he ox

δ Ὁ Πὰν τ τ τ χον. ΡΝ Oe ae τσ ὧς ᾿ Sie STAN vee ὃν ἐς δονω στ οὶ Nie . PA SS ANSSGNS σὰ Sey theses Sa : : = ea eet: a τὰ τὰ ; ;

ἈΝ

=)

AY aN as > ᾿

whe \Y : & ὃς ; PARAS SNE SANT PEND RNS Meee : Nits Sk 1 ΔΑΝ δ ASS ζ ἃ Στὸ as AN ae ANS eK ἧς wis) ‘ uh Ἂν Ἶ δ δι . ἐν Se aS wy τ Ἶ ρος δ χω δ sot ci ‘ We SAN ay wwe a \ . ἃ ν Se : ; : Ν᾽ ‘ Ἀδὰ ν ς : ν atte Behe Loe? ὶ ἊΝ Ἷ ν aN ς ἵ ee hes ask! “ete, teh oh ς τοῖν

MAAS ἘΣ

x e

ἃ Ata 2h AY : ἈΝ ἀκ ουνὴ ζνόλχνς RRR a | δὲ TRE : ey A : . : tek SS WER AS SRS : ς SENS : : ΙΝ Ny ἣν Χ tae } a ae Ste Sars S bs : oS : Shen : ἶ ἢ wa ¥ Se x Ser aN Se yoke tne

OS 5

Ὧ Νὰ A : ὟΝ : : CL Ὁ . : δ Νὰ ὶ SN AS TN SS wh So tee wi : SS ; . (eeceimaeoece

“es

τ

ὯΝ

Δ

ΝΣ

τὴν

ἣν

SS Ν As ἢ ESS Ὁ Ne : SA ~ \ πὰ τὸ ὰ SANENS aS See ΝΣ WSN λὰ SEN ST ik) Ν᾿ ~ : 5 here : "ΕΣ τ Swat yoy ἐξ γος ἥ ῸΝ ε OM MARS NA \ 3 ' Ἂς ὧν L235 Liem δ ΔῊ \ Seth δὲ ἰὸς LAY Ta Tk aa x τυ το συν τον hes ae . δὰν yy a aN) AX . ENA AS ; SAS . cbt ἧς ness δ SES ‘ ἊΝ ANY > PAN τὸς Rass rks : ts WIS AO: KS ES ; ARAN ES x i. ; ek SARTORI WSs | SS he ws ἧ : SR . ἀφ hy . ἐν SS ; i, : ς ee SS Th Yo . ᾿ 2 , AAS . δ . x Web shes Se ~ - ᾿ς ; ’ : oxy) SAN oN oY SY ὡς τέλος ἈΝ τς 5 SS iy . Ν ὌΝ . = . Ws ayy: AVKY τὶ x SRE eT DR δι ae ic vii ᾿ ae 2 oes SAA SENSE SEEN EEE RE Se SSN : ς . . τὰ : ary ὃς : : : SS 7 one Ν Ἂς ὶ FENN RN eS poet eres ‘ rete ’ wee τὴ 4 a m Sa Sere = RN RE ES . ΕΣ . anata . : = nee λας τ < Ὁ : ‘7 avin ~ : Sa See ὃ ς ΔΝ : Sos Seeaeratecs \ SASSY ς : ἊΣ ᾿ ae - TEAS = ELSE ie ak ν SRS aN Rass ates rat Ss ΝΣ N AN : Slots - ἮΝ : Seeks WINES ἜΝ ry Steet cae ete xo K SA aR AS oe aX a xt) SS sors eh Rey ve aye SEs cawe ts SS Sy Se : . EN SESS

oa se

~*~ ΤΩ ; δὶ ‘ i. τ δὴ TANS : : : hes AWAD ὃ : * PATE SS \ 4 |

RAINS a ὃν

Ate

4

SSE as aS

Se iS

*

baw Sa Sk ac TERS S45 rth ‘ WANES : SEAS haa ecewenks

ee SC

oe)

SN

Ὁ Ἂν

ΔῚΣ

᾿ χὰ ἘΝ ΤᾺ Ἀνὰ ἘΝ AAAS

AN

ἘΞ Ο τ Ξ Θ

ΔΑ ΝΆ A OA

δῆς ἣν

΄

“ae ῃ

£

τ Rr Ἁ «τῇ Ἢ ἘΣ

A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

GRAMMAR

OF THE

‘NEW TEST GREEK. Ae :

ῳ ALEXANDER BUTTMANN.

> 9 » 99923

AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION, WITH NUMEROUS ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS BY THE AUTHOR.

Andover: WARREN F. DRAPER, PUBLISHER.

MAIN STREET.

1891.

#E SERVATION OPY ADDED Y

Entered according to Act of Yongress, in the year 1878, by WARREN * DRAPER, in the Office of the Librarian uf Congress at Washington.

ANDOVER: PRINTED BY WARREN F. DRAPER.

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE.

Ir is to be hoped that the reproduction of the following work in English will not be regarded as a superfluous labor. The day has gone by, indeed, when the extravagant maxim could find acceptance, “The better grammarian, the worse logician and theologian ;” but the some- what indiscriminate depreciation of the study of the dead languages at the present day is not without injurious influence upon those who are preparing themselves to be expounders of the Divine Word. Even in that land which is reputed to be the home of philological studies, the prince of New Testament expositors has recently said: “ We theo- logians are still far too deficient in a comprehensive and positive knowledge of Greek Grammar.”' The sense of such a deficiency which the general progress of linguistic science must sooner or later awaken, and especially the recognition (which the growing tendency to break away from traditional opinions will force upon theologians) of the need of taking a new inventory of the biblical data, as preliminary to a revision of the scientific statements of the Christian faith, will eventually secure a welcome for works like the present.

Its author is the youngest son of the late Philip Buttmann, whose Grammars, which have been in use now for more than eighty years, have rendered the name familiar wherever Greek is studied. After completing his training at the universities of Berlin and Bonn, he became, in 1837, a teacher in the gymnasium at Potsdam, where, by successive promotions, he attained, in 1854, to the rank of Professor. But in the same year he resigned his office, in order to secure the leisure needed for his literary labors; and he has lived since in retire- ment, except that he has held the position of “ Schulrath,” to which the city appointed him in 1864.

Intrusted by the other members of the family with the care of his father’s grammatical works, he has edited at least eight editions of the so-called Intermediate Grammar (which in its eighteenth edition was translated into English by the late Dr. Edward Robinson), and seven

1 Meyer’s Commentary on the Ep. to the Romans (5th ed.). Pref. p. vii note. : v

Vi242202

= TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE.

editions of the School Grammar. Under his hand these works have undergone essential changes, especially in the syntax, and have been so judiciously adapted to the steady progress in grammatical science, as still (forty-four years after the death of their author) to be able to maintain themselves in many German schools and universities against the competition of recent Grammars, like those of Curtius and Kriiger.

Besides many essays upon grammatical, critical, and exegetical topics, which Professor Buttmann has prepared from time to time for the Studien und Kritiken, and other periodicals, he published, in 1856, ἃ book on “ German Names of Places.” But his chief work, and that especially for the preparation of which he withdrew from the labor of teaching, is his N.T. Grammar. This is confessedly the most important treatise on the subject which has appeared since Winer’s. ‘The author makes generous acknowledgments of indebtedness to Winer; but a slight examination of the book will convince the reader that it has a valid claim to be regarded as an original work. In fact, the general attitude and drift of the two writers differ perceptibly. While Winer — owing, doubtless, to the lax views respecting the N. T. language which prevailed when he began to write— seems loath to recognize incipient departures from classic usage, Prof. Buttmann, on the other hand, is quick to concede and to trace out the general tendency of the language to degenerate from the classic standard, is inclined to give greater prominence than Winer to the influence of the Septuagint, and even to deteet traces of the Latin in the syntax of the N. T. Hence it comes to pass that respecting several details, such as the unemphatic use of αὐτός in the Nom. (p. 107), the use of periphrases for the Geni- _tive (p. 156), of the Indic. Pres. for the Subjune. in deliberative questions (p. 208 sq.), ete., his views vary materially from those of his predecessor. On other and broader topics, too, such as the use of the Art. (cf. pp. 90, 93), the apparently indiscriminate employment of Aor. and Perf. (p. 197), the so-called Gnomic Aor. (pp. 201 sqq.), the use ᾿ς and force of the particle ἵνα (pp. 235 sqq.) and of the Infin. with rod (pp. 266 sqq.), bis clear and thorough discussions will be read with interest; while his full exhibition of grammatical forms,' especially those of the verb, will prove to be specially helpful. And as his discussion of the principles of the N. T. language, both supplementing and qualifying, as it does, the views of Winer, will interest the student of grammar; . 80. his extended application of these principles in elucidating obscure

1 Cf. Tischendorf’s commendatory rematk in his N.T. ed. Sept. Crit. Maj Prolegg. p. Ix.

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. Vii

passages will: be welcomed by those who care for little more than the results of exegesis.

The form which the author thought best to give his treatise, viz. that of an Appendix to Ph. Buttmann’s Griechische Grammatik (the work which Dr. Robinson translated), has doubtless retarded its circulation.’ By adopting that form, he was enabled, while devoting, at the most, but a passing remark to those points which the language of the N. T. has in common with classic Greek, to exhibit what is peculiar to the N. T. in a more sharp and consecutive treatment than would have been possible otherwise. But the scientifie precision of the plan is counter- balanced, in the result, by the practical inconveniences to which those students are subjected who are not familiar with the grammatical method of Buttmann. It seemed desirable to the translator, therefore, while, on the one hand, retaining as far as possible the author’s exclusive treatment of his department, on the other hand, to adapt the work to the easy use of students drilled in other grammatical text-books. In order to accomplish this twofold object, I have introduced into the trans- lation so much only from Buttmann’s classical Grammar as was neces- sary, in every case, to render the matter under discussion intelligible to the student without recourse to that work; and, on the other hand, I have added to the references to that Grammar (which is designated by the letter B.) running references to the other classical Grammars most in use in this country and in Great Britain, viz. to those of Hadley, Crosby, Donaldson, Jelf. These Grammars, as well as Buttmann’s, are referred to by sections,? and designated respectively by the initials B,C, D.,. J.

Owing to diversity in the arrangement and treatment of topics, these references will not be found to be all equally pertinent. But in making them I have been governed by the conviction that a reference to a familiar work, and one at hand, is more serviceable, especially to a be- ginner, than a reference, though better in itself, to a work less accessible or less easily understood.

In addition to the Grammars already named, references have been given to Prof. Goodwin’s Syntax of Moods and Tenses, to Winer’s

1 Since the arrangements for this translation were completed with Prof. Butt- mann and his publisher, large use of the original has been made in the notes of Prof. Moulton’s excellent translation of the Sixth edition of Winer’s N. T. Gram- mar. But it is believed that those who obtain their knowledge of it through that medium can hardly fail to desire to possess the entire work in English.

2 Occasionally it has been convenient to refer to Buttmann’s Classical Grammar by pages. In that case the page given is that of Dr. Robinson’s translation of the eighteenth German edition, published in 1851, by Harper and Brothers, N. Y.

viii TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE.

N. T. Grammar, and occasionally to Prof. Short’s Essay on the Order of Words in Attic Greek Prose.! These works are represented by G., W., and S. respectively. The references to Winer are to the pages of the authorized translation of the Seventh German edition, and are fol- lowed in each case by the number of the corresponding page in the original, inclosed within a parenthesis. The references to the “ Lehrge- biiude” of Gesenius have been supplemented, so far as possible, by references to the corresponding matter in his Hebrew Grammar. The general references to Pape and to Wahl have, for the most part, been retained. But the sixth edition of Liddell and Scott will ordinarily serve the student quite as well as the former; and the revised edition of Dr. Robinson’s N. T. Lexicon, or, still better, Prof. Grimm’s edition of Wilke’s Clavis? may be substituted for the latter.

The matter incorporated from Buttmann’s classical Grammar, and the references to the other grammatical works above mentioned, are generally introduced without any distinctive mark; but all other addi- tions made by me are carefully distinguished from the original by square brackets.

With the exception of the slight modification of the plan of the work which has been already described, and the omission of a paragraph from the author’s Preface which this modification rendered irrelevant, the translation reproduces the original in full and without change. But Prof. Buttmann has very kindly furnished me with two hundred and sixty-one manuscript additions and corrections for this edition — many of them of considerable length and much importance. In weaving them into the text, I have taken pains not to obscure the author’s change of opinion, when any has occurred.

The Greek text of the N. T. generally adopted by the author is that of Lachmann’s larger edition; see the remarks on this subject at the close of the Introduction, p. 4. In the same place, the reader will discover that the printing of this book was begun nearly two years ago. But the delay is the less regretted, because in the interim the eighth edition of Tischendorf’s text and the Greek Testament of Tregelles have both been completed, so that in passages where allusion is made 1 Prefixed to Dr. Drisler’s edition of Yonge’s English-Greek Lexicon. N. Y. Harper and Brothers. 1870.

2 The translation of Prof. Grimm’s Lexicon which was promised in the Bib- liotheca Sacra for October, 1864, has been lying in manuscript now for many months. The protracted work of verifying the references is drawing towards a close, and the book will be published as soon as leisure can be found for the edi torial labor requisite to adapt it to the needs of English-speaking students.

TRANSLA‘IOR’S PREFACE. ix

to variation in the text, the reading adopted by both these editors has been indicated. To accomplish this at the least expense of alteration in the plates, the ordinary abbreviations Tdf. and Treg. have occasion- ally been superseded by the simple T. and Tr. respectively. For the same reason the codex Sinaiticus has been referred to by cod. Sin., Sin., and & indifferently.

The Biblical references have all been carefully verified. The N. T. Index has been enlarged so as to include all the passages from the N. T. referred to in the Grammar; and a separate index has been added, comprising the passages cited from the Septuagint. For the labor which these improvements involved, as well as for valuable assistance in correcting the press, my grateful acknowledgments are due to my friend Rev. Geo. B. Jewett, D.D.

The other indexes have been materially augmented; the cross- references have been multiplied; chapter and verse added to many of the fragmentary quotations from the N. T.; the pagination of the German original has been given in the margin; and at the end of the book a Glossary of technical terms encountered more or less frequently in commentaries and grammatical works has been added for the con- venience of students.

Finally, I would reiterate the closing words of the author’s Preface, in reliance upon the promise made to those who shall agree as touching what they ask.

J. H. THAYER.

THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, ANDOVER, Mass. August, 18738.

PREFACE.

As long ago as the appearance of the nineteenth edition of my father's Greek Grammar, I designed to give, as an Appendix for the practical purposes of schools, a summary of the grammatical usage οὗ. the N. T. in so far as it differs from ordinary usage, in order subse- quently to follow it with a copious and scientific exposition of the entire department. To this twofold undertaking I was led by the per- suasion that Winer’s Grammar is, on the one hand, too comprehensive and learned for school use; and that on the other hand, for those who have been taught according to the plan of Buttmann’s Grammar, it pre- pares manifold difficulties by its arrangement and whole method of treatment, and requires for its correct understanding almost an inde- pendent training of its own. But my work also grew under my hands. The further I entered upon my theme, the more I perceived that such a summary as I had originally designed could only get a sure founda- tion and make claim to scientific worth in case the entire department had previously been explored as far as possible in all directions, and received a sustained exposition; and that, at any rate, it is a more correct and safe procedure to let a practical outline follow a larger work, executed on scientific principles, than the reverse. ‘Thus arose this Grammar. That I venture to present it to the learned public in face of the many and undisputed excellences of Winer’s, does not arise from the mistaken and self-complacent opinion that the work of my respected predecessor ought to be supplanted by a new one. On the contrary, it is my firm persuasion that Winer’s work will long continue to maintain its honorable position in philological as well as theological science; and it is my highest wish that my work may only succeed in winning for itself a modest place in this departmeut of literature behind, or by the side of, its predecessor and master.

Winer’s Grammar originated at a time when modern philological criticism, especially as applied by Lachmann and Tischendorf, had not yet given to the text of the N. T. that form which it now has in most

of the editions used in schools and universities. It is true, the recent x

PREFACE. τ

revisions of the text remained by no means unnoticed by Winer. On the contrary, the indefatigable labors of the man in this particular are shown by the circumstance that almost every new edition of his Grammar underwent the most important and radical alterations, in order to conform it to the stage of criticism at the time. But the work as a whole acquired by these frequent changes a somewhat ragged look, and a form often extremely inconvenient for practical use, especially for citation. Since, too, hardly any performance within his department escaped the notice of this thorough investigator, inasmuch as he took notice of all publications in any way relating to it, — as well those of spe- cifically theological science as of philological, both oriental and classical, — and wrought the acquired results into his work, he imparted to it by degrees such a character that it may be regarded almost as a grammati- cally arranged Commentary onthe N. T.; acommentary which, by its copious wealth and its searching treatment of many particular passages, is, and will remain, indispensable to every member of the theological profession. But on the other hand it is not to be denied, that by the accumulation (often unlimited) of learned material the clear grammati- cal outlook was frequently cut off. Furthermore, as the work did not adopt any given system of classical Greek grammar, but traversed anew, in the syntax at least, the entire realm of grammatical phenomena, much was of necessity given which strictly belonged to the general grammar, or at least might have been assumed as sufficiently well-known already. The inevitable consequence of this was, that for an unprac- tised eye what is distinctive and peculiar in N. T. usage is not discrimi- nated sharply enough from what, as being common property to all who spoke and wrote Greek, pertains to Greek grammar in general. Taking, then, the critical investigations of the recent editors as my basis, and adopting the philological views which underlie Buttmann’s Greek Grammar, particularly the nineteenth and following editions edited by me, I have given my N. T. Grammar the form of an Appendix to that work. In this way the first part of my book, which relates to Forms and Inflection, has acquired, it must be confessed, a somewhat fragmentary aspect, as the honored reviewer in Zarncke’s literary “Centralblatt” correctly remarks. Since, however, the deviations, in. the matter of Forms, of the language of the N. T. writers, (with the exception, perhaps, of the text of the Apocalypse as established by modern criticism) from the current literary language, especially the then prevalent κοινή, so-called, are by no means very important, a work undertaking to bring out only what is distinctive in the N. T. language cannot assume any other shape ; — just as the same description

ait PREFACE.

holds true of that portion of Winer’s Grammar also which treats of Forms.

As respects Syntax the case is different. Here what is characteristic and peculiar is incomparably more marked, in consequence of the nature of the contents of the N. T. books on the one hand, and of many foreign influences on the other. That the mental impulse given by the new doc- trine must produce a noticeable effect upon language, does not need to be shown at length. Of the foreign influences which impart to the Greek of the N. T. that complexion which distinguishes it so noticeably from the classic tongue, there are in particular four: First, the influence of the linguistic spirit of the Orient, especially of the O. T. Hebrew and of the Aramaic of the Palestinian Jews of that day (Hebraisms) ; Secondly (and closely connected with this), the influence of the Greek translation of the Bible by the Seventy interpreters, generally diffused as it was among the Jews of that region and so much in use (the Sep- tuagint) ; Thirdly, the influence coming from the popular language prevalent in all portions of the Greek world of that day, as distinguished from the literary diction of the repositories of classic Greek literature and culture (the Common or Colloquial language) ; Fourthly, the in- fluence of the Latin language upon the later Greek or so-called κοινή (Latinisms).

* * * * * *

A complete exhibition of the linguistic peculiarities of the N. T. would comprise a discrimination between the styles peculiar to the different N.T. authors. For it is not to be overlooked, that (leaving the Apocalypse aside) there exists a difference not only between the historic writings and the epistolary, but also within these main divisions, between the synoptists and John; between the Pauline and the Catholic epistles ; between individual Evangelists; in fact, between the several writings of one and the same author ; — an assertion whieh is true, for example, of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. A detailed exposition of these differences, however, would carry us quite too far, and lies beyond the limits of this Grammar, which is primarily concerned only with grouping as far as possible all characteristics together, and so taking a combined view of the N. T. diction and style. The compass of the several writings, also, is too small to afford a basis for separate exposi- tions of the various peculiarities in language; and an author must be satisfied to treat this subject in a fragmentary way as opportunity offers. Moreover, a minute elaboration of this topic falls rather to the depart- ment of N. T. stylistics, or of exegesis, whose business it is to examine and elucidate the individual writings on all sides. The reader, there-

PREFACE. χε

fore, may be the more readily referred to these exegetical works, as more thorough treatment and careful investigation have already been bestowed upon the subject by the recent commentators ;' and in conse- quence of the critical renovation of the text will continue to be given it in the future. Whatever grammatical results, however, could already be mentioned, I have carefully endeavored to note: by speaking of them in their place as special peculiarities, and by giving as complete a list of them as possible in the Index under the head of the respective N. T. authors. The same has been done in reference to the four aspects of the language previously mentioned, with regard to which the Index may be consulted under the topics, Hebraisms, Septuagint, Language (popular and later Greek), Latinisms.

