the lexicons, which in this respect are for 
 the most part miserably written, suppose them- 
 selves to have imbibed treasures of philological 
 learning ; and being accustomed without con- 
 sideration to regard all languages, both ancient 
 and modern, and especially the former, as the 
 result of chance, they pay of course no regard 
 to that necessity which lies in the essential and 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 117 
 
 \uiiversal laws of language, such as every where 
 necessarily regulate the manner of expressing 
 ideas by words. Such persons therefore pro- 
 nounce that to be the simplest interpretation, 
 which is most easily confirmed by the meagre 
 authority of the lexicons. To us, however, 
 those persons, above all others, seem to be ig- 
 norant of the true character of language, 
 %vho are accustomed to refer every thing, of 
 which they cannot explain the cause, to the 
 mere will or custom of the people among whom 
 this or that language was vernacular. And 
 although we can scarcely hope^ ever to be able 
 to perceive fully the logical grounds and causes 
 of all languages ; still we ought to make it the 
 object of zealous and unremitted exertion, that 
 these causes, so far as they are necessary and 
 essential, and have sprung up not by accident, 
 but from the laws of human reason itself, should 
 be detected and developed. 
 
 In the second place, it is an instinctive qua- 
 lity of the human mind, always to employ the 
 means nearest at hand, and to seek for no- 
 thing at a greater distance than is necessary. 
 This indeed is the surest mark of sim.plicity 
 and integrity even of personal character. We 
 are naturally impelled, not to art, but to seek 
 and to communicate the truth bv the shortest 
 
118 SIMPLICITY IN INTERPRETATION 
 
 and simplest means possible ; and the use of 
 art may be said to arise rather from some obli- 
 quity of life or perverseness of mind. Hence, 
 inasmuch as the same law prevails in the use 
 of languag-e, and we express our thoughts and 
 feelings by those signs which make known our 
 meaning in the shortest and surest manner, it 
 is therefore an essential characteristic of sim- 
 plicity (i. e. of completeness and necessity) in 
 interpretation, that we attribute to the words 
 of a writer that sense, of which these words 
 seem to be the nearest and most direct, or the 
 shortest and most certain, signs. And here all 
 who undertake to interpret the New Testa- 
 ment are to be admonished and exhorted, to 
 prescribe to themselves as a rule, this quality 
 of simplicity ; and not to recede, except for 
 grave reasons, from that sense which seems to 
 be the nearest and most direct. For although 
 all the writers of the New Testament were not 
 destitute of a certain degree of learning and 
 subtilty of talent ; yet they all were exceed- 
 ingly remote from those arts by which lan- 
 guage, that gift of God, is misused in order to 
 conceal depravity of mind or purpose, and to 
 deceive others by words of double meaning. 
 Indeed no one will interpret the writings of 
 these sacred authors with more felicity, than 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 119 
 
 he who is best able to estimate correctly their 
 simplicity. 
 
 It seems proper here to dwell more particu- 
 larly, for a moment, on this quality of simpli- 
 city in an interpreter himself; a subject which 
 has commonly been passed over in silence, 
 even by those who have written with most 
 acuteness upon the qualities and disposition ne- 
 cessary to a good interpreter. There is doubt- 
 less a certain simplicity of mind, wdiich is 
 amiable in all men, and which is particularly 
 desirable in an interpreter of the New Testa- 
 ment. It is manifested especially in that in- 
 tegrity and rectitude of mind, which perceives 
 clearly and at a glance every thing that is ap- 
 propriate and necessary to a particular person 
 or thing. It differs from the disposition of 
 those who, by the employment of art, or in 
 consequence of a mode of life not conformed 
 to right reason, have lost this natural power of 
 perception ; and who are therefore no longer 
 affected by that simplicity in which the highest 
 beauty is said to consist, nor are able to per- 
 ceive any thing in its true light or without 
 doubt and ambiguity. But in that simple cha- 
 racter of a mind which seeks no subterfuge or 
 ambiguity, but is apt and prompt to compre- 
 hend all that is appropriate and necessary, we 
 
120 SIMPLICITY IN INTERPRETATION 
 
 see an ornament of human life, and have the 
 surest pledge and safeguard of a love of truth. 
 Hence it may be regarded as essential to every 
 interpreter, and especially to the interpreter of 
 the New Testament. For whoever is desti- 
 tute of this quality, and cannot comprehend 
 what is appropriate or necessary to the nature 
 of any person or thing, will not surely be able 
 to attain to the right sense of words ; but inas- 
 much as every thing in his own mind is dis- 
 torted and perverted, he will naturally be on 
 the look out for ambiguity and quibbles in the 
 language of others. 
 
 There is, moreover, cause of apprehension, 
 that this simplicity of character may become im- 
 paired at an earlier period than theologians in 
 general come to the interpretation of the New 
 Testament. We ought therefore to be much 
 on our guard lest this happen through our own 
 fault. For in this simplicity is required, first, 
 a certain natural integrity of disposition ; se- 
 condly, rectitude of intention ; and lastly, 
 purity and constancy of mind ; from all of 
 which, at the present day, there is usually 
 some falling off. That integrity of disposition 
 which aifects us so pleasantly in children, is 
 apt to disappear among the innumerable arts 
 by which human life is encompassed, and drops 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 121 
 
 away like childhood's earliest flower ; so that 
 those who are trained with the greatest care, 
 are not seldom found to have swerved the fur- 
 thest toward the opposite extreme. Whether 
 this arises from the character of human life in 
 general, which cannot be passed without the 
 employment of art and deception ; or from the 
 fault of our mode of education, which is per- 
 haps too far removed from the simple laws of 
 nature ; we must in any case regard it as an 
 evil of very great magnitude ; and if all our 
 treasures of learning, on which w^e so gorman- 
 dize, have been necessarily purchased at this 
 price, there is reason to fear that we have ex- 
 changed gold for brass. It is particularly in 
 this respect that the works of the ancient 
 classic writers may be recommended to be 
 studied by an interpreter ; because in them, 
 and more especially the Greeks, e. g. Thucy- 
 dides and Xenophon, although they were de- 
 voted to letters and occupied with important 
 affairs, there is yet exhibited that natural in- 
 tegrity of disposition and feeling, i. e. that sim- 
 plicity of character, which it has happened tc> 
 few in our days to preserve. 
 
 In regard to rectitude of mind ar.d intention, 
 which is wholly lost in the pursuits of an arti- 
 ficial and complicated life, how can we expect 
 
122 SIMPLICITY IN INTERPRETATION 
 
 to find it among the multiplied questions, opi- 
 nions, and distinctions, which distract theolo- 
 gians — in short, among the innumerable thorns 
 with which theology in these days is over- 
 grown — except in a suffocated and corrupted 
 state ? There are few indeed, who approach 
 the interpretation of the New Testament with 
 minds uncorrupted and unprejudiced. The 
 greater part have already imbibed certain opi- 
 nions. Some have become habituated to the 
 ancient formulas of theologians ; others have 
 learned to cast off all restraints, and are wonder- 
 fully delighted in the exercise of their own inge- 
 nuity. One party are led astray by the authority 
 of some theological system ; the other by the 
 most recent form of philosophy. All in short for- 
 sake the plain and simple path, and have recourse 
 to art in searching after truth. That rectitude 
 of purpose, therefore, which sees and compre- 
 hends the truth directly and without evasion, 
 is exhibited by few in the interpretation of the 
 New Testament. And hence it naturally hap- 
 pens, that as such interpreters are themselves 
 wanting in simplicity, this virtue is also not 
 found in their interpretations. 
 
 Lastly, purity and constancy of mind are in 
 the highest degree necessary to simplicity, in- 
 asmuch as a mind that is corrupt and wavering 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 123 
 
 is neither adapted to perceive the truth, nor to 
 understand what is necessary or appropriate to 
 any thing. We must here particularly guard 
 against the opinion of those, who believe them- 
 selves sufficiently furnished for the explication of 
 the sacred books, when they have heaped toge- 
 ther stores of erudition derived from every quar- 
 ter; but who regard it as a matter of indiiference 
 in what way the mind and heart are formed and 
 affected. For although the error of those who 
 think that piety alone, without learning, is 
 sufficient for interpreting the sacred books, is 
 very pernicious ; still it cannot be denied, that 
 the more pure, chaste, uniform, and constant the 
 mind, the better it is adapted to understand 
 and expound the word of God. Ta tou ^soD 
 oudsig oJds\/, sj fjy'/j to rrviviMCi to\j ^soD. Yv^ixog ds dv' 
 ^DOj-TTog oh hi'/irai ra rou 'jrviv/j^arog rod ^sov. '' The 
 things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit 
 of God. The natural man comprehendeth not 
 the things of the Spirit of God." 1 Cor. ii. 
 11, 14. 
 
 More especially, however, there is required 
 for the simplicity which we are discussing, that 
 virtue or quality of mind which may enable the 
 interpreter always to control his own genius 
 and imagination ; so as to indulge himself in 
 nothing, and to avoid constantly every sport 
 
124 SIMPLICITY IN INTERPRETATION 
 
 and sally of the fancy. This is truly more 
 difficult than is commonly believed ; especially 
 with those who possess a richness of genius 
 and take pleasure in a figurative style, and 
 who therefore err through natural abundance ; 
 a species of error in which others, men of in- 
 ferior capacity, so much delight, that they en- 
 deavour to cover up their poverty of genius by 
 a ridiculous hunting after similar figures. 
 There is however nothing of greater moment 
 to the interpreter, than to avoid all sallies and 
 arts of this kind : and he should prescribe it as 
 a law to himself, that the more acuteness and 
 skill any interpretation may seem to display, 
 the more cautious should he be in proving it. 
 We are indeed deceived by nothing more easily 
 than by the adulation of our own self-compla- 
 cency ; and it is often the case, that an inter- 
 pretation which exhibits great ingenuity, al- 
 though it be demonstrably false, is scarcely, 
 and perhaps never, laid aside, inasmuch as no 
 one willingly resigns the praise of ingenuity 
 and acuteness. Others again are seduced by 
 such examples ; and they too strive to bring 
 forth something acute and splendid. For since 
 there is in simplicity a certain elegant po- 
 verty and an appearance of facility ; many 
 interpreters seem to fear lest they should be 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 125 
 
 L'ontemned on account of this povertj^ ; and 
 therefore they prefer to show oif in the use of 
 false aids, rather than unpretendingly follow 
 after the plain and simple truth. 
 
 This simplicity in the interpretation of the 
 New Testament is also so much the more ne- 
 cessary, because of the great simplicity in the 
 thoughts and teaching both of the sacred 
 w riters aiid of our Lord himself. In regard to 
 our Lord, who in all his human character ex- 
 hibited the highest perfection, no one can be 
 ignorant of the simplicity of heart and mind 
 which reigned in him, unless he himself be 
 wholly destitute of any sense or perception of 
 this virtue. There vras in Christ not only that 
 perfect integrity of morals and of practice, by 
 which we so easily distinguish men of simpli- 
 city and uprightness from those who are arti- 
 ficial and insincere ; but he exhibited also such 
 admirable purity and truth of character, that 
 his whole life is the most delightful image of 
 the highest and most perfect simplicity. And 
 this was exhibited not in any poverty of mind 
 nor in low views of things ; but consisted in 
 the simple and true conception of the loftiest 
 subjects, and was chiefly conspicuous in the 
 entire direction of his mind to heavenly things ; 
 a virtue which constitutes the essence of true 
 
126 SIMPLICITY IN INTERPRETATION 
 
 religion. It is therefore an error to sup- 
 pose with some, that a man devoid of this sim- 
 plicity is adapted to comprehend divine things. 
 It is, on the other hand, no doubt true, that 
 through the arts with which we are accustom- 
 ed to embellish, or rather to corrupt human 
 life, we bring loss and damage to the preva- 
 lence of true religion. But the more simplicity 
 of mind and heart, so much the more prompt 
 and prone, as it were, is a person to embrace 
 religious truth. He then only can comprehend 
 the simplicity of our Lord, so conspicuous even 
 in the loftiest sublimity, who is endowed in 
 some degree with the same quality. Theolo- 
 gians, on the contrary, in searching for subli- 
 mity in a certain artificial obscurity, have 
 transformed the teaching and doctrines of 
 Christ, so heavenly, simple, and appropriate, 
 and so admirably accordant with the eternal 
 relations of the human race, into a system 
 which is artificial, arbitrary [positive], and 
 more correspondent to human opinions. This 
 might be demonstrated by many examples, es- 
 pecially of such passages as are said to contain 
 mysteries. Interpreters have indeed not sel- 
 dom found difficulties, because they have not 
 followed the simple method of the divine Mas- 
 ter, but have sought in his words the occasions 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 127 
 
 of doctrinal and metaphysical discussions. 
 More particularly is the perception of this sim- 
 plicity necessary in those passages, where our 
 Lord has pointed out the necessary and eternal 
 relations of human and divine things, in the 
 comprehending, observing, and following out 
 of which consists essentially all true religion 
 and piety, and which he has brought forth, as 
 it were, from the sacred recesses of his own 
 mind in such a way, that he has often signified 
 them by a word or by language simple indeed, 
 yet significant and forcible in the highest de- 
 gree. These relations, it is true, are of such 
 a nature, that they are to be comprehended 
 and felt in the mind, rather than expressed in 
 words ; and they are therefore little understood 
 by those who are accustomed to embody divine, 
 I. e. eternal and infinite things in the resem- 
 blances of words and reasonings. Hence there 
 have been at all times few who could justly 
 estimate the piety of the most excellent men, as 
 the example of our Lord himself clearly demon- 
 strates. 
 
 But the apostles also possessed the highest 
 simplicity ; and it is therefore to be feared, 
 that he who is not capable of perceiving 
 and imitating this quality in them, w^ill be 
 found altogether unqualified for the interpreta- 
 
1*28 SIMPLICITY IN INTERPRETATION 
 
 tion of the sacred books. There are indeed 
 some who suppose, that Paul presents to us a 
 more learned, animated, and subtile mode of 
 discussion and writing; and even Ammon*^ 
 does not hesitate to affirm, that in the epistles 
 of Paul the more difficult interpretation is not 
 seldom to be preferred. But although it be 
 conceded, that Paul has sometimes disputed 
 artificially ; yet he always exhibits that sim- 
 plicity which, as we have said above, consists 
 not in facility, or rather in an appearance of 
 facility, but in integrity, verity, consistency, 
 and necessity. And those arts which are 
 charged on this writer, have often arisen, not 
 from the meaning of Paul, but from the ima- 
 gination of interpreters. They have taken it 
 for granted, that a man deeply imbued with 
 Jewish erudition, has of course instituted subtile 
 disputations in letters written in the language 
 of familiar intercourse ; and therefore in the 
 simplest discourse of the apostle, they have 
 sought for artifices tmv Xoyuv. How inconside- 
 rately some have done this, Paul has himself 
 shewn in 1 Cor. ii. 4, seq. In this passage the 
 drodii^ig rrvsufMurog xal h'oMaiimc^ which is opposed 
 
 •^Nota ad Ernesti Institut. Iiiterp. N. T. P. II. c. I. § 22. 
 .See also Biblical Cabinet, Vol. I. translated by Mr. Tcrrot. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 129 
 
 to ro/'^ rrsidoTg dv^^MTU'/jg CoO'tag hoyotc, signifies that 
 simple power of divine truth which the ^vyj-/.o; 
 u.'f:^ouiCTog ol bzyjTar and they are y.oyoi dwazroi 
 TV£j/xaro; a/Zou, which coming with that divine 
 power, produce certain and real persuasion ; 
 verse 5. And although it was not always in 
 the apostle's power '7rviU{Ma,rr/.o7g 'XViv^ariT.d C'jyx^i- 
 vsiv, to compare spiritual things with spiritual 
 (verse 13), but he must also sometimes dispute 
 with his countrymen, xar uv^poj-c^ or zard 
 cdoza' nevertheless even in discussions of this 
 sort, how^ever subtile, he has still preserved a 
 great simplicity ; 2. e. he has managed these 
 discussions in. such a way, as that all the parts 
 and circumstances are consistent and coherent, 
 and tend to one great end, as if by a natural 
 completeness and necessity. But where theo- 
 logians can justly attribute to Paul any thing 
 of that subtility which is found in the schools, 
 I am not aware. They would seem rather to 
 be striving to secure the authority of the holy 
 apostle for their own opinions, by making him 
 the author of them ; and hence they have not 
 unfrequently been compelled to have recourse 
 to forced or subtile interpretations. 
 
 Errors of this kind have been committed the 
 more frequently in regard to the writings of 
 Paul, because interpreters have not suiiiciently 
 
 VOL. II. K 
 
130 SIMPLICITY IN INTERPRETATION 
 
 regarded the nature of that species of language 
 which is commonly employed for the purposes 
 of familiar intercourse ; but have expected 
 rather in his epistles an accurate distribution 
 and arrangement of topics, and a continued 
 and uniform discussion, just as if they were 
 regular theological treatises, indeed, the in- 
 terpreter should above all things fix his mind 
 on that simplicity, which men who employ the 
 language of daily life, and are unacquainted 
 with the more learned and artificial style of 
 books, are accustomed to preserve in writings 
 of this sort. This is found in all the writers of 
 the New Testament ; so that no interpreter 
 can attain to their true meaning, nor feel the 
 beauty and sublimity of their language, unless 
 his own mind be imbued with the same sim- 
 plicity which constitutes the characteristic of 
 those ingenuous and uncorrupted men. 
 
 This subject, however, of the simplicity so 
 characteristic of the writers of the New Testa- 
 ment, and so conspicuous in their language, is 
 too extensive, and requires a discussion too 
 protracted, for the brief limits of the present 
 essay. I add therefore only this one reflection. 
 How greatly is it to be desired, that in declar- 
 ing the divine doctrines, in preaching the word 
 of God, we may imitate the simplicty of those 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 131 
 
 holy men ; and that in explaining the sacred 
 Scriptures, we may employ also that simplicity 
 which has been above described; and especially 
 preserve as much as possible that simplicity 
 of mind, which is manifested in an aptness to 
 perceive the truth and to comprehend and em- 
 brace the doctrines taught from heaven. Thus 
 may not only the teachers in the church, 
 but also all Christians, hope to perceive and 
 experience more and more the power of that 
 divine Spirit, by which the church is governed. 
 
 Come then, fellow-citizens, and celebrate the 
 approaching festival ; in order that thus your 
 minds, elevated above the vicissitudes of hu- 
 man affairs, and purified from every unworthy 
 purpose, may be nourished and strengthened 
 in their simplicity and integrity by a grateful 
 remembrance of the divine benefits; so that by 
 the aid of that Spirit which is not of this 
 world, you may be enabled both to persevere 
 in the true faith, and to sustain and augment 
 the faith of others. And being assured that 
 you will gladly do this of your own accord, we 
 willingly indulge the hope that you will be 
 present at the sacred solemnities, which are to 
 be celebrated in the manner of our ancestors, 
 in the university hall, on the first day of Pen- 
 tecost. 
 
PRINCIPAL CAUSES OF FORCED 
 INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 OF 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT.^ 
 
 There has been much discussion among theo- 
 logians in our day, and those too men of learn- 
 ing and deeply imbued with a knowledge of 
 the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin literature, re- 
 
 '^ The present essay was prepared on the occasion of the 
 author's becoming Professor Extraordinary of Theology in 
 1803; and was republished with a single additional note 
 in 1829. He remarks on that occasion, that although 
 several things perhaps need further definition and illustra- 
 tion, he yet chooses to leave them in their present state, 
 lest he should seem desirous of embelhshing a more youth- 
 ful performance with the fruits gathered in riper years. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 133 
 
 specting those forced^ interpretations of the 
 New Testament, by which, as is supposed, the 
 true and genuine sense of the sacred writings 
 has been corrupted by many recent interpre- 
 ters. Although this complaint is not without 
 foundation, yet the causes of the evil seem to 
 be more extensive than has been commonly 
 supposed, and are not to be sought only in an 
 ignorance of languages, or in the neglect of 
 grammatical interpretation. For those even 
 who have most closely followed the gramma- 
 tical method, have been some of the first to 
 offend in this respect, by proposing interpreta- 
 tions of the most distorted kind. Such, for 
 instance, was Origen himself, the celebrated 
 author of grammatical interpretation ; who, as 
 is well known, has extracted from the Scrip- 
 tures, through his superstition, and still more 
 through his imagination, an innumerable mul- 
 titude of things, which, in the opinion of those 
 best able to judge, are not contained in them. 
 Indeed, as a general principle, the gramma- 
 tical method of interpretation, although the 
 
 ^ The epithet in the original is contorta, to which the 
 nearest corresponding English words, as to form, are contort^ 
 ed, distorted ; but these would here be too strong. The idea 
 of the Latin is commonly expressed in English by the words 
 forced, strained, etc — Ed. 
 
134 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 only one which is or can be true, is neverthe- 
 less to be employed with great caution, in ex- 
 plaining the sacred Scriptures. It is certainly 
 a correct precept, that the same rules are to be 
 followed in interpreting the sacred volume, 
 which are applied to works of mere human 
 origin ; but yet this precept is not true in any 
 such sense, as would imply that the meaning 
 of the New Testament is to be sought in pre- 
 cisely the same manner, as the meaning of the 
 words and phrases of Thucydides and Polybius. 
 As every one has his own peculiar habit of 
 speaking, so there is not in all cases the same 
 use and application of the same rules (non est 
 idem apud eundem earundem regularem usus) ; 
 and an interpretation of a word or phrase in 
 Polybius and Xenophon may be perfectly cor- 
 rect and facile, while the same applied to one 
 of the sacred writers would be as forced as 
 possible. Hence it arises, that those authors 
 who have applied the forms and phrases of the 
 more elegant Greek writers to the explication 
 of the New Testament, have not always been 
 able to escape the charge of proposing forced 
 interpretations ; and there are many things of 
 this kind extant in the works of that fine 
 Greek scholar Raphel, of Eisner, Alberti, and 
 the truly learned Palariet. And although 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 135 
 
 J. A. Ernesti, the celebrated restorer of gram- 
 matical interpretation in our times, has given 
 many excellent precepts on this subject, still 
 (it would seem) they have not always been ob- 
 served, even by those who profess to follow 
 most closely the grammatical method. Hence, 
 the causes of such forced interpretations must 
 be sought, not so much in the neglect of 
 grammatical exegesis, as elsewhere. It is 
 therefore proposed to offer, on this occasion, 
 some remarks on this subject, tending to unfold 
 briefly some of the chief causes of the interpre- 
 tations in question. 
 
 First of all, however, it is necessary to de- 
 fine the nature of forced interpretation, in re- 
 gard to which there is some ambiguity. Many 
 call that a forced interpretation, which gives 
 to a passage a sense foreign to the intention of 
 the writer, and which is not contained in his 
 words. Others give this name to every expla- 
 nation which is not grammatical. But it is 
 obvious, that an interpretation which is foreign 
 to the words, and even repugnant to them, is 
 to be termed false, rather thsui forced ; and also 
 that an interpretation may be entirely gramma- 
 tical, and yet forced. This will be evident to 
 the good sense of every one. There are indeed 
 many interpretations, which the usus loquendi 
 
136 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 and the power of words will admit ; but which 
 nevertheless are not satisfactory, and even give 
 oifence, by seeming to interrupt the progress 
 of the discourse, and imparting to it a sort of 
 foreign colouring. These no one would call 
 false ; nor yet would any one hold them to be 
 true, I. e. appropriate to the passages to which 
 they are applied ; and they may therefore pro- 
 perly be terrnQd. forced. To such interpretations 
 Ernesti was accustomed to oppose the very 
 suitable term facile,"^ Thus in James iii. 1, the 
 words fj.i) 'TToXXoi bidd6xa7.oi y/vic^s, are some- 
 times rendered thus : do not too eagerly denire 
 the office of a teacher. This sense the words 
 indeed admit ; though it seems somewhat harsh 
 to understand y'mck as being put here for m 
 iieAsrs yzviC^ai TToXXoi diddcxaXor but the context 
 rejects this sense ; to which such an admoni- 
 tion against an ambitious spirit is utterly 
 foreign. If now we should say that hbdexaXog 
 here means a person who carps at and reproves 
 others ; no one probably would readily concede 
 that this sense necessarily lies in the word it- 
 self; and yet it suits admirably to the succeeding 
 clauses. We may perhaps compare the German 
 
 = Institutio Interpretis N. Test. P. II. Cap. I. § 22. ed. 
 Ammon. Leip. 1809. See Biblical Cabinet, Vol. II. trans- 
 lated by i^Ir. Terrot. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 137 
 
 word meistern, which plainly answers to rJ 
 didci(r-/.siv and dtdaffxaXov shai. [So also, in some 
 degree, the English verb to tutor.'] Nor should 
 I hesitate to explain Rom. ii. 21, sayrov o-o oiod- 
 <yx--/g, in this manner : thou ivho censurest the 
 faults of others, dost thou not censure thine oivn 
 faults ? In nearly the same sense, I think, is 
 bibmxii Aoun^m Ecclus. ix. 1. In like manner, 
 the word oj^r/, James i. 19, cannot signify wrath^ 
 which is a notion entirely foreign to the sub- 
 ject there under discussion; but it denotes 
 undoubtedly the indignation or indignant feel- 
 ing of a man who is irritable and fretful under 
 the calamities to which, like arrows, the whole of 
 human life is exposed.'^ At the same time, the 
 idiom in this passage as to form is not Hebrew, 
 
 '^ That o^yyi signified among the Greeks not only anger 
 and lorath, but also the feeling of a man offended or provok- 
 ed, is not necessary to be shewn to those acquainted with the 
 Greek language. Nor are there wanting in the New Testa- 
 ment examples of the same signification ; e. g. Mark iii. 5 ; 
 Rom. ix. 22 ; Heb. iii. 11. It may also be observed, in pass- 
 ing, that when this word is employed in the New Testament 
 to denote punishment, chastisement, etc. this is not in conse- 
 quence of any Hebrew idiom ; but it is so found also in the 
 best Greek writers. So Demosthenes adv. Mid. p. 528, ed. 
 Reisk. rZ ^^Biiravri §' ovx. "(tyiv rm o^yriv, civ S'' ixcuv, civ t axuv, 
 tra^iv vofzos, just as Paul says Rom. iv. 15, o voficos hoyriv 
 KocTipyd^ivat. Other examples may be seen in the Index 
 Dem. Reisk. v. h^yh, p. 540. 
 
138 CAUSES OF FORCED INTEEPRETATIONS 
 
 hut good Greek ; since an Anctor incert. in Poet. 
 Gnom. has this sentence : yiywj d' &}g ooyr,)/ (j.y\ 
 Tuyjj; dX>M (Soadvg. — From these examples it will 
 easily be seen, that the nature of the interpre- 
 tations under discussion will be very much 
 obscured, if they are to be defined in the 
 usual way above pointed out, i. e. if we merely 
 say they are such as are not grammatical. 
 
 To interpret grammatically is surely not mere- 
 ly, by the help of a lexicon, to explain simply 
 the verbal meaning and render word fqr word ; 
 but, as the most distinguished interpreters have 
 long taught, it is to ascertain the proper sense 
 of the words, and the idea attached to a parti- 
 cular word in any particular place, by a dili- 
 gent attention to the usus loqueiidi, the object 
 of the writer, and the logical connexion of the 
 whole context. Neither is the grammatical 
 interpretation a different thing from the histo- 
 rical one ; there is not one grammatical sense, 
 and another historical. Under that which 
 earlier interpreters, as Sixtus Senensis, for- 
 merly called the historical sense, they under- 
 stood nothing more than the grammatical one; 
 and they called it the historical, merely because 
 it is deduced from a proper observation of times 
 and events.* And that which certain later 
 
 • See Ernesti, Oj»p. PhiL Crit. p. 221. 
 
or THE NEW TESTAMENT. 139 
 
 writers have begun to call the historical sense, 
 viz. that which a passage expresses when ex- 
 plained with reference to the time in which the 
 author lived, or that which the words appear 
 to have expressed at that time and place, and 
 among those persons for whom he wrote ; this 
 is nothing else than what the earlier interpre- 
 ters called the grammatical sense. Indeed, 
 accordino^ to their views, and those of every 
 correct interpreter, the grammatical interpre- 
 tation has and ought to have for its highest 
 object, to shew what sense the words of a pas- 
 sage can bear, ought to bear, and actually do 
 bear ; and it requires not only an accurate ac- 
 quaintance with words and the iisus loquendi of 
 them, but also with many other things. It is 
 not enough to investigate what is said ; but we 
 must also inquire hy whom and to ichom it is 
 said, at what time, on what occasion, what pre- 
 cedes, what fiUoios, etc.*^ For to interpret, is 
 to point out what ideas are implied in the 
 language ; or it is to excite in another the same 
 thoughts that the writer had in his own mind. 
 But the power of doing this does not depend 
 alone on a knowledofe of words and of the 
 usus loquendi : but demands an acquaintance 
 
 ^ So Erasmus, Ratio et IMeth. verae Theologiae, p. 51, ed. 
 Semlei-. 
 