On two other points it seems to me necessary to say a word in this place, viz. the proper attitude and relations of New Testament Grammar to Exegesis and to Lexicography. The contents of the N. T., especially of the Epistles, are so exceptional both as respects difficulty and impor- tance, and the compass of the several books is so small, that in the domain of interpretation the most diverse results could not fail to be brought to light. -Evidence of this is afforded by the extremely numer- ous and voluminous exegetical writings, the like of which in amount can probably be shown by no literary productions of ancient or modern times. Owing to the variety of religious parties and theological sects, which from the first centuries down have been so numerous and change- ful, as well as in consequence of the restricted views or one-sided parti- zanship of individuals, the diversity of exegetical principles is very considerable ; — in fact there are for many passages almost as many different interpretations as interpreters (see ex. gr. Winer on Gall. iii. 20). And to what assaults from the same quarter and for the same reasons the sacred text itself has been exposed from the very earliest times, the collection of various readings affords many a striking proof ; (see ex. gr. 1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 John v. 7; 1 Cor. xv. 51,ete.). Nowhere, however, do the opinions of interpreters diverge more widely than where a knowledge of grammatical principles was wanting, and consequently the caprice of the private understanding had free course, so that often N. T. Grammar was made responsible for the strangest hypotheses and chimeras. Although the knowledge of grammar is not the only, still

1 Among many others I may mention the commentaries of Bleek on the Epistle to the Hebrews, of Liicke and Tholuck on John, of Fritzsche on the first two Gospels, of the same author and of Riickert and Reiche on the Epistles to the Romans and the Corinthians, of de Wette and Meyer on all the books of the N. T the numerous N. T. Introductions, ete.

XiV PREFACE. f

it is the primary and the main, foundation of interpretation; at any rate, it is a check to subjective caprice and inordinate excesses. With- out this foundation there can be no talk about certainty in explaining the Scriptures; for we possess no inspired interpretation. Linguistic products, even the most sacred, are like all others, subject to the restraint of linguistic laws, which, be they ever so special, are nevertheless Laws, which every author spontaneously and unconsciously obeys. To establish such definite linguistic laws, together with the just as definitely-limited exceptions (so far forth as the latter either rest upon analogies in ordi- nary usage, or at least group themselves together under a distinctly traceable special analogy), and to combine all these phenomena into one systematic whole, is the business of a special grammar.

Many passages of Scripture, however, are of such a kind that, owing to the limited extent of the several books, they are destitute of any other analogy. ‘These, to be sure, must then be explained from them- selves, from the context and the tenor of Scripture, or by the aid of ancient tradition (which must have for us the greater authority the nearer it stands to the time of composition of the Scriptures), in a word, historically rather than grammatically. Such cases must be left prin- cipally to Exegesis. If Grammar notices them, it does so rather inci- dentally, and for the sake of completeness; their value to Grammar can only be determined by their relation to analogies already estab- lished. For she can adopt,and work up as solid portions of the system she would found, only those results of Hermeneutics which rest upon analogies, if she will not run the risk of being compelled to pull to pieces to-morrow what she to-day perhaps has laboriously built up, and to cast away as useless material what she has over-hastily made the corner pillar of her structure. On the other hand, it would be just as erroneous, if she in haughty self-sufficiency should wish utterly to seclude herself from the results of Hermeneutics. Both sciences must continually go hand in hand. As Hermeneutics has in Grammar her constant monitor and the touchstone of her results, so Grammar receives from the discreet critico-historical inquiry of Exegesis perpetually new enrichment. It is an unscientific, irrational demand,— and one which misjudges man’s powers, — that the one science should not begin to act till after the other has finished its work ; since, on the contrary, they are both at the same time called and commissioned for the understanding of the Scriptures. By progressive discernment, with the help of Gram mar and under the guidance of critico-historical research, continually to diminish the number of passages which refuse to submit to any linguis- tic analogy (and consequently as to whose meaning commentators

PREFACE. oy

generally diverge in all directions) is one of the leading and abiding aims of Hermeneutics. |

Further: it is difficult to draw a sharp boundary line between Lexi- cography and the explanation of words (Semasiology) on the one hand, and Grammar on the other; since both departments often encroach upon each other, and stand in relations of reciprocity. Indeed, from a scientific point of view every syntactic phenomenon connected with a word ought to be included in syntax, of whatever nature that phenome- non may be: for example, the different significations of a word so far forth as they proceed from a difference of construction, or on the other hand occasion a different construction. Buta particular grammar, like © that of the N. T., always subserves, in the main, practical necessities ; and it would be obliged to extend its limits far too wide, if in the respect under consideration it would attain to merely relative completeness even. Here also, therefore, a separation must take place between what can be traced back to definite laws and perceptible analogies, and what as an isolated peculiarity can be conveniently left to the dictionaries. It is true, the general lexicons in common use in the schools, as they are all based on classical usage, are not sufficient in many cases for the understanding of the N. T. (compare ex. gr. the words πιστεύειν, ἐλπί- ew, ὁμολογεῖν ; the prepositions ἐν, εἰς, ἀπό, etc.) ; and accordingly, a great number of special dictionaries have been prepared by scholars, among which may be named those of Schéttgen, Schleusner, Wahl, Bretschneider, Wilke, Schirlitz, etc. Grammar, however, obliged as it is continually to impose upon itself firm restrictions, cannot possibly include all that is lexically important — unless the fulness of details is to destroy the evident perspicuity of the whole, but must regard its task as completely performed when all the combinations and constructions occurring in the N. T., especially those relating to cases and verbs, are linguistically accounted for. The possession of a special dictionary, therefore, will always be requisite to theologians and every one who desires to investigate the N. T. writings minutely.

These are the principles and the most important aims which have guided me in the composition of this work. Whether I have a right to appear before the literary public with a book which originated in this way and has been wrought out according to these’principles, those must judge who join to linguistic knowledge an unprejudiced view of the great difficulties to be overcome. Whether I hereafter venture to make an abridgment of this work for the use of schools, will depend upon the invitation especially of those gentlemen who have charge of religious instruction in the Gymnasia.

xvi PREFACE.

In conclusion, let me be permitted, with allusion to the closing words of Winer’s Preface to the last [i.e. the 6th] edition of his Grammar, to utter the deep-felt desire, that under God’s assistance it may be reserved for this book also (in fellowship with the work of my honored pre- decessor, to which it owes very much, indeed the greatest part, of its value) to further the knowledge of Biblical truth so far as any such work can.

Porspam, Nov. 1858.

CONTENTS

PART FIRST: FORMS.

Introduction, Ξ : : : ‘ j Orthography, Orthoepy, Euphony, etc, . 2.9 » «© «+ «6 s. 8 Declension: The Dual, Ν i ‘ A ε é é : i Be ΤΊ First Declension, . ; : ; ; 5 ; : ; ; ‘ eae | Second Declension, . ° ‘ ; : : ‘ : ; ; ΞΟ Ὁ. Third Declension, ‘ ; ‘ : F ὰ . Tes : 718

Declension of Foreign Proper Names, ὶ : ° ‘ ; ἢ ἘΣ ἘΝ Anomalous Declension, : . SG : i ὰ ; F on $3 Uomparison, : , - : : : : ‘ . , : eB Numerals, . : “ 7 ; ‘ ὃ Σ , ν᾿ " ov 98 Pronouns, . ἢ : 5 : Α > ᾿ : 81

The Verb, . - : Σ ‘ : ἃ ὶ ὁ ᾿ . ἔν 85 Syllabic Augment, ‘ ἱ 3 : : ὃ ᾿ : : - $2 Temporal Augment, . ‘ , ‘ ὁ . ὁ ° ᾿ ἀν 88 The Augment in Composition, . : ὃ ; ° , 3 J 90 Future Subjunctive, . Σ : : ‘ ; : ‘ ‘ » $5 Circumflexed Future, . ν ; ; ; ᾿ F ὲ : oy OF Alexandrian Aorist, . , f : ‘ J ἢ = ἃ . 89 Verbs in A, μὲν, 8... ; ‘ 2 - ἷ ὃ ᾧ ‘ “st Verbals in τος, . < : ; ‘ ; é ‘ . ὲ ἐξ» 4] Barytone and Contract Verbs, . ‘ ° é ‘ ‘ , τ 45 Verbs in pt, . ‘ ‘ Ξ ὃ ‘ . ‘ . ὃ ἐ . 44 Deponents Passive, ‘ ‘ . . ὃ . . ᾿ . ἜΤ List of Anomalous Verbs, . Ἶ 5 . ᾿ risk A a SS

Adverbs, ξ . ‘ ἢ . ° Ἶ ὃ ὦ - aes

Particles of Place, ὃ . ‘ 6 ὼ ° ᾿ 2 ὃ ὀ oe 20

Changes of Form in Particles, . . ‘ Fe Ξ : : - 42

Formation of Words, . : ° ithe ὁ ° . . ° ae

“viii CONTENTS.

PART SECOND: SYNTAX.

PAGE Introduction, . ; : : 5 : - ἃ - ὃ : ν᾿ Substantives and Adjectives, : ; : 2 : ‘ - ae

Apposition, . ‘ : - : . : ς ° » ΠΟΥ δ Constr. ad ϑ'υποβδῖὶη, . : : ᾿ ; : Ἴ . ; 1 8 Omission of the Substantive, seme ; ᾿ : ᾿ 5 > ee Adjectives used for Adverbs, : : : : ° . Ἶ . 82

Comparative and Superlative, . ; Ν - ; ὶ ; . 83 the Article, fee ‘ : : , Ζ ; ‘ 3 : . > oe The Definite Article, . : : - : , ‘ Ξ ; » 286 Omission of the Article, - ὃ ; ; : ὁ ; . 88

Use of the Article with more closely defined Substantives, : ee The Article with a Substantive to be supplied, . : . . - 94

The Article before entire Sentences oe The Article with several connected Substantives, ; ὃ : a “8 The Article as a Demonstrative, . - ; ‘ : Ξ : . 101 bronouns, . ‘ : , A y ; ; : 3 "| ; . 108 οὗτος and ὅδε, ἐκεῖνος, : Ξ Ἶ ‘ ; ᾿ 5 - 103 Constr. ad Synesin with Demonstratives, . 105 Use ot αὐτός, ‘ . ᾿ . TR The Reflexive Pronoun, : : : ὃ Ξ Ξ 5 ὲ . 110 τὶς, τίς, ὅστις, ὲ ie : ; ; : > ᾿ >. ee Possessives, and the use of the Personals and of ἴϑιος for the same . 115 Pronouns with the Article, . ; ‘ ΐ ‘ ‘ ov ee Periphrastic Forms of the Negative Pronouns, . ς é . * 231 Neuter Adjectives, ‘ ‘ : ; ‘ , = . : . . 122 Subject and Predicate, ‘ ‘ ; : ‘ : 3 ᾿ . 123

Their Agreement in Number and Gender, . ; . . 125

Constr. ad Synesin in the Predicate, . ° ‘ Ἢ ᾿ Ν - 129

Adverbs as Predicates, ? Ξ , ‘ Ἔ ᾿ : ΣῪ ΒΑ Unexpressed Subject, ‘ : . ee . ° ‘ - 132 Omission of the Cc pula, ὃ : ‘ ‘ : . ‘ . . 136 The Cases, : ᾿ : : é ᾿ ' ᾿Ξ - : 2 . 138 Nominative and Vocative, . Ἂ ς ξ τ ὅ . . 138 The Oblique Cases— particularly che Object, : . os ΕΣ

The Accusative, . Ξ : ; ᾽ ‘ ᾿ . ° : . 146 The Genitive, ; : ; ; ; ᾿ é - ‘ F . 154

The Dative, . ‘ ‘ Ἢ ; Ἶ . ὺ τ 5 . + τὰ

CONTENTS.

The Verb, . ; ‘ ‘ ° ἃ The Passive, . ° Ἔ - Ἔ Verbal Adjectives, ° ° ° The Middle, , 4 °

The Tenses, ; ° R ‘ The Moods, ; ξ ‘ μ The Subjunctive, : ‘ .

The Optative, eee Go” The Particle ἄν, . : ; é A. Conditional Sentences, B. Relative Sentences, ς : C. Temporal Sentences,

. Causal Sentences, . ᾿ ;

. Final Sentences (use of tva in N. T.),

D E

_ F. Illative Sentences, . G. Declarative Sentences, H. Interrogative Sentences, General Remarks on the Moods, The Imperative, ὃ The Infinitive, τ poten . The Article (τό) with the Infinitive, The Infinitive with τοῦ, : . The Infinitive for the Imperative, The Accusative and Infinitive, κελεύειν, etc., with the Infinitive,

΄

καὶ ἐγένετο followed by Infinitive, ete.,

Attraction with the Infinitive, Construction of Relative Sentences,

Constructio ad Synesin with the Relative,

Attraction in Relative Sentences, The Participle,

The Participle with εἶναι, Redundant Participles,

Cases Absolute, : F | δου ς eee Prepositions, ; ὃ 3

Prepositions with the Genitive, Prepositions with the Dative, 2 Prepositions with the Accusative,

Prepositions with the Genitive and Accusative, .

xx CONTENTS.

Prepositions (continued), Prepositions with all three Cases, Position, etc., of Prepositions, Negatives, 7 (Other) Particles, Certain Peculiar Constructions, I. Attraction, II. Anacoluthon, 4 III. Inversion (Hy perbaton) . IV. Ellipsis (Brachylogy, Pregnant ἀλλο λει. V. Aposiopesis, VI. Pleonasm, VII. Epexegesis, VIII. Zeugma, IX. Asyndeton tPoinspadeeds I. Index of Subjects, If. Index of Greek Words and Forms, Ii. Index of Passages cited from the O. T., IV. Index of Passages in the N. T. explained or cited, Glossary of Technical Terms,

INTRODUCTION.

B. 81, Ν. 8; C. 8.88; H. §4f.; Ὁ. 8.18.

1. Tue basis of the Hellenistic language of the N. T. is the so-called Macedo-Alexandrian dialect, which, as is well known, became current in the time of the Ptolemies, especially at Alexandria, then the seat of culture; and this again was founded upon the κοινὴ διάλεκτος which sprang from the Attic dialect. From Alexandria Greek speech and culture spread over the Asiatic. kingdoms which arose from the Macedonian conquest, and accordingly over Syria. Here, of course, much that was local and foreign was mixed with it, not only in the mouth of the people, but also of the educated who wrote for the people. Consequently, in the language of the N.T. when compared with the Attic dialect, — the general basis of the (prose) literary language, — we may distinguish, first, the pecu- liarities belonging to the Alexandrian (Macedonian) dialect ; and secondly, especially in the Syntax, the so-called Hebraisms (Aramaisms).

Remark. Since the N.T. writings, however, are (perhaps with the exception of Matthew) the free products of authors who thought and spoke in Greek, they do not exhibit nearly as many Hebraisms as the language of the Seventy, who translated immediately from the Hebrew ; they consequently constitute an independent idiom. But as the translated Scriptures of the Ο. Τ᾿. exercised a manifold influence upon the composition of the N. T. books— being referred to very often by the N.T. writers, who inwove into their language quotations from them, now literal, now free, —a N. T. Grammar must often take notice of the language of the Septuagint.

2. The language of the several books of the N. T. again varies according as every individual writer 1) has his peculiar modes of expression, 2) and even certain dialectic peculiarities, Ὁ) and approximates more or less to the Hebrew style. In particular the historic books differ from the epistolary in

consequence of their differing aim and contents; inasmuch 1

Le)

πὰ ae INTRODUCTION.

as the historic, especially the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, approximate more to the (Aramaizing) language of the people; the Epistles, on the other hand, part.cularly those written by Paul to Greek-speaking churches and persons in Europe and Asia, are connected as respects language with the literary Greek then in use, yet not without noticeable deviations in construction and in the formation and meaning of words, since the common Greek habits of thought and speech were not adequate to the expression of the new ideas. The strictly Greek style of writing is approximated most closely by the writings of Luke, especially by the Acts, of which the diction and entire mode of expression is often suggestive of Attic elegance and is full of genuine Greek turns and construc- tions, although instances of the opposite are not wanting in them. Lastly, the language of the Apocalypse is distinguished from all the rest by great and sometimes very anomalous peculiarities in word and structure.

3. Since the Alexandrian dialect arose from the κοινή, it is not surprising that writers speak even of so-called lIonisms, Dorisms, etc. (though very limited in number) in the N.T. also. But neither the language of the N. T., nor that of the κοινοί in general, can be regarded as a mixture, as is sometimes assumed, of the various Greek dialects ; since all the dialectic phenomena in question are in part quite isolated and in part of doubtful origin.

4. Although we possess a large number of mss.! of the N. T. Scriptures, some of which are very old, and the writings of the oldest church fathers bear witness largely to the text current in their times, yet very divergent forms of the text have come down to us. This makes it often very difficult — indeed, owing to the equal authority for the readings, almost — impossible — to distinguish between what originally belonged

1 The most important among the so-called uncial Codices (1.6. Mss. written in uncial letters) are the Cod. Alexandrinus (A) now in the British Museum, Lon- don, Cod. Vaticanus (B) in Rome, Cod. rescriptus Ephremi (C) in Paris, Cod. Cantabrigiensis (D),etc. To these must now be added the Cod. Sinaiticus (&) in St. Petersburg (recently discovered by Tischendorf in the Convent of Mt. Sinai). The oldest mss. are Codd. Vat. and Sin., both of the 4th century. See, for details concerning the mss., the Prolegcmena of Tischendorf and Scholz, the Introductions of Hug, [Tregelles, Scrivener], Griesbach’s Symb. Crit., |Smith’s Bible Dict. Art. New Testament, especial y in the Am. ed.], ete.

INTRODUCTION. 8

to the author, and what to the transcribers and the time in which and for which they wrote. The earlier editions of the N. T.—as the editio princeps which appeared (at Alcala) in Spain, (the so-called Complutensian); then the various editions by Erasmus which appeared in the sixteenth century (and which Luther used in his translation), and particularly that by Robert Stephens (1550), Theodore Beza (1565), and the Elzevirs (1624, — which last gradually acquired general cur- rency in the Western Church, and hence its text is called the Textus Receptus) —all rest more or less upon a very imper- fect, in fact, arbitrary, collation of a number of Mss. appar- ently for the most part the more modern. In the 17th century, accordingly, and particularly in the 18th, a great multitude of various readings was collected through the more careful collation of the most important of the older mss., and by the labors of many scholars, as Bengel, Wetstein, Bentley, Birch, Griesbach, etc.; but the text of most of the subsequent editions 1 differed in the main but little from the textus recep- tus, since the editors (generally theologians) did not venture to depart too far from that to which usage had given a kind of ecclesiastical sanction. Hence the need of a text founded upon a purely philological process became more and more pressing. The merit of having prepared the way for such a thorough revision of the text upon critical and philological principles, belongs unquestionably to Carl Lachmann (Lehm.), who first in 1831 prepared a smaller edition of the N. T. and subsequently in 1842 a larger edition? furnished with a critical apparatus and Jerome’s Latin version, the so-called Vulgate. Almost at the same time and in pursuance of essentially the. - same method,-—yet often reaching different results, partly because starting with other critical views,? partly in conse- quence of using a much greater number of mss., collations, and critical helps of every kind — L. F. C. Tischendorf (Tdf.)

1 The greatest reputation among those of more recent date was won by the edi-

' tions of Griesbach which were prepared with judicious criticism and great care:

smaller ed. Leips. 1825 ; larger ed. Vol. I. Halle, 1796 (3d ed. care of David Schulz, Berlin, 1827), Vol. II. Hal. 1806.

“Novum Testamentum gr. et lat. Car. Lachmannus rec., Ph. Buttmannus Greece lect. auctoritates apposuit. Berol. 1842, 1850.

8 On the critical principles of the two editors see tke Prefaces to their respective editions, and the discussions and ey positions in the theol. Stud. τ. Krit. there referred to.