140 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 with many other things, as was said above. 
 All writers do not follow the same usiis loquen- 
 di ; Poly bins and Dionysius of Halicarnassus 
 have each a different kind of language ; Thu- 
 cydides and Xenophon have little resemblance 
 of style ; although the two former were nearly 
 contemporary, and the latter were natives of 
 the same country. We ourselves write diife- 
 rently to learned men and to our familiar ac- 
 quaintance ; and our habit and manner of 
 speaking or writing depends very much upon 
 the talent, disposition, and personal habits of 
 the individual. Practice also effects very 
 much. Besides all these, there is required, in 
 order to become a skilful interpreter, a certain 
 intellectual sagacity and a native tact, such as 
 the Greeks call sv(pv'ia, the want of which can- 
 not be compensated by any degree of art or 
 erudition. Hence it happens, that those who 
 are destitute of this natural talent, however 
 extensively they may possess a knowledge of 
 languages and of the whole construction of 
 style and discourse, very often propose inter- 
 pretations as foreign as possible to the mean- 
 ing and purpose of the writer.^ 
 
 Since then that must be regarded as the 
 
 s Compare this whole discussion with the article by Prof. 
 JIahn, on Interpretation of Prophecy. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 141 
 
 rue interpretation, which accurately g^ives the 
 true sense contained in the words of a writer, 
 and presents in a legitimate way to the mind 
 of another the same thoughts which the writer 
 had, and must have had, in his own mind at 
 such a time and in such a place ; it follows, 
 therefore, that we must call that a forced inter- 
 pretation, which does violence in any w^ay to 
 the true meaning of an author ; so as to make 
 him express bj'^ his words a different sense from 
 that which he, in this discourse, and at that 
 time and place, intended to connect with those 
 words. 
 
 By the common consent of the ablest inter- 
 preters, the proper meaning of any Avriter is to 
 be discovered, first, from the ttsus loquendi 
 which is familiar to him ; then, from an obser- 
 vation of the persons and times and places in 
 and for which he wrote ; and lastly, from the 
 context, in which is also comprehended the ob- 
 ject of the writer, w^hich some make a separate 
 head. Hence there arise three characteristics, 
 by which to distinguish a forced interpretation ; 
 viz. first, if it be contrary to the ordinary usus 
 loquendi of the writer ; secondly, if it be at 
 variance with a due regard to the persons, 
 times, and places, in and for which he wrote ; 
 and thirdly, if it be incongruous to the series 
 
142 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 of discourse. We therefore call that a forced 
 interpretation, which, although it may he con- 
 tained in the words taken hy themselves, neverthe- 
 less expresses a sense foreign to the intention of the 
 writer ; inasmuch as it is repugnant either to the 
 usus LOQUENDi of the ivriter, or to time and 
 PLACE, or finally to the context. 
 
 There are two- species of interpretations of 
 this sort. The one by a certain violence put 
 upon the words, is calculated to displease the 
 learned; while the other, by a certain appear- 
 ance of art and refinement, allures the unlearn- 
 ed. The former species may be termed inept, 
 and is exhibited when a sentiment is obtruded 
 upon a writer, which is alike foreign both to 
 his constant manner of thinking and speaking, 
 and to his intention and object.^ As if one 
 should say that Paul in Eph. i. 7, had in mind 
 
 ^ Those interpretations are inept, which give a sense not 
 appropriate to the passage, the writer, or the time. Indeed 
 all forced interpretations may be called inept, inasmuch as 
 they are inappropriate to the passages from which tliey are 
 extracted ; but since some offend more the judgment, wiiile 
 others by an appearance of refinement please the unlearned, 
 I have preferred to distinguish them into inept and subtile. 
 The nature of intepretations of this sort has been well treated 
 of by E. A. Frommann, in his prolusion entitled : FacUilas 
 Umae interpretalionis nota, § X. 0pp. Phil. Hist. p. 3fJ7> 
 iseri. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 14;^ 
 
 the system of Christian doctrine ; and he should 
 go on to interpret riiv 6c<7ro'kvTocoGiv dia tov a/;aa705 
 a-jTOv, rr,v a(psffiv rojv 'Trapccz-ru/j^uruvj of a deliverance 
 from sin, which is effected by this doctrine, 
 confirmed by the death of Christ. Such an in- 
 terpretation is supported neither by the man- 
 ner in which the apostle is accustomed to speak 
 of the death of Christ, nor by the object of the 
 writer and the method of the whole discussion, 
 nor by the mode of thinking among the Chris- 
 tians to whom the apostle wrote : unless the 
 utmost violence be put upon the words. — The 
 other species is usually called the subtile. 
 These are such as by a sort of art extract from 
 the words a sentiment, good indeed in itself, 
 but foreign to the intention of the writer, and 
 particularly so to the proper force and signifi- 
 cancy of the words. A great many examples of 
 this kind have been collected by F. F. Griifen- 
 hain, in his Dissert, cle Interpret. N. T. argutis 
 maf/is, quam veris, Leips. 1774. 
 
 Since then every true interpretation rests 
 upon the usus loquendi, the accurate knowledge 
 of persons, and places, and times, and the com- 
 parison of the context ; so ail instances of 
 forced interpretation must arise either from ig- 
 norance or neglect of these same things. 
 There are, therefore, thi^ee principal causes of 
 
144 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 such interpretations, of which we now proceed 
 to treat. 
 
 I. The first cause lies in the want of a pro- 
 per knowledge and correct understanding of 
 the usus loquendi. The style of the New Tes- 
 tament, as is now generally admitted, is not 
 pure Greek ; but is mixed and made up of 
 words and idioms borrowed from several lan- 
 guages, and particularly from the Hebrew. 
 This has been the judgment of the most learn- 
 ed Greek scholars, as well as of the most erudite 
 interpreters of the New Testament.^ And al- 
 though this opinion is admitted in our day by 
 all, yet there seems to be an ambiguity hang- 
 ing around it, which gives occasion to very 
 many forced interpretations. 
 
 In the first place, those who, after the ex- 
 ample of Daniel Heinsius, have pre-supposed 
 in the New Testament a peculiar Hehraizinf/ 
 dialect, have no doubt, by the common consent, 
 of the learned, been in an error ; and have thus 
 rendered the whole discussion respecting the 
 ztsus loquendi found in the books of the New 
 Testament, and the interpretation of the New 
 
 ' See Ilemsterliusius ad Lucian. Tom. 1. p. 309. G. J. 
 Planck, Einleit. in die theol. Wisseiischaften, Bd. II. p. 
 42, sq. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 145 
 
 Testament itself, uncertain.^ For, in the first 
 place, single forms and idioms cannot consti- 
 tute a peculiar dialect ; nor are those things of 
 
 ^ It was formerly customary to call the language of the 
 New Testament and of the Alexandrine interpreters, the 
 Hellenistic, as if it were a dialect appropriate and peculiar to 
 them ; and to regard it, I know not how, 'Efi^ai^ovffay. 
 This opinion is most learnedly refuted by Claud. Salmasius 
 in his Comm.. de Lingua Hellenistica, Lugd. Bat. 1G43, 
 (compare also his Funus Ling. Hellenisticae and Ossilegium,) 
 against D. Heinsius, who had defended it in his Aristarchus 
 Sacer, his Exercitatt. Sacrae in K. T. (in the preface,) and 
 his Exercitatio de Lingua Hellenist. L. B. 1643. But al- 
 though no one who is in any degree acquainted with the 
 Greek language, can assent to the opinion of those who de- 
 fend the purity of the New Testament Greek ; yet never- 
 theless the position seems also incapable of defence, which 
 makes the language, or rather the style of the New Testa- 
 ment, a peculiar and proper haXixroy, the so called rm 'EX- 
 XriviffTiKriv. For it is one thing, to employ a certain common 
 and unpolished (ihuTtxov manner of speaking, mixed with 
 foreign idioms, and with Latin and other newly coined words, 
 vio;^fjco7i as Phrynicus calls them) and a.'^oxif/.ois' and it is 
 quite another thing to make use of a particular and peculiar 
 dialect. The position of Salmasius (and in my judgment 
 the correct one) is, that the sacred writers had no such pe- 
 culiar dialect ; while, at the same time, he is as far removed 
 as possible from tlie opinion of those who boast of the purity 
 of the style of the New Testament. — But if it be said that it 
 is mere verbal trifling, not to admit the name of dialed 
 where it cannot be denied that these writers have employed 
 a kind of writing mixed, u^oxifAov, <ruv ob ^t^uthivfciyaiv and 
 therefore filled with many Hebraisms : I answer, that these 
 things we certainly do not deny ; since no one not entirely 
 ignorant of the Greek language can do this ; but we deny 
 VOL. II. L 
 
146 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 course Hebraisms, which have some resem- 
 blance to the Hebrew lang-uage ; but all such 
 appearances may be referred to the general 
 feelings and opinions of the writers of the New 
 Testament and to their mode of teaching, ra- 
 ther than to single words and forms of phrases, 
 which are of uncertain origin, and are often 
 common to many languages. And, in the se- 
 cond place, there was no dialect peculiar to the 
 writers of the New Testament; for a dialect 
 belongs to a people, not to a few individuals. 
 It is, as Gregory Corinthus defines it, Xs^i; 
 7diov yj/.oay.rriou, TO'rto'o l[x<pamv6a} "a mode of speak- 
 that these appearances constitute what it is pro})er to call a 
 peculiar dialect, 'EXXYiviffrtxYtv or 'E/S^a/^ot/irav. We would 
 not indeed be difficult about words, Init we prefer not to use 
 the term dialect, because through the opinion which the use 
 of this word Mould imply, the interpretation of the New 
 Testament is rendered uncertain ; inasmuch as it is impos- 
 sible to form a right judgment respecting the origin and 
 sources of the language which the sacred writers have em- 
 ployed, unless that ambiguity be removed, which seems to 
 iiave been introduced into the interpretation of the sacred 
 books by those authors, who talk about a peculiar dialect, 
 without appearing to know or to determine any thipig certain 
 respecting it. I merely touch u])on this subject here and in 
 the text ; proposing l-.ereafter to treat of it more fully on 
 another occasion, 1 have mentioned it here in order to vin- 
 dicate the real opinions of Salmasius : since some appear to 
 consider him as differing very little from the error of Pfo- 
 clien. See G. J. Planck, 1. c. p. 44. Bib. Cabinet, Vol. II. 
 ' Greg. Corinth. De Dialectis, j). I), ec^. Schaefer. Com- 
 pare Phavorin. ^•arin. Thes. (Venet. Wdii.) fol. 230, 24n. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 147 
 
 iiig which exhibits [bears] the character of the 
 place." But when all the dialects of the 
 Greeks had become mingled together, and the 
 several tribes had no longer each a separate 
 and peculiar mode of speaking, the gramma- 
 rians changed also the signification of the term 
 dialect^ and called this intermixture or farrago 
 of dialects riv '/.oivnv didXixrov.^'^ The Jews then 
 who spoke Greek, had not a peculiar dialect of 
 their own, but used this common one, rrtv /Sa^ 
 j3apfC,ovea'/ which was also employed by all the 
 Asiatic tribes and nations that then spoke 
 
 Maittaire de Graecae Linguae Dialectis, p. 1, seq. Clem. 
 Alex. Strom. VI. p. 678. B. Scholiast, ad Aristoph. Nubb- 
 317. — The editions of Greg. Corinth, whose definition is 
 given above, have Xi^is "^lov ^u^axrij^a rvTou \fi(paivovaa.^ 
 Salmasius (p. 450) ingeniously conjectured, that it ought to 
 be written to tow although he hesitated to adopt this readings 
 sufiiciently coniirined as it is by the words of other gramma- 
 rians and writers. Thus Clemens Alex. (Strom. Lib. L p. 
 404,) says in like manner: ^idXiKr'o; la-ri Xi^tj "5. ;^«^. toVsv 
 lf/.ipulvouffa, ri >A%ti 'thiov n xoivov sBvou; lfi(puivot/ira ;;^a^axr^ou 
 Salmasius supposes, that the grammarians perhaps changed 
 ToTov into TVTov, because in their times there \vas no longer 
 any Greek dialect peculiar to any place or tribe. He has 
 also very clearly demonstrated in his book de Hellenistica, 
 %at a dialect can only belong to a tribe or people, exovcrav 
 ^uvr,; ^a^aKT>j^a l^viKov, as says the ^chol. in Aristoph. 
 quoted above. The grammarians themselves also do not 
 seem always to have used the term dialect very accurately ' 
 but have often employed it yXS^cwj l^jlafia^ ^s|/f, etc. 
 "' Salmasius 1. c 
 
148 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 Greek. Paul, moreover, a native of Tarsus, 
 had learned Greek in his own country, long- 
 before he came to the school of Gamaliel ; as 
 was also the case with Luke, who exhibits few- 
 traces of a Jewish education. 
 
 Nor do those authors appear to have judged 
 more correctly, who have wished to call the 
 diction of the New Testament the Alexandrine 
 dialect," and have regarded the dialect of Alex- 
 andria as the source of the style of the New 
 Testament. This opinion is supported, neither 
 by a comparison of the New Testament with 
 this dialect nor by history. For the writers 
 of the New Testament were not citizens of 
 Alexandria; nor simply because they have 
 sometimes followed the Alexandrine version, 
 can it be concluded that they have imitated 
 the Alexandrian dialect ; any more than those 
 who follow the version of Luther, are accus- 
 tomed to imitate his style in other respects. 
 The dialect of Alexandria was not a language 
 peculiar and appropriate to the citizens of 
 that place alone, but was a kind of speech 
 mixed and corrupted by the confluence of 
 many nations, as Greeks, Macedonians, Afri- 
 cans, Carthaginians, Syrians, East Lidians, 
 
 " This name wss first proposed by J. E. Grabe in liis 
 Prolegom. ad V. T. ex vers. Sept. Interpretum, Tom. 11. 
 '•. 1, .; 40. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 140 
 
 Sicilians, Italians, and others.^ After the Ma- 
 cedonians had brought the whole of Greece 
 under subjection, and extended their dominion 
 also into Asia and Africa, the refined and elegant 
 Attic began to decline ; and all the dialects be- 
 ing by degrees mixed together, there arose a 
 certain peculiar language called the common,^ 
 
 ° See on this whole subject Sturz de Dialecto Alexaii- 
 drina, Leips. 1808. Compare Fischer, Animadv, ad Wel- 
 leri Gramm. I. p. 46. [See also the essay of H. Planck de 
 Indole, etc- in Biblical Cabinet, ^^ol. II. 
 
 p Kom hdXiKTas, Gramm. Leid. p. 640, ed Schaefer. Schol. 
 Venet. Hom. ad II. a 85. Eustath. ad II. a' p. 22. Clem. 
 Alex. Strom. L. I. p. 404, B. See Kirchmeier de Dialecto 
 Graecor. communi, Viteb. 1709. Those who used this dia- 
 lect were called xoivoi, Schol. Aristoph. ad Plut. 983. Sui- 
 das V. aS-a^x. Phrynicus calls them ot vvv, oi •roWot. On the 
 subject of this dialect Salmasius has a long discussion, in the 
 work so often quoted above. He was of opinion that it 
 ought not to be called a dialect, but rather yXu^crav xoivm a 
 tongue common to all, who in speaking the Greek langniage, 
 'EXAjjv/^avrsj, did not follow any one of the ancient dialects. 
 The grammarians, on the contrary, chose to employ for 
 this purpose the name xotvh hcUXsnTos, to designate a kind of 
 speech mixed up from all the forms of Greek idioms, and 
 common to all those who spoke Greek in the later ages. 
 Whoever therefore did not follow one of the four dialects, 
 viz. the Attic, Ionic, Doric, or Aeolic, but employed a diction 
 composed from all those idioms, was said to have rh xom" 
 XidkixTov ; as for instance Pindar himself ; see Salmasius 1. 
 0. p. 28, 29. But we must also distinguish different pe- 
 riods or ages ; for the grammarians give also to that yXuaca 
 which was current among all Greeks before the rise and dis- 
 tinction of the four dialects, the epithet xom. This is ap- 
 
150 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 and also the Hellenic /"^ but more espe- 
 cially, since the empire of the Macedonians 
 
 parent from the fragment of the so called Grammaticus 
 JMeermanianus, (which with Gregory Cor. and the Gram- 
 mat. Leidensis was published by Schaefer, Leips. 1811,) 
 where it is said : ^/aXsxTOi Vi u<n vriv-n' 'las* 'AtS-Zj* Aeaoi;' 
 AioXis' xet) Koivri' ri ya,^ Ti/uTTt], 'i%ov ( vx'i^ovffa ^a^aKT>i^a, xotvii 
 &>vefidffB-t), ^lori Ik ruvrns a^^ovrai <ffS,7ce,i' XnTTTiov Js Tavrnv 
 fit-h T^o^ xecvom, rug ^J Xoiwag <r^os Ihornrei. ' The dialects 
 are five, the Ionic, Attic, Doric, Aeolic, and the common. 
 The fifth, having no peculiar character of its own, is called 
 common, because all the others have sprung from it. This 
 one is to be learned by general rule ; the others, each in its 
 own particular manner ;' p. 642. But Gregory Corinthiis 
 (p. 12) gives the name x«v»j to that, ^ -rcims ;^^^»^£Sa, vyovp 
 91 Ik Tft/y 5' ffvutrruffa, ' which we all use, %'iz. that which is 
 composed from all the four.' With him also coincides the 
 Gramm. Leid. (\. c) and John Grammaticus. The incon- 
 sistency of these grammarians is chastised by Salmasius, 1. c. 
 p. 12, sq. But it seems to me that the discrepancy is to be 
 reconciled in this manner, viz. by making a distinction be- 
 tween this ancient yXuffffa, the common source or mother of 
 all the four dialects, which the Gramm. Meerm. calls xwvw, 
 and that later mixed kind of diction common to all the na- 
 tions that used the Greek language, and formed by the mix- 
 ture not only of all the dialects, but also of the idioms of 
 every people that spoke Greek {'EWnvt^ovrm), or thatminglerl 
 with the Greeks : and which was also commonly called h xnvh, 
 and is termed by Phrynicus the dialect ruv vtairi^u* and rS» 
 ah ^t^ailtvftivav. The grammarians indeed, having no rule 
 but their own taste and judgment, seem very often to have 
 been rash and inconsistent both in their precepts and cen- 
 sures. 
 
 1 Hellenic rather than Hellenistic ,• since the former is re- 
 cognised by the grammarians and other writers of that age, 
 
or THE NEW TESTAMENT. 151 
 
 was the chief cause of its introduction into 
 general use from the time of Alexander on- 
 wards, it was called the MacedonicJ This dia- 
 
 while the latter never existed ; see Salmasius 1. c But in 
 relation also to the words 'EXXzvtKos and 'EXX«y/^s/», the 
 grammarians do not seem to have been of 'one accord. On 
 the one hand, these words are very often employed in a lau- 
 datory sense, when all who spoke Greek are termed *EXA.»jv«- 
 ^rxt and 'EXXtivi^ovri;. This is proved by Salmasius with 
 many arguments ; and is also sufficiently manifest from 
 the passage in Athenaeus (Lib. III. c 84), where o'l tr(po%^a. 
 ^EXX}jvtZ,ovris are those who speak Greek well. On the other 
 hand, at a later period they applied the epithet 'EkX*ivi)ios to 
 a kind of speech less elegant, and composed of words and 
 phrases common, obsolete, newly coined, or also foreign ; 
 see IMoeris sub v. ytXoTov Schol. Aristoph. ad Ran. G. Hence 
 it arose that to 'EkXvvixus kiyav was opposed to to 'Arnxu;. 
 The grammarians distinguished in this common language, 
 between such things as were less elegant, which they called 
 a^oxtfiec, 'EXXvviKa, as being common roig "EXXtjirr (see 
 Moeris s ib v. i^lxkuv %ufi,(puyus') and such other things as 
 were more recent, and among these also foreign idioms, all 
 which they called koivcc,, i. e. obsolete t^turmd- which is done 
 by 3Ioeris, as is shewn by Pierson ad 3Ioerid. sub v. (piihuKo'i. 
 But all the grammarians very frequently confounded ta 
 Konov and x,oiva>s with to 'EXXwv/xov and 'EXXmixa/; ; a circum- 
 stance deseiwiiig the attention of modern grammarians. 
 Compare Salmasius, 1. c. p. 55, sq. 
 
 ' Not the ancient INIacedonic, which we know to have been 
 very similar to the Doric ) but the later, adopted by the 
 J\J acedonians about the time of Phihp, and especially of 
 Alexander. This came to be employed by all the Greeks^ 
 learned and unlearned, in common life and in their writings ; 
 nor was there any longer a distinction of dialects. It is very 
 
152 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 lect was composed from almost all the dialects 
 of Greece, together with very many foreign 
 words^ borrowed from the Persians, Syrians, 
 Hebrews, and other nations, who became con- 
 nected with the Macedonian people after the 
 age of Alexander.' Now of this Macedonian dia- 
 lect, the dialect of Alexandria, was a de- 
 generate progeny, far more corrupt than the 
 common rwy Ma/.s^ov/^ovrw:/ y/.wCfTa, or common 
 Macedonian dialect. It was the current lan- 
 guage of all the inhabitants of that city, even 
 of the learned in whom the celebrated school 
 of Alexandria was so fertile, and also of the 
 Jews ; for the latter, whom Alexander had 
 permitted to dwell in that city on the same 
 
 often mentioned as the common, e. g. by Phrynicus ; but is 
 also called Maxi'^oveov '^la.Xizros, Heiaclid. ap. Eustath. ad Od. 
 x'. p. IG54 : and Maxtlovuv ykutrffa, Eudaem. Pelus. ap. euiid. 
 ad Od. y. p 1457. 
 
 ^ Examples are given in >Spanheim ad Callim. H. in Del. 
 150. Compare Hemsterhus. ad Polhic. 10, IG. Heysch. et 
 Phavor. v. i^tka, coll. 8elden de Diis Syr. lib. 1. Etym. 
 Mag. V. aTTa, coll. Ileinsius Prnl. in Aristarch. ti^ac. p. CC5. 
 [Arist. Sac. p. 446 ?] Spanlieim ad (Jallim. H. in Dian. 6. 
 
 ' Compare Eniesti's Prolusion de Drfficultate N. T. rede 
 interp. in Opp. Phil. crit. p. 212. See also Diod. Ascalonites 
 ap. A then. XIV. p. 102, C. Athenaeus himself says, III. 
 222. A. Maxilovi^ovras oTSa, ToXXov; ruv 'Arnxuv hat. rrivl'rifji.i- 
 liav^ coll, IX. p. 102, C. Phryniclius de JVIenandro Athen. 
 p. 415 — 41tJ. ed. Lobeck. Eustath. ad Od. t'. p. 1854. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 153 
 
 footing as to rights and privileges with the 
 Macedonians, used not a peculiar dialect of 
 their own, but the common language of the 
 city. What Josephus relates, that the Jews 
 had a certain portion of the city allotted 
 to them, O'TTMg yM'^aooorspav t^oisv rrjv dlcurav, yittov 
 sri/Mtff'yofxsvuv rcov dXXo(pvXuv, ' in order that they 
 might live in greater purity, and have less in- 
 tercourse with strangers,' certainly does not of 
 necessity imply, that they had a separate and 
 peculiar speech of their own, which they pre- 
 served in the midst of constant intercourse with 
 the multitude of colonists from other nations, 
 Egyptians, Macedonians, Sicilians, and others. 
 Nor were they called Alexandrians for any 
 other cause, as Josephus also relates,*^ than 
 that as Jews dwelling at Alexandria, they 
 might be distinguished from the other Jews. 
 This Alexandrine dialect also, thus mixed up 
 from the idioms (/^w/xara) of many nations, 
 was the language employed by the Greek in- 
 terpreters of the Old Testament, whoever they 
 were ; and of this language it is not enough 
 to say, that it has a Hebraizing tendency. It 
 cannot indeed be denied, that the Jews must 
 naturally have adopted into their Alexandrine 
 language many Hebrew words and forms : yet 
 
 " Antiq. Jud. XIX. 5. 2. 
 
154 CAU.SES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 it is apparent that the Alexandrine interpreters 
 have not always accurately followed the words 
 of the Hebrew text ; but have very often de- 
 parted from them, and sometimes also even 
 corrupted the sense of them. Indeed, they 
 might themselves not improperly be styled, 
 interpreters of seventy tongues."^ The writers 
 of the New Testament, on the other hand, 
 have made use of that common language which 
 prevailed throughout Judea, Syria, and Asia 
 Minor, not less than in the whole of Greece ; 
 and have not employed this ^Alexandrine dia- 
 lect. This fact is established not only histori- 
 cally, as we have just shewn ; but is also 
 proved from the nature of the circumstances 
 themselves. 
 
 In the first place, the writers of the New 
 Testament have very many things, which be- 
 long to theMacedonic dialect. The examples of 
 
 * They were Jews no doubt ; a people which, among every 
 nation where they are born or sojourn, employ a certain pecu- 
 liar dialect of that language which is vernacular to them. It 
 could not therefore well be, but that the Alexandrine inter- 
 preters, educated as .Jews, should write a kind of (xreek less 
 pure, than even the other Alexandrine writers. These latter, 
 so far as their wi-itingshave come down to us, were men of cul- 
 tivated minds, and therefore employed rhv xoivriv 'SidXixrov in- 
 deed, but in a less impure form than those learned Jews, 
 who have translated into Greek the books of the Old Testa- 
 ment. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 155 
 
 this are indeed almost innumerable ; but the few- 
 following may here suffice. The word 'irapifj.jSoXr, 
 in the ISew Testament denotes camp, e. g. Acts 
 xxi. 34 ; Heb. xiii. 1 1 ; of which there is no 
 example in pure Greek. But Phrynicus says 
 (p. 377, ed. Lob.) that it is duvojg MazsdoviKo^, 
 ' very Macedonic ;' and the Seventy have em- 
 ployed it likewise in this sense for n^n!^? e. g. 
 
 Gen. xxxii. *2J Further '^v/xri, which among- 
 the Attics denoted op/Mrjv, onset, was used in the 
 Macedonic language for ffrsvoj-rrov, a lane, alley, 
 Luke xiv. 21 ; and then for rrXania, a icide street. 
 Matt. vi. '2/ So also TootrxoTj^, 2 Cor. vi. 3, 
 coll. Phrynicus, p. 20, ed. De Pauw; (p. 85, ed. 
 Lobeck?) Id'naijM.^id.. 175, ed. Lob. coll. Fischer 
 de Vit. Lex. N. T. p. 61, 71 ; ^svi^^/xaraPhryn. 
 286 ; a]yjiayM-iG%7ivai id. 442 ; Tav^oxsOj, id. 307 : 
 cay£<r3a/, /3a£/5a^ov, id. 327; and many others. 
 But at the same time, many words have been 
 condemned by the grammarians unjustly ; as 
 dy,!i7]v, for ?V/, Matt. xv. 16, which Phrynicus 
 
 •'■ Compare Jos. Ant. Jud. VI. 6. Clem. Alex. Strom. 
 I v. p. 521, D. 
 
 ^ Phrynicus, p. 404. Pollux. Onom. IX. § 38. says: Ta;^a J' «» 
 lu^oig xa) pvfAvv tl^iifcsvijv TrivTrXaruav, a; olvvv Xiyoviri, ' perhaps 
 you may find pv/^ri employed to denote a icide street, accord- 
 ing to present usage ;' where he quotes Philippides o Maxi- 
 
156 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 (p. 125) and Moeris (sub voce) censure with- 
 out reason ; since the use of it seems to be only 
 a little more nice and uncommon. 
 
 In the second place, the writers of the New- 
 Testament have abstained from employing 
 many forms of speech, and many unusual and 
 evidently corrupted words, which are found in the 
 Alexandrine interpreters ; although these latter 
 do not appear to have all been equally in fault 
 in the use of such words. Of this kind are 
 riX^oaav, Ex. XV. 27 ; s(poi'yo(rav, Ps. Ixxvii. 29 ; 
 '^r,}M(p7iffamVf Job V. 14, coll. Acts xvii. 27 ; 
 r3^>iX7]xa, Ps. xl. 11, and many others; to col- 
 lect and review which would be a matter of in- 
 finite and thankless labour ; see Sturz, 1. c. § 9. 
 It will be enough to mention the word ^/xa/o$ 
 and its cognates, by which they have expressed 
 the Hebrew nt^^S pH^' H/tDK, ^pil ; and also 
 
 yj^n. Pi'ov. xi. 7 ; ^^y, Job. xxxiv. 10. The 
 
 concordance of Tromm is full of similar ex- 
 amples. Indeed, the levity, negligence, and 
 inconsistency of these translators in the use ot 
 Greek words, is most incredible ; nor would it 
 be easy to find any thing ever uttered in Greek, 
 more barbarous than their diction; although 
 in some of the books, more elegance is exhi- 
 bited. In this way and to such a degree, on 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 157 
 
 the other hand, the writers of the New Testa- 
 ment have not erred against the nature and 
 elegance of the Greek language ; and although 
 their style is not pure, yet they have at least 
 written Greek, and not barbarisms.* 
 
 This ambiguity and inconstancy in the judg- 
 ments formed respecting the Greek style of 
 the New Testament, to which we have above 
 referred, has operated as the cause of forced 
 interpretations chiefly in three ways, which we 
 now proceed to exhibit. 
 