4 INTRODUCTION.

undertook to restore the text in a series of editions of the N.T., the first of which appeared in 1841. After making several journeys expressly for this purpose, collating for himself nearly all the most important Codices, and publishing several ancient and newly-discovered manuscript documents,! he pre- pared a second larger edition [1849],? provided with a copious critical apparatus, which was followed (in 1854) by the Triglot edition, comprising the Greek text, the Vulgate and the oldest Lutheran translation [cf. note ὃ below]. Respect- ing other modern editions, as that of Scholz, Ed. von Muralt, the Acts by Bornemann, see Tisch. pref. [Tregelles, on the Printed Text of the Gr. N. T. 1854; cf. the Introductions, etc., referred to p. 2, ποίθ 1]. The present work will in the main take as its basis the text of Lachmann’s large edition, yet con- stant regard is paid to the readings of Tischendorf;* and, where it seemed necessary, to those of Griesbach (Grsb.) also, as well as of the textus receptus (Rec.). [In disputed passages the reading adopted by Tregelles (Treg.), in his Greek New Testament (exclusive of the Revelation, which is not yet pub- lished‘), 1857-70, will also be indicated. ]

_1See the list of them given in the Preface to the editions of 1849 and 1854

[more fully in his 7th ed. 1859], and at the end of his second edition of the Sept. (Lips. 1856), [4th ed. 1869].

2 Novum Testamentum Graece. Ad. antig. testes rec., appar. crit. apposuit, ete. Ο. Tischendorf. ed. II. Lips. 1849.

8 There is just appearing [1855 sqq.] in separate numbers, a new (7th) edition of Tischendorf’s text of 1849, considerably modified in the text, but More espe- cially furnished with the critical Commentary of the edition of 1849 greatly enlarged and perfected, so that the reader is now enabled in every single case to see the entire stock of variants, and the kind of support given to every reading (even to those not received) by mss., versions, fathers, etc. ; the compendious nature of - the former Commentary rendered this often quite impossible, at least very trouble- some and uncertain. Regard will be paid to this edition also as far as it has already appeared. [Of his most recent (8th) critical edition (1864 sqq.), eight parts (ex- tending to 1 Cor. v. 7) have already (Sept. 1871) been published. Unless some indication to the contrary be given, this is the text of Tischendorf uniformly re- ferred to. He has edited besides, NV. 7’. Gr. ex cod. Sin. Lips. 1865, and NV. T. Vat- icanum, Lips. 1867 ; to both of these reference will be occasionally made when the text of a passage is in question.] [The text of Tdf.’s 8th ed. is now complete.]

[2 It has appeared since the printing of this book was begun, and its readings will be referred to so far as practicable. ]

ETYMOLOGY.

PRONUNCIATION, ORTHOGRAPHY. B. §8, 2; C. § 79; W. p. 48 (47); Tdf. ed. 7 Prol. xxxvii, sq. 1. sqq.

The letter ὁ is often represented in the mss. of the N. T. by e.;.yet no inference can be drawn from this respecting its quantity, for the change occurs in the case of long vowels (θλειψις, γεινωσκω) and of short (ηγγείκεν, καθεισας) alike. Under the influence of Itacism also it is often reproduced by η (as Κηλικια, πρωτοκλησια, Bpaynovt), and on the other hand εἰ is represented by ¢ (απεστίλεν, αὐτισθανι D). In foreign words the use of ev fors has been in part adopted into the text (see p. 6 note!). In genuine Greek words the usual spell- ing is followed in the printed editions. But in Matt. xxviii. 3 all the (older) mss. give εἰδέα for ἰδέα (Lchm.); and it has consequently been received into the text by Tischendorf [and Tregelles]. This was the general mode of writing the word. Hence even Suidas so spelt it, adding expressly of viv διὰ τοῦ τ γράφουσι; cf. Bhdy. praef. ad Suid. p. 39; Fischer on Plat. Euthyphr. p. 125.

A similar vacillation is found in the mss. between ε and az (several instances of which are given on p. 40, note 1) and other vowels, especialiy between ov and v (thus, almost always ἠνύγην for nvotynv). On the various Itacistic interchanges in the mss. see Tdf. praef. ad Vet. Test. pp. 72, 80 [ed. 3, and N.T. as above]; Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 117 sq. Before μ, ζ is often written instead of o, as Ζμύρνης (adopted by Tdf. [ed. 8, Rev. i. 11 and ii. 8]), which spelling, according to Lucian (jud. voc. 9), must have been pretty general.

TERMINAL LETTERS. B §4,5; H. §74sq.; C. $160; Ὁ. § 88sq. Hebrew proper nouns in the Greek text, either, 1) appear unaltered (and are then indeclinable), so that the eye must ᾿ 5

6 TERMINAL LETTERS ENCLITICS.

6 accustom itself to a multitude of unusual terminal letters, as in Aaveid, Ῥαχάβ, Boot, Ναζαράθ, etc.1; or, 2) they receive a Greek termination (and are then inflected according to anal- ogy), as Mavons, ᾿Ησαΐας, “Ἱερεμίας, ᾿Ιωνᾶς, ᾿Ιησοῦς ; or, 3) they appear in both forms, the foreign form then always being indeclinable; e.g. ἡ [Ἱερουσαλήμ and τὰ Ιεροσόλυμα, Μαριάμ and Μαρία, ᾿Ιακώβ (so always of Jews, Matt. i. 15, etc.) and ᾿Ιάκωβος (so of the various Christians), Σ᾿ αούλ (so of the son of Kish, Acts xiii. 21) and Σαῦλος (so always, in narration, of the apostle before he took the name of Παῦλος; but even — then, whenever he is addressed, the national form Σ᾽ αούλ is uniformly used, Acts ix. 4, etc.). Latin names are always Grecized, as Πιλᾶτος," ᾿Ιοῦστος, Φῆλιξ, etc. Concerning the inflection of Grecized proper names see p. 15 sq. below.

-

ENCLITICS. B. 14, 4. and N.1; H. §106s8q.; C. ὃ 787 sq.; J. § 64 obs. 1; Ὁ. § 55.

The general laws of Inclination hold to their full extent in the N. T. writings ;— that is to say, this method of accentua- tion has been carried out consistently in the N.T. because there was no reason for following there different rules in reference to the accents from those followed in all other Greek

1 As respects the spelling of foreign names there is naturally enough consider- able diversity, not only in the mss., but also in the several editions. Thus Lach- © mann, for instance, gives the name Nazareth not only in the form Na{apd@ Matt. iv. 18, but also Ναζαρέθ ii. 23 and Ναζαρέτ Mark i. 9; [Tdf. and Treg. use the forms in -e@ and -er, and also (Matt. iv. 13) the form Na{apd. ‘Tdf. in his 7th ed. (see Prol. p. lv. note) had decided that -εθ was the form everywhere to be used in Matt. and -er inJohn. In the note on Luke i. 26 in his 8th ed. he thinks this evan- gelist used the form in -εθ, with the exception of -pd in iv. 16]. The name David (in the mss. commonly written Aad) appears now in Lachmann in the form Aaveld throughout (not Δαυίδ or Δαβίδ), and Tdf. [and Treg.] have followed him in this respect. In reference to other names there is no such harmony between the editions, e.g. Κίς and Kels [Lchm. with whom Tdf. now and Treg. agree], Xopa¢iv [Lchm.] and -ζείν |Tdf. Treg.], ῥαββί [Lchm. Treg.] and ῥαββεί [Tdf., ef. Prol. ed. 7, p. li.], Χερουβίμ and xepovBely Lchm. [Tdf. ed. 8; Treg.] Heb. ix. 5. The Greek mode of writing the name Beelzebub (as Luther [so A. V.] has it after the Vulgate) is Βεελζεβούλ, that of Belial is more probably Βελίαρ 2 Cor. vi. 15 Tdf. fed. 8; Treg.]. See on this subject Tdf. ed. 2. p. 34 [Alf. N. T. Vol. I. prol. p. 94 sq.|.

2 As respects the accentuation Πιλάτος see Fritzsche on Mark p. 671; Winer p. 52 (51). Bekker in his edition of Josephus always marks this and similar proper — names with the circumflex ; and the recent editors of the N. T. have decided in favor of this mode of writing. See Tisch. pref. p. 36 [ed. 7, p. xi. In ed. 8 he writes Πειλᾶτος ; see his note on Matt. xxvii. 2]. Elsewhere the long a in words of Latin origin appears marked simply with the acute (not circumflex) ; as, σενάτο. (Plut. Romul. 13), Avydpe, ἀλλιγάρε (26), κωμεσσάτο; (Moral. p. 726).

MUTATIONS OF THE CONSONANTS; ASPIRATES. 4

writings.! Dissyllables after perispomena are not marked as

enclitic ; hence παῖς ἐστίν, γυναικῶν τινῶν, etc. Cf. Herm. de 7 emend. rat. I. 71, 73.

MouraTions OF THE CONSONANTS. Β. 816, N. 8; H. §§ 41 sq. 60; C. 8 161 sqq.; J. §§34. 88;

The use of oo for tr, described as mainly Ionie, is in the N. T. the only traditional spelling with most words, as περισσός, θάλασσα, γλῶσσα, τάσσω, etc. In the Comparative, the forms κρείσσων, ἐλάσσων are interchanged with κρείττων, ἐλάττων ; and in certain words derived from them the rr has become established, as ἐλαττόω, ἐλαττονέω, ἥττημα, ἡττᾶσθαι.

The combination pp is exchanged with pc, e.g. θαρρέω and θαρσέω (see Wahl, clay. min.). But instead of ἄρρην Lchm. has everywhere (even in Rev. xii. 5,13) restored the form with po [so Treg.; and Tdf. also except in Rom. i. 27].

ASPIRATES. B. 817, N.1; H. § 72; C. $167; J. 8 28,

The use of an aspirate before a smooth breathing conflicts, indeed, with the general rules of orthography, which are ob- served also in the N.T., yet in several instances is pretty well established. Thus we have, e.g. ἔφιδε Acts iv. 29 [ἔπιδε Tdf.], aid Phil. ii. 23, ἐφεῖδεν Luke i. 25 Tdf. [ed. 7], ἀφελπίζοντες vi. 835 Lehm., οὐχ ᾿Ιουδαϊκῶς Gal. ii. 14 (Tdf. ody’, as cod. A has, @.g. in ovy’ ὄψεσθε Luke xvii. 22) — to write it thus with the apostrophe was the almost universal usage, see Schneider on Plat. Rep. p. 455; Anecd. Bekk. p. 683 sq. On the other hand, in the Mss. we also find often οὐκ εὗρον (Exod. xvi. 27), οὐκ ἕνεκα in Hermas, etc. ; but see below p. 10. On the omission of as- piration (οὐκ ἕστηκεν) see Tdf.’s note on John viii. 44. [He writes ἐπίσταται for ἐφίσταται in 1 Thess. v. 8.7 Further ἐφ᾽ ἐλπίδι Acts ii. 26 [(Tdf. édr.); Rom. viii. 20 Tdf.; iv. 18 Lehm.], οὐχ ἠγάπησαν Rev. xii. 11, ody ἰδού Acts ii. 7, ody ὀλίγος xix. 23 Lchm., cf. xii. 18; see Lachmann’s pref. p. 42. The aspiration ἕλπις occurs also in inscriptions; see Franz, Epigr. 111. It is possible that the retention of the digamma in single words (cf. the Lat. video) occasioned these irregularities, which occur elsewhere also, see Winer p. 45 (44).

Β. $18, Ν. 2; H. § 65, ο.; C. § 150, d.; J. §81,a.; W. p. 44.

The form ἐθύθη, which formerly stood in the text (1 Cor v. 7) has now given place again to the regular form ἐτύθη.

' The oldest manuscripts have in general few or no accents; s‘e Hug, Einl. § 50.

8 DOUBLING OF CONSONANTS; CHANGES OF ».

Dovusiine OF CONSONANTS. B. § 21, 3; H. §40b.; C. $159; Ὁ. ὃ 98; J. § 22, 8.

Lachmann, following manuscripts, has often introduced again in spelling proper names @@ instead of 7@, and Tischendorf [and Tregelles also] has in part followed him in this. Thus in Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.] we always find Ma@@aios (even in Acts i. 13) ΜΜαθθάν, but in Lehm. [Treg.] Mar@dr Luke iii. 24 [Tdf. Ma@6a0; Treg. Ma@@az in Luke iii. 29]; and in Lehm. Ματθίας Acts i. 23 [Treg. Tdf. Ma@@.]. Since in matters of orthography no uniformity can be attained either by following Mss. or inscriptions, it seems advisable here, where the two modes of writing cannot have been governed by any difference in sound (cf. Lchm. pref. p. 40), to follow out consistently either the spelling with 0@ (which occurs here and there in inscriptions also), or that with 7@ as the grammarians prescribe.

The name Zacchaeus is written Ζακχαῖος by all ; on the other hand, the spelling of ᾿Απφία Philem. 2, Σάπφειρα Acts v. i, is doubtful.

On the neglect to double p see p. 32.

CHANGES OF v. Β. $25, N. 8; H. $52; C. $166; D. 8101; 5. 28; W.p. 48; Tdf. ed. 7, Prol. p. xlvii sq.

The rule that σύν in composition, before o followed by another consonant, and before ¢, drops its v, is often disregarded in the N. T.; thus we always find συνσταυροῦν, συνστρατιώτης, συνζῆν. συνζητεῖν, σύνξυγος. In other words, however, the omis- sion is made, 6.5. συστατικός, συστενάζω, συστοιχεῖν, συστρέφω, συστροφή, συσχηματίζειν. See Wahl’s clavis, and Lachmann’s pref. p. 40. Further, the oldest (uncial) mss. often omit the assimilation of the v in the two prepositions σύν and ἐν before labials and palatals, sometimes also before > and o, thus συνπαραλαβεῖν, συνμαθητής, συνκαθισάντων, ἐνκακεῖν, ἐνγεγραμ- μένος, συνλυπούμενος, σύνσωμα, etc., and likewise in separated words ἐν μέσῳ (only in the Apocalypse does Tdf. [ed. 7; ef. Prol. to Sept. ed. 4, p. xxii] write them always as one word: éupéow), ἐν Κανᾶ. In particular it may be noticed that in com- pounds with ἐν and σύν cod. Vat. (and Sin.) almost always neg- lects assimilation when these prepositions preserve their proper signification ; see Bttm.’s Rev. of Kuenen and Cobet’s ed. of cod. Vat. in the theol. Stud. τι. Krit. for 1862 p. 180. On the

MOVABLE FINAL LETTERS. 9

other hand, the mode of writing as one word is often found, as éu- μέσῳ, éyxava, συμπᾶσι, etc. ['Tdf. writes ἔνπροσθεν in Rev. iv. 6. |

MovasLe ΕἾΝΑΙ, LEerrers. B. § 26, 2and 4; H. §78sq.; C. §162sq.; Ὁ. §85; J. 820. 2; W. p. 41sq.

In the earlier editions the rules of the grammarians in ref- erence to v ἐφελκυστικόν were followed. These, however, were found to be so seldom sustained by the manuscripts, that at present Tischendorf has retained v ἐφελκυστικόν before every consonant without exception, and has carried out this rule consistently, with very few exceptions, throughout the N. T. [1.6. in ed. 7, cf. Prol. p. liii; in ed. 8 he has dropped it in several cases, following the best mMss.; see the note below. ] Lachmann (in his large edition) also writes it before all the consonants ; yet in particular cases, following the Mss., he has not admitted it; these, however, almost disappear in the mul- titude that remain: e.g. Matt. vi. 24; John ix. 30,32; Acts ii. 6, 22, 40; vii. 25; ix. 22; x. 40; xii. 6; xxi.33; Rom. ii. 8; Rey. xix. 17; Luke xvii. 29, etc.

The numeral εἴκοσι appears everywhere, even at the end of a sentence and before a vowel (Acts i. 15 [yet Treg. -cw]), without v ἐφελκυστικόν. So too in the O. T., see Tdf’s. ed. praef. p. xxxiv. [ed. 4; cf. N. T. ed. 7, p. liv.].

Precisely the same procedure occurs in connection with οὕτως, so that the other form οὕτω is at present almost com- pletely banished from the text [cf. Tdf. ed. 7, p. liii]. There are rare exceptions again in Lchm. ; as, Phil. iii. 17; Acts xxiii. 11; Rom. i. 15; vi. 19, etc.

1 Perhaps we can hardly hope ever to succeed in clearing up this point, since, as ‘he liberty of later times in the use of ν was manifestly unrestrained, and the thing itself is so trivial, the transcribers (learned and unlearned) of the N. T. books felt little hesitation in employing or omitting it at option. Consequently the consis- tent introduction of the v ἐφελκυστικόν throughout may be justified as a silent con- fession of the impossibility of tracing out the original mode of spelling of the authors themselves ; and so much the more, as the cases in which al/ the Mss. em- ploy v contrary to the grammatical rule appear to be very frequent, while cases of the other class (in which all mss. omit it), are extremely rare. It would only be necessary, then, to bring one’s self to use the ν in these rare cases contrary to the mSss., as in Luke xvi. 13; Matt. vi. 24 (δυσί Tdf. [so too Treg.] even in ed. 7, with the remark: sic codd. unc. omnes, ut videtur [cf. note on Luke l.c. ed. 8]). If we are unwilling to do this, then Lachmann’s [and Tdf.’s?] method of allowing here as elsewhere the authority of the oldest mss. to decide, deserves unqualifiedly the preference, as affording the only stable anchorage in the matter. To be sure, we should need in that case a more careful collation of the manuscripts in reference

to this particular than we now possess. 2

10 CRASIS AND ELISION.

The case is quite different with respect to μέχρις and ἄχοϊς. Both these forms never occur before consonants, out always μέχρι and ἄχρι. On the other hand, μεχρὺς is regularly used before vowels, e.g. μέχρις οὗ, μέχρις αἵματος Heb. xii. 4. Only ἄχρι stands several times even before vowels; but not always

_without reason. For while in the common phrase ἄχρις ot

10

the word remains everywhere unaltered, ἄχρι is everywhere used, manifestly to avoid cacophony, in the phrase ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας: Matt. xxiv. 38; Luke i.20; xvii. 27; Acts i. 2,cf. xxiii. 1. Elsewhere the two forms are interchanged before vowels, as ἄχρις [-pe Treg. Tdf.] αὐγῆς Acts xx. 11, ἄχρις [-pe Treg. ΤᾺ Armiov φόρου xxviii. 15, ἄχρι (ἄχρις Rec.) ἡμερῶν πέντε xx. 6.

B. §27, N. 1; H. 824 Ὁ. ο.; C. 8180 ο.; J. 810, obs. 2; W. p. 48.

Instead of ἕνεκα, ἕνεκεν (p. 72), the lonic form εἵνεκεν some- times occurs (which is not unknown to the Attics also, see Buttmann’s ausf. Sprachl.), as οὗ εἵνεκεν Luke iv. 18, εἵνεκεν τῆς δόξης 2 Cor. iii. 10. As respects termination, the forms ἕνεκεν and εἵνεκεν stand before vowels and consonants, but évexa only before consonants (Matt. xix. 5; Acts xxvi. 21, cf. the variant in Mark xiii. 9).

CRASIS AND ELISION. Β. §§ 29. 80; H. $§ 68. 70; C. §§ 124. 127; D. §§ 130. 188; J. §§ 13.17; W. p. 46. Since the writers of the New Testament were far from feeling such a dislike to hiatus, as, for example, the Attic orators felt, the two means of preventing it, viz. Crasis and Elision, are no longer employed in all the cases mentioned in the Grammars. As respects Crasis, although it is by no means wanting in the N.T., yet it is restricted to a number of customary instances, very common in other writings also; and even in these it is far from being uniform. Thus we find, for example, κἀμοί and Kal ἐμοί, κἀγώ and καὶ ἐγώ, κακεῖ and καὶ ἐκεῖ, ταὐτά and Ta

αὐτά; further, τοὐναντίον, τοὔνομα, κἄν for καὶ ἐάν (for so it is

to ve taken even in Mark vi. 56, — for details respecting κἄν see the Syntax, p.360),ete. In the recent printed editions, how- ever, there is little agreement in this particular, because the manuscripts very often exhibit both modes of writing.

Elision continues to be most frequently observed with ἀλλά and the prepositions, as ἀπό, did, etc. Yet the elided and the full mode of writing are constantly interchanged ; and indeed,

THE DECLENSIONS. 11

th.s is more or less the case in profane authors also. As re- spects other words, frequently written elsewhere with the apostrophe, as δέ, τέ, γέ, οὐδέ, ὥςτε, dpa, iva, thus much at least may be positively affirmed: that elision has passed almost com- pletely out of use; hence these words are regularly written in full, even where ordinary prose certainly would not have neglected elision. However, in such a matter as elision (and crasis) it is not advisable to proceed with rigorous consistency, as Winer maintains [p. 40], since every writer must be allowed the liberty of occasionally employing elision at his option, even in cases where he ordinarily neglects it (Matt. xxiii. 16; 1 John li. 5; Acts xix. 2; Heb. viii. 4; ix. 25; Rom. ix. 7, etc.).