 1. It has thus operated, first, because that 
 which is good Greek has not been sufficiently 
 distinguished from that which is bad Greek, 
 and vice versa ; and the same words and phrases 
 have been explained now according to the more 
 elegant Greek idiom, and then again from the 
 corrupted language. Thus the word o/V.a/o, and 
 its cognates have been understood by interpre- 
 ters, sometimes in the pure Greek sense ; and 
 at other times in the Hebrew sense ; and hence 
 it cannot be otherwise, than that many passages 
 should be exceedingly tortured. We see also 
 many words explained by a reference to foreign 
 
 =* Ernesti Opusc. Philol. Crit, p. 209, sq. Institut. Interp. 
 N. T. Pt. III. c. 7. ed. Amraon. Biblical Cabinet, Vol. IV. 
 Mr. Terrot's translation of Ernesti, Vol. II. Planck, Einl, 
 in d. theol. Wissensch. II. p. 46, sq. 
 
158 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 sources, when the force and signification of them 
 can be illustrated and fixed by domestic exam- 
 ples. Thus the name "koyoc in John many suppose 
 to be borrowed from the philosophy of Plato, or 
 of Philo 6 nXarMvifyv' Others that it signifies the 
 divine wisdom personified in the Jewish manner, 
 or the divine interpreter, rh Xiyoi/ra, and they 
 dispute largely here respecting the adversaries 
 whom John intended to refute. But it is per- 
 fectly evident, that it here denotes a certain 
 olfficiv, 'oTj/Mari ^soO yiyovora -Trfo crotc^jj xr/ffsw;, --^cj- 
 TOTOzov, di' ov '/.at roug aiuvag £'roir,asv and that this 
 word, which is used by John as well known to 
 those whom he wrote, i. e. not to learned men 
 but to unlearned Christians, is not to be ex- 
 plained in a manner new and unusual among 
 Jews and Christians ; but so that it wouhl be 
 easily understood by all those accustomed to 
 speak of the Messiah in the same manner. 
 They however were wont zar ^^^oyj,v, to call 
 the Messiah rh Xiyoixsm, the promised of God, 
 ip-^oiMivov, him tcho is to come, the first and most 
 excellent of all created things in his origin, 
 nature, and power ; so that the word is to be 
 explained in the same manner, in which all at 
 that time spoke of the MessiaJi.*" But from 
 
 '' See Kcil de Doctoribus Ecclesiae a culpa corruptae per 
 I'lat. rec. Doctr. Comm. II. [The author is here descrilnng 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMt::NT. 159 
 
 this uncertain interpretation of the word "i^oyot, 
 there have not only arisen many forced inter- 
 pretations, but the whole purpose of the apostle 
 seems to be perverted. 
 
 2. There have also been others, in the se- 
 cond place, who have every where sought to 
 iind Hebraisms ; and these, while they have at- 
 tempted to explain from the Hebrew^ language 
 words and phrases which ought to be inter- 
 preted according to Greek usage, have in va- 
 rious ways tortured the sense of the sacred 
 writers. Thus they have given it as a pre- 
 cept, that the use of the abstract for the con- 
 crete (as we say in the schools) is a Hebraism. 
 But this is done in all languages, and especi- 
 ally among the Greeks, in whose language are 
 extant some of the most elegant examples of 
 this figure. '^ The Seventy also have often 
 placed abstract words, where the Hebrew text 
 has concrete ones ; e. g. Ex. xix. 6, where 
 they have UodriuiJ.cc instead of hot;, for the He- 
 brew DOrtD, as in 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9.— So when 
 
 the prepositions h and u; are interchanged, 
 
 the manner in which the Jews spoke of the Messiah, in Order 
 to illustrate the proper sense in which the word x'oyo; is to be 
 understood. The apostle, on the^other hand, declares to the 
 Jews, that Sjoj h o Xoyo;. — Ed.] 
 
 ^ Casaubon ad Allien. I. 9. D'Orville ad Chariton. V. 5. 
 
160 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 these writers have referred it to a Hebraism. 
 But this permutation was exceedingly common 
 among" the Greeks. The phrase sJg to cpavsoov 
 instead of sv rOj (tavioCJ, is well known; and Thu- 
 cydides very often puts Iv with the dative for slg 
 with the accusative.'^ Dionysius of Halicar- 
 nassus (Lib. IV. p. 276) also says xaraksKpysvTzc 
 sJg ro ffT^a-orrzdov, for sv tui oT^aroTg^w. The form 
 s/g adov moreover, is plainly Attic, for sv ddow 
 but in Euripides w^e read, h.sTS' sv adov ■/.siGoij.ai 
 X<^{'i <^2^2y. But it cannot be denied, that the 
 words sig and sv in the New Testament are of- 
 ten employed according to Hebrew usage, 
 when they express the Hebrew H and 7 f e. g. 
 
 where h signifies inopter^ or per ; although ex- 
 amples of this usage occur in the most elegant 
 of the Greek writers. So Demosthenes de 
 Corona, p. 308, h oudivi ruv 5ra^' i/xoD ysyovvTav rriv 
 yj'rrav svorjffsrs' and Andocides de Mysteriis, p. 
 79, sv rovTU) 6U)0g-)c/j ufxag, for ()ta rourov x.r.X. and 
 so in the other passages. 
 
 Hebraisms are strictly forms of speech ap- 
 propriate and peculiar to those who speak the 
 Hebrew language ; or they are /d/wr/o;ao/ ruv 
 
 'i Diikerad Thuc. Lib. VII. c. IG. 
 
 "- VorStius de Hebr. N. T. p. 213, 219. Gataker de Stilo 
 N. T. p. 180, sq. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 161 
 
 'EjSpaiuv. For although even in classical Greek 
 there are found many things which have a 
 great similitude in words and forms to the 
 Hebrew language/ nevertheless these and all 
 other things which are not wholly peculiar to 
 the Hebrews, but are also found among other 
 nations, and current in their usage and lan- 
 guage, are not to be regarded as Hebraisms, 
 but as general forms common to every lan- 
 guage, even though they may particularly oc- 
 cur in Hebrew writers. Indeed, as every lan- 
 guage has its own tdtdo/j^ara or peculiar forms of 
 speech, of which the Greek participles are an 
 example, so also there are other constructions 
 and forms which are of universal prevalence in 
 all languages. When therefore these are 
 found in a writer, they are to be regarded as 
 employed by common right and usage, and not 
 as peculiar to the particular language in w hich 
 he writes. Thus many expressions in the New 
 Testament have been stamped with the name 
 of Hebraisms for no other reason whatever, 
 than because it w^as taken for granted that the 
 writers of the New Testament have imitated 
 the Hebrew mode of speaking, just as if they 
 
 f This is shewn by J. A. Ernesti in his Prolusio de vcsii- 
 giis lin()uae Hebraicae bi Ihujua Graeca^ Opusc. Phiiul. 
 Crit. L. B. 1776. 
 
 VOL. II. M 
 
162 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 could not have derived those forms from the 
 like usage of the Greek language which they 
 were writing. Many Hebraisms have thus 
 been pointed out by Vorstius, Leusden, and 
 others, which might be just as properly called 
 Hellenisms, because, forsooth, they occur in 
 the New Testament, in writers 'E/S^a^-^ovrgg, 
 they are Hebraisms ; while the same things, 
 when found in Demosthenes, Thucydides, 
 Xenophon, or Polybius, are pronounced to be 
 good and elegant Greek. Thus in the New 
 Testament, the use of the demonstrative pro- 
 noun without apparent necessity after a noun 
 or relative pronoun, has been regarded as a 
 Hebraism, inasmuch as the Hebrews do indeed 
 use this construction, as also the Arabs, Sy- 
 rians, Greeks and Romans. Still that cannot 
 surely be reckoned as a Hebrew idiom, which 
 is also employed by the best writers of other 
 nations. Casaubon in commenting on a pas- 
 sage of Apuleius, who makes frequent use of 
 this pleonasm, says, " Est 'E/.A?iv/(y/xoc, familiaris 
 huic scriptori, apud quem saepe reperias earn 
 dictionem rtoLPkXy.ovGav. — Ita autem Graeci, He- 
 rodotus praesertim atque Pausanias, atque e 
 recentioribus Agatliias." ' It is a Hellenism 
 familiar to this writer, in whom you often find 
 tliis pleonastic construction. 80 also the 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. l63 
 
 Greeks, and especially Herodotus, Pausaiiias, 
 and of later writers, Agathias.' But when he 
 adds, etsi id proprie Hebraeorum dialecti esse, 
 certum est, ' although this belongs peculiarly 
 to the dialect of the Hebrews,' it is impossible 
 to understand by what right the learned writer 
 makes this assertion. Who would consider 
 Cicero as employing a Hebraism, w^hen he 
 says (Orat. pro Coel. c. 4), " lUud tempus ae- 
 tatis, quod, ipsum, sua sponte infirmum, alio- 
 rum lubidine infestum est, id hoc loco de- 
 fendo?" or in writing to Sulpicius (ad Div. 
 XVIII. 28), " lUud quod supra scripsi, ^^ tibi 
 confirmo?" Compare pro Lege Man. c. 10. 
 So also Sallust (Bell. Catil. c. 37), " Sed ur- 
 bana plebes, ea vero praeceps ierat." More- 
 over in Thucydides, 6 'AmKdJrarog, the most 
 Attic of all Greek writers, we find the same 
 construction; e. g, IV. 93, rS) ds ' iT'^ox.odrn wn 
 -Trs^l TO A'^Xtov, ug uvtCj r^'y/sA'^i^. In Demos- 
 thenes also ovrog is elegantly pleonastic (rassX/cs/) 
 in his Oratt. (ed. Reisk.) adv. Mid. p. 522, 
 adv. Aristog. A. p. 775, de Corona, p. 280. 
 So in Xenophon, Cj^rop. Lib. 11. p. 51, 
 
 (o ^soc) aXkoxjg avroTg sirirazr^oag hiooxsu The 
 
 construction in all these assages is evidently 
 
164 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 the same as in Matt. iv. 16, viii. 5 ; John xv. 
 2, xviii. 11. 
 
 We turn now to some examples of forced in- 
 terpretation, which have sprung from this 
 source. In Matt. xii. S6, many understand 
 Infj^a, uoylv to mean loicked and injurious icurds ; 
 as if ccpyh were the same as rnvri^ov, which is 
 found as a gloss in Cod. 126. They think the 
 sense to be this : ' Believe me, that for every 
 wicked and injurious word shall men hereafter 
 render an account.' They suppose the Lord 
 intended in these words to reprehend the Pha- 
 risees, who had impiously spoken against him, 
 and to threaten them with the severest pu- 
 nishments, inasmuch as every one of their in- 
 jurious and impious words should one day be 
 punished. The supporters of this interpreta- 
 tion of the word df/hg endeavour to confirm it 
 
 by comparing /'tO^? (from the Heb. ^t0!3?) 
 
 which they suppose to be used of vain, useless, 
 and also injurious words. They are not in- 
 deed able to bring forward examples from the 
 Hebrew language itself; but they adduce 
 two passages from the Chaldee version, viz. 
 Ex. V. 9, where Onkelos expresses IpCi^ Hll 
 
 by r^^LOn |^":::lnQ, and Ecc. v. 2. They ap- 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 165 
 
 peal also to the Hebrew version of the New 
 Testament published by Miinster, which here 
 
 renders g-^/o-a aoyo)) by ^li0'3 *)1'1 ; and to the 
 
 Syriac, which has fj^o lli:o; compare the same 
 versions on Matt. xxv. 3). But, so far as I 
 can see, these examples prove only that a^yov 
 
 might be expressed in Chaldee by 7^lD3, and 
 
 denotes idle^ otiosus, and then useless^ slothful ; 
 but not that the writers of the New Testament, 
 when they said dpyovn imitated the usage of 
 the Chaldee tongue. Nor in the Hebrew text 
 are there any examples, that the expression 
 idle or vain words is used to denote injurious, 
 mischievous words. In short, it cannot be 
 proved from these passages, that those trans- 
 lators employed the word 7't33 in the sense of 
 
 'jtovri^ov. For the a-X^uog dovXog in Matt. XXV. 30, 
 is one who is useless, unprojitable, i. e. who 
 brings his master no advantage ; not necessa- 
 rily one who is wicked. And 1p£J^ also often 
 
 denotes that which is vain, empty, as Jer. viii. 
 8, xvi. 18, where 'Ipt^^^ is rendered in the 
 
 Septuagint by g/c /^ctr^jy* and very frequently 
 too it signifies falsehood, as Ex. xxv. 15, and 
 especially Prov. xii. 22, xvii. 7, where the Se- 
 
166 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 venty have rightly translated ^pt^-^HD^ by 
 
 p/?/>.?} -^svdrj.^ This interpretation, moreover, 
 would not be in accordance with what precedes 
 in verses 33 — 35, nor with what follows in 
 verse 37.. For it is not any wicked discourse 
 that is there reprehended, but the feigned piety 
 of the Pharisees, and their aifected zeal for the 
 public welfare. In order to avoid the charge 
 of levity and indifference, they demanded 
 (verse 38) a sign, crjfisTov, as if desirous that 
 both they and others might know whether 
 Jesus was truly the Messiah. Against this 
 dissimulation in those who uttered nothing 
 sincerely and from the heart, Jesus had in- 
 veighed in severe and appropriate terms in 
 verses 33 — 35, using the comparison of a 
 tree, which no one judges to be good and 
 useful, unless it bears good fruit ; and from 
 which, if it be bad, no one expects good fruit.'' 
 But if now the sense of verse 36 is such 
 
 e Compare Drusius in Auimadv. ad. h. 1. Vorstius de 
 Hebr. N. T. p. 80. Fischer de Vit. Lex. N.T. Diss. XXV. 
 p. 569, sq. 
 
 *" noii7¥ signifies here to judge, consider, regard; of 
 which sense Rapliel (on this passage) has collected many ex- 
 amples from Herodotus. Such examples however are fre- 
 quent in Greek; see e. g. Dionys- Hal. Ant. Rom. IV. 211. 
 i^allust. Philos. c 9. Stobaeus Serm. 247.— See on tl»e 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 167 
 
 as these interpreters would make it, there is 
 added in it a sentiment altogether foreign to 
 what precedes, frigid, and apyh;, i. e. wholly- 
 destitute of effect and force ; and also not con- 
 gruous to the sentiment of verse 37. For 
 where the Lord says (verse 37) that every one 
 shall hereafter be judged by his words, he can- 
 not be understood as meaning, that every one 
 will be capable of proving his integrity and 
 goodness merely by his words alone ; a senti- 
 ment surely as far as possible from the inten- 
 tion of our divine Master. We must there- 
 fore necessarily understand a certain kind of 
 words or discourse, which, under the appear- 
 ance of sincerity and integrity, is often the 
 worst possible, and xara^/xa^s/ rh ai'SswTov, "con- 
 demns >a man," .because it is uttered with an 
 evil purpose. If then we interpret aoyh ac- 
 cording to established Greek usuage, there 
 arises a facile and very appropriate sense ; 
 namely, af/oj is the same as oaoyoc, otiosiis, 
 vain, idle ; then, void of effect, without result, 
 folloiced by no corresponding events Therefore 
 
 other hand Glass in Philol. Sac. Lib. 1. p. 228, ed. Dathe. 
 But such modes of speech are surely not to be reckoned as 
 belonging to any peculiar usage of the sacred writers, when 
 they are found in almost every language. 
 
 ' Compare Demosth. xari 'Afofiau Xey a!, p. 815, ed 
 Reisk. 
 
168 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 jjj/xa d^yov is empty and vain icords or discourse, 
 i. e. void of truth, and to which the event does 
 not correspond ; [xdraiog Xoyog, <zpdt,i(av a/xoi^og 
 ysvofievog, as Demosthenes expresses it.'' In 
 short, it is the empty, inconsiderate, insincere 
 language of a man who says one thing and 
 means another ; and in this sense d^yhg is very 
 frequently employed by the Greeks. Thus 
 in Stobaeus (Serm. c. 34) we find aloiToorsoov dot 
 idrct) Xi^ov iixri (SaXBTi/, yj Xoyov dpyor which 
 words, as it seems to me, Palairet and Kypke 
 (on this verse) have incorrectly understood as 
 meaning icicked^ ittjurious language, when they 
 ought to be explained of empty discourse, ut- 
 tered inconsiderately and without sincerity, as 
 is shewn by the comparison of a stone thrown 
 u%% in vain, loitliout effect Hierocles also, in 
 speaking of vain prayers,' dvivlDynrov ihyjiv, calls 
 them 70 doyh^ i. e. inefficacious, since they result 
 in nothing, being made -v^/X^c rJjc sv^rig roTg Xo- 
 
 rag, " with merely thoughts of prayer, profiting 
 nothing for the acquisition of the things sought." 
 The same writer in another passage opposes 
 
 r'^v doyiav rou xaXoij to r^ Ivioyiia rov'/caxov, '* the in- 
 efficiency of good to the energy of evil." The 
 
 •^ In Orat. ad Philippi Epist. 
 ' In Carm. anr. Pythagor. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 169 
 
 sophism of the ancients, called the doylg Xoyog, 
 ignava ratio^ is also well known. Chrysostom 
 therefore says correctly," a^yoi/ h\ rb //.ri xara 
 it^ayiLCLTOC, Xiifj^svov^ rh "^vobsg, to Cuzo<paiiTiav s^ov, 
 " the word d^^yhv signifies that which is not ac- 
 cording to fact, false, delusive." Hence it 
 would appear that the following is the sense of 
 the passage under consideration : " Believe me, 
 he who uses false and insincere language shall 
 suffer grievous punishment ; your words, if 
 uttered with sincerity and ingenuousness, shall 
 be approved, but if they are dissembled, al- 
 though they may bear the strongest appear- 
 ance of integrity, they shall be condemned."** 
 
 •" So called by Cicero de Fato c. 12. Facciolatus has 
 treated of this sophism in his Acroas. V. [The following 
 is the passage of Cicero above refei-red to. " Nee nos im- 
 pediet ilia ignava ratio, quae dicitur ; appellatur enim qui- 
 dam a philosophis i^yos koyeg, cui si pareamus, nihil omnino 
 agamus in vita. Sic enim interrogant : Si fatum tibi est, ex 
 hoc morbo convalescere ; sive medicum adhibueris, sive non, 
 convalesces. Item, si fatum tibi est, ex hoc morbo nou 
 convalescere ; sive tu medicum adhibueris, sive non, non 
 convalesces; et alterutrum fatum est. IMedicum ergo adhi- 
 bere nihil attinet. Recte genus hoc interrogationis ignavum 
 atque iners nominatum est, quod eadem ratione omnis e vita 
 tolletur actio."] 
 
 « Homil. XLIII. inMatt. 
 
 ** We have dwelt somewhat longer on this passage, for th« 
 purpose of shewing, with how much uncertainty and indefi- 
 
170 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 3. Other interpreters, in the third place, 
 misled by that ambiguity above described, 
 have either neglected all grammatical laws, or 
 have too strenuously observed them. Although 
 the writers of the New Testament have not in- 
 deed always followed the rules of the Greek 
 language ; yet it cannot be said that they have 
 wholly neglected them. It will suffice to give 
 an example of each kind. On the one 
 hand, interpreters would have spared them- 
 selves much pains, and done less violence to 
 many passages of the New Testament, had 
 they recollected the rule of Greek syntax, that 
 futures often have the force of aorists f as James 
 
 niteness tte comparison of the oriental tongues has hitherto 
 been apphed to the interpretation of the New Testament. 
 Although it is by no means our opinion, that nothing is to be 
 gained by referring to the analogy of those languages ; and 
 while we believe, on the contrary, that this is productive of 
 rery great utility ; still it would seem to be necessary to ap- 
 ply this principle with very great caution. Those interpre- 
 ters certainly act most considerately, who prefer to explain 
 the words of a writer from the usus loquendi of his own lan- 
 guage, rather than by the uncertain analogy or similarity of 
 a foreign tongue. The study of such analogies is no doubt 
 very attractive ; but they have also given occasion to many 
 forced interpretations. For want of due caution, such inter- 
 preters have been exposed columbae collo commoverl, as Cicero 
 .says, Academ. IV. 25. 
 
 '' See Lennep, Analog. Ling. Graecae, p. 354. 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 171 
 
 ii. 18, xayw 0£/Jw, which is to be rendered, as I 
 also am accudomed to sheiv you; and farther, 
 that aorists often signify the continuance of the 
 action which the verb expresses ; as James v. 
 6, KccTsdr/iaffars, s^ovivcfars rov o'r/.aiov^ l. e. ye are 
 accustomed to condemn and murder the innocent; 
 and so in the passage cited above from Matthew 
 (xii. 33), 'zoiTiffarz is to be translated judge or 
 7'egard habitually^ etc. I conjecture also, in the 
 very difficult passage in 1 Pet. iii. 20, that 6'-? 
 is put elliptically for w; In, the w? being here 
 left out, as is often done in comparisons '^ and 
 this being admitted, a remedy perhaps can be 
 applied to the passage. — On the other hand, 
 in James, iii. 6. 6 %oV/xog rJjc ahmac, interpreters 
 have been troubled by the article 6 before the 
 predicate, as if they expected in this writer an 
 entire grammatical accuracy, uTiolSna' comp. 
 John i., 1. It is here the article s^r,yriTr/,og, as it 
 is called, or as used dsr/,riKoJg,^ and was familiar 
 to the Hebrew^s, who not unfrequently employ- 
 ed their -n to connect the subject with the pre- 
 
 'i See Bos, Ellips. Graec. p. 392. Noldius, Concord. 
 Part. p. 379. Gataker Advers..lMis,c. II. 20, p. 382. Com- 
 pare Eustath. ad II. &(''258, it? xdvrxvBa T^offvraxtunv ffwri^ui 
 cu$. Compare also 2 Pet. iii. 4. 
 
 ■■ See Vigerus de Idiotism. Ling. Graecae, p. 19, ed. Her- 
 mann. 1822. 
 
172 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 dicate.^ — It would be indeed a very great merit 
 in regard to sacred interpretation, if some one 
 would ascertain and illustrate the analogies 
 of the Greek style of the New Testament with 
 more diligence and accuracy, than has yet been 
 done by those who thus wander in uncertainty 
 and ambiguity ; and would in this way establish 
 some certain principles and rules in regard to 
 this diction. It would then be easy to avoid 
 a multitude of forced interpretations.'^ 
 
 II. We come now to the second cause men- 
 tioned above. We have said that a multitude 
 of forced interpretations have had their origin 
 in this circumstance, that the interpreters have 
 not accurately understood or regarded the 
 
 * Gesenius Lehrgeb. p. 708. Stuart's Heb. Gramm. § 
 447. 
 
 * Inasmuch as those who are ignorant of the analogies of 
 an ancient language, can employ no certain method in ex- 
 plaining the monuments of that language, but must be go- 
 verned by the authority of uncertain usage or the hints of 
 gr;inimarians ; so also the interpretation of the New Testa- 
 ment must necessarily be destitute of any certain laws, so 
 long as the analogies of the language which the sacred writers 
 employed, shall not be defined in as accurate and certain a 
 manner as possible. These analogies consist, to use the lan- 
 guage of I. D. Lennep, " in the constant and uniform like- 
 ness and correspondence (similitudo et convenientia) of all 
 the words which compose a language, distril)uted into certain 
 
 classes ; of the significations attached to them ; and lastly, of 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 173 
 
 genius of the writer," and the times and per- 
 sons for whom he wrote. We will speak of 
 these in succession. 
 
 1. There is evidently a diversity of style and 
 manner among the different writers of the 
 New Testament, corresponding to their diver- 
 sity of talent and disposition, which must be 
 diligently observed by those who wish to avoid 
 a forced mode of interpretation. The style of 
 John is placid, but marked nevertheless occa- 
 sionally by more difficult words and phrases. 
 The language of Paul is fervid, often involved, 
 throwing aside all else for the sake of some easy 
 similitude, pouring itself out in figures, tropes, 
 comparisons, antitheses of members, parallelisms 
 
 the phrases and whole construction ;" and they are exhibited 
 not only in the laws which regulate the formation of words, 
 but also and chiefly investigate the sources of the significations 
 and the proper method of defining them, as well as the various 
 laws of construction. See h. C Valcknaer and J. C. Lennep? 
 ObservatU de Analogia Ling. Graecae, ed. Ev- Scheid. Traj, 
 ad. R. 1790. Whether there are, in the Greek language of 
 the New Testament, any certain and distinct analogical rela- 
 tions, may be questioned by others ; for ourselves we are 
 persuaded, that unless these be discovered and established, 
 the interpretation of the New Testament must be given over 
 to the caprice of every interpreter. 
 
 " The author has not hitherto directly included this parti- 
 cular topic among the causes of forced interpretation ; although 
 he has more than once referred to it indirectly; see p. 140 
 seq. — Ed. 
 
174 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 of words ; yet not wholy destitute of rhetorical 
 art. Peter's mind is rapid and impetuous, 
 scarcely bearing the restraints of continued 
 discourse ; his language is inelegant, often in- 
 terrupted, obscured by new words, vehement, 
 yet variable. Of the other writers also the 
 genius is different and the style various. The 
 diction of Matthew is unlike that of Luke. In 
 the former you find a mode of writing some- 
 what harsh and inelegant, indicating an un- 
 practised writer ; in the latter there is more 
 polish, and a certain degree of elegance and 
 ornanlent. The characteristic of Mark is con- 
 ciseness in the highest degree. But in each 
 we find certain words and phrases, which are 
 in a manner their own ; and which either do not 
 occur in the others, or are found in a different 
 sense. Now since it is impossible to ascertain 
 the sense of any writer without an accurate 
 knowledge of the particular usage and manner 
 which are familiar and appropriate to that 
 writer; it is easy to perceive, and the expe- 
 rience of all ages demonstrates the fact, that 
 those who are ignorant of or neglect these 
 things, have proposed interpretations in the 
 highest degree forced. This is done especially 
 in regard to metaphors and comparisons, which 
 every one employs more or less. And the same 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 175 
 
 thing often takes place, when language which 
 in one writer ought to be interpreted metapho- 
 rically, requires in another to be explained 
 literally ; or when words which one author uses 
 in their proper sense, are therefore understood 
 in the same manner in another writer. — But to 
 have suggested this point is sufficient ; as our 
 object in this discussion is not to speak of par- 
 ticular passages of writers, but of interpreta- 
 tion in general. 
 
 2. In order properly to understand and ex- 
 plain any writer, an acquaintance with the 
 times in which he lived and for which he wrote, 
 must evidently be of the highest advantage. 
 In this indeed lies almost the whole sum and 
 essence of the so called historical interpretation, 
 from which, however, the grammatical can in 
 no way be separated.^ Had now very many 
 interpreters held to this principle, and paid 
 
 ^ The necessity of the union of both these modes, is de- 
 monstrated by Keil in his Commentat. de historica Lib. sac- 
 ror. interpretalionk ejusque necessitate, Leip. 1788. There is 
 in fact no grammatical interpretation, and cannot be, unless 
 joined with the' historical. There are indeed some who wish 
 to separate the two ; but while they pass an unfavourable 
 judgment on the form.er, they change the latter into an un- 
 bridled license of conjecture in regard to words — Comp. G. 
 Ij. Bauer in Philol. Glassii his temporibiis accommodiita, T. 
 II. Sect. ii. p. 25G, seq. 
 
176 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 due regard to the circumstances of time and 
 place, there is no doubt that they would have 
 experienced far less difficulty in judging of 
 very many passages of the New Testament. 
 Since, however, they neglected to do this, it 
 was not possible but that they should often dis- 
 tort the true sense of the sacred writers into 
 one entirely different, and thus pervert the 
 doctrine of Jesus and the apostles ; or at least 
 should introduce into theology, and therefore 
 into religion itself, things which were written 
 only for those particular times {e. g. from the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews) ; or more especially, 
 from the misapprehension of tropical language, 
 should forge new dogmas foreign to the mind 
 and purpose of the sacred writers. Examples 
 of this kind are too common to require to be 
 exhibited here. 
 
 3. If also it be of the highest utility in re- 
 spect to right interpretation, to have regard to 
 the men of those times, to their characters, 
 manners and customs, opinions, vices, etc. then 
 have interpreters been guilty in this respect of 
 a twofold error, and have thus been led to give 
 many a distorted interpretation. 
 
 On the one hand, there have been those 
 (and they are probably the greater number), 
 who suppose that the apostles spoke and wrote 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 177 
 
 according to the preconceived opinions of that 
 age ; and that our Lord himself, in like manner, 
 accnmniodafed himself to their feelings and pre- 
 judices. This supposition is doubtless in a 
 certain degree true, as has long since been con- 
 ceded by the most learned interpreters ; but it 
 also cannot be denied, that many in applying 
 it have gone quite too far, and done violence 
 to the sense and intention of the sacred writers. 
 Examples of this are almost innumerable : but 
 none is perhaps clearer and more striking than 
 that of miracles and prophecy. It is evidently 
 not the part of an interpreter, to attempt to 
 shew how far that w^hich is said may be true in 
 itself, but simply to explain the meaning of the 
 writer, and shew what he thought. The for- 
 mer indeed is not to interpret, but to philoso- 
 phise, as Ernesti has well demonstrated.^ Now^ 
 that the opinion of the apostles and of our 
 Lord himself in regard to miracles and pro- 
 phecy, has been altogether changed and dis- 
 torted by disputations of this sort, must be 
 conceded, especially by those who are persuad- 
 ed that these things (miracles and prophecy) 
 exerted their highest influence precisely upon 
 those, among w^hom they were performed and 
 
 ? Prolus. de Vaiiitate philosophantium in Religione, in 
 0pp. Philol. Crit. 
 
 VOL. II. N 
 
178 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 exercised. If the apostles were eye-witnesses, 
 who could not be deceived, and have narrated 
 all events and circumstances just as they oc- 
 curred ; and if our Lord was such as he is de- 
 scribed in the New Testament, and such as 
 adversaries themselves concede him to have 
 been, then those interpreters surely act with- 
 out consideration, who explain their language 
 in such a way as to make them subject either 
 to reproach on account of fraud, or to correc- 
 tion on account of error ; who make Jesus 
 either a juggler, deceiving the people by his 
 arts, (for no fraud can derive an excuse from the 
 intention with which it is committed), or else a 
 vain-oflorious man who boasts that this and 
 that which the prophets have uttered without 
 meaning (s/jjJj), has not only been fulfilled in 
 himself, but was also primarily spoken in re- 
 ference to him alone. Whether such interpre- 
 tation as this is to be tolerated, does not need 
 to be discussed. But if the apostles were de- 
 ceived, and have narrated many things which 
 they indeed believed to be true, but which in 
 fact are not true, still the interpreter is not 
 permitted to doubt respecting their real opi- 
 nion. Nor, on the contrary, when the things 
 which they relate, appear not to be true, is he 
 iJlowed so to explain or rather distort their 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 179 
 
 words, as to give them a greater appearance ol" 
 truth. Such license no one would think of 
 employing in regard to profane writers ; nor do 
 the laws of just interpretation in any degree 
 tolerate it. 
 
 On the other hand, there have been those, 
 especially in former times, who have had no 
 regard whatever to the contemporaries of the 
 sacred writers ; nor have observed for what 
 persons, or against what opinions or customs 
 of that age, this or that passage was written ; 
 as for instance, in regard to those subjects 
 which Paul discusses in the Epistles to the 
 Romans and Hebrews. Hence they have nei- 
 ther properly understood the sacred books nor 
 rightly explained them ; or rather, they have 
 extorted from them doctrines and opinions evi- 
 dently foreign to the meaning of the writers. 
 In the explanation of single words also, we see 
 many fall into similar errors from the same 
 cause ; they have acquired no distinct know- 
 ledge of the persons for whom the apostles 
 wrote, and have therefore advanced many 
 things which these writers, addressing those 
 persons, seem never to have thought of. Thus 
 many have formerly supposed that the use of 
 the words ^wj, (puT/^nv ^w/^, 'rr'/jjoojfj.a., was to be 
 deduced from the philosophy of the Gnostics, 
 
180 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS 
 
 although the use of them with reference to the 
 Messiah was already familiar to the Jews. So 
 R. Chaia explains 9^5, *)ij^, Gen. i. 3, alle- 
 gorically of the Messiah ; and R. Bechai also 
 applies the words IIX Ti] WTih^ "iQtin 
 to the days of the Messiah, DlO^ hv TlDI^ 
 n'5i^/!Dl. So in the Pesikta Babba it is said 
 
 that when God hid the light, ^^^ Satan came 
 to him and asked him to look at it ; and having 
 seen it he said, l^m^ H^^p KIH ^X^i:i 
 
 T . .. . - T T •• T : • . - . 
 
 " verily this is the Messiah who is to come, 
 and to cast me and all the princes of the na- 
 tions forever into Gehenna ;" compare Is. xxv. 
 8. R. Bechai says further (fol. 5. col. 4) 
 that this same light, the Messiah, existed be- 
 fore all ages, and was present D^ti^KlS* at the 
 creation; that this is the beginning of all 
 things, the light of wisdom, VsH K^n: 1nt^* 
 
 rt/' oy ra Tai/ra eys\>iro, as the apostle says, John i. 
 3. Bechai in Leg. fol. 125. In Beresh. 
 Babba all R. Samuel Bar Nachman says, that 
 this light was with God ; but R. Bechai (fol. 
 89, 4) teaches, that the same becomes incar- 
 nate through the will of God. Hence we 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 181 
 
 should prefer, were it necessary, to illustrate 
 such words as these from the writings of the 
 Jews, rather than from the Gnostic philoso- 
 phy. In like manner a very recent interpreter 
 of John's Gospel has explained the words 
 rvsD/xa 6 ^=k, John iv. 24, in the sense in which 
 the word spirit would be defined by philoso- 
 phers at the present day : " God is a Spirit, 
 i. e. his whole being is intellectual and moral 
 perfection."^ Is it then credible, that our 
 Lord should have taught these philosophical 
 precepts to the Samaritan woman ? Indeed, 
 the word was never employed by the Jews in 
 this philosophical sense ; nor does it so occur 
 in any Greek writer. 
 
 III. There remains now the third cause of 
 forced interpretations, which we have indicated 
 above, and which we may dispatch in few 
 words. The context^ namely, as is in itself evi- 
 dent, is an important auxiliary in ascertaining 
 the true sense of a passage, especially where 
 there is any ambiguity in the words or forms of 
 construction, any obscurity or novelty in the 
 circumstances, or any neglect of the usus lo- 
 quencli. Still, this principle requires unques- 
 tionably very great caution in the application 
 
 ^ " Sein ganzes Wesen ist Geistigkeit und Moralitat. " 
 
182 CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS. 
 
 of it, particularly in regard to writers who have 
 not been trained in the rules of the schools, 
 ■/.ai ohx sv didccKToT; avSpwc/vTjg 6o(piag "koyoK; XaXoum' 
 and more than all, in epistolary writing, where 
 often an argument is not carried out in such a 
 way, that all its parts are entirely coherent. This 
 indeed is not usual in epistles of any kind. 
 There is commonly in a letter a great variety 
 of topics, some of which are treated in one 
 way, and some in another. When therefore in- 
 terpreters have trusted too much, or indeed 
 wholly, to this principle, and have been con- 
 tented to make out a sense in some degree suit- 
 able to the context, and to seek every where a 
 dialectic congruity and a sort of logical arrange- 
 ment; it could not be otherwise than that they 
 should often advance empty conjectures instead 
 of true interpretations, and torture passages of 
 Scripture until they could elicit from them 
 *4ome similitude with the general series of dis- 
 course. This however is of itself obvious; and 
 therefore requires here no further illustration. 
 
 We come then to the conclusion, for the 
 sake of which this discussion was instituted. 
 
USE OF THE PARTICLE 
 "IN A 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY THE TRANSLATOR. 
 
 A SOMEWHAT familiar acquaintance with the 
 writings of Professor Tittmann has brought 
 me to regard him as one of the most able, 
 sober, and impartial critics on the language of 
 the New Testament that Germany has of late 
 produced. He has left nothing behind him 
 which I have seen, that will not abundantly 
 repay perusal, and even study ; which is more 
 than can be truly said of most writers, in any 
 age or country. 
 
 It requires indeed, some knowledge of criti- 
 cism, in order to understand and relish the 
 works of this writer. But those who have such 
 
184 USE OF-INA 
 
 knowledge, will employ their time in a very- 
 profitable manner by studying them. Acute- 
 ness, sound judgment, uncommon powers of 
 nice discrimination, together with grammatical 
 and exegetical tact, abound in them all. The 
 student who aims at solid philological acquisi- 
 tion, such as the present times demand, should 
 number the works of Titmann among his text- 
 books. 
 
 Sacred literature has, not long since, been 
 called to mourn the too early death of this 
 distinguished critic. The piece which follows 
 is a posthumous publication ; as the title indi- 
 cates. The importance of the subject which 
 it discusses, can hardly be appreciated in a pro- 
 per manner, at first, by a cursory reader ; and 
 it may therefore be proper, to premise a few 
 things in the way of explanation. 
 
 The use and signification of the particles in 
 Greek, once a subject of little interest and at- 
 tention among lexicographers and gramma- 
 rians, has come at length, and very justly, to 
 occupy a high and commanding place in criti- 
 cism. One important ground of preference, 
 which the great lexicon of Passow has over all 
 other Greek lexicons, is the special attention 
 that the author of it has paid to the develop- 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 185 
 
 ment of the powers and uses of the Greek par- 
 ticles. The old work of Hoogeveen on this 
 subject, which occupies many hundreds of 
 quarto pages, contains a great mass of matter, 
 and is the result of more than Herculean la- 
 bour. But the critical student finds, after all, 
 so little of order, method, philosophy of lan- 
 guage, nice grammatical discrimination, and 
 other qualities of this nature now so imperious- 
 ly demanded by the present state of Greek 
 criticism, that he is apt soon to grow weary of 
 consulting this Thesaurus, Good use may be 
 made of it, however, in the selection of ex- 
 amples, by a student who already possesses the 
 power of discrimination ; but Hoogeveen would 
 hardly be a safe guide for one who has yet to 
 acquire such a power. 
 
 Devarius ou the Greek Particles, is a small 
 work. It has, however, some claims to re- 
 spectful mention. The larger work of Vigerus 
 de Idintismis Ling. Graecae, is well known even 
 in this country, and has become common, 
 particularly by means of the abridged form in 
 which it has lately appeared in England. Her- 
 mann, in his German edition of the work, has 
 made many important corrections, and supplied 
 some new and important matter. But after all, 
 
1^<^ USE 0F"1NA 
 
 the new patches will hardly suit well the old 
 garment, in this case. The real fact is, that 
 Vigerus, like Hoogeveen, has become in a mea- 
 sure antiquated. The old manner of dividing 
 and subdividing the meaning of words, (until, 
 by ramification which is almost without mea- 
 sure or bounds, the sight of the original mean- 
 ing of the word and the proper ground of its 
 derived significations are wholly obscured or 
 lost), is the one which Vigerus follows through- 
 out. In this way, one might almost say* 
 it is easy dcducere aliquid ex aliqiio. So has 
 Schleusner often done, in his lexicon of the 
 New Testament; which still is a work that 
 contains much that is valuable. An erroneous 
 taste in matters of this kind, was introduced by. 
 a few such works as Hoogeveen, Vigerus, and 
 others of similar character, which greatly in- 
 jured most of the later lexicographers and cri- 
 tics in regard to their method of treating the 
 Greek particles, until within a few years. A 
 very different school is now rising up under 
 the influence of such works as those of Passow, 
 Hermann, Matthiae, Butmann, Winer, and 
 others ; which bids fair to throw more light 
 upon the long neglected subject of those little 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 187 
 
 words, that have often and appropriately been 
 named the joints and bands of discourse. 
 
 On the use of a particle very often depends 
 the whole turn and mode of a writer or speaker's 
 meaning or reasoning ; yea, the main object of 
 the discourse itself. For an example let us 
 take the word ha, ; of which Tittmann has so 
 copiously, ably, and satisfactorily discoursed, in 
 the following pages. 
 
 The evangelist Matthew, in chap. i. 18-21, 
 gives an account of an angel's prediction in 
 respect to the supernatural conception and the 
 birth of Jesus, and also of the reason assigned 
 by the angel why the Saviour's name should 
 be called Jesn^. At the close of this account 
 the evangelist adds : "Now all this was done, 
 ha irArjocti^J! to ^rl^h ■/.. r. X, that it might he fuljill- 
 ed which was spoken of the Lord, by the pro- 
 phet, saying : Behold a virgin shall conceive 
 and bear a Son," etc. This is one form in 
 which ha TXyjou^f, may be translated, and is 
 translated in our common version. But here, 
 and in many other of the like passages, a se- 
 rious and very important question arises, viz., 
 whether the phrase 'im crXn^u^fi %. r. X, is not 
 susceptiMe of another translation, and one 
 which is justified both by the nature of the 
 
188 USE OF "INA 
 
 case and by the signification of the particle 1m. 
 On this question depends the whole tenor or 
 aspect of the evangelist's assertion. As it 
 stands translated above, (which is the form of 
 our common version), the meaning seems to be, 
 that the greatest events which ever happened 
 in our lower world, viz., the birth of Christ, 
 and also the occurrences connected with it, all 
 took place in order that or for the purpose 
 tJiat, the prophecy of Isaiah (vii. 14) might be 
 fulfilled. But here the reflecting reader will 
 l)e constrained to pause and ask : " What, then? 
 Was it not to redeem a world in ruin, that the 
 Saviour's miraculous birth and the events ac- 
 companying it took place, rather than merely 
 to accomplish the prediction of Isaiah ?" The 
 proper answer to this question may undoubt- 
 edly be, that both of the purposes named were 
 to be accomplished by the birth of Jesus. The 
 world was to be redeemed, and prophecy was 
 also to be fulfilled. But the great and ultimate 
 end must be, the redemption of mankind. 
 The other, viz. the fulfilment of the particular 
 prophecy in question, was altogether subordi- 
 nate and merely preparatory. It was indeed 
 the design of heaven, that when a prediction 
 had been uttered respecting the birth of a Sa- 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 189 
 
 viour and the manner of it, that nothing should 
 be lacking in respect to the accomplishment 
 of this prediction. But to suppose, that the 
 great, the unspeakably important event of the 
 incarnation of Jesus, was simply a fulfilment 
 of a prophecy which designated the manner of 
 his birth — would be a supposition which seems 
 to cover with darkness the wise and benevolent 
 purposes of Heaven in the redemption of man, 
 and to limit them to the production of an event, 
 which (although of high interest as a display of 
 miraculous power) would be, or rather would 
 thus be represented as being, of but little im- 
 portance in other respects. 
 
 Yet if, as some critics strenuously maintain, 
 ha. means and can mean only, in order tliat^ to 
 the end that ^ for the sake or purpose of\ we seem 
 to be thrown into all the embarrassment which 
 such a representation would occasion. If the 
 telle use only of this particle is an invariable 
 and necessary idiom of the Greek, it is difficult 
 to see what escape there can be from the con- 
 clusion, that the evangelist has reasoned, or at 
 any rate expressed himself, in such a way, that 
 we must necessarily educe from him the senti- 
 ment which has already been stated above. 
 
 If the reader is at any loss to know what 
 
190 USE OF "INA 
 
 the telle {riXm-}]) use of ha means, he may at 
 once be satisfied from such examples as the 
 following : 7/ ':roiyiffo>j, ha 'iyoi ^^nv alojmv ; " What 
 shall I do, in order that, or to the end that, I 
 may have eternal life ?" "Ets/jtosv tov; oy^Xou;, /va 
 a/Trjffuvrai Bao|a/5/3ai/, " They persuaded the mul- 
 titude, 171 order that they should make request 
 for [the release of] Barabbas." Here, and so 
 in most cases, ha is telic, i. e. it points to ttie 
 end or otject to he attained^ viz. attained l)y 
 that which is related as said or done in the 
 context which precedes it. This use is so 
 frequent, that the reader may every where find 
 examples to the purpose. 
 
 But is ha limited to this sense only ? A 
 question which is answered in a satisfactory 
 and masterly way, in the following pages. I 
 cannot but believe and trust, that this question 
 is now put to final rest, by this effort of Titt- 
 mann. 
 
 The amount of what he has here done, is to 
 shew that ha not unfrequently, even in the 
 classics, bears the same sense as uffrs, viz., no 
 that, quo fit, or as wc, that. If this be satisfac- 
 torily made out, then it follows, that we may 
 translate ha rr^r^i'^^hri x. r. X. by the phrase .sr> 
 that there should or might be an accompUshmenf : 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 191 
 
 sn that [this or that prediction] 77iir/ht or should 
 be fulfilled, etc. Let tiie reader who wishes 
 to consider this subject duly, consult and care- 
 fully examine and weigh the following passages, 
 where such a formula is employed ; viz. Matt, 
 ii. 15, (23); iv. 14, (viii. 17; xii. 1"; xiii. 35); 
 xxi. 4 ; xxvi. 56 ; xxvii. 35 (in the text, re- 
 cept.) ; Mark xiv. 49 ; John xii. 38 ; xiii. 18; 
 XV. 25 ; xvii. 12 ; xviii. 9 ; xix. 24 ; xxviii. 36. 
 The instances included in parentheses, have 
 o-ojr instead of /Va, which is an equivalent. 
 These and the like passages will shew, that 
 the use of ha in the sense of so that, that, must 
 almost of necessity be conceded. Tittmann, 
 however, has done all w^hich needs to be done, 
 to show" that this use may properly, and often 
 must be conceded. 
 
 This secondary use of ha in the sense ot Mcn^ 
 is technically called ecbatic Qz^ariKrj) i, e. that 
 which designates the end or event which is ac- 
 tually accomplished; from sx^ahu or hSatsi;). 
 The difference betw'een the telic and ecbatic 
 sense of iVa, e. g. in the example taken from 
 Matt. i. 22. above, is so great, that an entirely 
 different turn is given to the whole sentiment 
 by means of it. If we say : All this took place, 
 IN ORDER THAT what ivas spokcjt by Isaiah 
 
192 USE OF^INA 
 
 might he fulfilled^ this is representing the events 
 themselves that are spoken of, as taking place 
 in subordination to the prophecy, and merely 
 or principally in order to fulfil it. But if we 
 say : All this took place, so that the prediction 
 by Isaiah teas, or should be, fulfilled, then we 
 merely affirm that the modus of the events was 
 such, that a fulfilment of prophecy was accom- 
 plished by it ; while at the same time, the 
 events themselves might have an unspeakably 
 higher end in view. 
 
 To such importance do some words, often re- 
 puted small and unimportant, frequently rise. 
 This may serve, then, to cast strong light on 
 the bad consequences which ensue, by negli- 
 gence of lexicographers and critics with respect 
 to such words ; — a practice frequent indeed, 
 but deeply to be lamented, and deserving of 
 most serious disapprobation. 
 
 I must make one remark more on the for- 
 mula ha, 'TTsA^u^fi, in regard to its echatic use. 
 It has been questioned, whether the Subjunc- 
 tive mode after 'im can be rendered in any 
 other way than as having a future sense. The 
 answer to this might be, that the Present and 
 Aorists of the Subjunctive, as is now fully 
 conceded by the best grammarians, do not of 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 193 
 
 themselves mark any tense^ but depend for their 
 sense in this respect, on the Indicative which 
 may precede them, or on the sense demanded 
 by the nature of the passage. Such, indeed, 
 is the fact with all the derived or secondary 
 modes, viz., the Opt., Imper., and Infinitive. 
 See N. Test. Grammar, § 51. 2. 
 
 The student, then, who becomes satisfied of 
 the echatic use of iVa, might translate /Va cr/.'/^^co^^ 
 by the phrase, so that there ivas an accomplish- 
 merit ; so that it was fulfilled^ ichicli etc. This 
 many have done. But although it seems to 
 be grammatically lawful to do so, yet it is un- 
 necessary, in this case, to depart so far from 
 the more usual and classical sense of ha. Thus 
 much can be safely averred, viz., that the ac- 
 complishment of prophecy, whether viewed as 
 an event (i. e. viewed ecbatically), or as a pur- 
 pose or end (z. e. in a telic way), was still some- 
 thing ^w^z^re — in the order of things and in the 
 mind of the writer — to the events themselves 
 which happened. Fulfilment^ at least in the 
 order of our conceptions respecting it, succeeded 
 the events by which it was brought about. It is 
 therefore nearer to the natural order of thought, 
 in the present case, to translate /Va -XtjswSjj by the 
 phrase, so that it might or should he fulJiUed^ 
 which etc. 
 
194 USE OF"lNA 
 
 I apprehend, moreover, that such a mode of 
 translation expresses, more nearly than the 
 other proposed method, the true sense of the 
 original Greek. The writer means to say, if 
 I rightly understand him, that it was so ordered 
 on the part of heaven, that the events of Jesus' 
 birth should fulfil the prophecy of the Old 
 Testament. Design or purpose I cannot think 
 to be wholly left out of sight or excluded. 
 But to say that the telic use of ha here is ex- 
 clusive, would be to affirm a position little short 
 of monstrous. On the other hand, to affirm 
 that the modus in quo of Jesus' birth was so 
 arranged on the part of heaven, as that it ful- 
 filled the prediction of Isaiah, is a very different 
 thing, and is the very one, I apprehend, which 
 the evangelist meant to assert. Accordingly, 
 when we translate ha rrXriou'^fi by the phrase, 
 so that it should be fulfilled, or 50 that it might 
 hefufillcd, we give, as nearly as our language 
 will permit, the true sense of the original. 
 
 If 1 have succeeded in making the reader 
 understand the main object of Prof. Tittmann 
 in the following dissertation, I trust he will 
 have the patience to read, or rather to study 
 him through, with care and diligence. To 
 speak oi patience, indeed, when such efforts as 
 /.his are presented to our examination, is almost 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 195 
 
 to abuse the word. The spirit of a philologist 
 will drink in the whole, as a delicious draught 
 which quenches a thirst long felt, but perhaps 
 never before fully satisfied. 
 
 I add only, that the ecbatic use of ha was 
 Urst seriously called in question, I believe, by 
 Lehmann, (ad Lucian I. p. 71). Fritsche 
 next contended against it, in Excursus I. ad 
 Comm. in Matt.; then Beyer, in Kritsich. 
 Journal, IV. p. 418, seq. Winer, in his K. 
 Test. Grammar, edit. 3d, p. 382, admits the 
 possibility of the ecbatic use ; but he contends 
 that it has been carried a great deal too far ; 
 and he denies that it is admissible in the for- 
 mula ha '7r\'/iorJ^f,, p. 385. He says that the 
 meaning may be thus given : " God has fore- 
 told that this should happen ; and since the di- 
 vine predictions must be true, it could not be 
 otherwise than that this should take place." But, 
 admitting that all this is implied in the formula 
 ha rrXri^cA)^'? , Still this meaning is not at all ex- 
 cluded by the ecbatic sense of ha. At the same 
 time, to suppose the telic use of ha in all the 
 cases where this formula occurs, would be mak- 
 ing a supposition of a state of ignorance as to 
 the nature of language, or else of a state of 
 mind among the evangelists and other sa- 
 bered writers, that seems to me to be uttelvT 
 
196 USE 0F"INA 
 
 irreconcileable with that knowledge and illu- 
 mination which they every where disclose. It 
 would be representing the main object of the 
 New Dispensation, of which the Old was a 
 mere type and shadow, to be the accomplish- 
 ment of predictions and types and symbols, 
 rather than the redemption of a world. So 
 much does the sense of the so called Utile words 
 influence the meaning of the Scriptures. Let 
 the reader of the New Testament beware how 
 he deems any word of it to he -little ; and let 
 him learn duly to estimate such efforts as the 
 following, which settle long contested and 
 doubtful questions, with which the meaning 
 of many an important passage of Scripture is 
 intimately connected. 
 
 I have only to add, that in translating the 
 following pages, I have, for the sake of per- 
 spicuity, used the liberty of breaking up the 
 protracted paragraphs (so common among the 
 German writers), and followed, greatly to the 
 prejudice of lucid exhibition and much to the 
 annoyance of the reader, even by Titmann. 
 In some cases I have divided one sentence into 
 two, three, or even four, for the same reason. 
 I have omitted some few remarks made by the 
 author merely oh iter, which are in a good 
 measure foreign to the discussion, and of no 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 197 
 
 advantage in order to understand it. The 
 Greek which Tittmann has quoted in full, 
 without any translation, I have quoted in the 
 text only so far as the citation of the Greek 
 words bears directly on the purpose of illustra- 
 tion ; but I have thrown the original into the 
 margin. Not having all the original authors 
 at hand, and many of the passages quoted be- 
 ing taken out of context important to its illus- 
 tration, I do not feel quite certain that I have 
 in all cases giveft the exact shade of meaning 
 as to every word ; but if I have failed here, 
 the reader will receive no prejudice from it, so 
 far as the object of the following essay is con- 
 cerned. The illustrations are still plain, in- 
 telligible, and valid, whether all the words that 
 are more distantly connected are very exactly 
 rendered or not. 
 
 There are, after all, some few places of the 
 Latin original of Tittmann to which I shall 
 advert in the notes, that I am not sure I un- 
 derstand. The words I can easily translate in 
 a literal way. But the reasoning of the author 
 seems to be expressed in terms, that will not 
 appear, at least to most readers, as being very 
 intelligible. Perhaps the fault is in me, and 
 not in the author If it be so, the reader, by 
 recurring to the original, may correct me. 
 
198 USE OF"lNA 
 
 I have given a Jree translation, in order to 
 bring the costume of the piece as near to the 
 English fashion as might safely be done. In 
 some cases I have added epexegetical clauses, 
 in order to render the meaning more plain to 
 the cursory reader. In no case have I will- 
 ingly or consciously departed from the meaning 
 of the original, or withheld any thing import- 
 ant to the object of the piece. — Tr J 
 
 USE OF INA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 It is now generally conceded, that the usus 
 loquendi^ although not destitute of some fixed 
 and certain principles, has a very free scope in 
 every language. But though the most learn- 
 ed philologists teach us, that a great part of 
 the hermeneutic art consists in paying a proper 
 attention to this, yet I have often wondered 
 how it should come about, since it is univer- 
 sally allowed that the usus loquendi is diverse 
 not only at different times when a language is 
 a living one, but even among individual writers, 
 that still, in those very books which of all are 
 the most diligently studied, many things should 
 yet be found which seem to be dubious and 
 uncertain. 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 199 
 
 Of late, the interpreters of the New Testa- 
 ment are all agreed, that for the explanation 
 of particular words and phrases in a manner 
 that accords with the sense of their authors, 
 neither the most sharp-sighted search after 
 Hebraisms, nor comparison of the Alexan- 
 drine Version, nor the somewhat dubious dis- 
 covery of Hellenism, suffices. Many, how- 
 ever, and even some lexicographers well versed 
 in making out the signification of particular 
 words, either regard the usus loquencli of au- 
 thors belonging to a golden age as their only 
 standard, or, like a ship upon the rocks, they 
 stick fast upon grammatical precepts. In this 
 way it comes, since no meaning of a word 
 seems to them to be correct unless it is one 
 which can be found in the best writers, that 
 they either find much fault, in their commen- 
 taries on the New Testament, with the usus 
 loquendi of the sacred writers, or they leave the 
 true sense in doubt ; while some appear to 
 teach, with more caution, that this and that 
 word has/7ro/?er/?/ only this and another meaning, 
 but yet in such and such a passage it has ac- 
 tually a somewhat different sense. As this 
 must often happen, inasmuch as idioms are 
 frequently blended in the usus loquendi^ so it 
 will be particularly frequent in those parts of 
 
200 USE OF-'INA 
 
 speech whose sway in every language is some- 
 what unlimited, and whose interpretation is 
 very difficult. I refer now to the particles, 
 the use of which in the N. Test, seems to differ 
 so much from the manner of the best classical 
 writers. There is so great an affinity, or alli- 
 ance {logical we may call it), between many 
 jiartides that, although their meaning cannot 
 be changed into that of an opposite kind, and 
 although those who write and speak with 
 accuracy ought nicely to distinguish them, still 
 they may, without commiting any error, be ex- 
 changed in accordance with the different me- 
 thods in which a subject is conceived of. 
 
 As I have been lately engaged in writing 
 upon the Synonyms of the New Testament, 
 it is my present intention to say something 
 concerning certain synonymouii particles ; re- 
 specting the use of which in the New Testa- 
 ment, all know that a great contest has existed 
 among the interpreters of the sacred books, 
 which is not settled even at the present time. 
 
 The particles to which I now refer, are, 
 
 " "ivcL ' OTOjg • ojg • ojffrs*'^ 
 
 » All these Tittirann treats of and compares together ; but 
 the design of the present essay is merely to treat of IW, 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 201 
 
 I have no apprehension that any one will 
 affirm the signification of these particles to be 
 so diiferent, that they can never be regarded as 
 synonymous. "Iva designates the end or cause 
 on account of which any thing takes place ; 
 o'Tog suggests to the mind the manner in which 
 any thing is accomplished ; wcrrs denotes the 
 events because the particle wgis properly em- 
 ployed in the comparison of like things, and 
 therefore w^rs designates an event or effect which 
 is in accordance with the nature of some ante- 
 cedent. Now the notions design, end, manner 
 of accomplishing the end, and of the event itself, 
 are so related that, as in fact we can scarcely 
 distinguish them in thought, so in speaking 
 they are easily commuted for each other. This, 
 then, is the very reason why they are some- 
 times to be reputed as synonyms ; for unless 
 they agreed in some meaning common to all, 
 they could not be exchanged for each other. 
 Inasmuch, moreover, as this is the nature of 
 synonyms, that they refer a common notion 
 of the same thing to different modes of it, it 
 follows that conjunctions also, which designate 
 the various modes of the same condition in 
 
 which involves by far the most interesting questions and the 
 greatest difficulties. — Tr. 
 
202 USE 0F"INA 
 
 which two things associated are conceived of, 
 ought to be regarded as synonymous. 
 
 The conjunctions of which I speak agree in 
 this, viz., that they designate connexion, i. e. 
 causal conjunction ; for they unite the notions 
 of two things, the one of which is regarded as 
 being a catise of the other. But as in every 
 proposition a subject is connected with some 
 predicate ; so in those sentences in which a 
 causal connection of two things is indicated, it 
 is in such a way, as that in one the cause of the 
 other is suggested. 
 