Remark. The quotation from Menander in 1 Cor. xv. 33 is written by Tdf. [so δὲ] in full (χρηστά [Treg. χρῆστα), according to the Mss., by Lehm. with the apostrophe χρήσθ᾽ (as a quotation), but not as the earlier editions have it χρῆσθ᾽, contrary to the rule (B. § 30, 3; H. δ 100; C.§ 774; D. § 188; J. § 63, 2).

The current formula τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν is always written with the apostrophe, and by many (Lchm. also [Treg. in the majority of instances ]) as a single word, because it had become a complete adverb (like δηλονότι, etc.).

DEcLENSION: ΤῊΒ DUAL. B, § 83, 8; H. § 115; C. 8. 118; D. $149; J. 8 72. The Dual, in the language of the N. T. as in Latin, has wholly passed out of use, in nouns as well as in verbs.

First DEcLENsION. Β. § 84,2; H. § 184; C. 8 194 5ᾳ.; Ὁ. § 161; J. § 78.

The rule that after p the Gen. ends in as is sometimes dis- regarded ; as, σπείρης, πρώρης (Acts xxvii. 80 Lchm. [Tdf.]), π-λημμύρης Luke vi. 48 ['Treg.] Tdf. (cod. Sin.), μαχαίρης, -pn, but not throughout (Acts xii. 2 ete. [Lchm.]), Samdelpy Acts v. 1 Ταῦ. [x*]. This is not to be looked upon as an Jonism otherwise the Nom. also would be σπείρη, πρώρη. But p in these words has only the influence of any other consonant before a; that is to say, it allows the flexion in 7 to follow in the Gen. and Dat. Now as these words according to the rule for quantity (B. § 34, N. II, 1.) have a short in the Nom., the aczentuation must be σπεῖρα and also by consequence πρῶρα (μοι. [Tdf.] πρῷρα Acts xxvii. 41,— on this spelling, which is common in Mss., see Dindorf in Steph. Thesaur. sub voce ; Htym. Magn. 692; Cobet, Praef. ad N. T. Vat. p. 12; Nov. Lect. 204.) ; see besides, Lchm. pref. I. p. 48.

11

12

12 CONTRACTS.

Quite isolated, yet sufficiently attested by mss. [Sir. also], is the Gen. in ἧς also from a pure in συνειδυίης Acts v. 2; ef. Tdf. pref. (1849) p. xxiv, note 1, [ed. 7, p. liv], Exod. viii. 21. 24; 1 Sam. xxv. 20 (Vat.).

To the examples of abstract substantives in e/a with a long may be added from the N. T. the following: ἐριθεία working Jor hire —commonly accented falsely, and ἀρεσκεία desire to please, from ἐριθεύομαι and ἀρεσκεύομαι (ἀρέσκεια Col. i. 10 Lehm. Tdf. [eds. 2,7; Treg. ; Tdf. ed. 8 -«ia]).

Concerning the Doric Genitive in a of proper names in as see below, p. 20.

Seconp DECLENSION. B. § 85; H. § 138 sq.; C. § 199; D. 8 166 sq.; J. § 85sq.

Several substantives in os, which ordinarily have but one gender, occur in the N.T. now as Masculine, now 4s Feminine. Thus:

1) ἡ λιμός famine,—a use noted as Doric by old gram- marians, and common also in the Sept., see Is. viii. 21. As Fem. it appears in Luke xv. 14; Acts xi. 28 (where formerly the Masc. stood, and some MSS. give even λιμὸν μέγαν ... ἥτις, Te- specting which see in the Syntax, p. 81); as Mase. in Luke iv. 25.

2) ἡ βάτος bramble, elsewhere also the current form (see Pape) Luke xx. 37; Acts vii. 35. On the other hand τοῦ βάτου (τῆς βάτου Rec.) Mark xii. 26.

3) Respecting ὁ and ἡ ληνός see ὃ 123, T, p. 81.

To the feminines which are properly Adjectives add from the N. T. ἡ ἄβυσσος bottomless deep, in the earlier writers only an adjective ; see Pape.

The Voc. in ε of words in os is very common in the N. T., as κύριε, διδάσκαλε, φαρισαῖε, τυφλέ, etc. Yet the other form also (like the Nom.) is not rare, as vids Aaveid Matt. i. 20, ete. ; and it is the less so, since, as will be shown in ὃ 129 a. 5, p. 140, even the full form of the Nom. with the Article takes the place of the Voc., as ὁ θεός, etc. As a rare exception must be noted θεέ μου Matt. xxvii. 46, found also in the Sept., e.g. 2 Esdr. ix. 6; Judd. xvi. 28; xxi. 3; Sap. ix. 1.

ConTRACTS. B, § 86; H. § 144; C. $200; D. 8 1069; J. $85, 2. The regular forms of the Gen. and Dat. of νοῦς (vod, νῷ) are quite unknown to the writers of the N. T., and the heteroclite

THE DECLENSIONS. 13

forms of the 3d Declension, in general more current in the later language (Ausf. Sprachl. I. p. 154), are the only ones in use: τοῦ νοός, τῷ vol, see Wahl. The Gen. of πλοῦς also is πλοός in Acts xxvii. 9.

Of ὀστοῦν (John xix. 36) in the Plural only the uncontracted forms ὀστέα, ὀστέων occur: Matt. xxiii. 27; Luke xxiv. 39; Heb. xi. 22.

Attic DECLENSION. ἶ B. § 87; H. 8146; C. 8200; Ὁ. 8110; J. § 86.

The forms λεώς, νεώς (from which comes νεωκόρος Acts xix. 96) of the Attic Declension are wholly unused in the N. T.: λαός, ναός are always used instead. Concerning proper names in -ws see p. 20 below. The N.T. form for ἀνώγεων (derived from ἄνω and yf) is ἀνάγαιον Lchm. Tdf. [Treg.], or ἀνώγαιον Tdf. [only in ed. 2 in Mark], Mark xiv. 15; Luke xxii. 12,—a Dorism (see An. Cram. II. p. 131, 14, and cf. Mullach, Gr. Vulgarspr. p. 21; Ahrens, Dial. Dor. p. 187). Cf. κτείψω p. 61.

TuirD DECLENSION. Β. 841, N. 2; H. § 164.

Respecting the (later) accentuation φοῖνιξ, κῆρυξ (1 Tim. ii. 7) see Winer p. 50 (49) and the works there referred to [also Lipsius, Gram. Untersuch. p. 36sq.; Tdf. (eds. 7,8) and Treg. write κήρυξ]. Like κῆρυξ we must then, with Tdf. [Treg.], accent Φῆλιξ also (Acts xxiv. 3, etc.).

ACCUSATIVE SINGULAR. Β. § 44; H. § 157; C. § 204; D. p. 102; J. 8 92, 88q. From χάρις the (rare and later) Accusative χάριτα twice occurs: Jude 4; Acts xxiv. 27 Lchm. [now Tdf. also, and Treg. ], Of, xxv. 9.

As a peculiarity of the Alexandrian dialect in general is to be noticed the appending of the Acc. v to the regularly formed Acc. in a, of which & great number of examples from the Sept. may be seen in Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 127; on v ἐφελκ. with the Acc. cf. Lob. Parall. p. 142 sq.; Tdf. 7 (cf. 8] on Heb. vi. 19 [and ed. 7 prol. p. lv]. Recent editors have with reason hesitated to adopt this form of the Case in the N. T. where it has been transmitted in a few instances, particularly by cod. Alex. (e.g. Rom. xvi. 11 συγγενῆν [Treg.]), because it is not sufficiently guaranteed by other mss. Lchm. [Tdf. ed. 7, not 8] has admitted 1t only in the Apocalypse, e.g. ἄρσεναν xii. 13, εἰκόναν xiii. 14, μῆναν xxii. 2, ποδήρην i, 13 [Lchm. in ed. min. only]. In Heb. vi. 19 also, some [Tdf. ed. 7 ;

13

14 CONTRACTS.

Treg.] would read ἀσφαλῆν ; this form, however, Lchm. has not adopted (as Winer asserts p. 69 (67) —[yet correctly, as respects Lachmann’s stereotype ed.]|) as [in his larger ed.] he there accents ἀσφαλήν, and consequently takes it as a metaplasm after the Ist declension. Tdf. [2, 8] has ἀσφαλῆ with cod. Vat. [and Sin.], which is perhaps to be preferred (cf. ἀκλινῆ x. 23, μονογενῆ xi. 17). The Acc. Aiay (from Ζεύς) Acts xiv. 12 Tdf. ed. 7, is not sustained by codd. Vat. and Sin.

ConTRACTS. Β. 8.49, N. 8; H. $176 sq.; C. §207; D. $181; J. $111, 1b.

The Genitive Plural of neuters in os, whenever it occurs in the N.T., retains the uncontracted form ὀρέων Rey. -vi. 15, χειλέων Heb. xiii. 15. But that of ἔτος, year, is always ἐτῶν ; see the Lexx.

PaRTIAL CONTRACTION. B. $50; H. 8 186 sq.; C. 8. 219; D. § 186 sq.; J. § 100.

The contraction of this class of words (which was often neglected by Attic writers, B. § 50, N. 3) is wholly omitted in the N. T.,— and that not only in the Nominative (iy@ves Luke ix. 13), but also in the Accusative Plural ἐχθύας Matt. xiv. 17, στάχυας xii. 1, Boas Jno. ii. 14, 15, βότρυας Rev. xiv. 18, ete. ; see Wahl.

CONTRACTS IN tg ETC. GEN. ews. Β. § 51; H. $185 8q.; C. § 220; D. § 186 sq.; J. § 101.

Words of this class are uniformly contracted in the N. T.; indeed, contractions like πηχῶν and Gen. ἡμίσους Plur. τὰ ἡμίση (B. § 51, N. 5) from the later and less pure Attic seem to have been the only forms in use in the language of the N. T., thus τῶν πηχῶν John xxi. 8; Rev. xxi. 17, ἡμίσους Mark vi. 28, probably also τὰ ἡμίση Luke xix. 8 (ἡμέσεα Lehm. ἡμίσεια Tdf. [Treg.]). On the origin of the spelling τὰ ἡμίσεια (for which codd. Vat. and Sin. itacistically give ἡμίσια) see Bttm.’s Rev. of Kuenen and Cobet in the theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 194.

The Genitive in -ews of neuter nouns of this class is used also in the N. T.; as, σινάπεως Matt. xiii. 31 and often.

ConTRACTS IN ets. B. §52; H. § 189; C. §220; Ὁ. §190; J. § 97.

The Acc. Plural in éas, as it is not found at all in later Greek, so too it does not occur in the language of the N. T., and tLe form in eé is the only one current; accordingly, ἀν αι νεῖᾳ γραμματεῖς γονεῖς, ἱππεῖς, etc. ; see Wahl.

THE DECLENSIC NS. 15

Varyine CONTRACTION. B. 868; H. $178; C. 8.218 ο.; J. § 129, 2.

The Acc. of ὑγιής which occurs four times (see Wahl) is never ,vyid, but always ὑγωῆ, as sometimes also even in the earlier writers.

NEUTERS IN as. B. $54; H. $168, 182 D.; C. § 222 ¢.; D. 8181; J. § 108, 2.8q.

The contracted forms of κέρας and τέρας are wholly unknown to the language of the N. T., as in general to the Alexandrian dialect; hence always κέρατα, τέρατα, κεράτων, etc. see Wahl. The Plural of κρέας, on the other hand, is τὰ κρέα, Rom. xiv. 21 etc.

The Ionic change of a into ε occurs once (Luke i. 36) in the Dative γήρει, which the Text. Recept. against all the mss. has altered into

,

YP?

CONTRACTS IN av. B. §65; H. $175; C. $211; D. § 184; J. § 129, Obs. 2. The uncontracted forms of Comparatives in wy are, even in the Nom. Plur. (e.g. Acts xxvii. 12), used indiscriminately with the contracted forms (xix. 32 etc.).

ANOMALOUS DECLENSION. B. $56, N.1; H. 8 197 5ᾳ. ; C. § 223 sq.

It seems to be expedient for convenience of reference to bring together here under a single head what is to be said respecting the declension of

Foreign Proper Names, as well as of certain other names of persons and foreign (i.e. not Greek) words.

1. As was remarked above, p. 5 sq., proper names which re- main unaltered dispense with all inflection, even when their ending seems to render them capable of it, as ‘Iepryé, Φαραώ (Acts vii. 10), ᾿Εμμαούς, ᾿Ενώς, Γεθσημανῆ (Lchm. [Treg.] «νεῖ [Tdf. -νεί, cf. ed. T Prol. p. lxi]), Βηθφαγῆ [Lchm., Treg. (except Luke xix. 29) ; Tdf. ~yy, cf. also ed. 7, Prol. p. lv, xi] ; many in -ών, as ‘Aapwv, ᾿Εσρών, Ζαβουλών, Σαμψών, Σιών, Γεδεών", and in -a, as Σάρα, Σινᾶ, μάννα, Βηθεσδά, Σ᾿ άρεπτα, Ἰ ολγοθᾶ, Kava, etc.

2. As soon, however, as the word undergoes a change,

1 That the inflection of the Lexicons Γεδεών, -ὥνος, is incorrect see Heb. xi. 32, and cf. in the O. T. Judges vii. 14, 18 ete.

14

15

16 FOREIGN NAMES.

especially such a change as gives it a declinable ending, in- flection takes place according to analogy. It is not to be overlooked that names well-known and of frequent occurrence, such as Jesus, Moses, Solomon, Jerusalem, etc., have accom- modated themselves in popular usage to the Greek vocal laws much more frequently than names less familiar. Cf. the Genealogies.

3. The transformation into Greek took place most simply with nouns which already had an ending resembling Greek, or whose ending allowed itself easily to be made such. So in particular with proper names in wy. These have ordinarily Gen. -wvos, etc., as Σαρών Acc. Fapova Acts ix. 85 (Tdf. Σάρωνα [Treg. -v@]), Σιδών -dvos, Σίμων -wvos, (on the other hand the less altered name Συμεών is indeclinable, Rev. vii. 7). But the name Solomon has a twofold inflection: As it took in Greek the form Σόλομων, there resulted according to the analogy of similar well-known names, like Ξενοφῶν, the in- flection Σολομῶν (for so the Nom. must then be accented) Σολομῶντος. etc. ; or, according to the analogy of Βαβυλών. the inflection Σολομών, -dvos, etc. Both modes of inflection have been received into the text in Lachmann’s edition, even in the same writer (e.g. Matt. i. 6 and xii. 42),—a phenomenon which occurs several times in the case of such familiar names ; see Moses, Jerusalem, etc. below. Tdf., however, has given the preference everywhere [except Acts ii. 11 and v. 12; in vii. 47 he writes Σαλωμών ; cf. his note on Matt. vi. 29, and ed. 7, p- liv] to the inflection -dvos, etc. [so Treg., yet Acts vii. 47 -μῶν]. With the twofold inflection of Σολομῶν ef. that of the old Greek name Σαρπηδών Gen. Σαρπηδόνος and Σ'αρπήδοντος.

4, Latin words and proper names, likewise, are shaped ac- cording to analogy an] inflected agreeably to Latin declension, as λεγεών (legio) Aeye@vos, Matt. xxvi. 53 ['Treg. also]; Luke viii. 30, on the other Fand λεγιών Mark v. 9, 15 (the spelling λεγιών has on the whole the greatest ms. authority in its favor [cod. Sin. also]; so Tdf. everywhere, see ed. 7, Prol. p. 1 [and note on Mark v. 9 in ed. 87); εὐρακύλων (Vulg. euroaquilo, it is wanting in the lexicons) Acts xxvii. 14 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf.] Northeast wind, formed like euroauster, evpovotos; Φῆλιξ -«κος, Καῖσαρ -os, etc. Nouns in ens receive in the Nom., in accordance with Greek vocal laws (B. § 25), the form in -ys,

FOREIGN NAMES. 17

as Κλήμης, Κρήσκης, Πούδης, and are declined Κλήμεντος, ete. Phil. iv. 3.

5. Further, the following nouns are Grecized by appending to them (or coining for them) Greek final syllables: 1

Feminines in a Gen. -ης, etc.; for example, Γάζα (Gen. -ns, Dat. - in the O. T., as, Zech. ix. 5; Josh. xi. 22) Ace. -αν. Further, yéevva, γεέννης, etc. ; from Latin, μεμβράνα Acc. plural -νας, at TaBépvar, etc.

6. Feminines in a Gen. -as, as Μαρία, -as, -ᾳ, -av. In this noun, however, the inflected form is constantly interchanged _ with the indeclinable form Mapiap [yet according to Tdf. ed. T, p. xxxv, the best mss. favor the former]: Nom. Matt. xiii. 55; Luke i. 27; ii. 19 (John xi. 82; xx. 18, Tdf. [Treg.]), Dat. Luke ii. 5 (Acts i. 14 Tdf. [Treg.]), Acc. Matt. i. 20; Luke ii. 16; John xi. 19 (Rom. xvi. 6 Tdf.), Voc. Luke i. 30 (John xx. 16 Tdf. [Treg.]). Further, Σαμάρεια (not -ela, Acts viii. 14) [Tdf. now everywhere Σαμαρία] -είας, -eia, Βηθανία, -ias, -ἰᾳ. Μάρθα John xi. 1 (to which Wahl incorrectly gives the Gen. -ys) and probably ” Avva also (to judge from the Dative "Avva in the O. T. 1 Sam. i. 2, 5, ete.) and Εὔα (not Eia) Εὔαν have the Genitive in -as, contrary to the main rule, but in accordance with the inflection of other Greek proper names as Anda, etc. (B. § 34,2; H.§ 126; C.§195). Of Σουσάννα, and ᾿Ιωάννα none of the inflected forms occur in the N. Τ.2 Byé- caida forms its Accusative in -dv Mark vi. 45, etc., but is otherwise indeclinable: John i. 45; xii.21. From the Latin KovaTwola, -as, etc.

Feminines in ἡ Gen. -ns: -7 ᾿Ιόππη, Σαλώμη. etc.

7. Masculines in ys, -ov, -y, τὴν, e.g. ᾿Ιωάννης, ᾿Ιορδάνης, and, from the Latin, κοδράντης (quadrans), φαιλόνης (paenula φαινόλης Poll.). ᾿Ιωάννης (in cod. Vat. almost always, in Sin. often written with one v: ‘Iwdvys) forms its Dat. according to the same mss. also ᾿Ιωάννεν (Iwaver), — heteroclitically there- fore ; cf. Μωυσῆς No. 11, p. 19.

8. Masculines in as, -ov, -a, -av. This inflection appears in many words, but always with a preceding vowel, ὁ or e, as Ἱερεμίας, ᾿Ησαΐας, Bapayias, ’Efexias (Lchm. -eias ; Gen..-ov

16

1 Τὴ other writers, as Josephus, etc., this is done with a far larger number of ee

names than in the Old and New Test. 2 On the other hand, in the O. T. the Gen. of Σωσάννα (Σωσάννης) occurs in Sus. 27. 8

17

18 FOREIGN NAMES.

2 Kings. xviii. 13, ete.), Ζαχαρίας, ᾿Ηλίας, ᾿Ιεχονίας (Gen. -ov 1 Chron. iii. 17, -a Bar. i. 3), ᾿Ιωσίας (-ov 2 Kings xxiii. 34, -a Jer. xxv. 1), Ματταθίας, Οὐρίας, ’Avdpéas ; and probably also Μεσσίας, Ματθίας, ’Ofias, Iovvias, of none of which has the Gen.been preserved. Respecting ’Avavias see below, 13,c) p. 20.

9. Masculines and Feminines in os, -ov, etc.; as, ᾿Ιάκωβος, Σαῦλος see p. 6, Ζακχαῖος, MabOaios, Iderpos, ἡ Δαμασκός, ete., and those formed by change of the Latin ending ws: Πόμτιος Πιλᾶτος, Kovdptos, Πόπλιος, Ποτίολοι (Puteoli), ΣΧῶρος i.e. Caurus or Corus Northwest wind (wanting in Pape) Acts xxvii. 12. ;

Neuters in ov from the Latin: φραγέλλιον flagellum John ii. 15, σουδάριον, widvov a mile, etc.

10. Neuters in a, των, τοῖς, -α. This inflection is followed by several names of cities, formed after the analogy of ta "APSnpa, Θνάτειρα, etc., — especially by Jerusalem: τὰ “]εροσό- λυμα, -ων, -o1s; this inflected form, however, is constantly in- terchanged (often in close proximity) with the O. T. indeclinable form ἡ ‘Iepovoadnjp, e.g. Luke ii. 22 and 25, 42 and 43. In address the Jewish form is always used (Matt. xxiii. 37, etc.). John uses only the first form τὰ ‘I. (see Heydler, iiber die Namen Hierosolyma, ete., Progr., Frankf. 1856). The third form given in the lexicons is found in only a single passage in the whole Bible: Matt. ii. 8 πᾶσα ‘Iepocod\vpa. Yet we cannot infer from this an inflection in -ys, -7, etc. as given in the lex- icons, since in this passage “IepocdAvpa seems to be used more like the indeclinable ἱΙερουσαλήμ (moreover πᾶσα is wanting in cod. D), and consequently, as the name of a city, has been construed as feminine. Such a combination certainly would have been impossible to a native Greek author.

On the other hand Γόμορρα has both inflections: Gen. -as, and -ων Dat.-ous. In the O.T. the forms in -wy and -οἰς do not occur (but Nom. and Acc. -a Gen. -as) so that these forms seem to have been first developed in the N. T. by the word’s being frequently connected with τὰ Σόδομα (-ων, -ovs) which is always newer.

Avééa has -ns in the Gen. (Acts ix. 38 [Tdf. Treg. give -as]), but just before it twice occurs inflected like a Neuter ina: Ace. Avdda vs. 82, 85; Josephus (B. J. 1, 15, 6 ad fin.) uses it as a Neut. Plur.; cf. Τύμορρα in the O. T. Θυάτειρα on the other

FOREIGN NAMES. : 19

hand (of which the Gen. in -wy occurs Acts xvi. 14, the Dat. in -os Rey. ii. 18) has once the Acc. in -av, Rev. i. 11; and Avortpa in Lycaonia has its Dat. in -o1s, but for its Acc. τὴν “Δύστραν Acts xiv. 6, 8, 21, ete.

11. Masculines in ys of the third declension. Here belongs especially the name Μωυσῆς. Its first syllable is in recent editions almost uniformly written wv, and probably therefore in the solitary passage where Lchm. has left the simple ὦ (Rom. ix. 15), the other spelling wv is with Tdf. [Treg., sox also] to be restored [Tdf. puts a diaeresis over the v, see ed. 7, p. Ixii; and cf. Grimm’s Lexicon]. The common inflec- tion is Gen.(uniformly ) -éws, Dat. -e?, Acc. -éa (Luke xvi. 29),— thus quite after the analogy of the Greek word "Apns; hence it is idle to assume an unused Nominative form in eds, as is generally done in the lexicons. In addition to these forms there have been preserved (according to the Declension which follows) a Dative in -7 twice, Rom. ix. 15 (Tdf. Mwicet [Treg. -et| Acts vil. 44, and an Accusative -ἣν four times, Acts vi. 11; vii. 85; 1 Cor. x. 2; Heb. iii. 3. On the derivation and spelling of the word see also Fr. on Rom. ix. 15, and cf. Joseph. adv. Ap. 1. 31.

Further Μανασσῆς, ---- the Acc. of which ends in -ἢ Matt. i. 10 (Gen. -ἢ Sept.), and ᾿Ιωσῆς with a twofold inflection ᾿Ιωσῆτος (Mark vi. 3; xv. 40) and ᾿Ιωσῇ in accordance with the Declen- sion which follows.

12. There still remain a large number of foreign names and words, which follow none of the modes of inflection described above, yet among which there exists a great and obvious analogy. Mehlhorn (Gr. Gram. p. 182) appropriately proposes for all these words a special declension, which on account of the simplicity of its endings he calls the weak inflection. The following is the Table:

as a φ αν α nS a 7 La 7 ως ω ῳ ων @

ους ου ου ουν ου The first two series, it will be noticed, are founded on the first declension, the remaining two upon the second. This inflec- tion is ordinarily, but not invariably, distinguished by the _ eircumflex on the last syllable. |

18

20 FOREIGN NAMES.

138 A. Words in as. The inflection of these, especially when they are not perispomena, agreey closely with that of words which have the Doric Genitive (Ὁ. 12; cf. H. § 136 Rem. d.), as ᾿Αννίβας etc., and has manifestly been formed after the analogy of this declension. In later times this was the most usual inflection of foreign proper names, and of such as had undergone a violent abbreviation (as ᾿Αλεξᾶς from ᾿Αλέξανδρος); and many newly-formed words followed it. Here belong

a) All circumflexed proper names, as ᾿Ιωνᾶς, Θωμᾶς, Bap- paBas, BapoaBas, Κηφᾶς, Κλωπᾶς (John xix. 25), Χουζᾶς ; further ᾿Αρτεμᾶς, Anuds, ᾿Επαφρᾶς, Ἑρμᾶς, Ζηνᾶς, Θευδᾶς, Δουκᾶς, Μελεᾶς, ᾿Ολυμπᾶς, Παρμενᾶς, Σ᾽ κευᾶς, Σ᾽ τεφανᾶς, sup- posed to be mere abbreviations of current Greek names, as ᾿Αρτεμίδωρος, Δημήτριος, ᾿Επαφρόδιτος, Znvddwpos (Anec. Bek. Ρ. 857), Δουκιανός, Μελέαγρος, Παρμενίδης, etc.

b) Circumflexed appellatives of foreign origin, e.g. κορβανᾶς, σατανᾶς, μαμωνᾶς Gen. -ἃ, etc.

6) Barytone proper names whose last syllable is preceded by a consonant, as "Avvas, ’Apétas, Βαρνάβας, Iovéas Luke i. 39; Mark vi. 3, etc.), Καϊάφας (or Καΐφας Luke iii. 2 Lehm.) ; from the Latin, “Aypirmas Agrippa. The same analogy, doubtless, was followed .also by ᾿Αντίπας ( Avrimatpos?), Κλεόπας (KvXeorarpos? Luke xxiv. 18), ᾿Ελύμας ; and from the Latin, “Axdiras Aquila, Σίλας (Acts xv. 22, etc., always called by Paul SArovavds Silvanus, 2 Cor. i. 19, etc.), —of | which no Genitive is found. “Avavias is generally given in the lexicons with Gen. -a, contrary to analogy (see No. 8, above), but in the N. T. no Gen. is found; in the O. T., indeed, oceurs the Gen. ’Avavia (Neh. iii. 23), but also the regular "Avaviov Tob. v. 12 (13). Cf. ᾿Ιωσίας, etc. in No. 8, p. 18, above.

14 B. Words in ns. The proper name Φιλῆς, -ἢ, etc. serves as the paradigm. From the N. T. are to be referred to this class only a few isolated forms, as the collateral forms of Μωυσῆς given above, p. 19, and the Gen. "Iwo from ᾿Ιωσῆς (Matt. xxvii. 56 [Tdf. reads ᾿Ιωσήφ, after x etc.]). The proper names ᾿Ιαννῆς and ᾿Ιαμβρῆς have no oblique cases extant; yet according to Suidas (sub voce ) the Gen. of ᾿Ιαμβρῆς was ᾿Ιαμβροῦ. The Acc. ᾿Ιαμβρῆν occurs in Apocryphal writings.

15 Ὁ. Words in ws. These, according to Mehlhorn, ought properly all to bu accented as perispomena, as is still done, for

FOREIGN NAMES. 91

example, in rads, ταῶ (B. § 58), according to the direction of the ancient grammarians. Commonly, however, this rule is not observed in the editions (and mss.), but the words are accented as oxytones, and thus made to agree perfectly with the so-called Attic second Declension (B. § 87). And in gen- eral, amid the variety of views concerning this declension, even among the ancients, harmony can hardly be attained.

Accordingly, the proper name ᾿Απολλώς is inflected in the N. T. after the Attic 2d Declension, thus Nom. ’AzroAd@s Acts xviii. 24, Gen. -ὦ 1 Cor. i. 12, but likewise Acc. -ώ Acts xix. 1, yet in 1 Cor. iv. 6 Acc. ᾿Απολλών (after A, B, &); so too Kas the name of an island, Acc. Κῶ Acts xxi. 1.

16D. Words in ots. Inthe N. T. only ᾿Ιησοῦς, -od, -od, -ovv, -ov. Lastly, the analogy of all these words is closely followed by the inflection of ,

E) Aevis [-εἰς, etc. Ταῦ, (except in Rev. vii. T, ed. 7), Treg.] Luke v. 29, Gen. Aevi iii. 24, Acc. Aeviv v. 27.

17. The Gender of Proper Names in the case of persons follows the sex. As a specialty it is to be noticed, that the name of the heathen god Βάαλ has the feminine article in a quotation by Paul from the O. T. (Rom. xi. 4). In the O. T. ὁ and ἡ Βάαλ occur ; see Winer 179 (168).

Χερουβίμ (Lchm. [Tdf. 7, 8; Treg.] -Beiv) is construed as a neuter plural in Heb. ix. 5.

18. Names of cities, even when indeclinable, follow the general rule, that is to say, are feminine; as, ἡ ᾿ΙΪερουσαλήμ, ἡ Βηθλεέμ, ἡ Kava, etc. (John iv. 46, etc.). But if they are de- clinable the general rules hold ; as, ra Σόδομα, οἱ Φίλυπποι, ete. On ἡ ‘Iepocodvpa see No. 10 above, p. 18.

In like manner the names of rivers are Masculine, according to the general rule, as ὁ ‘Iopdavns ; so, too, when indeclinable: ὁ Kedpdév (John xviii. 1 Lehm.), ὁ Σιλωάμ John, Luke, (in Josephus also ἡ Scr. sc. πηγή, B. J. ὃ, 4, 2; 12, 2).

19. The names of the mountains Σινᾶ and Σιών are given in the lexicons as masculine. Their gender is not evident from the N. T., since they occur either without the article or in connection with τὸ ὄρος, and τὸ Suwa (Gal. iv. 25 Lchm.) may be explained by the rule that a word regarded as an independent object is made neuter. When we consider, ‘how- ever, that proper names frequently take the gender of the most

19

20

99 ANOMALOUS DECLENSION.

current appellative belonging to them (here, therefore, τὸ ὄρος), it is much more probable that these indeclinable names of mountains are also neuter. With this agrees the current O. T. phrase τὸ ὄρος τὸ Σινᾶ (Exod. xix. 11, 18, etc.), and there is no reason for giving a different explanation of this combination from that of τὸν ποταμὸν τὸν Εὐφράτην (Rev. xvi.12). Further, Σιών when, as is so often the case, it stands for all Jerusalem, is always feminine in the prophetic writings of the O. T., as Ps. exxxil. 138; Lam. i. 17; Zech. viii. 2, ete.

The Mt. of Olives, commonly called τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν (Matt. xxi. 1 etc.) also has the single name ᾿Ελαιών, Gen. -@vos (Acts i. 12 ἀπὸ ὄρους τοῦ καλουμένου ’EXa@vos),and must accordingly, like Greek names of mountains of the same form (Ki@apav, “Ελικών, etc.), be masculine. Nevertheless, in Luke xix. 29; xxi. 37 it is treated as indeclinable, consequently as neuter: πρὸς TO ὄρος TO καλούμενον ᾿Ελαιών ; so, too, in Josephus (e.g. Antig. 20, 8,6; B.J. 5, 2,3). Recent editors have, accord- ingly, rejected the former accentuation -ῶν and write ᾿Ελαιών, to distinguish it from the other designation τῶν ἐλαιῶν, which Luke also uses just afterwards: xix. 87; xxii. 389. Cf. Fritzsche ad Marc. Exc. III.

ANOMALOUS DECLENSION. B. § 56, N. 2; H. 8. 197; C. § 2238q.; J. § 116 sq.

The word σκότος, which so frequently occurs, is of the newter gender throughout the N. T. The statement in Wahl that it is also mase. is supported only by the reading — long ago dis- carded — of the Rec. in Heb. xii. 18 (τῷ σκότῳ).

Ἔλεος, of the masculine gender in Attic authors (see Pape), is in the N. T. only neuter,—in the four or five passages where the Rec. had the masculine the neuter having now been restored ; see the passages in Wahl.

Πλοῦτος, elsewhere only masculine, is often used by Paul as neuter, but only in the Nom. and Acc., e.g. 2 Cor. viii. 2; Eph.

1 Names of mountains, to judge from the Sept., have no established gender, — The neuter, however, is the most common. Thus we have τὸ ᾿Ιταβύριον ( Tabor), and, in the same combination as that given above with Sinai, τὸ ὄρος τὸ Ἐφραΐμ, τὸ ὄρος τὸ Σηείρ, τὸ ὄρος τὸ ᾿Αβαρίμ, τὸ ὄρος τὸ ᾿Αερμών, etc. Lebanon is masculine, ὁ Λίβανος, likewise Carmel, ὁ Κάρμηλος or ὃ Χέρμελ Isa. xxxii. 15 sq.; Jer. xlvi. (xxvi.), 18; but τὸ ὄρος τὸ Καρμήλιον also occurs (2 Kings ii. 25), and once even 7

Κάρμηλος (1 Kings xviii. 42), as also 7 ᾿Αερμών Josh. xi. 3 etc. But 4 Θαβώο 'n 1 Chron. vi. 77 is the city or region of Tabor.

-.

DEFECTIVE NOUNS. 93

i. 7, οἷο. ; in the Gen. always of the 2d Declension, Rom. xi. 33, etc.; (the Dative does not occur).

Ζῆλος is masculine as it is everywhere in Greek authors ; but in 2 Cor. ix. 2 (codd. Vat. and Sin.), perhaps also in Acts v. 17 (Vat.), the preference might be given to the neuter form (as in the Clem. Epp.). Only once, in the adverbial ex- pression cata ζῆλος (Phil. iii. 6), has the neuter been adopted by all the mss. [Sin. also].

*Hyos, altogether a later word (see Thom. Mag.), is mas- culine; but in Luke xxi. 25 the Genitive is ἤχους (if the reading [so Sin. also] is correct).

Instead of ἡ νίκη, which appears only once (1 John v. 4), the collateral form τὸ vixos, common elsewhere also in later writers, is usual; as, Matt. xii. 20; 1 Cor. xv. 57, etc.; so, too, in the Sept.

B. § 56, 6; H. § 200; C. § 226; D. § 284; J. ὃ 85, Obs. 2.

Of δεσμός both plurals (-μά and -μοί appear in the N. T.— 21] the first in Luke. That Paul takes the word as masculine follows from Phil. i. 18 (in the other passages the gender is not evident): and the usage of the Sept. (Jer. ii. 20; Job Xxxix. 5, etc.).

A metaplasm of the N. T. language, which however is in plain analogy with other metaplasms (cf. πρόσωπον, ὄνειρον, Β. ὃ 58; H.§ 199 and D; Ὁ. § 225 f.; Ὁ. § 284; J. 8 117), is found in τὸ σάββατον which regularly has σαββάτου, -w, Plur. τὰ σάββατα (Acts xvii. 2; see the following paragraph) σαββάτων. The Dative plural is almost uniformly σάββασιν ---- from the Hebr. nav, as if from a theme not in use. The reg- ular form, τοῖς σαββάτοις, Lchm. has adopted from the single codex B in only two passages: Matt. xii. 1,12; but between them (vs. 5), he gives σάββασιν as everywhere else.

DEFECTIVE, PLURAL, AND INDECLINABLE Nouns. B. $57, 1; H. $201; C. § 2278q.; D. § 284; J. 88 114. 118,

Jewish Names of Festivals have the plural form, according to Greek usage, as τὰ ἐγκαίνια, τὰ ἄξυμα ; “ἴῃν like manner τὰ γενέσια birth-day festival, and sometimes οὗ γάμοι when it is synonymous with convivium, epulae, Matt. xxii. 2; Luke xii. 36; xiv. 8. Also the plural τὰ σάββατα, both when it signifies a festival and a week, frequently alternates with τὸ σάβ- Barov ; see Wahl, and cf. e.g. Luke xviii. 12 with xxiv. 1, ete.

22

94 LIST OF ANOMALOUS NOUNS.

The Plural τὰ σάββατα appears even in the Sept., e.g. Lev. xxiii. 32, etc. Respecting Names of Cities see above, p. 18.

Further, the following are sometimes used as Plurals in the N. T.: οἱ κόλποι in the phrase ἐν τοῖς κόλποις τοῦ ᾿Αβραὰμ εἶναι Luke xvi. 23; τὰ ἀργύρια in the sense of money Matt. xxvill. 12 (Vulg. pecuniam), cf. the common reading in Mark xiv. 11, where, as in most other passages, the Sing. has been adopted ; τὰ ὀψώνια wages, synonymous with τὸ ὀψώνιον (Luke iii. 14, etc., cf. the Lat. stipendium) ; and, agreeably to a Jewish mode of thought, οἱ αἰῶνες the world (a2bi> Ps. cxlv. 13) Heb. i. 2, and οἱ οὐρανοί (ov2vin) Matt. iii. 16, etc. Also ‘ the holy place’ in the temple and ‘ the holiest of all’ are called in Heb. ix. 2,3 τὰ ἅγια and ἅγια ἁγίων after Ezek. xli., xlii. ete. Also the newly-formed word μεγιστᾶνες (equivalent to μέγα δυνά- μενοι, see Phryn. and Thom. Mag. sub voce) seems (like pro- ceres) to have been ordinarily used only in the Plural.

In the case of ai θύραι (fores) and τὰ ἱμάτια (clothing) the Plural form is sufficiently accounted for by the meaning.

The foreign word τὸ σίκερα intoxicating drink, like τὸ πάσχα, is indeclinable; in the N. T. it occurs only in the Acc. (Luke i. 15), but in the Sept. also in the oblique cases (Num. vi. 3; Deut. xiv. 26).

List or AnomaALous Nouns. Β. §58; H. § 202; C. $2238q.; D. § 284; J. § 112.

Instead of ὁ ἅλς salt (Mark ix. 49, 50) in the N. T. the later neuter form is more common: τὸ ἅλας (Gen. ἅλατος), Dat. ἅλατι Col. iv. 6, [in Mark ix. 50 Tdf. twice reads Nom. τὸ ἅλα, with x", etc.].

The Acc. of ἀρτέμων (Gen. -ovos) is according to mss. [Sin. also] ἀρτέμωνα in Acts xxvii. 40; so the Scholiast on Eurip. Med. 273.

In the N. T. ἔρις, after the analogy of ὄρνις, has the two Plur. forms ἔριδες, 1 Cor. i. 11, and ἔρεις --- at present only in Tit. iii. 9. In the other passages the editors have given the preference to the Sing. ἔρις (2 Cor. xii. 20; Gal. v. 20; 1 Tim. vi. 4); yet in Cor. and Tim. Tdf. ed. 7 restores ἔρεις again, [so Treg. in Cor. ; & only ἔρις, which Tdf. now adopts uniformly. ]

Of κλεῖς, likewise, both forms are found in Sing. and Plur.: κλεῖν Rev. iii. 7, κλεῖδα Luke xi. 52, ras κλεῖς Rev. i. 18, κλεῖδας Matt. xvi. 19.

ADJECTIVES. 25

Συγγενής, properly an Adjective, iike all words in ys of the 3d Declension, regularly follows the analogy of τριήρης. Only once is the Dat. Plur. ovyyeveto. found as an important variant Mark vi. 4 (also 1 Macc. x. 89). Whether this erroneous form, which arose probably from the resemblance between the inflection and that of nouns in evs (cf. Μωυσῆς), is to be attributed in the above passage to the scribes or to the author, may be doubtful; and on this account the reading has not been adopted [yet so in Mark, Tdf. eds. 7 and 8, and Treg.|. But it makes in favor of the latter supposition that in another passage (Luke ii. 44) [many of | the very same mss. (with the excep- tion of cod. Vat. which here also exhibits συγγενεῦσι) do not repeat the termination -eto. but give the regular form συγγενέσι, which also harmonizes perfectly with the general accuracy of form characteristic of Luke, as on the other hand the form ovyyevedou is congruous with Mark. Further, that the form acknowledged to be erroneous should be early altered by other scribes into the regular one, is quite natural ; and finally, it appears from the grammarian Herodian, in Cram. An. ΠῚ. p. 246, that this corrupt form must have actually been in frequent use (πολλῶν σφαλλομένων κατὰ κλίσιν δοτικῆς πτώσεως Kal λεγόντων συγγενεῦσι κτλ.). Otherwise he would have hardly found it necessary to demonstrate in detail, as he does, its erroneousness.

Κατήγωρ, a solecistic by-form of κατήγορος, occurs only in Rev. xii. 10; (it is wanting in the lexicons).

ADJECTIVES. B. $60; H. § 209 sq.; C. ὃ 229 sq.; D. $196; J. 8.127.