 The manner of sentences which belong to 
 this species, may be two-fold; for the cause 
 may be conceived of as being in the subject^ 
 or as being in the predicate. If the cause is 
 regarded as being in the predicate^ then the 
 conjunction indicates the thing, on account of 
 which that which is conceived of as being in 
 the subject either took place or might have 
 taken place. But if the cause is regarded as 
 being in the subject of the sentence, the con- 
 junction indicates that the cause is in the sub- 
 ject why any particular thing did or could take 
 place.^ 
 
 ^ This is expressed with sufficient abstractness. The 
 meaning is, that in a sentence with 7»«, etc., between its 
 several parts, if the subject of the sentence indicates cause, 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 203 
 
 To my mind, the office of all the causal 
 conjunctions seems to be only two-fold, viz. 
 they either show that the cause of a thing is 
 in the subject, or else in the predicate. Con- 
 sequently if a cause is regarded as being in the 
 subject, the conjunction indicates that the ef- 
 fect is in the predicate ; but if the cause is re- 
 garded as being in the predicate, then what is 
 done or effected is designated by the subject. 
 Now since the cause must be conceived of as 
 preceding that of which it is the cause, i. e. the 
 eifect, while the leading idea is still contained 
 in the subject, it follows, that the cause which 
 is regarded as being in the predicate, must be 
 conceived of as the object on account of which 
 the thing designated by the subject was either 
 effected, or might or should have been ef- 
 fected. 
 
 then the predicate will indicate the effect, and the conjunc- 
 tion between them ("»«) is adapted to this purpose. But if, 
 on the other hand, the predicate indicates the cause, then the 
 subject must exhibit the effect, and the conjunction must be 
 adapted to designate such a connection between the two. 
 The relation between the two parts is the same in the two 
 cases, but the modus of it is different ; for at one time the 
 subject, for example, denotes cause, at another effect. Yet 
 the causal relation designated by the conjunction, remains 
 one and the same in both cases. Thus different modes of the 
 same thing are expressed. — Tn. 
 
204 USE 0F"INA 
 
 All causal conjunctions therefore have, as 
 before said, a twofold province, to which the 
 various uses of these conjunctions, as enume- 
 rated by grammarians, are to be referred in re- 
 spect to origin; for they designate either the 
 (lesif/n, or the effect, of the thing which is ex- 
 pressed by the subject.^ The end, moreover, 
 or object to be attained, may be conceived of in 
 a two-fold manner, viz., either as it is in itself, 
 or as it is regarded in the mind of him who is 
 supposed to have accomplished any particular 
 thing. This last may be named purpose, de- 
 sign, intent, (consilium). These different modes 
 of causation, then, those conjunctions, serve to 
 express of which I am now to treat. Our first 
 inquiry shall be directed toward 
 
 "INA. 
 
 It is a sentiment, common among almost all 
 
 philologists and zealously defended, that hu is 
 
 " Tliis clears up the obscurity which rests on the preced- 
 ing paragraphs, and shews that all conjunctions denominated 
 causal, are used only in such sentences as denote that one 
 thing is done, or happens, in order thai something else may 
 be accomplished, etc. ; or that one thing is done, or happens, 
 so that another thing is accompHshed. The first denotes 
 purpose, (is telic) ; the second shews event itself, (isecbatic). 
 —Tn. 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, 205 
 
 used by accurate writers, only ri>.i%Zii, i. e. to 
 denote the end or purpose for which any thing 
 is done. Consequently, when ha is found to 
 be employed (as it very often is) in the N. 
 Test., in cases where end or purpose cannot be 
 supposed to be designated, these interpreters 
 betake themselves to this refuge, viz. that 
 w^hat was said rsX/xjDj, is still to be understood 
 and explained IxSar/xwc, i, e. in such a way as 
 is declarative of events rather than of purpose.'^ 
 The original ground of dispute respecting 
 the sense of ha, may be found in the N. Test, 
 formula, ha 'rXyjooj^fj. In many passages, where 
 something is said to have been done or taken 
 place ha '::7.rioo)^f] ri, viz., SO that such a predic- 
 tion might be fulfilled, the nature of the case 
 does not permit us to imagine that ha can de- 
 signate design or purpose ; as if, forsooth, that 
 which takes place, had been done or effected 
 merely for the purpose of fulfilling the prophe- 
 
 ^ It is not the object of Tittmann here to suggest the im^ 
 propriety of explaining ha in an ecbatic way ; for the sequel 
 is occupied with endeavours to establish the very point, that 
 ha may have and must often have an ecbatic sense. The 
 practice which he here indirectly censures, is, that while 
 many critics hold that the only sense of ha is telic, they still 
 give themselves the liberty to explain or interpret it as hav- 
 ing an ecbatic sense. This inconsistency he reprobates, and 
 shews it to be needless. — Tb. 
 
206 USE OF'INA 
 
 cy in question. In these and other passages 
 of the N. Test., although they cannot help 
 seeing that ha does not designate purpose or 
 design, yet they pertinaciously adhere to th^ir 
 favourite maxim, viz. that JVa never denotes 
 effect or event, although it must still be ex- 
 plained (as they acknowledge) in an ecbatic 
 way in such passages.^ 
 
 May I not now take the liberty to inquire, 
 what can be the meaning of the assertion, that 
 hot, never denotes any thing but design or pur- 
 pose, when in passages without number it ma- 
 nifestly denotes effect or event ? But still they 
 say, ' that among good classical writers it is 
 never ecbatic' Although we should concede, 
 now, this to be matter of fact, still I cannot 
 perceive in what way it would prove hu not to 
 be so used among writers of another descrip- 
 tion, particularly since it is certain that many 
 writers employ this particle in connecting 
 cause with effect. In languages that are still 
 living, it is easy to distinguish between ele- 
 gant diction and that which is employed for 
 the purposes of common life. Grammarians 
 
 "^ The iriconsisteiicy charged on these interjireters is here 
 made apparent. Wiiile they say that hoc. has only a leli" 
 sensa, they, after all, feel obliged to interpret it ixfimrjy.Mt, 
 and do so. 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 207 
 
 who make out the rules of our language, have 
 accurately shewn how those German particles, 
 class, damit, so dass, aufdass, um (with the Gen. 
 or Infin.), do differ from each other in cultivated 
 usage, although all know that these particles 
 are promiscuously employed, i. e. used in the 
 same sense, in the daily intercourse of society, 
 not only by the common people, but even by 
 the learned. After all, such critics are unwill- 
 ing to admit any meaning of Greek and Latin 
 particles, which they do not find among the 
 Attic writers of a polished cast, just as if the 
 usus loquendi in any language were limited by 
 the style of the learned and cultivated ! In 
 every language, this itsus is more extensive in 
 conversation than in books. We do not learn 
 the copiousness of any tongue, nor its versati- 
 lity, from writers of high cultivation merely, 
 but from popular usage. Could examples 
 now be produced of the daily conversation of 
 the Athenians, who lived in the time of Plato, 
 Xenophon, and Aristophanes, I cannot doubt 
 that we should find many words to have been 
 in common use, which are at present reprobat- 
 ed by many philologists as contrary to the usus 
 loquendi ; and this merely because they are 
 not found among the select few of elegant 
 writers. 
 
208 USE OF 'INA 
 
 No one will understand me as speaking 
 thus because I am desirous that our youth, 
 who are employed in writing Latin or Greek, 
 should make use of and imitate uncultivated 
 writers. But still, when books of a later age, 
 written by men whose usus loquendi was that of 
 common lite, are to be interpreted, to limit the 
 signification of particles merely to the sense 
 which is found in select classic authors, seems 
 to me to savour of ill-timed rigidity. 
 
 If now we should concede that ha, in writers 
 named classical, is commonly so employed that 
 it denotes purpose or design, still that would not 
 follow which is commonly affirmed, viz., that 
 hct is not always employed to connect event or 
 effect with cause. There are many writers 
 even of the best stamp, the interpretation of 
 whom would be much more facile, if we should 
 not conclude in our own minds, that in good 
 writers /W is never to be understood in an 
 ecbatic way. I will not select an example from 
 Archimedes (the only one which Hoogeveen 
 has with confidence adduced, p. 524), although 
 it is a very clear one ; for I am apprehensive 
 that the critics just named would disclaim him 
 as an elegant writer. Nor will I choose ano- 
 ther passage from Aristophanes (Plut. v. 91), 
 which Hoogeveen has cited in a doubting 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 209 
 
 way ; for there is no good reason why this may 
 not be understood rs/./xw^. But in this same 
 Aristophanes I find several passages in which, 
 if /Va be taken ix/Sa-z^.w?, the sense will appear 
 more easy and agreeable. One may be found 
 in Vesp. vs. 311, 312 : r/ .«,£ drjr, w fisXsa f/.rir£^, 
 'iri'/trsc, "l</ s/xo/ <::i^ayiiara (Soffzsiv Ta^s^pg; " Why, 
 wretched mother, hast thou brought me forth, 
 so that (ha) I must take the trouble of procur- 
 ing food ? " The child does not complain that 
 his mother bore him tcit/i the intention that he 
 should perish by hunger, but that she produc- 
 ed him in such a miserable plight, that he must 
 perish without food. 
 
 The same method of interpretation will ap- 
 ply to a passage in Nub, v. 58, where Strep- 
 siades chides a boy who had lighted up a drunk- 
 ard-tamp ('TroTTjv riirnv Xv^vov), i. e. one which 
 would consume an immoderate quantity of oil. 
 AsD^' £/3', says he, ha yXar,g plainly in the sense 
 of the Latin, Accede hue ut ejules, i. e. " come 
 here that you may howl," [or, in our vulgar 
 idiom, " that you may have a crying-spell"]. 
 The design of the lad's coming would not be 
 this : but this would be the consequence or event 
 of his coming. He commands him indeed to 
 come, that he may scourge him; but in so 
 saying, he indicates the event itself that would 
 
 VOL. II. p 
 
210 USE OF^'INA 
 
 follow, and not the reason why he gives the 
 order [for the reason of this was the fault com- 
 mitted], "im therefore, in this passage, does 
 not designate the idea of purpose or design, 
 but of the event which would take place in case 
 he should come. If, however, any one should 
 think there is more of subtilty than of truth 
 in this explanation, it will suffice to say, that 
 ha is here employed so as not only to desig- 
 nate the purpose, but also the event.^ 
 
 In like manner may a passage of Euripides 
 (Iphig. T. vs. 357, 358) be construed, where 
 Iphigenia complains, that no ship has arrived 
 which could bring Helen and Menelaus, /V 
 avToi>5 u)'-STifj.uPr,(jdfir,v, " that (/;«) I might have 
 been avenged on them." She means to say, 
 that if a ship had brought them, she might 
 have taken vengeance for the wrongs done her 
 at Aulis on their account. [The object or in- 
 
 *" There may be still a question, Avhetlier "va in this case 
 should not be regarded as telic, in reference to the design or 
 purpose of him who gives the command. " Come here !" 
 Why ? " In order that I may scourge you and make you 
 howl." This was no part, indeed, of the ioy's purpose in 
 coming ; but was it not the end that was in view, in giving 
 the command ? The design of the master was to scourge the 
 offending lad ; and that design may therefore be indicated in 
 tiic "»a xXuris that follows. Tittmanu apj)ears to have felt, 
 that the example is not of a decisive nature — Tr. 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 211 
 
 tention of the ship's coming, would clearly not 
 have been to accomplish such a purpose. 
 Event then, and not purpose, is here designat- 
 ed.] 
 
 After comparing many passages, it appears 
 to me, that the signification of ha, as indicat- 
 ing what would happen if something else had 
 taken place, may be found in a special manner 
 in those passages in which /Va is construed with 
 the Preterite of the Indicative. Thus in So- 
 phocles (Oedip. Tyr. v. 1389), we find 'V 'Jv 
 
 r-j(p\(j; rs Tcai '/.Xvuv iir,bh, " SO that I was, or I 
 might be, blind and dumb ; " for immediately 
 after, in v. 1392, we find him saying, ug'ibsi^a 
 fj.rr~or- z. r. X. Comp. Aesch. Prometh. Vinct. 
 V. 155. [The conclusion here drawn is not 
 plainly made out.] 
 
 Aristophanes (in Eccles. v. 152) says, " I 
 could have wished that some of my friends had 
 spoken what was most worthy of approbation, 
 'iva syM})-/jfj.r}v TJff-jyjc, su that {ha) I might have 
 sat silent ;"" for if they had thus spoken, he 
 would have held his peace. 
 
 Many passages of the same tenor are found 
 in Demosthenes: from which the follo^ins: 
 
 & 
 
 
'212 USE OF "INA 
 
 may suffice. Contra Gallic, p. 1273, " You 
 might then have said to the father of the de- 
 fendant, Tisias, why do you do these things? 
 Are you constructing a gutter? Then the 
 water will fall into our field ; ha, so that, if he 
 had then desisted, nothing troublesome to you 
 had taken place ^riv Indie] towards each other. 
 . . . And surely you must shew that a gutter 
 actually exists, that (Im) you may prove the 
 father to have done wrong, not in word only 
 hut in deed."^ Pro Phorm. p. 958, 959, 
 " These things you find fault with, instead of 
 decorating and adorning them, JVa, so that they 
 might appear [s^a/^sro Imperf. Indie] most 
 agreeable to those who give them, and to you 
 who receive them." ' Contra Androt. p. 599, 
 " He says we ought to go before the Judges, 
 if we believe these things to be true, so that 
 (hoc) we might there risk being fined 1000 
 drachmas, in case we should be found guilty of 
 false representations.""^ [Here we cannot 
 
 ^ Tio-i'a, ri TOMTtt voii7s' a^aiKo^ofius rvv ^a^ah^xv ; iW ifiTt- 
 eiirai ro uhu^ u; ro ^u^iov to fi/jtiri^ov, tv, tl fjiXv IfhovXiro taifftt- 
 ff^ai, fitiTiv lifjuv ^uffpf^iKs T^os ukkriXovs vv. ... xai vh At' Wi^ii- 
 |a/ ffi yi Taff'tv uv^^uttoi; ^^a^ci^^itv ovffctMy "vec fz,h Xoyeu /jtovov, akX' 
 tpyu rov ^ari^ec udixovvra aTtipeitvis. 
 
 ' Tavra, avr) tou x-otr^uv xai Tt^ia-TiXXuv, 'Ivx xai ro7s ^ouft* 
 Ai; iutr;^nfjt,oviff'rara i(pxiviTO, xoc) Toii Xafioua-iv vfiTv, ix'ty^tis. 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 213 
 
 suppose the meaning to be, that they would 
 go before the judges for the sake of being fined, 
 but that such would be the consequence, in the 
 case stated.] 
 
 Of the like tenor is the passage in Plato 
 (Euthyd. p. 403), " And truly, said he, that 
 was worthy of a hearing. Why? said I. 
 "iva riTiovffag, [Indie], so that you might have 
 heard men disputing, who are now regarded as 
 peculiarly wise."^ So in Protag. p. 335, 
 *' But it was well for you, who are prepared on 
 both sides, to give place to us, ha, so that we 
 might keep company.""^ Again in Menex. ad 
 fin. " But that you should not complain of 
 me, IW, so that I may, on the other hand, re- 
 late [Subj. here?] to you her many and excel- 
 lent remarks concerning political matters."" 
 
 Tov? Bttr/xoBiTas KTeevrSv, "v IxiT ^i^t ^iXiuv iKiv^vvivofAiv, u xu- 
 •ra-^i'j^oy.ivoi rrotZr i<pa.ivofjt,i^a. 
 
 ' THOU fihv, £'^«, cc^iov y ^v cixovffcci. T/ ; vvF lyu. "ivechxev- 
 cas dvdpuv tiaktyo/:/,evav, e't vvv ffa(pafTa,roi £<V/. [This is at least a 
 very doiihtful case. What forbids our understanding it as 
 meaning, " For the sake of hearing men, etc" — Tr.] 
 
 " 'AXXa (Ti Ix^viv vf^Tv ffvy^a^i7v rov dfie.(pori^x ^vvdfc'.voy, 'iva 
 cvyC'Vtria, lytyviro. [This appears also to be a doubtful case. 
 May not the speaker mean, In order that we might keep 
 company f — Tr.] 
 
 " 'AXX' o'Tfeas fjt,ov fih xari^tTi, 'Iva xa) aZS'is aoi -roXXovs xai 
 xaXoi/i X'oyovs -ra.^ cthrm ToXtrixovs d^otyyiXXu. [dTrayytXu ? \ 
 
214 USE OF^INA 
 
 In all these passages, according to my ap- 
 prehension, ha is so employed as not to signify 
 purpose but event or consequence. Even if 1 
 were to concede that /Va, when joined with the 
 Opt. or Subj. mode, is so construed by the 
 Attics, that for the most part it directly denotes 
 the design of the thing which precedes, or the 
 purpose of the agent, still I have no apprehen- 
 sion that the notion of event or consequence is 
 every where excluded. Indeed these notions 
 are so closely joined as easily to coalesce in 
 one ; for if we suppose any thing really to 
 take place, we must necessarily suppose that 
 something else was done, which if it had re- 
 mained undone would have occasioned a fail- 
 ure as to its taking place ; and this, whether it 
 was done purposely to bring it about, or done 
 only so that the taking place was a consequence 
 of it. 
 
 Hence it comes, that the notions of a Jinal 
 cause (as it is named) and of an efficient cause, 
 are not accurately distinguished in the lan- 
 guage of common life ; and therefore they are 
 usually expressed in nearly the same way. 
 Nor are passages wanting in Homer, in which 
 ha is employed, where he who speaks seems not 
 only to designate a final cause, ?'. e. a purpose or 
 design, but also an efficient one. We will 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 215 
 
 pass by examples of such a nature as the pas- 
 sage in II. I. 202, T/W aZr\ ar/rjyjao Aiog rszog. 
 siXri/.ov'^ag ; yj ha vSorJ 'lor, ' ^ya;jjs;j.v(ry0c ' ArPiidao ; 
 '' Why art thou come, then, son of shield-bear- 
 ing Jove ? Is it that thou mayest see the dis- 
 grace of Agamemnon, the son of Atreas?" I 
 merely remark, in passing, that the particle 
 ri-rr-s, in Homer, very often is put into an in- 
 quiry which respects, not the design or pur- 
 pose, but the cause on account of ichich a thing 
 is done; e. g. in II. II. 323. XL 656. XII. 
 244, etc. A plainer example, however, may 
 be found in Odyss, XIII. 157, " Put a 
 stone near the land, like a swift ship [as to 
 magnitude ; /Va, so that all men will wonder, 
 and a great mountain will overshadow their 
 city.° Here Neptune does not mean to say, 
 that he would do this for the purpose of excit- 
 ing wonder, but (as it is explained in v. 151) 
 that " they may stop and cease from sending 
 away men." ^ 
 
 It is unnecessary, however, for us studiously 
 to seek after examples from ancient writers. 
 It is evident enough, that authors subsequent 
 to the time of Alexander have very frequently 
 
216 USE OF"lNA 
 
 employed ha in an echatic sense. It may be 
 proper to subjoin a few examples ; not because 
 any will doubt, who are conversant with the 
 later Greek writers, but because some suppose 
 that only the Alexandrine interpVeters have 
 given to i'va such a meaning. 
 
 Marcus Antoninus (Comm. II. 11) says, 
 " The Nature of the universe has neither com- 
 mitted any oversight nor missed its aim, 
 through want of power or skill, so that (/m) 
 happiness and misery should come alike to the 
 good and bad without any distinction." '^ Again 
 in VII. 25, " All things which thou beholdest, 
 the Nature which regulates the universe 
 changes, and other things she makes from 
 their substance, so that (iVa) the world is al- 
 ways new (vsa foe, youncf ).^ In the memorable 
 passage (XI. 3), where he describes the man 
 who is ready to die, he says, " The readiness 
 is this, that (iVa) it comes from his own choice, 
 and not from mere party spirit, like that of the 
 Christians, but in a rational way, with serious- 
 
 '1 'H tuv oXuf (pvffis oilri -ru^iThv oiln vf^u^Tsy vtoi -ra^' dovta- 
 ftieiv ovrt Tu.^ ccTf^viav, 'ivcc tu. dyu^a xai to, xccxa iTurvi foii 
 Ti dya^oti Kce) ro7i xaKoT; 'rapv^fji.ivui irvfifiaivri. 
 
 ' ndvTa, otret o^d; /u,iTaliaki7 h to. oka dioixoutra (^Uffii, xxi 
 iXka IK Tri; evffias aiiTuv TToiriffii, 'ivot ail viu^o; »j o xofffioi. 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 217 
 
 ness, and so as to persuade others without any 
 aifectation of show." ^ 
 
 With Josephus this usage is every where to 
 be found; e. g. Bell. Jud. IV. 3. 10, " We 
 have come into calamity so great, that Q\a) 
 even our enemies must pity us."* 
 
 In like manner Justin Martyr (p. 504) ; " In 
 this way it will not be in your power, that (Jm) 
 you should influence my choice."*^ Again in 
 Ep. ad Zenam (p. 508), he says, '' He is said 
 to be dvo'/jTog [wanting in good sense], who is 
 disordered in his intellect with respect to some 
 peculiarity of deportment ; so that (ha) want of 
 good sense may be characteristic, as well as 
 simplicity."^ 
 
 So in the epigrams of Agathias (Analect. 
 III. 61); " No one has ventured to look at 
 your grinders, ha, so that he should approach 
 you in your dwelling."^ 
 
 * To Ti 'irotfiiov Tov-o, ha uto i^ixrj; x^iasus t^^TjTXi, fih xutk 
 \}/tXriv ^K^oiral^tv, ui ol X^ttrnuvo), ocXXa, }^iXo'yierju.sveu$, (rf/nyus, 
 »a) uffri Kct) oikXot fi'iBnv ar^a-yefi^as. 
 
 ' n^of ToffouTov h>co//,sv <TVfi(poPuv^ ho, rif^txs lki^(reo(ri xx) TaXi- 
 
 " Ov;^ ovTus 'iffrxi ffou To^warev, hce /xov xiv^ffru t^v T^oa'i^Krir. 
 
 ^ Aiytrai Ti dvo*iros, o xolt 'ttiurifffjLov Ta^iyi;;(^3-us t^v ala^ncn, 
 <V n TO dvo*iTo* i^iuTixov, ua-Ti^ xai to a'lpsXsj. 
 
 ■ Ov Tti dXoiyiTv^oci ihuv TirXviKi* obovTUS vfciTi^as, ha ffoTs If 
 fAtya^oii ^iXoiff*i. 
 
218 ISE OI"'lNA 
 
 Sextus Empiricus says (Pyrrh. III. 60), 
 '• Hemlock is mingled with every portion of 
 water, and is extended through the whole 
 mass, ha, so that the mixture may thus be 
 made."^ [But is not this a dubious example? 
 -Tr.] 
 
 That the Alexandrine interpreters used par- 
 ticles with the greatest liberties, is very evi- 
 dent. Although they follow the original He- 
 brew very closely, and rarely use the causal 
 forms of sentences which are unfrequent in the 
 Hebrew, yet when ^;, f^, or lj;,tD^ occur in a 
 
 causal sense, they express them, (in the man- 
 ner of the Hebrews,) promiscuously by ha or 
 oTwj, so as to denote either design or conse- 
 quence. Of uGTi they make very rare use. See 
 and comp. Deut. xiv, 23, 29 ; xvii. 23; vi. 2 ; 
 xvii. 19, 20. Prov. xv. t24. Josh. iv. 6. This 
 last example exhibits ha in two different senses 
 in the same sentence ; "l\a vrdoy^ojcrtv v/xh ovroi 
 [sc« X/^0/] £/g Grj'MTov y.iiiMi^/ov djwTraiTOi' ha orav fjwr&t 
 trs 6 \)'i(jc, cou X. T. >.. [The first ha here means in 
 order that, etc., corresponding to the Hebrew 
 n^nn ]VD*7 ; the second means so that, etc., 
 
 and ha orav hura corresponds to ]1^J^St^' ^j.] 
 
 ' 'E^ifiiyvurai to x.uvhov tkvti f^i^u rod v^cctos, xoct Tapi/crilvi- 
 rai aiiTu okov oktu, ha ourus h K^a<ns yivvrai. 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 219 
 
 See also and compare Ps. cxix. 71. Ezek. 
 xxii. 12. Ps. 1. 5. Amos ii. 7. 
 
 There is, however, no need of examples ; 
 for it is plain enough that the Alexandrine 
 interpreters promiscuously express every kind 
 of causal connection by those particles, whe- 
 ther cause strictly considered, or design, be 
 signified by the Hebrew. This, although 
 writing in a dialect which had many barbar- 
 isms, they could not do, unless common usage 
 at that time- had sanctioned it. Nor were 
 these translators common men, but learned 
 Jews who were acquainted with the vulgar 
 Greek dialect. 
 
 In this way it may be made to appear less 
 wonderful, tluii the idioms of the common 
 spoken language should be found among the 
 writers of the New Testament, especially in 
 the free and undistinguishing use of the parti- 
 cles^ in which the popular idiom differs most 
 from that of the learned, who have either writ- 
 ten classical works, or who have read and imi- 
 tated them. And since this is so, it were 
 much to be desired, that those who undertake 
 to explain the idiom of the sacred books, would 
 not only have due regard to the rules of syn- 
 tax with respect to case, tense, modes, etc., 
 but also to the usus loquendi, which is discern- 
 
220 USE 0F"INA 
 
 ible not merely in these matters, but also in 
 the meaning of words, or in the logical use of 
 them. 
 
 In view of preceding facts, then, I hesitate 
 not to affirm, that in the books of the New 
 Testament, not only purpose and design are 
 connected by ha. with the object designed, 
 but antecedent cause is also joined with its 
 effect by the same particle ; which therefore 
 signifies both purpose or design, and event, effect, 
 or consequence. That rule then, or maxim, of 
 many interpreters of the New Testament, that 
 ha properly designates only design or purpose, 
 but in one and in another place must still be 
 interpreted hBar/zoJc, although it wears the ap- 
 pearance of refinement and nice distinction, 
 seems to me to be erroneous ; for if it is evident 
 that ha, in any particular passage, is so em- 
 ployed by the writer as not to express the pur- 
 pose or design of the preceding action, but to 
 denote event or effect, then is it certain that it 
 does not here express design but event, i. e. it 
 is echatic. Indeed it is matter of wonder to 
 me, how it should be that many, who concede 
 that the New Testament exhibits various sig- 
 nifications of words peculiar to itself, and which 
 are not found in classical authors, should still 
 deny that the same thing takes place in regard 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 221 
 
 to the particles^ and, in order to serve the rules 
 of grammar, prefer making the unfounded dis- 
 tinction adverted to above, to admitting that 
 ha, has an ecbatic use. I concede that they 
 may very properly distinguish what belongs to 
 elegant usage, and may make comparisons ; 
 but in explaining the words of the New Testa- 
 ment w^e are to inquire, not what meanings 
 other writers have given to the words, but 
 what notions the sacred writers themselves 
 have designated by them. Let it be granted, 
 then, that the interpreters in question have 
 fully shewn, that in no classic writer is Im used 
 in the same sense as ojcn (so that), yet this does 
 not at all prove, that in the books of the New 
 Testament and in others which like them were 
 written after the golden age of the Greek, this 
 participle is not used in an ecbatic manner. This 
 proof can be made out only by shewing that 
 ha, from its very nature, can not be employed 
 to designate effect or event, which has never 
 yet been done. Still they tell us, that in the 
 New Testament ha must be understood and ex- 
 plained in the ecbatic w^ay, while in fact it 
 never has such a sense ! What this means, I 
 do not well understand. The office of words 
 is merely to designate our ideas or notions of 
 any thing which is the object of our thoughts ; 
 
1^*22 USE OF "INA 
 
 tiiid therefore it is erroneous to say that any 
 word can be employed according to the mind 
 of a writer in a certain sense, and yet that it 
 does not mean what he intended to signify by 
 it. 
 
 It is very diiferent from this, if any any one 
 should say, for example, that the preposition 
 sK in a certain place had the same sense as sv or 
 ^^hg or ffuv for the general notion which h ex- 
 presses, does not admit such a permutation. 
 That often repeated distinction between the 
 sense and signification of a word, cannot warrant 
 us in the assignment of a meaning to any word 
 to which its original nature is repugnant ; for 
 its proper force and power is the very ground 
 why it significantly designates any thing. 
 
 Moreover, that ha cannot designate event or 
 effect, no examples from the classics prove. 
 Since also it cannot be denied, that other wri- 
 ters employ this particle in an ecbatic way, it 
 follows that it may designate event or effect. 
 Nor do these several causal notions differ so 
 much, but that the same particle may express 
 the notions of purpose and end, and also of 
 cause and effect. On this account, in almost 
 all languages the use of such particles of de- 
 vjign, etc., is much more extended by vulgar 
 custom than in books written with special care ; 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 223 
 
 nor can we find fault with this, unless we can 
 shew that there is something in the general idea 
 of such a connection [i. e. of a causal one], as is 
 repugnant to such a usage. 
 
 From all this we may safely conclude, that 
 the usus loquendi of select classical authors who 
 employ ha only in the telic sense, cannot prove 
 that it is incapable of designating an echatic 
 sense ; for it is thus employed in other writers, 
 times without number. The interpreters above 
 mentioned may condemn such a usage, if they 
 please, as being less accurate ; I will make no 
 objections to their so doing. But let them not 
 venture on saying, that in the latter class of 
 books ha is not employed ly.^a-izujz. 
 
 Besides all this, I cannot doubt, if we had a 
 better account of the origin of the particles and 
 of their history, we should judge more equit- 
 ably respectitig the writers of the New Testa- 
 ment, in regard to the use which they make of 
 them. For in the rude state of language, and 
 before letters were cultivated, the use of par- 
 ticles was, no doubt, undefined and various. 
 But when cultivation ensued, and practice in 
 writing was added, this use was circumscribed 
 within narrower bounds. Moreover, when the 
 cultivation of literature declines or ceases, po- 
 pular usage again usurps the place of principle 
 
224 USE OF^INA 
 
 or rule, and ancient liberties are again allowed, 
 and even more than these are taken. Such is 
 the condition of all things human, that in their 
 inceptive stages of existence, and before they 
 have become objects of attention and cultiva- 
 tion, they labour under many imperfections ; 
 but still, even then they are in a more flourish- 
 ing state than when they have become as it 
 were superannuated, and are in a ruinous con- 
 dition through lapse of time, and hastening to- 
 wards final dissolution. 
 
 We come then to the general conclusion, 
 
 that THE SIGNIFICATION OF ha IN THE NeW" 
 
 Testament is of wide extent, so that it not 
 only designates purpose or design, but also event 
 or effect ; and thus it appears very nearly to re- 
 semble the German class [that], and the Latin 
 lit. There are passages even, where both no- 
 tions are combined in thought ; for when we 
 think of any thing as done or to be done, the 
 thought of the intention, or of the cause, or of 
 the manner, is almost necessarily connected 
 with it. 
 
 Conjunctions, moreover, should be referred 
 to both parts of the sentence which they con- 
 nect. Thus Mark xi. 25, i'i n 'ix-rz xara rmg, 
 a<p/iTS, I'va 6 'JTCCTTIP ii/Muv d(pij 'j/mTv cra^a-TTw/Aara v/xcov. 
 The Saviour could not inculcate on his dis- 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 225 
 
 ciples the mere prudential duty of forgiving 
 others, in order that they themselves might ob- 
 tain forgiveness, (which w^ould be quite foreign 
 to real integrity and purity of mind) ; but he 
 wished them to consider, that if they cherished 
 an implacable spirit, they could have no grounds 
 to hope for pardon from God ; so that if they 
 themselves were not ready to forgive, it was 
 impossible they should obtain forgiveness. 
 
 In like manner in Rom. iii. 8, it is plain that 
 the notion of cause and effect [i. e. the notion 
 of such a relation], is comprised in the expres- 
 sion of the men there referred to : 'xoinGu^ujiv roe, 
 xaxu, ha 'iX^Tj ra dya^d' where some suppose 
 that 'I'm has the sense of quoniam. The men in 
 question, after the manner of the Jesuits, de- 
 precate the blame of base conduct ; for they al- 
 lege that they are free from blame, not because 
 they have sinned with the design that good 
 might come, but because their -vj/suc/o^a (false or 
 treacherous dealing) has been the occasion of 
 making " the truth of God to abound ;" v. 7, 
 comp. Rom. vi. 1. " We may then do evil," 
 say they, " so that good will come." 
 
 The whole dispute about the meaning of /Va, 
 as before intimated, has arisen from those pas- 
 sages, in which something recently done is re- 
 ferred to some declaration of the Old Testa- 
 
 VOL. II. Q 
 
226 USE OF^INA 
 
 ment in the way of prediction. Let me illus- 
 trate my views, then, respecting this particular 
 point, by an example taken from passages of 
 this nature. 
 
 It will be conceded to me by all, that in pas- 
 sages of this character the notion of design or 
 purpose is not properly admissible. This has 
 taken place only where a thing which is done, 
 is conceived of as done by the counsel or pur- 
 pose of another ; and this idea, as all must per- 
 ceive, is alien from the passages which we are 
 now considering. Nor does the notion of end 
 or object any better accord with the nature of 
 the thing ; for who does not see, that it would 
 be a most absurd declaration, in case we should 
 affirm that those things which happened in the 
 time of Christ, were all done in order that the 
 predictions in the Old Testament might be 
 fulfilled ? 
 
 Let us briefly examine a few passages in 
 Matthew. In Matt. i. 2, after the birth of Je- 
 sus is related, as announced to Joseph, it is 
 
 added (v. 22), roZro oXov ysyovsv^ ha ctXtj^w^j^ 70 
 '^ri':)iv dia ruv T^o^pyjrojv, x. r. /.• referring to Isaiah vii. 
 14. Shall we say now, that the Saviour was 
 to be born merely that this prophecy might be 
 fulfilled ? 
 
 Again; in Matt. ii. 15, we are told, that Jo- 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 227 
 
 seph remained concealed in Egypt with Jesus, 
 when the latter was a child, until the death of 
 Herod, /Va 'zXr,^oj^fj rb ^rj^h '/.. r. X. viz. SO that 
 what is said in Hosea xi. 1, might be fulfilled. 
 The words of the prophet are not the object of 
 my present consideration, nor shall I now in- 
 quire whether they were originally spoken in 
 reference to Jesus or to the Jewish people ; for 
 it is quite certain that the end proposed by Jo- 
 seph, and to be accomplished by staying in 
 Egypt, was not the fulfilment of prophecy. 
 
 Was it true, moreover, that Christ came and 
 dwelt for some time at Capernaum (Matt. iv. 
 13), in order that what Isaiah viii. 23; ix. 1) 
 had said might be accomplished ? The like 
 may be said of Matt. xxi. 4 ; xxvi. 56. 
 
 In Mark the formula under examination is 
 employed but once, viz. in xiv. 9. Luke uses 
 it neither in his Gospel nor in the Acts. In 
 John it is most frequently employed, and it oc- 
 curs xi. '38; xiii. 18; xv. 25; xvii. 12; xviii. 
 9 ; xix. 24, 28, 36. 
 
 From all these passages it may be most 
 clearly seen, that the particle /Va does not sig- 
 nify design or purpose, when it refers even to 
 the most explicit prophecies ; nor w as there 
 any need, in the interpretation of these pas- 
 sages, that critics should take refuge in the 
 
228 USE OF"iNA 
 
 double meaning of the particle ha in them, be- 
 cause they apprehended that all the passages 
 of the Old Testament to wliich an appeal is 
 made, are not real and veritable predictions. 
 Uniformly the design is, to declare tlie agree- 
 ment between the event and the declarations of the 
 Jewish Scriptures. 
 
 But the use of /W in an echatic way is not 
 confined to declarations of this kind only. 
 There are many passages in which the notion 
 of design or purpose has no place, inasmuch 
 as it would make the writer speak absurdity. 
 Many passages of this nature occur in John. 
 It is usual with him, when he assigns causality 
 to any particular thing, to conjoin the fffect 
 with the cause by the use of ha. It is even 
 occasionally employed in both its senses in the 
 very same sentence. E. g, i. 7. " The same 
 came for a witness, iW //.a^ru^Tjo-?^, in order that 
 he might bear testimony concerning the light, 
 ha 'jrdvTig mgnvuffi 6/ avrov, SO that all might be- 
 lieve through him." Here the first iVa declares 
 the immediate purpose of the witness ; the se- 
 cond, the ultimate object brought about by his 
 testimony. Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 9 ; Rom. ix. 17 ; 
 John xviii. 37.* Xen. Cyrop. II. 5. 2. So in 
 
 • Here, however, it may be doubtful whether ?»« has anf 
 thing more than the ielic sense. " For this cause wa». I 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 229 
 
 John xvii. 21, ha h uffn, ha 6 xoV/xo; Ti(fTsv(fr)' comp. 
 vs. 23, 24, and John xv. 16.^ 
 
 I apprehend, also, that the ecbatic use of 
 ha obtains, in several passages, where inter- 
 preters have given themselves much trouble to 
 make out the sentiment, and at the same time 
 to insist on defending the felic use of ha. E. g. 
 John ix. 2 ; " Who hath sinned . . . ha rvpxhg 
 yivvTj'^fj' so that this man should be born blind." 
 So John xi. 4, " This sickness is not unto 
 death,'! ^'^■-X' '^-^^ ^'/je ^o^^g rov ^sol/, rja do^aG^r 6 v/bc 
 rou ^20J, but for the glory of God, so that the 
 Son of God should be glorified." The death of 
 Lazarus had not this end in view ; but it was 
 
 born, and for this end came I into the world, 7va fAa^rv^mu 
 rri aX*i3-ua, in order that, to the intent that I might bear 
 testimony to the trnth :" this latter clause being epexege- 
 tical of tti ToZro, and being logically (although not in point 
 of grammatical form) co-ordinate with it. The demands of 
 exe?esis are fairly satisfied by this. We do not suppose the 
 Saviour to mean, that his coming had no other ends in view. 
 — Tr. 
 
 ^ This last example, as the reader will see if he consult 
 the original, affords one of the most indubitable cases where 
 7»a must have the sense of so that. " Ye have not chosen 
 me, but I have chosen you, and ordained yon, iW vftiTi u-ra- 
 ynn, that you should go forth and produce fruit, and your 
 fruit should Lie perennial, hat, o rt av alrriirnri, so that what- 
 soever ye shall ask, etc." Jesus did not ordain them, for 
 the end that whatsoever they should ask they should obtain, 
 but for the purpose of bringing forth much fruit. — Tb. 
 
230 USE OF "INA 
 
 the occasion of glorifying the Son of God. John 
 xi. 15, " I rejoice on your account, (/Va tigts-j^ 
 GrjTs, so that you might believe)^ on oux tJ/jltiv hsT, 
 that I was not there." [Here the immediate 
 object of joy is stated to be, that Jesus was not 
 present at the death of Lazarus and /Va mff-iv- 
 6y}Ts is only a parenthetic declaration, epexege- 
 tical of what is designed by the clause, 3/ u/xag.'] 
 The meaning is, that Jesus rejoices in the pro- 
 spect, that the resurrection of Lazarus will be 
 attended with the effect of confirming the faith 
 of his disciples, John xi. 37, " Could not this 
 man have brought it about, /Va xal cvroc i^n a.'xo- 
 "^dvri, that even this person should not have 
 died ?" John xi. 42. " On account of the mul- 
 titude who stood by I said, ha 'zis-suffuGiv, on cJ 
 (MS oiTsffriiXug, so that they might believe [paren- 
 thetic exegetical declaration thrown in], that 
 thou hast sent me. John xi. 50, " It is ex- 
 pedient, ha i'lg av^POJ-TTog ucro^dv^ 'wTrs^ roZ Xaou, that 
 one man should die for the people." In the 
 same manner is ha employed in John xvi. 7 ; 
 xvii. 3 ; 1 John v. 3 ; et al. saepe. The man- 
 ner of these passages is indeed different ; for 
 in some, ha is preceded by certain events, in 
 others by the cause. Yet in all passages of 
 this nature it is plain, that the notion of pur- 
 pose or design is not expressed. 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 231 
 
 The same may be said of a multitude of pas- 
 sages in the writings of Paul ; whose copious dic- 
 tion, which is often interrupted and almost over- 
 whelmed by supervening thoughts, frequently 
 seems to have employed some particle merely 
 of a similar nature to that which might be most 
 appropriate ; for his fervent mind, it would ap- 
 pear, could not well brook the delay which a 
 particular choice of words would occasion. 
 As examples, the following passages may be 
 consulted; Rom. iii. 19; iv. 16; v. 20, 21; 
 vi. 1, 4, 6 ; vii. 13 ; ix. 11. comp. v. 19. and 
 31 ; XV. 6; xvi. 31, 32. 
 
 But more examples are not needed. It re- 
 mains only, that I say a few things concerning 
 two formulas of speech, which have not yet 
 been discussed. 
 
 The first is that, where ha is put after verbs 
 of asking^ admonishii2c/, commanding, and others 
 which indicate some icish. or desire. This is very 
 common in the New Testament. The critics 
 before named deny that ha, in these formulas, 
 indicates object, and affirm that it designates 
 jjurpose, design, etc., viz., of him who exhorts, 
 commands, etc. E. g. i/'rh ha' 'rra^izdXioav ha 
 a%j/wvra/- they explain as meaning : ' Com- 
 mand /c>?' the purpose that ; ' they exhorted^or 
 the end that they might touch, etc' But be- 
 
232 USE OF "INA 
 
 sides those things which Winer has already 
 suggested against such a method of interpreta- 
 tion (Gramm. Fasc. II. p. 117, seq.), I may be 
 permitted to adduce examples from the better 
 sort of writers. I am aware that they aver the 
 usage in question, viz. that of placing 'ha with 
 the Subj. mode instead of the Inf. mode after 
 verbs of the kind named above, belongs only 
 to the more recent Greek authors. This ex- 
 ample only they admit from Homer : 'Yi s^i- 
 \iic^ Qip^ahrhc '^yjig ysoac, avrcc^ sfM uurug r,6^ai hm- 
 fisvov, ' Or do you wish that yourself should 
 have the reward, but that I should remain thus 
 bereaved of it ?* [Here o:poa stands in the like 
 sense with JVa]. The later authors, they admit, 
 have imitated this ; see Hermann ad Orphica, 
 p. 814. I will allow now, if they please, that 
 among the better classic authors the usage in 
 question is very rare ; although in the later 
 writers it is exceedingly common. Thus Non- 
 nus, in his paraphrase of John, often employs 
 oipoa in order to correspond with ha in the evan- 
 gelist ; see his paraphrase of John vi. 7 ; xi. 
 15, 57 ; xvii. 15, 24, etc. Examples in point, 
 however, may be found among the more accu- 
 rate writers, viz. in Lucian, Dionysius Halicar. 
 (Charit. III. 1. init.), rra^s-KciXn os KaXio'^orjv^ ha. 
 xthru) 'XDoasX^ri, ' he besought Calirrhoe tliat etc.,* 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 233 
 
 [instead of saying aOrp cr^oersX^s/v] ; see Schaefer 
 ad Dionys. Hal. de Verb. Compos, p. 121. 
 Hebraism, therefore, should not be sought after, 
 in such constructions as these in the New Testa- 
 ment. With the Seventy, this idiom is ex- 
 ceedingly rare. 
 
 In passages of such a nature, now, 1 do not 
 see with what reason they can deny tliat the 
 object is designated by the particle IVa. >> or can 
 the German dass or damit be well compared 
 with /!/«. The particle dass we do indeed em- 
 ploy in order to designate a caw5«/ connection : 
 and therefore, when we mean to point out the 
 thing which we seek after ; but damit answers 
 better to the particle '6-vug. After verbs , of 
 asking, commanding, admonishing, etc., we use 
 dass in order that we may designate the thing 
 which we desire, demand, etc. No one would 
 say, " Ich bitte dich, damit du mir I J rot ge- 
 best ; ich befehle dir, damit du fortgehest, etc. 
 . . . Damit denotes purpose or design ; and this 
 is its proper use ; but in common parlance and 
 in the Version of Luther, it has a more ex- 
 tended meaning. Still, it cannot be put after 
 verbs of asking, etc. But the particle dass 
 has so extended a meaning, that it corresponds 
 to the Latin ut^ and to the Greek ha, wj, w^rs, 
 and oiT'j);. 
 
234 USE of"ina 
 
 The ground of such a construction seems to 
 me to be this. When the thing we ask for, 
 etc., can be expressed by a noun^ that noun is 
 put in the Accusative, for this is the proper 
 office of the Ace, e.g, ahuao-or Bo-jXo,u.ai iiPYivriv- 
 But if we cannot make use of a noun in this 
 way, either because the sense would be imper- 
 fect or dubious, or because that which we ask 
 for, etc., is something which consists in action 
 or must be done, we either employ the Inf. 
 mode or use some other equivalent causal con- 
 struction. If we should say, svsnikaro uPTOM, or 
 rra^szdXsGsv s/^Tjvyjv, the sense which we mean to 
 convey would be imperfect, for it would be, 
 * he wished that bread should be given or pro- 
 cured ;' ' he urged that peace should be stu- 
 diously sought for or made.' But to express 
 this we should say, hirsiXaTO aorov ayo^u(^in' 
 ^raPsxdXsffsv h/ii)/ or -ro/g/i/ sJ^yjvyjv. The Inf. is com- 
 monly employed here unless the relation of 
 subject and predicate is or may be uncertain ; 
 which is to be known from the meaning of the 
 preceding verb. But as there is certainty in 
 respect to those verbs which signify ivish or 
 dcshx', the Greeks commonly employed the 
 Inf. ; for as to verbs of this sort, there cannot 
 be any uncertainty that what one is said to 
 will, that is the object of his wishes. The 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 235 
 
 more elegant classical writers, therefore, usually 
 employed the Inf. ; but the later ones, even in 
 those passages where it was unnecessary, used 
 the particle iVa or o-wc. On the other hand, 
 even when the meaning of the Inf. would be 
 somewhat doubtful, they still often employed 
 it. Thus it came, that after verbs of asking, 
 etc., the object asked for, etc., was expressed 
 by the use of /Va. And this idiom occurs not 
 merely in unlearned authors and those of the 
 lower stamp, but also among those of an op- 
 posite character ; as is proved by the example 
 of Lucian and others. 
 
 Even among authors of the higher rank, 
 certain expressions occur, which seem clearly 
 to develop the vulgar idiom in this respect. 
 These are elliptical expressions, which have 
 been taken from common parlance and trans- 
 ferred to books, and frequently occur in the 
 dialogistic forms of speech. 
 
 I will not here appeal to the passage from 
 Herodotus (I. 126), which Schaefer has ad- 
 duced, viz., rou sfftovTog x. r. X, although the words 
 have the same construction ; for in this case 
 there is no ellipsis. But I would adduce the 
 formula : r't %Xiic, 'roiTjaoj ; in which they do not 
 doubt that ha is to be supplied ; comp. Matt. 
 XX. 32. John xviii. 39, etc. I wish however 
 
236 USE 0F''INA 
 
 to know, in what way the idea of purpose or 
 desi(/n is to be introduced. 
 
 Nothing is better known, than the construc- 
 tion of ISovXofiat with the Future or Subjunctive; 
 e, g. Aristoph. Ran. v. 420, (SouXsa'^s dr,ra -/.oivfj 
 ffxw^|/w,a£^ ' A^x^d7]fx.ov ; ' Do you wish then, that 
 we should make sport in common with Arche- 
 demus ?' Aristoph. Equit. v. 52, (SovXsi rru^ad^ 
 ffoi do^^ov, ' You wish me to present you with a 
 supper.' So very frequently in Lucian ; Mort. 
 Dial. X. 8, (SovASi fxizfov aipsXc/jfj^ai -/.ai rcov hz^^vuv 
 ' You are desirous that I should take down 
 arrogance a little.' Dial. XX. 3, /S&jXs/ col sTt- 
 o£/gw zai roue ffo:pov; ; ' Do you wish me to shew 
 you even the philosophers ?' Timon, 37, BovXn 
 biccXoyiciMai^oiaXoykufMai?) -oog 6s; ' Do you desire 
 that I should talk with you?' see Hemsterh. 
 in loc. Deorum. Dial. XX. 16, iWj'/.si d-iroixo- 
 <rw/xa/; ' Do you not wish that I sho^ld take 
 an oath?' 
 
 But there is no need of examples. A mul- 
 titude of them occur in Xenophon and Plato ; 
 for, as it would seem, this elliptical mode of 
 speaking was very common in conversation,* 
 
 ^ The ellipsis to which he refers here, is that of "va after 
 Bfl«A«i, etc., in the preceding quotations. Bovkofitti expresses 
 desire or wish, hut does not indicate ultimate purpose, end, 
 final object. In accordance with tliis, the author has inti- 
 mated above, that all will see that 'Iva, if here inserted, would 
 not be telic Ta. 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 237 
 
 [viz. with the omission of ha'] ; see Scholia ad 
 Eurip. Phenis. v. 729. It seems to me now, 
 that relics of popular usage are clearly discern- 
 ible in this formula ; but in this, as all will see, 
 the idea of end or purpose is not expressed ; see 
 Hermann ad Vi^er. p. 884. But let us ad- 
 vance to the second particular. 
 
 "Im is said by some, to have a chronic sense, 
 [i. e. to relate to time, or to signify ivfteji'], in 
 some passages of the evangelist John. E. g. 
 John xii. 23, sXyiKv^sv rj w^a, ha, dot^aff^fj z. r. X. 
 John xiii. 1 ; xvi. 2, 32. Nonnus has express- 
 ed ha here by org, when. Grammarians have 
 made the remark, that examples of this nature 
 are found only in the sacred books of the New 
 Testament. One passage is adduced from 
 Aristophanes (Nub. v. 1*2.35), xal raZr s^iXTjgiig 
 
 a-TTOiJjOGai iJjOI rovg^iovg, "I'/ av /CiAsiiffoo ''yoj ffi : ' Will 
 you then be willing to take the gods to witness 
 for me, as to these matters, when I shall de- 
 mand it of you ?' Here ha may seem to mean 
 when; and Henry Stephens, in accordance 
 with an ancient lexicon, translates it quando- 
 cunque. 
 
 But if we should concede now, that the 
 particles significant of place,^ are often appro- 
 priated to the designation of time, (as is the 
 case with the German wo and da, which an- 
 
*238 USE OF-'INA 
 
 swer well to the adverb /Va), yet the construc- 
 tion of ha with the Subj. mode, seems to stand 
 in the way of its being taken adverbially [in 
 the sense of ivhere~\ in such passages. If 
 /Va, moreover, referred to place, it would not be 
 joined with the Subj., unless av were inserted 
 on which the Subj., would depend. 
 
 The passages which are adduced in our lexi- 
 cons (e. g. Callim. Hymn, in Cer. v. 12. Hom. 
 11. vii. 358), in order to prove that ha has 
 such a meaning, are altogether inapposite. 
 Two passages are also cited from Xenophon ; 
 but one of them in Memorab. II. i. 1 1, as emend- 
 ed, reads ihal rig f^oi doxiT, not ha rig. In the 
 other (De Venat. VI. 7), ha is not topic but 
 telic. I apprehend, therefore, that in the afore- 
 cited passages of John, (elsewhere this sense is 
 not assigned to /W), this particle cannot have 
 the meaning of wJien assigned to it. Nor do I 
 4ind any passage in the New Testament, in 
 which it means where. Consequently, in those 
 passages I apprehend ha is to be explained as 
 indicating what is to happen in the uoa men- 
 tioned in John xii. 23. The Greeks usually 
 employ the Inf. in such cases, e. g. xaiohg 
 xa^svdiiv, w^a dsiTTMsTv or else the Gen. case, un- 
 less perspicuity demands some periphrasis. 
 John iv. 23 has w^a on- so in v. 25 ; but in 
 
IN THE ^EVi TESTAMENT. 239 
 
 V. 28, uoa h fi. But as we, in common par- 
 lance, when we designate the time in which 
 any thing is to take place, sometimes employ 
 particles oi place and time, sometimes the rela- 
 tive pronoun, and sometimes tJie causal par- 
 ticle that (dass) ; as ' the time is coming 
 wherein, therein, at ichich, that, you will repent 
 of it ;' so w^a /Va may be used in like manner, 
 e. g, ' the time is coming (when it will be) 
 that etc' In the same manner the Latins 
 express themselves. Nor is this destitute of 
 a good reason, if we will only concede, (what 
 examples from many writers prove), that ha is 
 not only telic, but likewise serves to indicate 
 the thing which was the consequence of another, 
 when a causal connection is conceived of as 
 existing. 
 
 [The author closes his piece with adverting 
 to the particular religious occasions on which 
 it was delivered or published ; which it is un- 
 necessary here to insert, as it is not connected 
 with the main object of the discussion. That 
 parts of this discussion will not appear as be- 
 ing very explicit to the young reader, there is 
 reason to apprehend. But there are so many 
 things, and so important ones too, which he 
 can understand, that I would hope he will not 
 
'210 USK (»!' "INA. 
 
 l>o (K'terriui from an attentive n-adin^- and coii- 
 nidcr.'itioti of tlic wlioUs liy hoiiu' pani^raplis 
 wliicli may not appear to l)e Huilieiently lucid. 
 -Tu.) 
 
FORCE OF THE GREEK PREPOSITIONS IN 
 COMPOUND VERBS, 
 
 AS EMPLOYED 
 
 IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 The negligence and inconsideration Vv'itli 
 which lexicographers and grammarians in ge- 
 neral have proceeded in assigning the force and 
 significancy of the Greek particles, cannot have 
 escaped the notice of any correct Greek scholar ; 
 and in no species of particles, perhaps, have these 
 faults been more frequently conspicuous, than 
 in respect to the prepositions. This would 
 seem, at first view, the more surprising ; since 
 it is doubtless more easy to perceive and ex- 
 press the relations in which different things 
 stand toward each other, which is the office 
 of the preposition, than it is to explain the 
 way in which an object of thought, or the act 
 itself of thinking, stands connected with the 
 
 VOL. II. R 
 
242 GREEK PREPOSITIONS 
 
 thinking mind, which is a principal use of the 
 conjunction. There are, however, various 
 causes, which have contributed to introduce 
 confusion in respect to the force and use of the 
 Greek prepositions. A principal one of these, 
 no doubt, has been the circumstance, that 
 where their power appeared to be somewhat 
 uncertain, it has been customary to regard 
 them as without any force, and pronounce 
 them pleonastic. This has been very com- 
 mon among interpreters of the New Testament ; 
 who would seem almost to have been upon the 
 watch for pleonasms, whenever any uncertainty 
 or obscurity could be detected in the employ- 
 ment of prepositions. Hence the lexicons of 
 the New Testament are filled with observa- 
 tions of this nature ; and at the close of almost 
 every article which treats of a preposition, we 
 find the remarlv, " hand raro redundatJ' 
 
 In regard, especially, to those prepositions 
 which are compounded with verbs, it is a com- 
 mon and indeed a very general opinion, that 
 such prepositions, often do not at all aftect the 
 force of the verbs ; and diat therefore the force 
 and meaning of a compound verb diifers fre- 
 quently in no respect from those of the simple 
 verb. The source of this opinion is to be 
 found, partly in a want of attention to the 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 243 
 
 niceties of language, and partly in the desire 
 of avoiding some particular interpretations. 
 Thus, in former times, when it was the fashion 
 to look for an emphatic meaning in many verbs 
 where there is none, the most false interpreta- 
 tions were not unfrequently brought forward 
 on no ground whatever, except a certain sup- 
 posed emphasis imparted to the compound 
 verb by the accession of the preposition. 
 Hence too it was, that other interpreters were 
 ]ed more decidedly to deny that the force of 
 the verb was in all cases affected by the pre- 
 position ; in many cases, at least they affirmed, 
 no emphasis was to be sought in compound 
 verbs. This was doubtless Ernesti's meaning, 
 when he says,^ that " in Greek verbs we must 
 take care not to suppose that any accession of 
 meaning is necessarily made by the accession 
 of prepositions, especially dm, ac6, t^o, cvv, iz, 
 -s^i, nor must w^e draw arguments from this sup- 
 jjosed emphasis, as is done by many, and often- 
 times very incongruously; inasmuch as use and 
 observation sufficiently teach us, that these 
 prepositions do not always affect the significa- 
 tion of the simple verbs, and indeed are very 
 frequently redundant." The learned writer is 
 
 ^ Institutio Interp. N. T. P. I. s. 2, c. 5, § 8. Stuai-t'> 
 
244 GREEK PREPOSITIONS 
 
 obviously here speaking of emphasis, wiiicli, it 
 ]nust be conceded, is not always produced by 
 the prepositions. But still, the precept which 
 he gives, is ambiguous ; for it is one thing to 
 impart an emphasis; another, to produce an 
 accession to the force and meaning of the simple 
 verb ; and still another, to change the meaning 
 of the simple verb. It is this ambiguity, which 
 seems to have led astray those who have since 
 written on this topic ; especially Fischer, whose 
 dissertation on the subject is devoid of every 
 thing like fixed rule or settled principle.^' 
 
 It does not indeed require much study, to 
 demonstrate by numerous examples, that pre- 
 positions in themselves never produce emphasis, 
 and that they do not always change the signi- 
 fication of the simple verbs ; but it is more 
 difficult to shew precisely what force such pre- 
 positions really have, either constantly or in 
 certain circumstances. No one, so far as I 
 knoAV, has treated of this subject in such a 
 manner, as to have reduced this part of gram- 
 mar to certain and fixed laws ; and although 
 individual authors have written on particular 
 points with judgment and discrimination, still 
 the subject of the Greek prepositions, as a 
 
 '' Prolus. (ic y'ilih Leaker. N. T. Frolus. "\'. p. 119, sq. 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 245 
 
 whole, has not yet been properly discussed, 
 especially with reference to the writers of the 
 New Testament. Some interpreters indeed, 
 having adopted the opinion that the New 
 Testament writers scarcely spoke the Greek 
 language, and were at least total strangers to 
 all its grammatical principles and laws, have 
 not thought it worth their while even to look 
 at the force of the particles, and more parti- 
 cularly of the prepositions ; and hence it has 
 arisen, that in most of the lexicons of the 
 New Testament, the prepositions are treated 
 of so ineptly and unskilfully. Another class 
 of interpreters, supposing it to be the safest 
 course to avoid a nice explication of every thing 
 which they did not understand, or which seem- 
 ed to them unsettled and indefinite, took re- 
 fuge in pleonasm, and taught, with great con- 
 fidence, that prepositions in composition with 
 verbs are often redundant. This they did the 
 more earnestly, because they recollected that 
 many false interpretations and heterodox opi- 
 nions rested for support solely on the emphasis 
 alleged to exist in certain compound verbs, e, g. 
 in rgoo^/^s/v, 'jTooyivuiCxuv. Others again have ad- 
 mitted, that prepositions sometimes add no new 
 signification to that of the simple verb, while 
 yet they sometimes augment the latter ; but 
 
246 GREEK PREPOSITIONS 
 
 they have given no certain rules by which to 
 distinguish, when the signification is thus aug- 
 mented or when it remains unaffected. 
 