In the distinction of Genders of Adjectives in os certain irregularities and departures from the common usage occur in the N. T. The following deserve especial notice :

βέβαιος, in Attic authors generally of the common gender, always in the N. T. takes the form βεβαία in the Fem. ; see Wahl. ἔρημος, on the other hand, which in Attic writers has three endings, has invariably the Fem. ἔρημος Gal. iv. 27, etc., and Wahl is to be corrected accordingly.

ἕτοιμος fluctuates between three terminations and two, ome. xxv. 10: 2 Cor: ix. 63-1 Pet. i. δ.

apy Fem. of ἀργός (1 Tim. v. 13; Jas. ii. 20) is altogether : a later form ; see Pape, and cf. Tit. i. 12.

Not only ἐπουράνιος, which as a composite adj. must be of the common gender (Heb. iii. 1, etc.), but also the simple οὐράνιος, which is regularly of three endings (see Pape), has two terminations in the Ν. T.: στρατιὰ οὐράνιος Luke ii 13; ὀπτασία οὐράνιος Acts xxvi. 19.

4

20 ANOMALOUS ADJECTIVES.

ὅμοιος is always of three endings, only in Rey. iv. 3 we find ἦρις ὅμοιος (according to cod. A).

ὁσίους, too, in 1 Tim. ii. 8, as its very position indicates, is to be joined to χεῖρας, as is done by most of the commentators and the ancients. The Fem. does not occur elsewhere.

αἰώνιος, ordinarily even in the N. T. of the common gender, has the Fem. aiwvia only in two passages: 2 Thess. ii. 16; Heb. ix. 12, (cf. the common reading in 1 John ii. 25; Acts xiii. 48). '

B. § 60, 6; Η. §208; Ὁ. § 29; J. $121, 2.

χρύσεος contracts its feminine χρυσῆ Heb. ix. 4; on the other hand, the Acc. χρυσᾶν is given by Lehm. [Tdf. Treg.; so ~ cod. Sin.] in Rev. i. 13 (analogous to the Plural χρυσᾶς neut. χρυσᾶ). Contraction is neglected in the Gen. Plur. χρυσέων in Rev. ii. 1 Lchm.[Trg.,Tdf.7]. In Rev. also occur according to cod. Sin. χρύσεα, yadxea,— forms which (according to Phryn. p. 207) must have been generally in use among writers of thé κοινή.

B. § 62; H.°§ 212; C. § 23; J. $122, 1.

The Genitive βαθέως, which now on Ms. authority [Sin. also] is substituted in Luke xxiv. 1 for the regular βαθέος, rests on later usage ; see B. §51 N. 2; H. § 186; D.§101; J. l.c.; Tdf. ed. 7, p. liv. Perhaps, too, in 1 Pet. iii. 4 πραέως [Tdf. Treg.] should be read instead of πραέος.

Respecting ἡμίσους, etc., see p. 14.

B. § 63,1; H. $217; J. 8.180, 1.

The plural νήστεις from νῆστις, Matt. xv. 32; Mark viii. 8 [here Tdf. now reads νήστις ; so too in Matt. l.c. edd. manual. et stereot.], is a collateral form of the Plur., instead of νήστιες or vnatides, Which occurs also elsewhere, but is censured by the Atticists; see Lob. ad Phryn. p. 326; Fritzsche ad Marc. Exe, III. p. 796.

ANOMALOUS ADJECTIVES. B. § 64,2; H. $219 a.; C. ὃ 236 ο.; D. § 216; J. § 125, Obs. 2.

The form πρᾷος seems to be wholly unknown to the language of the N. T.; for not only in Matt. xi. 29 — the single passage where it still stood — has it been made by the editors to give way to the other form pais, agreeably to all the other passages (see Wahl), but the abstract substantive πραότης also has been, at least by Tdf., everywhere altered into πραὕτης. And

COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES. oT

this procedure is the more defensible because in the two pas- sages still remaining (Gal. vi. 1; Eph. iv. 2) in which Lcehm. has left the form πραότης (which he writes without iota sub- : script), important Ms. authorities [Sin. also] offer the other form; see the other passages in Wahl, to which Col. iii. 12 is to be added.

An example of the use of the indeclinable word ἐπάναγκες as an adjective by means of the article, after the manner of adverbs (see § 125, 10 p. 95), is Acts xv. 28 πλὴν τούτων τῶν ἐπάναγκες. Elsewhere the word does not occur in the N. T.

COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES IN -0s. B. 866, Ν. ὅ; H. § 221; C. $257; J. § 135.

The comparative of διπλοῦς, --- which in its ethical sense antithetic to ἁπλοῦς (see Pape) is capable of comparison, — -isin Matt. xxiii. 15 δειπλότερος, a form which can be shown elsewhere also in later authors (Appian, Praef. 10) and is con- structed as if from dvds, of which the Neut. plural διπλᾶ can be authenticated, at least in later poets; see Steph. Thesaur. and Lob. ad Phryn. p. 234.

OTHER Forms oF ComMPaRISON. B. § 67; H. $222; C. §261; Ὁ. §277; J. 8.186.

The form of the comparative of ταχύς peculiar to later Greck: ταχίων, τάχιον, is the only form in use in the N. T. as well as in the Old. In the New Testament, however, it occurs only as an adverb in the neuter: John xx. 4, etc. The com- mon form θᾶσσον has so completely passed out of use that it has not been preserved even as a variant.

ANOMALOUS CoMPARISON. B. § 68; H. $223; C. § 262; 2. § 280; J. $187.

The common comparison of ἀγαθός is κρείσσων, κράτιστος —the latter employed in addressing persons of rank and au- thority: Acts xxiii. 26; xxiv. 3; xxvi. 25 (cf. Luke i. 3; the Vulg. always uses optimus). Of the other forms of comparison only βέλτιον occurs once (ali an adverb), 2 Tim. i. 18.

The ordinary comparative of κακός is yelpwy—as well in the signification deterior as pejor, Matt. xxvii. 64, etc. The superlative does not occur.

25

28 DEFECTIVE COMPARISON.

DEFECTIVE COMPARISON. B. § 69,2; H. § 224; C. $262; D. $282; J. $140,

The positive #pewos (formed from ἠρέμα), which is very rare and not yet satisfactorily established from other writers, occurs in 1 Tim. ii. 2. Cf. Lobeck, Path. Proll. p. 158.

The adjectival forms of the comparative dvwrepos, etc., (questioned in B. § 69, 2 note) cannot be denied, at least in later writers. Accordingly in the N. T. we have them not only used adverbially in the Neuter, ἀνώτερον Luke xiv. 10 ete., but even as adjectives: τὴν ἐσωτέραν φυλακήν (Acts xvi. 24, ef. Heb. vi. 19), τὰ κατώτερα μέρη Eph. iv. 9.

B. § 69, N. 8; C. § 262 (c); D. § 283; J. § 140,

Two examples of double comparison occur in the Ν, T.: 3 John 4 wevfotrepos,and Eph. iii. 8 ἐλαχιστότεῤος. In general it is to be noticed, that in all such formations, which are not altogether rare either in poets or in prose writers, the two different kinds of comparison (by -τερος, etc. and -ίων, ete.) are always found united. The Latin language also presents anal- ogous phenomena, which in general belonged probably more to the popular language and to the class of arbitrary formations.

NUMERALS. | Β. 8 70.1; H. § 255; C. §248q.; D. §249 sq.; J. § 166.

Respecting εἷς καθ᾽ εἷς and similar expressions, see p. 80.

The later spelling οὐθείς, μηθείς is found in the N. T. (see Ταῦ, 7, 8 on1Cor. xiii. 2) alternating with the common one; indeed the two are found close beside each other, as in 1 Cor. xiii. 2, 3 (ef. Ιεροσόλυμα, Μαρία above, pp. 17,18). The same holds true of the derivative ἐξουθενέω, only that here the other form with 6 is incomparably more rare; Lchm. gives it only.in Mark ix. 12 and 2 Cor. x. 10; [so Treg. in Mark].

Remark. The Form ἐξουδενόω, which is given in the lexicons on account of Mark ix. 12, has been altered into the common form in -éw after preponderant Ms. authority. On the other hand, the form in -dw is very common in the Sept., and has now been adopted again by Tdf. in Mark ix. 12 (after Sin.) The mss. fluctuate between ἐξουδενέω, -dw, ἐξουθενέω, -dw; cf. Steph. Thesaur. sub voce,

The form δυοῖν from δύο no longer occurs, but instead of it in the Genitive the indeclinable form δύο, e.g. Matt. xviii. 16, and in the Dative δυσί, Matt. vi. 24, ete.

The spelling τέσσερες, τεσσεράκοντα is probably hardly

NUMERALS. 29

to be called an Ionism, but. rests merely on an erroneous usage of the Alexandrian period. For we never find the inflections τεσσέρων, -epot, as these cases run in Ionic, but invariably (even in cod. Alex.) τεσσάρων, τέσσαρσι, 6.5. Acts x. 11; Rev.

xxi. 17 (τεσσεράκοντα τεσσάρων). Since, however, the forms

with e have been transmitted principally by the above codex, whence they have often found their way into the O. T. (see Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 118), Lachmann, following the au- thority of cod. Vat., has adopted. them but sparingly, e.g. Acts i. 3; 2 Cor. xi. 24, and almost always in the Apocalypse. Tischendorf [cf. ed. 7, p. il] has them more frequently, — in particular τεσσεράκοντα throughout [so Treg. ] and the neuter Técoepa,—but otherwise τέσσαρες, -as, τεσσαρεσκαιδέκατος. To maintain consistency throughout is not advisable, since it is certain that both modes of spelling were in use, but it is best everywhere to follow the mss. Compare besides the form (received by Lchm.) κεκαθερισμένος for κεκαθαρ. in Heb. x, 2, and ἐκαθερίσθη in Tdf’s. last. ed. Matt. viii.3; Mark i. 42, ἐκαθέρισεν Acts x. 15 Tdf. [ed.7; Treg.], μιερός for μιαρός Barn. Act.19, p.71ed.Tdf. [In Rev. xxi.17 Treg. prints τεσσαράκοντα].

The rule of certain ancient grammarians relative to the accent of the compounds of ἔτος (Etym. Magn. τριέτης μὲν χρόνος, τριετὴς δὲ παῖς, cf. Winer p. 50 (49)) has been observed in the N.-T. by Lchm.; hence τεσσερακονταέτης χρόνος Acts vii. 23; xiii. 18, but ἑκατονταετής sc. ἀνήρ Rom. iv. 19 (-érns Tdf.). In the Rec. the rule was reversed; [Treg. accents the last syllable in every instance]. On the disagreement among the old grammarians. see. Schol. ad Il. yr. 266, and οἵ. Lehrs, quaest. epp. pp. 180, 147.

ORDINAL, AND OTHER DERIVATIVE NUMBERS. B. § 71, 1; H.§256; C. $240; D. 8 268, Obs. 1d.; J. § 165, 8.

As a later form for teccapaxawéxatos, and one peculiar to the N. T., τεσσαρες καιδέκατος is to be noticed: Acts xxvii. 27,53. Cf. the Ionic cardinal number Β. ὃ 70.

The cardinal eis takes. the place in one case of the ordinal πρῶτος (cf. B. p. 92 note 7). namely, in the common. phrase ἡ μία τῶν σαββάτων i.e. the first day of the week (see p. 23); as, Mark xvi. 2 (on the other hand, in vs. 9 πρώτῃ o.) Acts xx. 7, etc. Matt. xxviii. 1 also, where the article is wanting, is nevertheless to be understood like the other passages; cf.

26

27

80 ORDINAL, AND OTHER DERIVATIVE NUMBERS.

Rev. ix. 11 ἡ ovat ἡ μία with xi. 14. This use is borrowed from the Hebrew (see Wahl under εἷς, or Gesen. under smx), hence it is to be found frequently in the Sept. also, e.g. ἐν ἡμέρᾳ μιᾷ τοῦ μηνός Exod. xl. 2; Ezra x. 16, ete. Corres- ponding to ris for πότερος (B. § 78, 2) is the use of εἷς or ὁ εἷς in the sense of alter, ὁ ἕτερος ; see Wahl.

In 2 Pet. ii. 5 the ordinal number is used peculiarly, (having the force of the German selb-); thus ὄγδοον Nae Noah with seven others. Cf. αὐτὸς πέμπτος (B. ὃ 127, N. 2; H. 8 669; C. § 541¢.; Ὁ. p. 462; J § 656f.).

In compound numeral adverbs it is sufficient if the adverbial form occurs but once; as, Matt. xviii. 22 ἑβδομηκοντάκις ἑπτά.

Distributive numerals are destitute of a special adjective- form in Greek. In the N. T. accordingly they are sometimes, as in other Greek authors, expressed by adverbial con- structions, as ἀνὰ δύο Luke ix. 3 (see § 147 under ἀνά, p. 331), οἱ καθ᾽ ἕνα, κατὰ δύο, singuli, bint Eph. v. 33; 1 Cor. xiv. 27 (see § 147 under xara, p. 835). In this case the combination (unknown to classic Greek) deserves notice, by virtue of which εἷς is treated like an indeclinable numeral, or the preposition as a species of adverb, particularly in the for- mula εἷς καθ᾽ εἷς Mark xiv. 19 [Tdf. κατὰ]; John viii. 9 (Rev. iv. ὃ ὃν καθ᾽ &), and cf. Rom. xii. 5 τὸ δὲ καθ᾽ εἷς for εἷς ἕκαστος, Rey. xxi. 21 ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστος. Sometimes distributives are expressed by repeating the cardinal numeral, as is done in Hebrew (see Gesen. Lehrg. p. 703; Gr. § 118, 5), e.g. δύο δύο Mark vi. 7 with which the analogous expressions in 39, 40 συμπόσια συμπόσια, πρασιαί πρασιαί may be compared (Gesen. Lehrg. p. 669; Gr. § 106, 4).

Β. § 71, 8; H. § 258; C. § 240, 5; D. § 256; J. $161, δ.

The Multiplicative numerals are formed: in the parable of the Sower (uke viii. 8) by means of -πλασίων, ---- a termina- tion which in later writers came into frequent use (see Lob. Phryn. p. 411 note), καρπὸν ἑκατονταπλασίονα (like πολλαπλα- olwv Luke xviii. 80 ; see Pape, and cf. Xen. Oee. ii. 8 ἑκατοντα- πλασίονα) ; in Mark iv. 8 by circumlocution with a preposition, after the manner of distributives, as eis τριάκοντα, eis ἑκατόν 3; finally in Matt. xiii. 8, 23 by the simple cardinal.

1 This, at least, is that one of the ancient readings which Tischendorf [so Treg.] has followed. As respects the other (Lchm. Grsb. ete.) see Syntax § 126, 3 p.13.

PRONOUNS. 31

Pronouns. B. § 72; H. § 230; C. ὃ 248 5ᾳ.; D. § 282; J. $149, 1. The reflexive forms of the 3d Pers. Sing. and Plur. (οὗ, etc.) have passed quite out of use in the language of the N.T. On ἑαυτοῦ, (avTod), αὐτοῦ, etc. see below, Syntax § 127, 14 p. 111.

B. § 72, N. 8; H. $282; C. § 788 e.; D. ὃ δ (ο); J. 8 64, 8a.

The inclination of the accent in πρός pe has been adhered to by the editors of the N. T., as in Matt. iii. 14, etc. And Lehm. accents also the 2d Pers. in the same way when no especial emphasis rests on the Pronoun, as πρός σε Matt. xiv. 28; xxv. 39; Mark ix.17,etce. On the other hand, in John xxi. 22 τί πρὸς σέ; Matt. xxvi. 18 πρὸς σὲ ποιῶ τὸ πάσχα. With other prepositions the pronoun is always orthotone ; as, ἐν ἐμοί, ἐν σοί, ἐπὶ σέ, etc.; see the rule of the old grammarians in Herm. de emend. rat. p. 75. The accentuation πρὸς μέ often employed by Tdf. is uniformly to be rejected.

ἀντός ; THE REFLEXIVE Pronoun; THE RECIPROCAL. Β. § 74; H. § 2845q.; C. § 244; 1). § 284 8q.; J. § 150 sq.

Respecting the N. T. use of αὐτός as well as of the reflexive pronoun ἐμαυτοῦ, etc., see the Syntax ὃ 127, p. 107 sqq.

Though the use of the reciprocal pronoun ἀλλήλων is quite current in the N.T., yet the circumlocution by means of the numeral εἷς is also found, but only in isolated cases: 1 Thess. v. 11 οἰκοδομεῖτε εἷς τὸν ἕνα (interchanged with ἀλλήλους) ; cf. 1 Cor. iv. 6 ἵνα μὴ εἷς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνὸς φυσιοῦσθε κατὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου. This use is not ἃ Hebraism, see Winer, p. 173 (163), and ef. § 126, 3 p. 102.

tls, τὶς. B. § ΤΊ; H. $244; C. $258; D. §240; J. 5 166.

The secondary forms of τίς and tis are quite dakaows to

the N. T.; the Gen ὅτου. of the compound ὅστις occurs, indeed,

but only Ξ the conjunctional phrase ἕως ὅτου Matt. v. 25, ete.

The un-Attic (and poetic) μήτις for μηδείς occurs 1 Cor. xvi. 11.

CoRRELATIVES. B. 8 78, 2; H. $247; C. $63; J. § 874, Obs. 4.

The distinction between τίς and πότερος, which was some- times neglected even by the Greeks (like the use of qwis and uter by the Romans), seems to be wholly disregarded by the writers of the N. T.; for the form πότερος occurs but once and

28

29

32 SYLLABIC. AUGMENT.

in the double conjunction πότερον ... ἤ (John vii. 17), while everywhere else τίς is used, even where there is the plainest reference to two, as Matt. xxi. 81 τίς ἐκ τῶν δύο ἐποίησεν. See Wahl under τίς, and cf. B. ὃ 71,1. An analogy to this is offered by the obliteration of the difference between πρότερος and πρῶτος, -ov (although the Latins in translating still observe it in numerous instances), and likewise between ἄλλος and ἕτερος. For example, Heb. viii. 7 εἰ yap ἡ πρώτη ἐκείνη (Vulg. illud priws sc. testamentum) ἦν ἄμεμπτος, οὐκ ἂν δευτέρας ἐζη- τεῖτο τόπος, John xx. 4 ἔτρεχον οἱ δύο ὁμοῦ" ὁ δὲ ἄλλος μαθητὴς ἦλθεν πρῶτος (prior ἃ, Ὁ, ο, d,) εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον. Hence πρῶτος is even connected with the Gen. compar. (John i. 15, 80), respecting which see Syntax § 123, 14 p. 84.

THE VERB. SyLLaBic AUGMENT. B. § 88, 2; H. § 48; C. $277 sq.; Ὁ. § 805; J. §171, and Obs. 6.

The doubling of p after the augment, which, as is well known, was omitted only by the poets on account of the verse (B. ὃ 21, N. 2) has sometimes been neglected also in the N. T. Although double letters are often written singly in the Mss. yet the doubling of p in most verbs is never, or only in ex- tremely rare instances, omitted; accordingly we find ἔρριψα, éppnéa, etc. Hesitation, therefore, has justly been felt at making arbitrary alterations in those verbs in which the best codices sustain almost unanimously the single p. They are Matt. xxvi. 67 ἐράπισαν, Acts xvi. 22 περιρήξαντες (codd. Vat. and Sin.), 2 Cor. xi. 25 ἐραβδίσθην, Heb. ix. 19 ἐράντισε (cf. below, p. 33), 2 Tim. iii. 11; iv. 17 ἐρύσατο, ἐρύσθη, ---- (on the other hand, ἐρρύσατο 2 Cor. i. 10; Col. i. 18; 2 Pet. ii. 7). According to the analogy of these examples the cod. Alex. [Sin. also] (and Tdf. [so Treg.]) writes in John xix. 23 ἄραφος instead of dppados; and so frequently in composition after prepositions, as διαρήσσων Luke viii. 29, ἐπιρίψαντες xix. 35; 1 Pet. v. 7; cf. Mark ii. 21; Luke v. 6; Acts xvi. 22, etc.

B. 8.88, N. 1; H. § 319 b.; C. $280 b.; Ὁ. p. 195; J. § 175, Obs. 1.

The former reading μεμνηστευμένη Luke i. 27; ii. 5 is now set aside on the authority of Mss.; yet it is often found in the N. T. Apocrypha, and elsewhere also, e.g. in Diodor. (18. 23); see Lob. Parall. p. 10 sq.

TEMPORAL AUGMENT. 33

B. 8.88, N. 4; H. 8 819; ©. 8 169 6.; Ὁ. ὃ 805 b) Obs.; J. $176, 1.

The Homeric ῥερυπωμένα finds now two parallels in the text of the N.T., viz. ρεριμμένον Matt. ix. 86 (Lchm. after cod. D, ἐριμμ. Tdf. [Treg.]) and ρεραντισμένοι Heb. x. 22 (accord- ing to codd. [x] AC). Similar instances in later authors are adduced by Lobeck, Parall. p. 18. As respects the aspiration of the first p, Lchm. has in both cases [so Treg. in Heb.] given the smooth breathing, see Ausf. Sprachl. § 6 Anm. 8 Note, and Lobeck as above, who besides puts a breathing over the second p, as ῥέῥιμμαι. But as the opinions of the old grammarians do not quite favor the adoption of this, Géttling (on Theodos. p. 213 and Acc. p. 205) advocates the retention of the rough breathing on the first p, except in words of Aeolic origin ; and this is done by most editors. Cf. Steph. Byz. p. 543 Mein.

B. § 88, N.5; H. § 808 a.; ©. ὃ 279; D. ὃ 805 (ἢ); J. §171, Obs. 1.; Taf. ed. 7, p. lvi.

With μέλλω and δύναμαι in the N. T. both kinds of aug- ment are used promiscuously ; as, ἤμελλεν John iv. 47, ἔμελλεν vi. 71, ἠδύνατο Matt. xxvi. 9, ἐδύναντο Mark iv. 33. . But with βούλομαι the text of Lchm. [Treg. Tdf. apparently] always gives the simple augment: Impf. ἐβουλόμην Acts xv. 37; xxvilil. 18; Philem. 13; Aor. ἐβουλήθην 2 John 12; on the other hand, the Aorist of δύναμαι is always ἠδυνήθην [-ἄσθην Tdf. in Mark vii. 24 after x B], as in Matt. xvii. 16,19; 1 Cor. ili, 1, etc. Cf. besides, the anomalous ἐθέλω.

B. § 83, N.7; H. 8.811; C.284¢.; D. 8.811; J. §171, Obs. 4; Taf. Le.

The omission of the syllabic augment of the Pluperfect takes place, though not invariably (e.g. Luke xvi. 20; John ix. 22), yet in the majority of cases; hence πεποιήκεισαν, ἐκβεβλήκει, γεγόνει Mark xv. 7,10; Luke vi. 48. etc. See other examples in Winer § 12,9 p. 72 (70).

TEMPORAL AUGMENT. B. § 84,2; H. § 812; C. § 278; Ὁ. 8 805, Obs. 2; J. $173, 7; Taf. Lc.

With ἐργάζομαι the augment ev is the common one in the N. T. also; yet the other augment (7) has been received into the text on preponderant authority in Acts xviii. 3; Luke xix. 16 [Treg. «-]. In the other passages it is commonly found as a noteworthy variant (particularly in codd. Cant. and Clarom.) 30 [and adopted by Tdf.], as in Matt. xxv. 16 [Sin. also] ; xxvi. 10 [Sin. also] ; Rom. vii. 8; 2 Cor. x‘i. 12.

5

34 TEMPORAL AUGMENT.

The reading of the Rec. in Rev. vi. 14 εἱλισσόμενος is now set aside.

On the other hand, the number of the verbs that take the augment ev is increased in the N. T. by one, viz. ἑλκόω, Perf. Pass. Part. εἱλκωμένος Luke xvi. 20.

B. § 84, 5; H. § 810; C. § 218 d.; D. § 806 (2); J. § 173, 2; Tdf. 1. ὁ.

Verbs beginning with ed have now ev, now nv; and in fact, both kinds of augment alternately: εὐκαιρέω Mark vi. 31; Acts xvii. 21, εὐλογέω Luke ii. 34; Heb. xi. 20, 21, εὐφραΐίνω Acts ii. 26; vii. 41, εὐχαριστέω Acts xxvii. 35; Rom. i. 21, εὑρίσκω in the Imperf. Acts vii. 11; Luke xix.48; Heb. xi. 5.

On the other hand, εὖ alone is used in the other tenses of εὑρίσκω, as εὗρον, εὕρηκα, εὑρέθην, also in evdoxéw (yet not without variants, see Col. i. 19), and in the following verbs, which occur but once in augmented forms: εὐθυδρομέω Acts xvi. 11, εὐνουχίζω Matt. xix. 12; εὐπορέω Acts xi. 29.

But εὔχομαι has everywhere only ηὐ-, as ηὐχόμην Rom. ix. 3; ηὔχοντο Acts xxvii. 29 [εὔ- Tdf. Treg.]; προςηύχετο, προςηύξαντο viii. 15; Luke xviii. 11; Jas. v. 17,18, and in the case of evpopéw, Luke xii. 16, the Mss. are divided (Lchm. ηὐφόρησεν, [ev- 8 Tdf. Treg.]). Cf. further below, p. 88.

B. 8.84, N. 8; H. § 309 D.; C. $284b.; D. p. 201; J. § 174, 8.

Neglect of the temporal augment, after the manner of the Ionians, occurs in the N. T. but very rarely. Thus the mss. sustain ἐπαισχύνθη [ἐπῃ- δὲ] 2 Tim. i. 16 (on the other hand, it is regular in 2 Cor. vii. 14), διερμήνευεν Luke xxiv. 27; there is preponderant authority also for ἀνορθώθη [x ἀνωρ-] Luke xiii. 13; further, for προορώμην Acts ii. 25, and ὁμοιώθημεν [o- x Tdf. Treg.] Rom. ix. 29,— both in quotations from the O. T. (the latter, indeed, not taken into the text by Lchm., but placed on an equality with the reading adopted); also for οἰκοδόμησεν Acts vii. 47 Tdf. [ed. 2; Treg.] cf. Luke vii. 5 var. [in John ii. 20 Ταῦ, now reads οἰκοδομήθη], ἐποικοδόμησεν 1 Cor. iii. 14 Tdf. [Treg.] (on the forms of the Aug. of this verb see Tdf.’s crit. com. on Acts vii. 47), ὁμολόγησεν Acts Vii. 17 (Sin.), Sveyedpero John vi. 18 (Vat. [Treg.]). See more examples of the kind from the Sept. in Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 124,

The reading περιέστραψεν Acts ix. 3 Lehm., as if formed from περιστράπτω, may be noticed as an anomaly quite isolated. It is an

ΡΣ

THE AUGMENT IN COMPOSITION. 35

instance of carelessness, which zn such a writer as Luke is probably to be charged only to the transcribers, since in another passage (xxii. 6) of the same author the Inf. Aor. runs περιαστράψαι. Tdf. accordingly has not adopted it; see the various readings, and Steph. Thes. sub voce στράπτω. THe AUGMENT IN COMPOSITION. B. § 86,3; H. $316; C. 8.282; Ὁ. 8.810; J. § 180, 2.

Of the verbs belonging under this head evayyeAl fm (also mpoevayy. Gal. iii. 8) always has the augment in the middle, also in 1 Cor. xv. 2, see Wahl. On the other hand, the Perf. Inf. of εὐαρεστέω is now read after cod. A without augment, εὐαρεστηκέναι, in Heb. xi. 5 [δὲ εὐη-].

B. $86, N. 8; H. $815; Ὁ. $308, Obs. 2; J. § 181, 6.

Agreeably to the general rule, προφητεύω in the N.T. has its augment at the beginning: ἐπροφήτευον, -cav, etc. (see Wahl); yet everywhere with the variant προεφήτευον, ete. (especially in the Vat. cod., which the Rec. followed). Only once, Jude 14, has the text of Lchm. (not Tdf. [Treg.]) the augment in the middle. [Cf. Grimm’s Lex. sub voce.]

Β. 886, N. 4; H. 8.814; C. § 279 b.; D. p. 200; J. § 181. |

The number of examples of a twofold augment can be increased from the N. T. Thus throughout we find ἀπεκα- τεστάθη Matt. xii.13 etc.[so ἀπεκατέστη Mark viii. 25 Tdf.Treg. ], and ἠνεῴχθησαν, see the anom. οἴγω p. 63. On the other hand, ἀνέχομαι and διακονέω have the simple augment: ἀνείχεσθε 2 Cor. xi. 1 (and 4 Tdf. [Treg.]) ἀνεσχόμην Acts xviii. 14 Lehm. [Tdf. Treg.], διηκόνουν -noa frequently. On the double aug- ment see Poppo on Thue. 4, 180; and on this (common) διηκόνουν cf. An. Bekk. p. 1285; Moeris sub voce. Respecting ἀνορθόω see p. 84. (Cf. besides Ps. xlviii. 18, 21 cod. Alex.)

Future SuBJUNCTIVE. B. § 88, 1; H. § 262; C. § 269 Ὁ.

From the N. T. a number of examples of the Subjunctiva form of the Future are adduced. In very late Greek, like that of the Byzantine writers and Scholiasts and N. T. Apoc- rypha (which swarm with similar anomalies), forms of this sort (ἔσωνται, ἐλεύσωνται) are not to be denied ; but, according to Lobeck’s judgment (Phryn. p. 721), in the earlier authors down to the κοινοί they are to be charged wholly to the copyists,

31

32

36 FUTURE SUBJUNCTIVE.

whose ear had already become accustomed “Ὁ such hallf- barbarous forms (ib. 720). How far back, however, the beginnings of this usage are to be carried, would be hard to decide. A basis for-it is offered by μεμισθώσωνται in the Tabul. Heracl. (cf. Ahrens, Dial. Dor. p. 384). Respecting the usage of the N. T. authors, Lobeck, indeed, does not generally express himself; yet on the whole he seems to be opposed to the admission of such subjunctives even in the N.T, (p. 722). In point of fact, too, recent criticism has done away with most of the instances (cited by Winer p. 75 (72)): e.g. 1 Pet. ili. 1 κερδηθήσονται, Rev. xviii. 14 εὑρήσουσιν (εὕρῃς Ταῦ, [eds. 2,7], εὑρήσῃς Rec.). Also the first of the examples adduced there (1 Cor. xiii. 3 cav0jc@pav) has been set aside by Tdf. yet is still admitted by Lchm. [Treg.]; but the reading is altogether uncertain (the three leading mss. have καυχήσωμαι). Cf. Lob. p. 722. The reading of the received text in Luke xiii. 35 HE for ἥξει Lehm. Tdf. ean likewise be referred to this head. Jeon, which in John xvii. 2, owing to its strong support, can hardly be got rid of (although even in the Rev. it has yielded to the forms dace and δῶσεν, vill. 3; xiii. 16), may, if established, still be looked upon as an (erroneous) Aorist Subjunctive form, which in later times became more and more prevalent in the mouth of the people; (some of the modern Greeks still say ἔδωσα). See the numerous forms of the kind from δίδωμι and τέθημι in Lobeck as above, also in Cobet’s Nov. Lect. 266; Var. Lect. 96. ‘Lhe same holds geod of the clearly poansanitaall Subj. ὄψησθε in Luke xiii. 28 (Td, Treg. read ὄψεσθε, with codd. B D etc.}, formed from the else where unused theme ὄπτω and the Aorist ὠψάμην which actually occurs here and there. See in particular Plat. legg. p- 947 ο., and οἵ, Ausf. Sprachi. under ὁράω.

CHARACTERISTIC. Β. § 92, Ν. 8; H. ὃ 828 b.; C. $349.

Στηρίζω has commonly, in accordance with the rule, ornpig, ἐστήρικται, στηριχθῆναι; but the Aor. Imperat. is always στή- ρισον Luke xxii. 82; Rev. iii. 2 (likewise Ezek. vi. 2), and. besides, in cod. Vat. the same inflection is found also in Luke ix. 51 ἐστήρισε [so Tdf. Treg.], 2 Thess. iii. 3 στηρίσει (not in Lehm. [Treg.]). Hence the Perf. ἐστήρικα (not ἐστήριχα Jer. xxi. 10) and Fut. στηριῶ in the Sept

THE FUTURE. 97

Moreover σαλπίζω, though σάλπυγξ (var. σάλπιξ) -γγος Rev. i. 10 etc. comes from it, invariably has the forms σαλπίσει, ἐσάλπισεν Matt. vi. 2; 1 Cor. xv. 52 (and often in Rev., see Wahl), and likewise the subst. σαλπιστής instead of σαλπιγκτής Rev. xviii. 22.

Tue FUTURE. B. $95, H. $872saq.; C. § 805; D. § 802; J. § 208.

In the N. T. (as generally in later Greek, see Ausf. Sprachl. II. 315) φορέω (φορέσω) ἐφόρεσα 1 Cor. xv. 49 (Sir. xi. 5) belongs also to those verbs in é which in inflection do not lengthen the e. |

Respecting ἐπαινέσω see p. 53.

Contrary to rule, wewdw has uniformly Fut. πεινάσω, Aor. ἐπείνασα: Matt. xii. 1, 3, etc. See Lob. Phryn. p. 204.

The so-called Attic Future of verbs in (fw is quite usual in the N. T. Yet not from all these verbs; but, so far as can be gathered from existing evidence, a portion of them have ex- clusively the Attic Future, others the ordinary Future, still others both. By far the greater number, however, do not occur in the Future, and it is not always safe to draw an inference from the usage of the Sept. or of later authors re- specting that of the N.T. The Attic Future forms in the N. T. (in part quotations from the O. T.) are the following: ἀφοριεῖ, «ἰοῦσιν Matt. xiii. 49; xxv. 32, ἐλπιοῦσιν Matt. xii. 21; Rom. xv. 12, παροργιῶ Rom. x. 19, καθαριεῖ Matt. iii. 12; Heb. ix. 14 etc., ἐδαφιοῦσιν Luke xix. 44, μακαριοῦσιν i. 48, μετοικιῶ Acts vii. 48, ἐγγιεῖ Jas. iv. 8, χρονιεῖ Heb. x. 387, and in the O. T. there are many more of them. The following, on the other hand, have the Future in cw: γνωρίζω, jnvariably, John xvii. 26, ete., also Col. iv. 9 (where Tdf. [Treg.] and the Rec. read γνωριοῦσιν after [x] A C), θερίζω 1 Cor. ix. 11; Gal. vi. T etc., ἐμφανέζω John xiv. 21, ἐρίζω Matt. xii. 19, καθίζω Matt. xix. 28; xxv. 31, καταρτίζω 1 Pet. v. 10, μετασχηματίζω Phil. iii. 21, σχίζω Luke v. 36, χαρίζομαι Rom. viii. 32, χρηματίζω vii. 3, χωρίζω viii. 85, and ῥαπίζω Matt. v. 89 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7]. But ἐξυπνίσω John xi. 11, cxavdaricw 1 Cor. vill. 13, are Aor. Subjunctives. Κομίζομαι has both forms: 1 Pet.v.4; 2 Pet. ii. 18 (-voduar), Eph. vi. 8; Col. iii. 25 (-cowar) ; this may have occurred often, as well as in the O. T., e.g. ποτιῶ Num. v. 24, 26; Sir. xxiv. 31, ποτίσω Sir. xv. ὃ.

98

84

98 THE FUTURE.

Respecting στηρίζω and σαλπίξζω see above, p. 80 sq.

B. § 95, N. 18.

As proof of the statement that the N. T. writers give the Attic form of the Future even to such verbs as lengthen the vowel, several passages are cited with more or less reason (see Fisch. ad Well. 11. p- 359). After the rejection of those passages in which formerly a Future was erroneously supposed to be discovered (τί ποιῶ, etc.), the following have perhaps the greatest probability of such a use in their favor: Matt. xxvi. 18 ποιῶ, Luke xiii. 32 τελειοῦμαι, Luke xii. 20 ἀπαιτοῦσιν; ἴῃ particular, Matt. xii. 25 ἐρημοῦται and John xiv. 19; xvi. 16, 17 θεωρεῖ, θεωρεῖτε, since indubitable Futures (σταθήσεται, ὄψεσθε, etc.) correspond to them both before and afterwards. The supposition is opposed by (1) Its complete irregularity ; (2) The entire silence of the ancient grammarians, since, had the usage actually found place in the language, it is hardly credible that they should not on any occasion have taken notice of it; (3) The extraordinary circumstance that, if this form of the Future was possible, the examples of it are so uncom- monly rare, although the opportunity of employing it was so frequent, while yet the use of the Attic Future of those verbs that can form it regularly occurred so very extensively; finally (4) The fact that the Vulgate in translating the form employs almost always the Present ; which, on the other supposition, would hardly have been done where the temptation to use the Future lay so close at hand as e.g. in Matt. xxvi. 18. Only ἐρημοῦται does it translate by desolabitur and θεωρεῖτε by videbitis, probably on account of the other Future forms which follow.' Hence the admission of this anomalous Attic Future is un- warranted even in the language of the N. T., and such Futures are to be explained syntactically as Presents in which the future signification is included (§ 137, 10 p. 203). By this, however, it is not meant at all to deny, that the N. T. writers, affected by their frequent use of the Attic Futures were the more easily led to employ in pure verbs the Present instead of the Future, inasmuch as the feeling which demands the Future was in some measure satisfied by the circumflexed form. Cf. τί ποιοῦμεν (quid factemus) John xi. 47.

On γεννᾶται Matt. ii. 4 see Fritzsche on the passage, and below § 137, 9 p. 208.

1 The other (Ital.) versions have some of them the Future in the other passages also. But that this warrants an inference respecting the sense only, in no wise respecting the form, is satisfactorily shown by the circumstance that they translate other indubitable Presents also (leaving out of sight ἔρχομαι, ἐρχόμενος, see p. 58), such as ywdéoretat, ἀναβαίνω, δύναται (Luke vi. 44; John vii. 8; Matt. xix. 25) © by the Future, Cf. Lachmann’s preface (Ph. Bttm.’s coroll.) p. 50.

ALEXANDRIAN AORIST. 89

ALEXANDRIAN AORIST. B. 890, N. 1; C. § 827; J. §192,8; Tdf. ed. 7, p. lvi; Scrivener’s N. J. Crit. p. 416

Numerous examples from the O. T. of the Alexandrian Aorist in ὦ with the ckaracteristic of the 2d Aor. are given in Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 60 sq., and from the N. T. in Winer § 18, 1,a. p. 73 (71). Moreover, it is to be particularly noticed that both Aorist forms are constantly found in use by the same writer, often in close proximity (e.g. Matt. xxii. 22 sq. ἀπῆλθαν ... προςζῆλθον, Acts xxviii. 13 sqq. ἤλθομεν... ἤλθαμεν ... ἦλθον, xii. 10, etc.). This phenomenon is no more surprising than the simultaneous use by the Attics of the two Aorists εἶπον and εἶπα, ἤνεγκον and ἤνεγκα, formed after the same analogy. Accordingly, it is a very uncritical procedure (of which the Rec. has sometimes been guilty) to undertake by correction to carry through consistently the one form or the other in any writer ; but here if anywhere the authority of the greater num- ber of good mss. alone should decide in every particular case. To be sure, the editors often arrive in this matter at different results, according as they give this class of mss. or that the - preference, (the cod. Alex., particularly, has the Alexandrian form in such cases). Yet in general it will be found that in the instances belonging here the Alexandrian forms occur most frequently in the Ist Pers. Sing., the Plural throughout, and the inflected forms of the Imperative ; but never m the Infin. and Partic. Active (seldom in the Middle). Cf. with this the somewhat variable use of the two Aorists in the anom- alous φέρω and εἰπεῖν. For an example from the Sept. of the 2d Pers. Sing. see 2 Sam. iii. 34 ἔπεσας.

Thus in the N. T. we find used promiscuously the forms ἦλθον -ομεν -ετε, ἐλθέτω, and ἦλθαν etc. (the Ist Pers. ἦλθα is found only in Rev. x. 9), εἶδον and εἶδαν (John i. 40; Acts xii. 16 etc., εἴδαμεν in Acts iv. 20), but εἶδον always in the 1st Pers. almost without a single variant;! ἔπεσον [-cav Tdf.

ΤῸ is surprising that in the Apocalypse, amid the uncommonly numerous instances of the Ist Pers. Sing. εἶδον, nevertheless in one passage εἶδα is twice given (xvii. 3, 6) ; so that we are probably justified in attributing the form rather to the scribe of cod. A, which here is almost the sole authority [so T., Tr., N in vs. 6]. It may be further noticed that Tdf. [ed. 7; cf. Prol. p. lii] in the Apocalypse has everywhere [‘ plerumque’] adopted the Zorms ἴδον, and ta, which often occur in the Sept. [cf. Tdf.’s ed Prol. § 28, p. Ixxiii ed. 4]. In other books they seldom occur in the ss., see e.g. Mark xvi. 5 var.; Luke ii. 20 [Tdf.].