 Among the writers of this latter class, who 
 are thus wavering and uncertain in regard 
 to these particles, we may rank most of the 
 ancient grammarians and scholiasts ; who, 
 when the force of a construction was not ob- 
 vious to them, have not hesitated to declare, 
 ^sojrrriv ihca ttjv ir^o^iGiv, " the proposition is re- 
 dundant;" while yet, in other places, they 
 have developed the force and meaning of the 
 prepositions with far more subtlety than cor- 
 rectness. Thus, for instance, — to use the same 
 examples which Fischer (1. c.) has adduced in 
 support of his views, — the Scholiast on Aris- 
 tophanes says of the verb craoa/r^j^rw/xs^a, ad 
 Equit. V. 37, 'm^trrri 57 <7raDd' Igrt yap a/Vjjcw/xgSa, 
 '::aoaxaki6(fj(i,iv. TlXiovd^ouGi yao -/.ai sXXsi'^ouffi ruTc 
 ^po3g<r2(r/i/ 'Arr/xo/. "The aa^a is superfluous: 
 the verb is i. q. a/V^jcw/As^a or 'ra^axaXscojjtMsv. 
 The Attics often make pleonasms and ellipses 
 with the prepositions." But surely the prepo- 
 sition is never wholly superfluous in 'zapcurs^, 
 and least of all in this place. A/rsTv is simply 
 fo ask for any thing ; but rrapainTv is so to ash 
 as to deprecate the opposite; a meaning perfect- 
 ly well adapted to this passage. The same 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 247 
 
 Scholiast further says, ad Plutwni v. 499, rh ds 
 dvYiPUircc Tj Tiotrrr^'j 'iy^si rffy ^po^sgiv yj driXojri7c6v sen 
 rou'zoy.'kdzi; hoj-av. " In avrjoura the preposition 
 is either redundant, or else it indicates repeat- 
 ed questioning'." Fischer thought the first so- 
 lution to be the true one, but incorrectly; for 
 dvsoojrav is most appropriately employed in this 
 place to mark repp.ated questioning, and not a 
 simple interrogation (lowrai/) ; as indeed the 
 Scholiast explains it in the sequel. The same 
 indefiniteness and want of consistency occurs 
 in other grammarians, and even in Eustathius.*" 
 This is certainly a grievous fault in the inter- 
 pretation of any book ; but ought to be more 
 particularly avoided by an interpreter of the 
 New Testament ; inasmuch as the greatest 
 care is here necessary, lest, by neglecting the 
 real force and significancy of the prepositions, 
 either the sense should be deprived of its full 
 weight, or at least the same idea should not 
 be apprehended in the same manner as it was 
 by the writer himself. From considerations 
 like these, 1 have thought it would not be la- 
 
 '' Sop. 1009. 40. U^oB-icni; TTcc^iXjiava-i Iv ^rec^ivS-ia-n ju.i}iv '^rw- 
 Ti^uaa-t rjj (rvf^ccffla. tuv aTkcuv. ' Prepositions are redundant 
 in composition, adding nothing- to the significations of the 
 simple words.' The contrary and more correct doctrine is 
 given on p. 217, 18. 727, 19. 936, 48. 1553, 14. 
 
248 GREEK PREPOSITIONS 
 
 bour lost, to give the subject a more careful 
 discussion. But as the limits of this essay for- 
 bid a complete view, it will be proper to con- 
 fine ourselves to a succinct exposition of the 
 various ways in which the force of the prepo- 
 sitions is manifested in connexion with verbs. 
 Prepositions are usually connected with 
 verbs in a threefold manner. They are either 
 subjoined to the simple verb as a compliment, 
 as op/xa V i-rri rt, — or they are compounded with the 
 verb, as e(poP,u.av, — or they are subjoined to a 
 verb already compounded with the same or 
 another preposition, as s-^osfj^dv slg -roXs/xov, d'jrs- 
 yj<s%ai d-o rng 'rropvsiuc. The plan of this essay 
 includes neither the first nor the last of these 
 modes of expression ; but only the second, in 
 which the prepositions are so joined with the 
 verbs, as to form with them one compound 
 word.*^ It will be proper, nevertheless, to pre- 
 
 ** One of the writers who has done most justice to the 
 subject of prepositions in composition, is Abresch ad Caitieri 
 Gazophyl. Graec. p. 6*0. But he api>ears not to have been 
 sufficiently aware, that the diiferent force which the same 
 preposition (;xhibits when compounded with diiferent vei-bs, 
 arises out of the signification of the verb with M'liicli it is 
 thus connected, wliile tlie preposition itself always retains its 
 own proper force and sigtiificancy. I prefer to subjoin here 
 some examples from Catier himself, in order the more clearly 
 to illustrate my meaning ; since in the text 1 have discussed 
 the subject only in general terms. 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 249 
 
 mise a few remarks upon those other methods 
 of connexion ; because from the first of them 
 we learn the cause why prepositions are con- 
 nected with verbs at all ; while from the third 
 
 'A^(p/, according to Cattier, denotes in composition, cir- 
 cum, as in afi.(pifia.XXa, and also dubitation, as in afipfffinriu. 
 But in both these instances a^(p/ has its own proper signi- 
 fication ; it denotes strictly, utrimque, on both sides, on either 
 hand, as does also the adverb «(46(p/j. Hence af4,(pir(iyiTSiv is 
 to go or tend towards one side and the other ; as dfziptlidXXuy 
 is to cast on either side ; whence ocfiiptfioXos, ivoimded or at- 
 tacked on both sides, (Thucyd. 4. 32.) metaph. fluctuating, 
 dubious, uncertain ; and so also a^(p</saXX£<v, to fluctuate, 
 be in doubt. The reason why ufic<pi<r^7)Tt7v signifies to be in 
 doubt, lies not in the preposition, but in the verb ; for every 
 one who is in doubt, inclines or tends first to one side and 
 then the other, so long as he has not decided what to do — 
 We might affirm, with the same right, that u/u,(pt signifies 
 defence, as in df^.(pi(l>aiyuv, e. g. o; X^va-yiv a^i2'</3£i3jjxaj and 
 other examples ; but this no one would tolerate The pro- 
 per signification of a^(p/ then is utrimque ; and when this 
 preposition is joined in composition with verbs, it super- 
 adds this sense to the idea expressed by the verl). Thus 
 vaiTv is to think, and dfx,(ptvoiTv is so to think that the mind wa- 
 vers on one side and the other, i. e. to doubt. The Scho- 
 liast on Sophocles therefore is incorrect, when he says ad 
 Antigon. v. 376, a,fji.(pivou' -rs^ifftrh h df/,(pi, ' the d/u,(pi is redun- 
 dant.' The author of the Etymologicum is therefore also 
 wi-ong, when he says that oift<pl and -n^i are synonymous ; 
 for Ti^i is properly circa or circum, about, around. It there- 
 fore not only superadds a far different sense from that of 
 d,fjL(pt to verbs with which it is connected ; but it also not 
 unfrequently simply augments or gives intensity to compre- 
 
250 GREEK PREPOSITIONS 
 
 we may most clearly perceive how inconside- 
 rately, in phrases of this sort, the lexicogra- 
 phers have so often recurred to pleonasm. 
 It is the nature of verbs, that they neces- 
 
 hensiveness to the meaning of the simple verb : because the 
 simple action expressed by the verb is made, by the addition 
 of ^B^l, to comprehend as it were the whole of the object, as 
 he'mg affected on every side and in all its parts. Thus, as 
 d,fjt.^ivoi7v is to think ivaoeringly, so rrt^ivoiTv is to think care- 
 fully, to consider on all sides, to excogitate ; and "rs^ivotx, soler- 
 tia, ingenuity. Hence also both these prepositions are united 
 with one verb, as a.fjt.(pi'7n^i9rXuZ,t<r^ui, to ivander about hither 
 and thither, Orph. Lith. 80 ; and oifjt.(piTi^Krr^u(pav, Iliad. 
 VIII. 348, comp. Eustath. 716, 49; d,fji,(pi<ffioi(p^iv6^iiv, Horn. 
 Hymn. Ven. 271. In like manner they are also sometimes 
 used together as separate prepositions ; e. g. Iliad. II. 305, 
 XVII. 760, comp. Eusth. p. 112fJ, extr. 
 
 'AfTo in composition, Cattier says, signifies negation, as 
 dvoipTifjcr despondency, as d^u-rijv' acquittal, as avoy^iKpiZ^uv' 
 completion, as d'Ti0yoiZ,i(r^cct. Abresch adds other significations ; 
 but that which he first subjoins, (in dTiivoti, dvoKotfiair^xt, 
 aTox^vTrin, etc.) he ought to have marked as being proper- 
 ly the primary and common sense of aero in composition. In 
 d^o(pv/^t it is not the preposition that denotes negation, but 
 the whole verb ; he who denies or refuses a thing, declares 
 that thing to be remote from his mind or will {aronuu.) 
 On the other hand, Karoi(prif/.i is to affirm, to assent, (x«t«- 
 vewE/v,) to annex or superadd, as it were, one's own views or 
 feelings to a thing. So also ^^^^^^(pi^uv is to set any one free 
 by vote ,• not because ccro denotes acquittal, but because 
 \pv(p{^uv and ^ptiquZur^ai signify to give one\ sufrage con- 
 cerning any thing (<rs^/ rivo;) ; and therefore, as xa.Ta^vi(()t%tn 
 Tivx is to condemn by one's suffrage, (^-^'txpi^iiv xarai rtvof,) 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 251 
 
 sarily connect the notion of the thing which 
 they express, with the conception of some 
 other thing, which may stand to the former in 
 the relation either of cause or eifect. To point 
 
 so ocro-^^Yi^'i^uv Tivoc is to acquit by suffrage ; because he who 
 is thus acquitted, is conceived of as freed, taken away, from 
 the sentence. Hence also ciTo-^'yKPit.iiv is construed with the 
 accusative, although the preposition governs only the genitive ; 
 as also a.vofjt.oi^KT^cn, a-TTohxa^iiv, ocTfoXoyuff^cci, and Others. 
 
 A/a retains everywhere its own signification, through, in 
 composition ; but still it gives a variety of modification to 
 the meaning of verbs, according to the different sense which 
 belongs to the verbs themselves. In hccKuXunv, and ^lanXiTf, 
 for example, it does not of itself signify continuance, nor in 
 hi^;^iff^ct4 is it praeier, nor in "^taa-u/^eff^e/i tid rivoi is it e^r, 
 although it may be so rendered in Latin. Whoever ^taxukuu, 
 he xaiXvn "Side, rivog, i. e. hinders through the whole time during 
 which any thing is to be impeded ; whoever ^n^;^ireii, he 
 £^;^^sra< hoi rivos, i. 6. comes through something, leaves it 
 AV'hoUy behind him, whence ^/£^;^;£<^9■ai sfj ri, to arrive at ; 
 whoever ^/a<r&;^s ra/, he tra^ireti ^ici rivoi, i. e. is preserved 
 through the whole time of his being in danger. Hence 
 ffu^iirS-cti u; ^ta, Trvpog 1 Cor. iii. 15, and "hietiru^nvui ^i uoaroi 
 1 Pet. iii. 20, is to be preserved through the midst of the fire 
 and the water by which they were surrounded ; Avhich, as 
 to the sense, is indeed equivalent to being saved ex igne vel 
 aqua. So Xenophon. A nab. V. 5. 7, ^'« croXX&Jv xa) "^uvio* 
 T^ay/u.druv trtruff/nivoi Tei^io-Ti, ' ye Stand here, preserved 
 through many and great evils ;' but in III. 2. 7, ffu>X,ovTa,i Ix 
 9rdvv ^£/v<s;v, and Hist. Graec. VII. 1. 16, oi a-aBivris £« "rou 
 v^dyfjcaros. Thus also in all other verbs, hei fulfils its pro- 
 per office, and signifies through, per ; it denotes that the 
 thing in question e.rists or takes place in such a w^ay, that it 
 
252 GREEK PREPOSITIONS 
 
 out the nature or mode of this relation, it is 
 often necessary to employ prepositions ; whose 
 office it is, when thus used with simple verbs, 
 to shew whither the notion of the thing ex- 
 must be conceived of as existing or taking place through 
 something which is opposed or interposed. But since a 
 thing may be regarded in a twofold manner, either as the 
 subject on which the idea expressed by the verb depends, or 
 as the object on which the idea expressed by the verb termi- 
 nates, it follows that "ttd may require either the genitive (of 
 the subject), or the accusative (of the object) ; and hence has 
 arisen the twofold signification of ^/a, as denoting b<^th man- 
 ner and cause. And since that through which a thing is said 
 to exist or take place, is to be conceived of as a sort of me- 
 dium, which the whole thing has as it were pervaded or 
 passed through, those verbs therefore which are compounded 
 with ha, often express the notion of difference, j)erfection, 
 dividing, distribiitinij, dissipating, contending, and the like ; 
 in all which, nevertheless, the preposition itself retains its 
 own proper force. Nor do I fear that any one will pro- 
 nounce all this to be empty speculation ; as if it were indif- 
 ferent, whether we regard the preposition itself as having 
 a different power, or consider the modification which takes 
 place when a preposition is added, as arising out of the verbs 
 themselves. Our lexicographers would surely not have des- 
 cribed one and the same preposition as denoting every thing 
 in composition, had they more closely observed tlie peculiar 
 force and significancy of eacb, — But, to return to the pre- 
 position lia. It is said to have the signification of eacel- 
 lence in ^utipi^uv, ^/t;^£<v. Tnie. But still it is one and the 
 same signification of 5/a' which causes 'ha^x.^adeu to mean per- 
 venire ; 'ita^etmiv, iransgredi ; and also ^/a^i^s/v, to differ ; 
 hiX^u¥, to be prominent This is clearly established as to 
 6ii-^!iv by tbe passages in Homer, Iliad V 100. XX. 41G. 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 253 
 
 pressed by the verb, is to be referred. Thus 
 when one says, sp/w r/, he indicates that the 
 possession of a certain thing is to be conceived 
 of in connexion with himself ; but when it is 
 
 It is surprising that Abresch, in the place above cited, 
 should follow the custom of so many writers, and attribute 
 to the Greek prepositions almost as many significations as 
 the Latin ones have, by which they are commonly rendered. 
 Thus on p. 74 he writes, that l| in composition sometimes 
 denotes in ; as IxvifftTv u; )^ol.(rfji.a. yri; in Pausanias ; although 
 the very passage of Lucian which he adduces, Nigrin. c. 36. 
 iK (Jt-'itrns rni o^ou xara-;ri^rttv, might have shown him the 
 true solution ; for he who while walking along a path, falls 
 into a ditch, falls out of the path, ex via, into the ditch. So 
 the passage of Xenophon, Hist. Gr. V. 4. 17, oVXa am^- 
 -rairB^ivTa l^i^iffov us ^u.Xarrra.'i. But the phrase la fiiffns rris 
 eloZ xa.ra'Tri'rTiiv means, * to fall out of or at the middle of the 
 way,' i. e- after completing half the way — The preposition 
 ?ra^a in composition, he says, signifiies not only us, v^os, trvv, 
 T^o, but also s^ and ci-ro. But in all the examples that are ad- 
 duced, it signifies nothing more than jua^ta, nigh, near to, ne- 
 ben, in which is also implied the idea of praeter, by, bey, vor- 
 bey. But this signification does indeed give a different modifi- 
 cation to verbs, according to their various simple meanings. 
 Thus ^agaxXiiuv is indeed to shut out, exclude, not surely be- 
 cause 5ra^a signifies ex, but because when one is shut up not 
 in this place, but in some place beside {praeter,) he is of 
 course conceived of as excluded from this place. So in Aris- 
 tophanis, Eccles. 120, •ra^iiva.i may be rendered by prodire, 
 to come forth, to approach, etc. [as if for ^r^otrnvai,] for the 
 connexion is, -x-u^it is to tt^oo-Biv, and immediately after we 
 find xcl^i^i Tct^iut. But still even here -ra^a is properly 
 juxta^ and 'xa.^i'ita'i is to come near, draiv nigh, etc. like ra- 
 
254 GREEK PREPOSITIONS 
 
 inquired, what is the mode or ratio of this pos- 
 session, then there is need of a preposition : 
 whether it be to shew from whom he has the 
 thing, s^siv arto rmg vel craea rm^^ or to desig- 
 nate where he has it, as lyii)/ h x^'i'> ^^ '^Z=''' 
 
 ^i^X.^iT^'^t. In the same author we read Thesmophor, 804, 
 irx^aKU'TTTUt Ik rris B-v^i^o;, and a little before, lyKv^rrnv. The 
 former, they say, is here i. q. i'^okv^tuv, and ^a^a performs 
 the office of t^o- while the latter, they say^ is for inxv^ruv. 
 But in this sportive passage, -ra^axv'TTttv is not * to look out 
 by thrusting the head through the window,' but ' to lookout 
 from within the window by inclining the head on one side,' 
 as is done by modest females who do not wish to be seen 
 from without. Tlie notion of tt^o lies here in the verb xv- 
 TTuv itself. The poet therefore immediately subjoins : xuv 
 a.iT;^vvB:7iT' a,iitx.^uor,<Ty^j ttoXv ju,a.XXov ttus I'^riS-Vfi;? auB^i; rrccect- 
 xv'^av loitv. Neither is lyxuTTuv used for avaxuTTuv, as the 
 Scholiast explains it, but it is ' to look out by inclining to- 
 wards (the -window),' and differs from TK^Kxvfrruv, which 
 the sacred Avriters have used to express the same idea, Luke 
 xxiv. 12. John xx. 5, 11. The true force of the word is 
 shown by the examples which Wetstein has given, Nov. Test. 
 T. I. p. 823 ; and especially by the ])assage from Aristo- 
 ])hanes, Pac. 981, sq — For these reasons I much doubt 
 whether •xa^axv-^a.i in James i. 25, means so much as ' to 
 consider diligently, to know thorouyhhj ,-' it seems to denote 
 simply to knoiv, to have a knowledge of the law. The a})ostle 
 says : " He who has a knowledge of the law, if he be not 
 {yivofjLim) a forgetful hearer, but does that which the law 
 ])rescribes, oZret iLtcxd^m la-rcn, he shall be blessed." The 
 ^vord is also used of knowledge in general^ not careful or 
 perfect knowledge, in Lucian, /. Rediv'tv. p. r>08. !?o also 
 in 1 Pet. i. 12, it signifies nothing more than simply to he 
 hold, to become acijuaiiited ^^ ith. 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 255 
 
 fj.ia'^bv 'Tra^a rd) crarpiy Matt. vi. 1. Hence it is 
 easy to see, how the entire diiference of sigiii- 
 cation has arisen in the phrases syjiv d':r6 rr^og, 
 and d'Trs^siv or aTsyjc'^c/j. In these latter words, 
 the preposition when thus compounded with 
 the verb, occasions plainly a new^ signifi- 
 cation, directly opposite to the meaning of 
 the simple verb ; the thing to which the prepo- 
 sition points being no longer conceived of as 
 conjoined with the notion of the thing expressed 
 by the verb, but as disjoined from it. The 
 case is different when a';rsp^s/v signifies to have 
 received^ (not to receive^) as d'jrs-xiiv fjjc^ov, Matt, 
 vi. 2, 5, 16; for there a^o denotes not disjimc- 
 tion^ but an accession made from some other 
 quarter; so that those interpreters are in an 
 error, who here make d'rrz'xitv [mig'^ov signify no- 
 thing more than the simple 'ixziv. They differ 
 in the same manner, as in English, to have and 
 to have away from^ i. e. to have taken away 
 from another to one's self; to have received, as 
 above. It might be more a matter of dou])t, 
 whether in the words d-7rsyj6:)ai drro rsiog, the 
 latter preposition is redundant or not ; for the 
 phrase expresses the same sense without the 
 preposition ; as Acts xv. 20 d'Tiyis'^ai d-h rwv 
 d}j(ry'/i{/.c/.TOjv ruj'j i/d'Jj/.cj',', and verse 29 wTTByjc'^c/./ 
 £/ow/\&i)jrwv. But these forms of expression seem 
 
256 GREEK PREPOSITIONS 
 
 to differ, not in the idea or thing itself, but 
 merely in the mode of conceiving of it ; just 
 as they say in German, sick von erne?' Sache 
 entlialten and also, sich einer Sache enthaltert, (i. e. 
 to abstain from any thing,) where in the for- 
 mer mode of expression the notion of disjunc- 
 tion is referred particularly to the thing, and 
 in the latter to the person. 
 
 If now these remarks should seem to any 
 one to be speculative and refined rather than 
 true and well founded, let him remember, that 
 it is the object of all language, not alone to 
 excite the same thought in the mind of others, 
 but also so to excite the same thought, that it 
 may be conceived, and as it were felt, in the 
 same manner. Hence, wherever language is 
 most highly cultivated, the more does it abound 
 in the use of particles ; whose chief province 
 it is to indicate modes and relations, and as it 
 were render them obvious to the senses. Thus 
 it is not surprising, that the Hebrew language 
 should need to employ whole phrases, where 
 in Greek one verb compounded or connected 
 with a preposition, is sufficient. 
 
 We may farther remark, that when a prepo- 
 sition is subjoined to a verb already com- 
 pounded with another preposition, it is done in 
 order to designate more accurately the relations 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 257 
 
 of those things, the idea of which is conjoined 
 with the verb, i. e, that the designation of all 
 the adjuncts and circumstances of the verb 
 may be complete. Thus in the phrases, 
 
 yiTv a'TTo rrig 7^5, no one can doubt for a moment, 
 that the prepositions are not redundant. 
 
 We turn now to the consideration of the 
 various modes, in which the force of the pre- 
 positions is exhibited in compound verbs. Our 
 examples, so far as possible, will all be drawn 
 from the New Testament. 
 
 The force of the preposition in a compound 
 verb, is in general of a twofold nature. It 
 either changes the signification of the verb, so 
 that the idea expressed by the compound is a 
 difi^rent one from that of the simple verb ; as 
 in s^siv to have, k'T:iyji^ to abstain, avsyjtv to sus- 
 tain ; ahi7v to ask, airairitv to deprecate ; aXyuv to 
 sorroiv, a-^aXys/i/ to banish sorrow ; xakh-rziv to 
 conceal, d'::oxakb'7:riiv to disclose; ffo<pt(^iiv to en- 
 lighten, xaTac()(piZ^iiv to delude ; — or else the pre- 
 position so modifies the meaning of the simple 
 verb, that although the same idea is expressed, 
 yet it is expressed under some certain relation 
 and in a different manner. As to the first of 
 these cases, there is no question ; it is (so to 
 speak) palpable, that such compounds have 
 
 VOL. II, s 
 
258 GREEK PREPOSITIONS 
 
 significations different from those of the cor- 
 responding simple verbs. The only matter of 
 dispute is, respecting the second class of com- 
 pounds, viz., those in which the main idea is 
 the same as in the simple verbs. And it is 
 chiefly because the diversity in the relations of 
 things is so manifold, and the modes of con- 
 ception in respect to the same thing so various, 
 and because these modes and relations again 
 are sometimes so indefinite and abstruse, that 
 the custom has arisen in regard to this class of 
 verbs, of aflftrming as a rule, that compound 
 verbs often signify nothing different from, or 
 more than, the corresponding simple verbs. 
 Hence also comes the habit of loosely aflfirm- 
 ing, sometimes that the prepositions do not 
 change the meaning of the simple verbs, some- 
 times that no accession of meaning is made by 
 them to the simple verbs, and again, that no 
 emphasis is produced in such cases by preposi- 
 tions. This ambiguity needs to be removed. 
 
 We suppose, then, that prepositions in this 
 class of compound verbs, have this force, viz., 
 that although the thing expressed by the com- 
 pound verb is the same with that, the notion 
 of which is contained in the simple verb, yet 
 in the compound verb, it is conceived of or 
 apprehended under a difterent relation, and in 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 259 
 
 a different mode. By relation^ I here mean 
 that relation which has place among the things 
 or adjuncts which are connected with the verb ; 
 by mode^ I understand the way or manner in 
 which the conception or apprehension of these 
 adjuncts affects the mind. We shall treat of 
 both of these successively. 
 
 I. The causes or sources of the ideas of re- 
 lation, are the same circumstances by which 
 the things or adjuncts themselves are connected 
 together, viz,, time, place or space, and the 
 connexion of cause and effect. It is, indeed, 
 the peculiar province of the prepositions, to 
 point out these relations. 
 
 1. When therefore a preposition is com- 
 pounded with a verb, it may serve, in the first 
 place, to mark the relation of time which exists 
 between two things, or to indicate that one 
 of them may be the antecedent of the other. 
 Thus when one is said hiZiiv n, he is indeed 
 conceived of as having determined something, 
 but ivhe7i he determined it is left uncertain ; 
 although it might perhaps be conjectured from 
 other circumstances. But when, for instance, 
 it is to be so expressed as to imply, that he 
 came to the determination before the persons 
 whom it is to affect were alive, he would be 
 properly said 'z^oo^fC^sr^, to fore-determine ; and 
 
260 GREEK PREPOSITIONS 
 
 it is therefore entirely false to say, as very 
 many clo,^ that t^oop/I^siv denotes nothing more 
 than the simple o^'l^nv. The same is the case 
 with the verbs yivdjaznv and crgoy/vw^xs/v. When 
 it is said of any one, eyvu n, we conceive of 
 something as having been his pleasure or de- 
 termination ; but as this may have been at any 
 indefinite time, when we wish it to be under- 
 stood as having been the fact a long time since, 
 or of old, we must write 'Tr^osyvu. Both these 
 instances are found in Rom. viii. 29, 30. In- 
 deed, if I mistake not, it is this very passage of 
 Paul that has given the chief occasion to the 
 rule about the like force and signification of 
 compound and simple verbs. The authors of 
 this precept wished to take away all ground 
 from those, who thought they perceived in 
 these words, traces of a special divine favour 
 towards a certain class of persons. 
 
 2. The relation oi place or of space, is three- 
 fold. We may conceive of any thing as in a 
 place, as being removed fro?n a place, and as 
 coming to a place. It is the office also of the 
 prepositions, when joined with verbs, to indi- 
 cate one or the other of these relations. No- 
 thing can be more obvious than this; for who 
 
 • Wahl has very properly abstained from precepts of tliis 
 sort — Author. 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 261 
 
 will deny that the compound verbs am^aivsiv, 
 zara^aivsiVy dvajSdXXuv, zaTa(3aXXstv, dvdysiv, zard- 
 ynv, d-e^'y^io'^a.i, 'nooa'i^yjG^ai, signify more than the 
 corresponding simple ones? And yet, in respect 
 to certain similar verbs in the New Testament, 
 interpreters are accustomed to teach, that their 
 signification does not differ from that of the 
 simpl(? verbs. Thus dvaGnvd'Citv^ Mark viii. 12, 
 they say, has simply the meaning to sigh, and 
 not to sigh deeply, and is therefore used here in 
 the same sense as (snvdZiiv. But although we 
 concede that dvacnvdZiiv does not in itself, per 
 se, denote, to sigh deeply, yet it differs in signi- 
 fication from the simple ffnvdl^uv. The latter 
 indicates simply that one sighs ; but the pre- 
 position being prefixed, causes us to conceive 
 of him as drawing his sighs upicard from the 
 very bottom of his breast; just as we have in 
 English the distinction between a sigh and a 
 deep or deep drawn sigh. In this way the com- 
 pound is much stronger than the simple verb. 
 When the same interpreters also affirm, that 
 dva'TrXrjoovv means nothing more than tXyi^ouv, it is 
 the same as if we should say in English, that 
 there is no difference of meaning in the verbs 
 to Jill, to Jill up, to Jill out, to fulfil, &c. 
 
 The arguments by which this opinion has 
 been usually supported, are chiefly two ; Jirst, 
 
262 GREEK PREPOSITIONS 
 
 that both simple and compound verbs are em- 
 ployed promiscuously in the same or similar 
 constructions and phrases, e. g.^ ffrivd^nv and 
 dvaffTSvd^siv, rrX'/jPovv tov vo/xov and dvarrXriooZv rh 
 voiMov secondly^ that both simple and compound 
 verbs are employed promiscuously in the New 
 Testament, as corresponding to the same He- 
 brew verbs. These arguments, however, are 
 easily set aside. In the first place, although 
 the simple verb contains the notion of the same 
 thing, so that whether the simple or compound 
 verb be employed, the mind receives the same 
 general idea, and, on this account, in many 
 phrases, both the simple and compound verb 
 may be used promiscuously ; yet this does not 
 take place because the compound does not sig- 
 nify something more than the simple verb, but 
 because the true force and meaning which the 
 simple verb here expresses, is gathered from 
 the other words of the sentence, or because the 
 use of the simple verb, as is often the case, im- 
 parts strength to the expression. Although, 
 therefore, we may concede, that ava-s-X^j^oDv rh 
 voij^ov and ctXjjpoDv tov vo/xov, may be said in the 
 same sense, yet it does not thence follow, that 
 dva'x}.r,p(j\jv and 'jX^ovv are synonymous, nor that 
 the compound does not differ from the simple 
 verb. If they were synonymous, then crX^j^oDv 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 263 
 
 might be employed wherever dva-Xri^ovv is used, 
 which, however, no one would be ready to ad- 
 mit. When also it is said, that Mark uses 
 sometimes cnvdZiiv, and sometimes dvacnvat^siv^ 
 and that this is a sure proof that these verbs 
 do not differ in sense, the assertion is too ob- 
 viously unfounded to demand a refutation. In 
 the second place, it is said that both simple 
 and compound verbs often correspond to the 
 same Hebrew verbs, and that the writers of the 
 New Testament have everywhere translated 
 the same Hebrew verbs, now by compound, 
 and now by the corresponding simple verbs ; 
 so that it would appear that all verbs com- 
 pounded with prepositions in the New Testa- 
 ment, are to be regarded as being, in them- 
 selves, of equal force and significancy with the 
 simple verbs/ Yet those who are skilled in 
 both these languages, and know the compara- 
 tive poverty of the Hebrew, will easily under- 
 stand of themselves, that no other conclusion 
 can justly be drawn from this circumstance, 
 than tliat the Greek writer was able, by means 
 of compound verbs, to express various relations 
 of things, which the Hebrew writer could only 
 indicate by one and the same simple verb, the 
 
 f Fischer, 1, c p. 124. 
 
264 GREEK PREPOSITIONS 
 
 Hebrew language being wholly destitute of 
 compound verbs. 
 
 The truth of the remarks which we have 
 made above, in regard to the relations of place, 
 which the prepositions in compound verbs so 
 often serve to designate, is most conspicuously 
 exhibited in those verbs which are compounded 
 with two or three prepositions. In verbs of 
 this sort, two or three relations of place, with 
 reference to the same thing, are presented at 
 once to the mind, and, as it were, to the senses. 
 And he would be in a great error who should 
 suppose that one or two of these prepositions 
 were redundant. The Scholiast on Apollon. 
 Rhod. III. 665, says of the word sTi'^r^ofioXovcoc 
 very absurdly, tts^ittsusi rj I'jri iroo^icig^ ' the pre- 
 position It/ is redundant;' for the sense is, 
 not only that she went out of doors ('ttpq), but 
 that she also, at the sametime, came up to or 
 upon^ supervenisse (sfri) ; and the compound verb 
 expresses both these relations. Very clear 
 examples are also found in the Homeric com- 
 pounds, u'Tr s'^amdvg, Iliad XIII. 652, and s^vruv- 
 sffryj, ib. II. 267, which led Eustathius himself 
 (217, 17) to a fuller and more careful expli- 
 cation of the force of the several prepositions. 
 Many words of this kind are also found in the 
 New Testament, but there are few of them 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 265 
 
 which have not been inconsiderately marked 
 by lexicographers with the usual sign, i. q., im- 
 plying that they are merely synonymous with 
 the simple verbs. We give here some ex- 
 amples. 
 
 ' AvTava'TrXyj^ovv. This occurs once. Col. i. 24, 
 where it is said to be the same as dva-TrXriPoZv. 
 But this is wrong, for avrcAacrXriPouv is not simply 
 to Jill up, but it is to Jill up instead o/'something 
 else, i, e., so as to supply the place of some- 
 thing which fails to compensate. So in the 
 examples cited in the note below.^ Hence the 
 words of Paul, avrava'jr'kyiooj ra ii(STS^ri[J^(x.ra ruv 
 ^X/'-xJ/sw!) rou X^/<rroD Iv da^yJ /xoj, are not properly 
 to be translated as they are usually given, / 
 Jill up what yd rcmaineth of afflictions^ i. e., as 
 they say, I endure. For {/(yrsprj/x-a, both in the 
 Old and New Testament, does not denote what 
 remains^ reliquum, but ivhat fails, defectum. 
 Hence b6Tior,iMara rwv ^Xz-vj^swi/ is literally the de- 
 ficiency of or in afflictions, i. e., the afflictions 
 
 s Deniosth. ^t^) 2v^jC«o«. p. 182, 20, tovtmv ll tuv ffvf^fio^iuv 
 IxdffTnv "^n^i-iTv TciXivu ^ivTt /t*£^>j KciTa ^oihiKa av^^ecs, dvrava- 
 
 ■TrXyiPOVVTBiS <T60S TOV tVTrO^UTOCTOV ceil Tou; cc^o^cotxtous- 
 
 Dio 
 
 Cass. XijIV. 48, 'Iv 'ivot xaB-' iKxa-Tov oclruv hihu — rovTO Ix. 
 T^j <!rapa, ruv eiWuv ffuvri'ki'ia.s uvrKvccrX'/i^uB^. Apollon. 
 Alex, de Synt. I. p. 19. iSylb. h dvruvuf^icx. — ctvravx'Trkn^ouaa. 
 xati T7IV B-iffiv Tov ovofiaTOS, xat Ttiv t«|<v too prif>e,ci<ros. III. J'. 
 2'55, "v ixan^x dvravaTkn^uB-ri rod XiiTfovros. Ibid. p. 'ioO. 
 
266 GREEK PREPOSITIONS 
 
 which are still deficient, or wanting, as in I 
 Cor. XVI. 17, rh u/xwv bgrsprjfjja oZroi avsTXr/PUffai', 
 your deficiency these have supplied^ comp. Phil, 
 ii. 30. In the passage before us, therefore, 
 dvrccvaTXyj^u ra bcrsoTifxaTa roJv '^Xj-^^sojv rov Xpigtov 
 sv ffa^Ttl f/.ou, the sense is, ' I supply, i. e., com- 
 pensate, make good, that which is yet wanting 
 to me of the afflictions which I endure for 
 Christ's sake ucrs^ u^awp, in your behalf, or, r<Z 
 •JIJ.COV 'TTioiGcrjfj.ari, that ye may the more abound, 
 2 Cor. viii. 14. The apostle had just said, 
 viiv %a/|w ToTg '7ta^7i(i,a6iv i/Ts^ 'j/xwi', / now rejoice in 
 suffering for yon, 
 
 ' Kvra'Koh'ihwiu. Fischer, in treating of this 
 word, endeavous to shew, that the preposition 
 am often has no force in composition. But in 
 all the passages of the ]New Testament where 
 this word occurs, dvri has manifestly its own 
 peculiar power, as denoting opposition or re- 
 ciprocity. So, Rom. xi. 35, r\ tic, rr^osdcAjxsv uvtu) 
 xal di/TWTrodo^yjffsrat avrui, or ivho hath first given 
 to him, and it shall he requited unto him. 2 
 Thess. 1. 6, di'Twrodovvai ToTg ^X/[3ovffiv b/j^ag ^X/'-^'/v, 
 to requite affliction to those ivho affict you. The 
 same force exists in the substantives dvrwzodo/j.u 
 and dvrccn^dofftg. In Col. iii. 24, dvra'rodoffig TT/g 
 ■/.Xrioovoiuag does not signify the reward of piety, 
 for •jO.yioaniucf. never has this sense ; but the 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 267 
 
 genitive here, as elsewhere, expresses the thing 
 itself in which t) ayraToooc/g, the reward, requital, 
 consists. 
 
 ' Avra-TTcyt^voij^ai. This is not, as is often said, 
 simply to answer, but carries the idea of reci- 
 procity, to ansiver in turn, to respond to the 
 icords of another, to reply. So, Luke xiv. 6, 
 oh-K 'i^ynjGav dvra'7ro7i^i'^r,i/cci avrui 'Tr^og ravra, they 
 ivere not able to reply to those things, viz., which 
 Jesus, answering, d'jro-^ot^zig, v. 5, had demand- 
 ed of them. Hence, in Rom. ix. 20, it denotes 
 to contend. Interpreters might have learned 
 from this one passage, that the preposition in 
 this word is not superfluous. 
 
 'Avr/crccosop^o/xa/. It is true that there is no- 
 thing emphatic in this word, Luke x. 31, 32, 
 but it is false that it is the same as the simple 
 rra^z^yjiixat. The sense is, that the priest and 
 levite not only passed hy the wounded man, 
 but that they passed by on the opposite side of 
 the way, i. e., they did not even approach him, 
 (comp. V. 34,) but, as soon as they saw him at 
 a distance, took their course as far from him as 
 possible. 
 
 'ATTsx^j^o/xa/. Here is no emphasis; but the 
 compound, of itself, signifies more than the 
 simple verb. The latter means to expect, to 
 look out for, to wait for, but the compound sig- 
 
268 GREEK PREPOSITIONS 
 
 iiifies to wait for to the end, to icait oid, as I 
 have shewn, de Synoiiymis N. T. c. VI. 
 
 'Arsx^jo/xa/. This is said to be the same 
 with d'Trodvofjbai and szdvo/jLau But the force of 
 dvo and h here, is the same as in the preced- 
 ing word. Both dToduofj.at and hdvo/xai signify 
 to put off, to strip off, but with this difference, 
 that in d'7rodvo{ia/, the attention is directed more 
 to the thi7ig which is put off, while in hdvo/^ai, 
 the person is more prominent, who puts off or 
 lays aside any thing in which he was before 
 enveloped. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 3, 4. In a^s?t- 
 dvofMai therefore, both these ideas are combined, 
 so that it signifies to put or strip off icholly, ex- 
 cutere. So, Col. ii. 15, dT£x.dvffdfMsvog rag doydg, 
 is (in the proper sense of the middle voice) 
 excutiens potestates, despoiling principalities.^ 
 The same sense occurs in Col. iii. 9, d'zszovGd- 
 (Mvjoi rov 'TraXaiov av'^^oo-ov, i. e., wholly putting off, 
 utterly renouncing the old man and his deeds. 
 There is here no need of having recourse to 
 Hebraism, 
 
 'E-Tam-Tauo/xa/ is not the same with ccvara-Jo^aa/. 
 The latter is simply to rest, the former signi- 
 
 '' So Cicero, Oral, pro Leg. Jgrar. II. GO or 23, impera- 
 tores excutiant. The passages adduced by Perizonius, ad 
 AUian. II. 30, are of the same nature. More correctly 
 Dresig, de Verbis Med. I. 17. 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 269 
 
 fies to rest upon, as Luke x. 6, then to lean 
 upon, to confide in, as if to rest secure, e. g., rp 
 vo/x-w, Rom. ii. 17. 'Ayacrausff^a/ is not used in 
 this sense.^ 
 
 'Ecravso^sff^a/ expresses more than avs^;/so'^a/. 
 The latter signifies simply to return in general, 
 but in the former there lies the idea of return- 
 ing to the same place. So, Luke x. 35, h r'Xi 
 s^Kvs^^sa'^a/ fjjs, when I shall return hither 
 again. Comp. Luke xix. 15. 
 
 'EvTsxT-s/vstr^a/ is incorrectly said to be the 
 same with sxtuvuv. But it is more, for h'jtnrrziv 
 is simply to extend, but l^sxrs/vgff^a/ is equivalent 
 to szTsivsG^ai Tgo; Ti, to extend one's self towards 
 any thing. So, in Phil. iii. 14, roT; ds i/ju-r^oc^iv 
 s-TTSTtnmfjjivog, q. d., rrohg ra 'i/M'r^oG^iv s-athvo/mvoc, 
 reaching forth towards those tilings which are 
 before. 
 
 H^ox.arayysXXiiv, to announce before liand, and 
 'Tgo;caragr/^s/i/, to prepare before hand, express 
 more, as all concede, than the simple verbs 
 ■/.aTayyiX>s.uv and -AaraoTiliiv. Why then, in the 
 case of 'Trpoyivojg/cu and 'x^ooojl^siv, should interpre- 
 ters deny that the preposition adds any thing 
 to the signification of the verb? Because, for- 
 sooth, there seems to be nothing emphatic. 
 
 ' See Wetstein ad h. loc. 
 
270 GREEK PREPOSITIONS 
 
 They are indeed safe as to emphasis, but they 
 ought not to have taught so inconsiderately, 
 that the same preposition is significant in some 
 verbs, and superfluous in others. 
 
 These examples may serve to remind inter- 
 preters of the New Testament, that they ought 
 to proceed with more caution and accuracy in 
 investigating the force of prepositions in com- 
 pound verbs. "^ 
 
 ^ It may be proper to remark here, for the sake of learners, 
 that the Greeks, in compounding verbs with several pre- 
 positions at once, have taken care to place the prepositions 
 in the order in which the ideas themselves naturally succeed 
 one another. Thus, when ava^vuvf to emerge, is compounded 
 with the two prepositions vt'o and s^, (not 'hvsiv with three,) 
 the former, v-^o, is put first, because it is a more natural 
 order of thought, first to conceive of the person emerging 
 Tov aya^t/avra as rising up from a lower place, and then as 
 coming out or forth ; to Avhich then dvu^vti^t is also very 
 jiearly allied. So also l^dyu, Wi^dyu, avnTi^dyco. 
 
 I have here gone upon the supposition, that in verbs of 
 this sort, {uTi^avec^vitv, avTefpri^dyuv,) only the two first pre- 
 positions are to be taken into account ; and the same is the 
 case with several of the verbs adduced in the text. The 
 reason is, that the third preposition, which stands next to 
 the simple verb, and is first compounded with it, has, in 
 these instances, the effect of changing the meaning of the 
 simple verb, i. e., of expressing, in conjunction with the 
 simple verb, a new and difierent meaning, which the verb 
 would not Itear without it ; and therefore, in such cases, this 
 preposition cannot be taken as distinct from this verb. It 
 will l)e obvious to every one, that the full idea expressed by 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 271 
 
 3. In the last place, the force of preposi- 
 tions in composition is further shewn, in that 
 they serve to indicate the relation of cause and 
 effect. This relation, however, is so extensive, 
 
 i^iyuv and avuhviiv, is not contained in ayuv and ^Jj/v. Hence 
 it may happen, that to verbs ah-eady compounded with a 
 preposition, another preposition may be prefixed, which shall 
 sometimes counterbalance or take away again the significa- 
 tion produced by the junction of the first preposition, e. g.^ 
 avvayw, to collect, etTro/ruvKyca, to disperse, ffvffffiTiu, to eat to- 
 gether, tt.'^otTvaaiTiu, not to eat together. Still, however, the 
 signification of the first compound must here be retained 
 and regarded. [Indeed, the force of the preposition last 
 added, goes to modify only this signification, and not that of 
 the simple verb. Thus, in u.-Troirvvu.yei), the effect of a^o in 
 composition is very different, according as it is prefixed to 
 (Tviiayu or a.yu' in the latter case {a'Trdyu) it denotes merely 
 to lead away ; in the former {icTroffwdyu) it signifies ' to lead 
 or cause to go away that which had previously been brought 
 together, i. e., to disperse — Ed.] 
 
 It is on these grounds that the reading tiocTra.^a.T^ifia,) for 
 ^agx^ictr^ifoai, 1 Tim vi. 5, Avhich is found in some manu- 
 scripts, seems to me to be false. The verb ^ra^ar^ilisiv, to rub 
 upon or against, is not used in the sense here required, but 
 'hiocr^tfhuv, to rub in pieces, wear away ; whence ^ia.T^tP>h, a 
 wearing away e. g. of time, leisure occupation, listlessness ; 
 and thence 5ra^a^/«T^//3>7. I know, indeed, that Suidas has 
 explained •^a.^a.T^t^h by Xoyofj!,a,^ia,, disputation, in the words 
 of an uncertain author, t^v yivo/Aivtjv t^os aln-ov -ra^ctr^t^hv xod 
 Z,nXoTV9ritx,v. But it would seem rather to denote here colli- 
 sion, or, as we Avould say in common life, rubs. The apostle 
 is speaking of the vain desires and tendencies (Theophylact 
 very properly, (/.UTaiai tr^^okas) of lii^B-aofiivuv ui^^uTuv voZv, 
 
272 GREEK PREPOSITIONS 
 
 that we cannot be surprised to find interpre- 
 ters of the New Testament involved in various 
 errors, while attempting to observe and to ex- 
 plain it. We have said that the relation of 
 cause and effect, as here understood, is that re- 
 
 Tuv ve/^i^ovTuv 9fo^ifffx.ov ilvat T>jv iixrifiitav, men of corrupt mind, 
 who regard gain as godliness. The idea of contention is 
 foreign from his object. Indeed he expressly declares ras 
 ^arriffus xeii Xeyofia^^ias , questionings and strifes about words, 
 to be the cause of these Ta^oihtar^tfiai., listless occupations, 
 empty employment of time. On this account I prefer the 
 common reading, although the other is found in many manu- 
 scripts. The reading appears to have already varied in the 
 earliest ages, to judge from Chrysostom's exposition of the 
 passage. He gives a double interpretation, one of whicli 
 strictly pertains to -;rei^a^iet<r^i(i», and tlie other to '^ta.^a.^ar^i^ri. 
 His words are found Homil. xvii. in Ep. I. ad Tim. '1 om. 
 XI. 6*48, dtttTaoar^ifiat ' vouricm ff^oXvi rj ^ictTot/s,'^ ' vi tovto 
 
 lio(/,iva v'offou xat to. vyicttvovrct luTri-rXyiffiv, outu ko.) ol Tovn^oi 
 av^^sf. ' The word ha-ra^etT^tl^ai signiries Iciauie or leisure 
 employment. Or hxTru^ar^ifiai may mean thus : as the scabby 
 part among the flocks, by coming in contact with the rest, 
 (ir«^«T^//SajCt£ya, rubbing against them,) communicate disease 
 to the healthy, so also these wicked men.' In this extract I 
 can scarcely doubt, but that, instead of the first ^laTa^ar^tfiai, 
 we ought to read wec^othiccr^ifiai. Tlieophylact also a]»])ea:s 
 to have had both readings before hiin, but (Ecumenius ex- 
 plains "^lavra^ctT^ipiai in the same manner as t^hrysostoni. 
 But even granting that hec^a^uT^tfiat were the correct read- 
 ing, it certainly does not here mean perverse disputations, 
 but rather pertinacious contentions or collisions. Zonaras 
 ♦'xplains ^lUTa^ur^ifih by ivhktx'-'"^) dura/ion. 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 273 
 
 lation in which the thing signified by the verb, 
 whether action or condition, stands connected 
 either with the object of the verb, or with the 
 person or thing of which the condition or action 
 expressed by the verb is predicated, i. e,, the 
 subject of the verb. Of the former kind are 
 the verbs xaraysXa v, xarayysXXs/v, '/.aru^ivsiv, zarrr 
 yo^iTvf smvosTVf xaravos/P, 'TTs^ivoiTv, for in all these 
 the preposition refers to the person or thing 
 which is the object of the action. Of the lat- 
 ter kind are hvosTv, d/avoih^cciy moysTvy h^viuTs^ai^ 
 where the preposition points to the subject of 
 the verb. The distinction between these two 
 modes of this relation, is not always easy to be 
 observed. It is here, indeed, that we are to 
 look for a great part of the nicety and elegance 
 of language in general, and especially of the 
 Greek, which abounds particularly in verbs of 
 this sort. It is therefore not surprising, that, 
 since the Hebrew is wholly destitute of such 
 verbs, the writers of the New Testament should 
 employ sometimes compound verbs, and some- 
 times the phrases by which the idea was cir- 
 cumscribed in Hebrew, e. g.^ Rom. viii. 23, 
 GTivdZ^ofjjiv h eavToTg, but Mark viii. 12, dmffrsvd^ag 
 TuJ 'TrvsCfj.aru But it would be a false supposition 
 to regard the preposition as merely pleonastic 
 in constructions of this sort. There are also 
 
 VOL. II. T 
 
274 GREEK PREPOSITIONS 
 
 verbs, and chiefly of the first kind above-men- 
 tioned, in which the preposition is to be refer- 
 red to the very idea or thing expressed by the 
 verb itself, more especially in verbs formed 
 from a substantive or adjective ; and in these, 
 too, it would be a great mistake, to say that 
 the preposition had no force at all. The verb 
 dt/affrauoouv is an example, which some inter- 
 preters have absurdly rendered, to fix again to 
 the cross; while others, with equal incorrect- 
 ness, have affirmed that the preposition avu is 
 without any force. There is indeed no em- 
 phasis attached to the preposition ; but yet it 
 does as it were point to the thing or object 
 contained in the verb itself, and thus cause it 
 to be more vividly expressed ; it points to the 
 tfraypoc, and indicates the very act by which 
 any one is affixed to the cross ; just as also 
 avac-A.oko'TTi^iiVi to impale, is employed. Although, 
 theretore, it may be conceded, that the same 
 general idea might be expressed by the simple 
 verb crauooZv, yet it would be less definite and 
 lively; and the preposition is therefore not 
 redundant, but indicates the relation between 
 the action and the object of the action. In 
 compound verbs of this sort, therefore, the 
 preposition may be said to render the signifi- 
 cation of the simple verbs more full and dofi- 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 275 
 
 nite and vivid. This is clearly apparent in 
 those verbs, whose proper signification is first 
 produced by the junction of a preposition ; as 
 am'/.i(paXa.mv to arrange under one head, "^^ox^'s'" 
 ^s/v to cause to he at hand, zaroiziTv to divell, 
 '/.araoTiZztv to repair, and the like. 
 
 II. These examples lead us now to the con- 
 sideration of that other species of force, which 
 we have ascribed to prepositions in composi- 
 tion, viz. that through their influence the same 
 thing is conceived of or apprehended in a diffe- 
 rent mode. By mode I here understand the 
 way or manner in which the thing that is the 
 object of thought or conception, aifects the 
 mind. Prepositions have then also this force, 
 viz. that by changing the way or manner in 
 which the mind itself is affected, they occasion 
 a different mode of conception or of apprehen- 
 sion. For since the mind is variously affected 
 according to the various ways in which the 
 object of thought is presented to it, it follows 
 that prepositions, which change the manner of 
 presenting the object of thought, must also 
 change the force of the verb itself. It is true 
 indeed that another class of particles, the con- 
 junctions, are the appropriate index of this re- 
 lation between the object of thought and the 
 mind ; yet nevertheless the prepositions also 
 
276 GREEK PREPOSITIONS 
 
 in compound verbs, have sometimes the same 
 power, and render the thought or idea of the 
 verb stronger and more vivid, by presenting 
 it in such a way as more strongly to affect the 
 mind. 
 
 There are various modes of this kind ; of 
 which we can designate only the principal. 
 It would carry us too far, to enumerate them 
 all in detail. But the nature and effect of any 
 predicated action or condition presented to the 
 mind, by which the mind is to be affected, 
 may be said to stand connected with, and to 
 be particularly dependent upon, the accessory 
 notions of inclination, time, and place, and pro- 
 j)er efficiency ; and when the prepositions serve 
 to indicate these, they augment by this means 
 the power with which the main idea express- 
 ed by the simple verb, affects the mind ; so 
 that the modus cogitandi, the mode in which 
 the idea of the verb is conceived or apprehend- 
 ed, is thus changed. 
 
 1. Certain prepositions, compounded with 
 verbs, serve then, in the first place, to indi- 
 cate a special inclination, or desire, as being 
 conjoined with the action denoted by the 
 verb ; and although the signification itself is not 
 increased nor extended by these prepositions, 
 yet through their influence a thing is more 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 277 
 
 vividly conceived of, and as it were more felt, 
 than if merely the simple verb had been em- 
 ployed. Those who have not been able to form 
 a correct judgment in respect to compound 
 verbs of this sort, may seem, perhaps, to have 
 a partial excuse in the circumstance, that when 
 the proper significations of the prepositions, 
 drawn as they are from the relations of tangible 
 objects, are transferred to the actions of the 
 mind, they become often in usage so refined 
 and attenuated, that their true nature and cha- 
 racter are no longer always obvious. Of this 
 kind is the verb zarapiXsM, in which there is 
 manifestly a stronger meaning, than in the 
 simple verb ; although, as interpreters say, 
 the evangelists have used both verbs promis- 
 cuously and without distinction. But I know^ 
 not by what right they afliirm, that this com- 
 pound does not difi'er from the simple verb in 
 the New Testament ; when they concede that 
 in other Greek writers the compound has a 
 greater force. 
 
 2. Related to this is the second mode above 
 pointed out ; when prepositions which refer 
 to time and place are compounded with verbs, 
 and serve to show a greater force or degree of 
 action, and thus indicate also greater inclina- 
 tion. Of this kind are many verbs compound- 
 
278 GREEK PREPOSITIONS 
 
 ed with the preposition did, as diar^iTv, hiaxobm, 
 diacrovsTVf diacpvXdggnv. This preposition proper- 
 ly indicates motion through space, and is then 
 also spoken of the time during the flow of 
 which any thing is conceived of as being done 
 or taking place ; whence also it is likewise 
 employed to designate a cause. These com- 
 pound verbs therefore have a greater force and 
 meaning, because they imply, that the action 
 or condition expressed by the verb is not tran- 
 sient, but continues until the whole space and 
 time to which it refers, shall have been cover- 
 ed by it; as diaado^siv, diaffa(psiv, 6/a^Ss/og/v, di'i- 
 cp^ug/^sff^a/. Different from these are those 
 compounds in which the proper notion of place 
 is retained, as hiayysWur which, nevertheless, 
 some have said, is nothing more than synony- 
 mous with the simple ayy'iWuv. 
 
 3. The third, and not the least frequent 
 mode above mentioned, includes those verbs 
 in which the prepositions increase the signifi- 
 cancy of the simple verbs, by imparting the 
 idea of efficiency ; and this they do by indicat- 
 ing, that the condition or action signified by 
 the verb, has reference to the ^ohole thing, and 
 will not cease until the whole is completed. 
 Of this kind are a-ro^v^jtrxe/i/, a'KoxTumv, cLirdkityiiy^ 
 dco^X/'/Sg/v, Jx^uyg/V, and the like, which are com- 
 
IX THE NEW TESTAMENT. 2/9 
 
 monly said to signify nothing more than the 
 corresponding simple verbs. We grant, in- 
 deed, that the simple verbs may present to the 
 mind the same main idea, but yet all will feel, 
 that it must affect the mind in a different man- 
 ner ; and also that the force of the verb is aug- 
 mented and the conception itself rendered 
 more vivid and intense by the preposition ; 
 since it represents the action designated by 
 the simple verb as being consummated and fi- 
 nished. The verb dToxrs/i/g/v, to kill, has there- 
 fore a stronger meaning; because, in conse- 
 quence of a^o we conceive of the slayer, rh 
 xr£/!/avra, as not desisting until he has accom- 
 plished his purpose. In like manner acTo^v/j- 
 6-/.ztv, to die, is stronger, because it presents the 
 idea of actual decease. It is also a mistake to 
 say that acro^XZ/Ss/i/ is the same with the simple 
 ^Xi(3nv, to press ; for it indicates, not only that 
 a person or thing is pressed, which may be 
 done on one side only; but that it is pressed 
 wholly, entirely, on every side, in which sense 
 it is spoken of grapes. It is likewise false to 
 say that a^xdkuyii)) does not differ from the 
 simple y.uyiiv^ to lick. Luke says elegantly, 
 Xvi. 21, 0/ Ttlivig d'TtiXiiy^ov rd sk'/tri alrov, the dogs 
 licked his sores, sc. clean. Who does not per- 
 ceive that something more is expressed here, 
 
280 GREEK PREPOSITIONS 
 
 than if he had written iXir/ov? The force 
 which is thus imparted to the conception of 
 the action, is also augmented by repeating the 
 same preposition after the verb, as is said 
 above. 
 
 There is still another class of verbs under 
 this general head, which are very numerous, 
 and in respect to which we must be very brief. 
 Since now the mind is more excited, when it 
 not only forms a conception of a thing, but 
 also sees and feels it as it were delineated in all 
 its parts, it is obvious, that those compound 
 verbs will have the greatest force, in which 
 the prepositions produce such a full and com- 
 plete image of the thing signified. These are 
 chiefly such verbs as are compounded with 
 two or more prepositions. Indeed, it was neces- 
 sary to provide, not only that the thing designa- 
 ted should be conceived of in some manner, but 
 also that it should be conceived of in some 
 certain manner; and that the mind should be 
 filled with a clear image of it, by viewing all 
 the circumstances accurately and as they took 
 place. As therefore they greatly mistake, 
 who affirm respecting the compounds ucrejata^t)^, 
 s^vTraviGTYi, s'm'x^oixoLoZGa, that one or another of 
 these prepositions are redundant ; so also it is 
 a false position, that Ta^aTo^susff^a/, cra^/si/a/, bio- 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 281 
 
 d?6siv, and other like verbs, of which we have 
 spoken above, have no broader signification 
 than the corresponding simple ones. For 
 although the simple verbs may present to the 
 mind the same general idea, yet the com- 
 pounds describe it more accurately, so that we 
 see it, as it were, with our eyes ; and in this 
 way they excite a more vivid and stronger 
 conception in the mind. 
 
 Should these brief observations lead any 
 who are devoted to Greek and sacred litera- 
 ture, to a closer investigation of the force of 
 the prepositions, our labour will not have been 
 in vain. 
 
 END OF VOL. II. 
 
 J. THOMSOX, PRINTER, MILNE SQUARE. 
 
# 
 

 Date Due 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 (^ 
 
 
 
 
r