BO

40 THIRD FUTURE.

Treg.] Mark vi. 40 etc., and ἔπεσαν} Acts xii. T etc., also Ist Pers. ἔπεσα Acts xxii. T; Rev. i. 17, etc. and in the Sept. ; πέσετε Luke xxiii. 30 [are Ταῦ, Treg.] and πέσατε Rev. vi. 16, ἐξεπέσατε Gal. v. 4; εὗρον -ομὲν and εὗραν Luke ii. 10 Tdf. [ Treg. ], εὑράμενος Heb. ix.12. In the Middle αἱρεῖσθαι the Aor. εἱλάμην, εἵλατο has (except in the Partic. and Infin. Heb. xi. 25; Acts vii. 834) wholly supplanted the other: Acts vil. 10, 21; xii. 11; xxiii. 27; 2 Thess. ii. 13, (in the Active aveinate Acts ii. 23, ἀνεῖλαν x. 89).

Other forms, like ἔφυγαν, ἔλαβαν, éhaBapev, ἔβαλαν, ἐφάγα- μεν, ἔφαναν, belong for the most part only to the O. T., yet are found also in the mss. of the N. T. and here and there in modern texts, e.g. Luke v. 5 (A); Acts xxi. 27 (A [x, Tdf. Treg.]); Mark xii. ὃ (B); Acts xvi. 87; Rev. xviii. 19 Lehm. Ταῦ, [ed. 7]. But the Imperfect form εἶχαν Mark viii. 7 (Rev. ix. 8), παρεῖχαν Acts xxviii. 2, is wholly without analogy, although the editors have adopted it into the text because sus- tained by the testimony of the leading codices A and B (and x also). Inthe N. T. Apocrypha forms of the sort become more and more numerous.

Β. § 96, N. 2.

In the Active voice κρύπτω has commonly the Ist Aor., in the Passive the 2d; yet once it has also the 2d Aor. Active ἔκρυβον Luke i. 24 — [according to Sophocles, Gram. an Im- perfect ; cf. 2 Kings xi. 3; Soph. Lex. sub κρύβω; Lob. Phryn. p- 817]. See B. ὃ 92, Note 2, foot-note p. 122.

TuirD FurTuRe. Β. § 99; H. § 894; C. $819.

The Third Fut. (Passive), seldom used even by the Greeks in its peculiar force as a Paulopost Future and Future Perfect, belongs to the more delicate and artificial products of the Greek tongue. In the N. T., therefore, it no longer appears. On κεκράξομαι see the anomalous κράζω p. 61.

1 In Matt. vii. 25 also the mss. [δὲ also] give mposérecay, out of which Lehm., on account of the Latin translation and taking into consideration the frequent interchange of ε and αἱ (see e.g. avareoa for avamece Luke xiv. 10; xvii. 7 [Tdf. ed. 7, p. lvi], payee ib. 8, γυνεκαις 1 Cor. xiv. 34, and the still more uncouth αισθειεται for ἐσθίετε 1 Cor. x. 25 cod. G), thought he must make mposémauoay. Yet considering the rarity of the word mposratw (it occurs nowhere else in the N. T., and in the O.T. also, as well as in other authors, its existence is almost doubtful, see Stephanus sub voce; the usual word is rposrratw) Tdf. [so Treg.] has with reason given the preference to the ms. reading. Cf. besides the anom- alous πίπτω, p. 67.

ἤν

VERBS IN Aypyop. 41

VERBS IN Apvo. B. $101; H. § 345; C. $152; J. § 222.

Examples from the N. T. of the later formation in a from verbs in -aivw, -aipw are, σημᾶναι Acts xi. 28; xxv. 27; Rev. i. 1, ποιμάνατε 1 Pet. v. 2, ἐκκαθάρῃ 2 Tim. ii. 21, ἐβάσκανεν Gal. iii. 1 and even ἐπιφᾶναι Luke i. 79; thence the Subjunc. φάνῃ (Rec. φαίνῃ or φανῇ [Tr.}) Rev. viii. 12; xvili.23. Cf. the extended discussion in Lob. ad Phryn. p. 25. The spelling σημᾶναι, καθᾶραι in earlier authors (e.g. Xen. Hell. 1, 1, 2; Oec. 18, 8, etc.) probably arose only through later copyists. See Poppo and Dind. on Cyr. 4, 5, 86.

᾿Αποκτείνω uniformly retains the v in the 1st Aor. Passive ; thus, ἀπεκτάνθην Mark viii. 81, etc., see Winer ὃ 15, p. 83 (79). With κρίνω and κλίνω, however, this is never the ease. This usage holds good in the N. T. Of τείνω and πλύνω no Aor. Pass. forms occur.

B. § 101, N. 7and 8; ©. ὃ 60.

The Perfect Passive of μιαίνω, which in earlier authors (Plato, Thucyd.) is formed according to common analogy μεμίασμαι, is μεμίαμμαι in later writers (e.g. Dio C. p. 655, and cf. An. Cram. IV. p. 197); and this is. the form given by all the manuscripts in Titus i. 15. The form μεμίανται which occurs in the same passage may be taken (according to B. 8101, N.7) as 3d Pers. Plural; commonly it is explained as 3d Pers. Singular, like ἐξήρανται Mark xi. 21.1 This last-mentioned verb also has in the N. T. ἐξήραμμαι in the Ist Pers. Sing., ef. Mark iii. 1; xi. 20.

VERBALS IN τός. 2 B. 8102; Η. § 398; C. $269d.; Ὁ. p.190; J. $318.

Verbals in tos take the accent on the last syllable, as γραπτός, γνωστός, ὁρατός, ἀγαπητός, φθαρτός, etc. When compounded,

1 The Vulgate translates it inquinatae sunt. When. 6. Δα to this the express testimony of the scholiast on Arist. Plut. 635 (ἔχει δὲ τὸ. λελάμπρυνται τρίτον mpdswmov τῶν ἑνικῶν ὁμόφωνον τῷ τρίτῳ τῶν πληθυντικῶν, ὡς τὸ ἐξήρανται Kal κατήσχυνται καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα) and the other passages cited in the Ausf. Sprachl. I. 442, we can hardly regard the existence of the 3d Pers. Plural as so improbable as Schafer on Dion. H. de comp. verb. p. 355 asserts it to be; especially as to a Greck the ending -v7a: would naturally produce the impression of a plural. As further evidence towards establishing that form μεμίανται as plural, the quotation from an unknown poet in Suidas under ψαφαρῇ may serve: Ἕστασαν, οὐδὲ κόμας ψαφαρῇ. μεμίαντο κονίῃ, where μεμ. is manifestly plural, whether we read κόμας or with Valckenaer κόμαι. Hermann also (on Aesch. Pers. 569) takes the form

ἔρρανται as 3d Pers. Plur. of the Perfect. 6

36

BT

49 REMARKS ON THE REGULAR VERB.

however, they always draw back the accent if the composition first takes place in the Verbal; as, θεόπνευστος, δυσβάστακτος, εὔθετος, εὐπρόςδεκτος, εὔχρηστος, and all those compounded with a privative, the number of which is very great in the N. T., as ἄνυπτος, ἄφθαρτος, ἀπρόςιτος, ἀδιάκριτος, etc. On the other hand, if derived indubitably from verbs already compounded, they retain the accent on the last, as ἀνεκτός from ἀνέχομαι, εὐλογητός from εὐλογέω, ἐκλεκτός from ἐκλέγομαι, also συνεκλε- κτός, συνετός from συνίημι, etc. Those that do not do this must be regarded as first compounded in the Verbal, as ἀπόδε- κτος (simple δεκτός Luke iv. 19, etc.), σύμφυτος, ἔμφυτος, ἔκθετος, etc. 7

Verbals in tos derived from intransitive verbs have also an Active (intransitive) sense, as θνητός, παθητός (Acts xxvVi. 23), ἄπταιστος (Jude 24), dpeords, etc. See further respecting Verbals below, ὃ 134, 8, p. 190. On προςήλυτος see p. 74.

REMARKS ON THE REGULAR VERB. B. p. 162; H. 8.849; ©. 8.298; D. p.179; J. § 194.

Respecting the double form of the 1st Aor. Opt. Act. given in the paradigm, it may be remarked that in the 3d Pers. Sing. the form in a is the only one in use (hence probably in the 3d Pers. Plur. more correctly ποιήσαιεν Luke vi. 11 Lehm. [Treg. Tdf.], ψηλαφήσαιεν Acts xvii. 27 var.), and in the 3d Pers. Plur. of the Imperative of all tenses the forms in -τωσαν and -σθωσαν. Examples of both verbal forms abound in all parts of the N. T., e.g. 1 Thess. iii. 11,12; Heb. xiii. 21; Jas. v.14; Rom. xv. 11; Luke xxi. 21, ete.

B. p.162; H. § 363; C. 8 881; J. § 196. 7

Instances of the form in σαν in the 2d Pers. Sing. of contract verbs —a form which indubitably occurs in the N. T., and is elsewhere also in use here and there, and is accordingly cen- sured by the Atticists and even the anti-Atticists (An. Bekk. II. 77, 98)—are the following: ὀδυνᾶσαι Luke xvi. 25, καυχᾶσαι, κατακαυχᾶσαι Rom. ii. 17, 23; xi. 18; 1Cor.iv.7. Elsewhere it appears only in the two Future forms πίεσαι and φάγεσαι ; see the anomalous πίνω p. 66, and ἐσθίω p. 58.

B. p. 162; H. § 863a.; C. § 297 f.; J. § 196, Obs. 4. The 21 Pers. βούλει has been retained in the N. Τὶ CLuke xxii. 425, but the reading of the Rec. ὄψει is not found to be

REMARKS ON THE REGULAR VERB. 48

established by the codd.; hence recent editions have -ἢ, as generally in the 2d Pers., also of the Future, thus ὄψῃ, μαίνῃ, παρέξῃ, ἀπαρνήσῃ, etc. ; see Win. § 13. 2, p. T5sq. (73). The 2d Pers. of οἴομαι does not occur. In the N. T. Apocrypha always βούλῃ, ὄψῃ (Nicod. B. 6,9; Ep. Clem. 1, 39, etc.).

B. p. 163; H. ὃ 355 sq.; C. § 330; Ὁ. p. 258; J. ὃ 192.

The (Alexandrian, see An. Bekk. p. 91) termination, com- mon in the Sept., of -ocay for -ov especially in the 2d Aor. (see examples in Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 59; Mullach,Vulg. Spr. p.16), does not occur very often in the N. T. The reading of cod. A [x also] in 2 Thess. iii. 6, παρέλάβοσαν, has not been adopted by Lchm. [yet so Tdf.eds.7,8]; ἐδολιοῦσαν in Rom. iii. 13 is in a quotation from the O. T. (Ps. v. 9); and ἐδίδοσαν, which Winer p. 77 (74) adds to these, cannot be taken into account. In the 3d Pers. of 2d Aorists the ending -av was more common (ὖὗλθαν, εἶδαν), as observed above, p. 39. Accordingly we have only εἴχοσαν (John xv. 22, 24) left, — an Imperfect form, therefore, which is as isolated here as εἶχαν was above; see respecting it my article in the Stud. u. Krit. for 1858, Heft 3, Ρ. 485sqq. It is remarkable that this very form has the au- thority of cod. Alex. against it.

B. p. 164; C. § 380; D. p. 253; J. $191.

The ending -av for -aoz in the Perfect is now established in

many passages of the N. T., as John xvii. 7; Rev. xviii. 3 Lehm. [Tdf. Treg.]; Jas. v. 4; Acts xvi. 36 etc., see Winer § 13, p. 76 (78); yet not in all, see e.g. Luke ix. 36 [-av Tdf. Treg.]; Rev. viii. 2; 1 John ii. 18 (γεγόνασιν, but in Rom. xvi. 7; Rev. xxi. 6 etc. yéyovav), etc.

Quite without parallel is the 2d Pers. Sing. of the same tense wiih the ending -es for -as: Rev. ii. 3 κεκοπίακες. See Lehm. pref. p. 42 note, and cf. Exod. v. 22 Alex. This form of the Perf., however, was by no means uncommon in the Alexandrian dialect, as is apparent from Apollon. Synt. p. 37,9; 71, 12, and is found both in cod. Vat. and cod. Sin. in many other passages also.

The 3d Pers. Plur. of the Pluperf. Act. is uniformly -εἰσαν, as πεποιήκεισαν Mark xy. 7, etc., even when in Attic the form in -εσὰν is the only one in use see οἶδα, p. 51. (But ἀπ-, ἐξήεσαν Acts xvii. 15, etc.)

38

44 CONTRACT VERBS.

Conrracr VERBS. B. § 105; H. ὃ 870 sq.; C. § 809 sq.; D. ὃ 882 5ᾳ.; J. § 288 sq. The uncontracted Imperative ἀπόχεε (B. p. 174, note) has a parallel in the form (Rev. xvi. 1) ἐκχέετε (Rec. ἐκχέατε). Cf. Lechm. pref. p. 42 note.

B. p. 167, note; H. § 871; C. §809¢.; D. p.256; J. § 239.

In the more recent editions the ὁ subscript is omitted in the Infin. termination -év. Yet in consideration of the Infin. ter- mination -οὔν for -οῦν in verbs in 6w, which is here and there given and even accepted (Matt. xiii. 32, cf. Mark iv. 832; Heb. vii. 5 where Tdf. [so too Treg.] after cod. B reads dzroSexaroiv), ἡ the other mode of writing is perhaps to be preferred in the N. T.

8. § 105, N. 5; H. § 871; C. § 120; D. p. 262; J. § 289.

Of the-four verbs here mentioned, δυψιάω and πεινάω do not follow the rule, as they everywhere revert to the main rule and contract into a, e.g. Rom. xii. 20. That πεινάω (not dupa) retains the a in the other tenses also see p. 37.

Β, $105, N. 8; C. § 822; H. §870D.; D. p. 268 5ᾳ.; J. § 240.

As in the case of the forms τέσσερα etc., see above p. 29, so when contractions of verbs in dw which have ἡ in the Future occur oc- casionally as if from -éw (but only into -ov), we are hardly warranted in regarding them as Ionisms, but only as irregularities (perhaps of the scribes) occasioned by analogous forms. Thus we find ἠρώτουν Matt. xv. 23 [Mark iv. 10 Tdf.], νικοῦντι Rev. ii. 7,17 Lchm. [so T. Tr. vs. 17]; but νικῶντας again in xv. 2 (-otvras C.); [ἐμβριμούμενος John xi. 88 Taf. ; ἐνεβριμοῦντο Mark xiv. 5 Tdf.]. Numerous examples of the con- traction in ov may be quoted, moreover, from the Apocrypha of the N.T., the Apost. Fathers, ete.; cf. also Cram. Anecd. IV. p. 412.

Respecting the opposite change of éw into dw see ἐλεέω and ξυρέω in the list of anomalous.verbs, pp. 57, 63.

VERBS IN μι. B. § 107; H. § 400; C. § 45; D.§819; J. § 274.

The remark that the contracted forms of the 3d Pers. Plur. were those used in common Greek, does not hold at least in the N. T., for there only the ordinary Attic forms are in use, as τιθέασι, διδόασι Matt. v. 15; Rev. xvii. 13, etc.

Side by side with the common forms of the Pres. ἵστημι, the later Present form ἱστάνω occurs, especially in the Indic. and Partic., as συνιστάνω Gal. ii. 18, συνιστάνομει: 2 Cor. v. 12. é& συν- καθιστάνων Acts i. 6; viii. 9; xvii. 15; 2 Cor. x

CONTRACT VERBS. 45

12,18, ete. Besides this, the Rec. often had by-forms of the Pres. from the theme in dw, see Winer 78 (75). These, how- ever, in the Indic. and Partic. have all now been changed: some into the common form (as in 2 Cor. iv. 2; vi. 4), and some into that in vw (see above). The Infinitive in Lachmann’s edition [and Treg.’s] is given, as commonly, ἱστάναι (1 Cor. xiii. 2), and once as from the collateral form in da, viz. iota (2 Cor. iii. 1). But as important mss. give in both passages [x Tdf. 8in 2 Cor. 1.0.7 the form in -dvew, Ταῦ, [eds. 2,7] in con- sideration of the above examples has given it the preference.

The contracted forms of the Imperfect (B. p. 183), ἐτίθουν, ἐτίθει, ἐδίδουν, -ov are by far the most common forms in the N. T. as also in common prose, e.g. Matt. xxvi. 26; Mark iv. 8; vi. 7,56; Luke xxiv. 30; Acts ii. 47; iii. 2; iv. 35; 2 Cor. iii. 18, etc. Instances like ἐδίδοσαν John xix. 3; Acts xvi. 4, ἐπετίθεσαν Acts viii. 17, are exceptional, (and have for the most part important variants against them). In the Present of both verbs only the common forms (τίθημι, -σι, etc.) are in use, and the neuter Partic. ἀποδιδοῦν Rev. xxii. 2 is quite isolated. In Rev. iii. 9 we find διδῶ, which Lchm. [ Tdf. eds. 7,8] following thetwo leading mss. [but not Sin.] has adopted, manifestly for the Indic. (not Subjunc.), which here agreeably to the style of the Rev. stands for the Future (Vulg. dabo), the common form of which, δώσω, occurs ii. 17, etc.

The fourth formation in vwe occurs, indeed, in the N.T., yet perpetually alternating with the inflection in ὕω (which is more common in later authors). Forexample, from δεικνύναι we have δείκνυμι 1 Cor. xii. 31, δεικνύεις John ii. 18, dedevvow Matt. iv. 8; John v. 20, δεικνύειν Matt. xvi. 21, ἐπιδεικνύς, ᾿ ἀποδεικνύντα Acts xviii. 28; 2 Thess. ii. 4, δεικνύοντος Rev. xxii. 8, ἐπιδεικνύμεναι Acts ix. 89: from ὀλλύναι: ἀπόλλνε Rom. xiv. 15, ’AzrodAvov Rev. ix. 11 (ef. Sir. xx. 22), ἀπόλλυται 1 Cor. viii. 11, -ὑμεθα Matt. viii. 25, -ύμενοι 2 Cor. iv. 9, etc. In other verbs the form in vw has almost completely superseded the other; for instance, from ὄμνυμι we have ὀμνύει, ὀμνύετε, ὀμνύουσι; ὀμνύειν in Matt. xxvi. 74 (but in the parallel passage Mark xiv. 71 ὀμνύναι; where, however, cod. A [so Sin.] also has -vew); further, ἐστρώννυον, ἐζώννυες, etc.

In the Subjunctive of the Pres. and 2d Aor. Act. the ordinary contracted forms (710, θῶ, etc.) are everywhere found.

40

46 CONTRACT VERBS.

Yet of δέδω με three forms of the 8d Pers. Sing. have been preserved, viz.

1) The regular (6:66) δῷ Matt. v. 25; John xv. 16 Lehm. [ Treg. Tdf.], and often.

2) διδοῖ, δοῖ. These forms are not Optative [cf. e.g. Tdf. ed. 7, p. lvii] but Subjunctive, and have arisen by regular con- traction from a theme in όω (cf. μισθόῃ, μισθοῖν) : 1 Cor. xv. 24; Mark iv. 29; [viii. 37 T. Tr.]; xiv. 10,11; John xiii. 2, (and as important variants in John xiii. 29; Eph. iv. 29; 1 Thess. v.15; Luke xxii. 4). And in like manner from the syncopated Aor. ἔγνων comes the 3d Pers. Subjunc. yvot Mark v. 43; ix. 30; Luke xix. 15 (John xi. 57 var.). In 1 Mace. xi. 40 we find παραδοῖ ; in Hermas, Mand. iv., yvot (Sin.). On the Subjune- tive cf. § 139, 37, p. 233.

3) δώῃ (not δῴη or δῴῃ) as if from a lengthened form de. This form is the rarest and is quite without analogies in later Greek in its favor. It occurs in Eph. i. 17 Lehm. [δῴη Tdf. eds. 2,7,8; Treg.] (B 66), 2 Tim. ii. 25 Lchm. [δῴη Tdf. eds. 2, 7,8; Treg.] and John xv. 16 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7; ed. 8, Lchm. Treg. δῷ].

The 2d Pers. Sing. appears always in the form δῷς, γνῷς : Mark vi. 25; Luke i. 4; Rev. iii. 8 [Ταῦ Treg. γνώσῃ]; ete.

The (Pres. and) Aor. Optative of δίδωμι, which in ac- cordance with the syntax of the N. T. occurs but rarely, has the later form (dd@nv) δῴην ; see Lob. Phryn. p. 346. Of the passages cited by Winer p. 78sq. (75) only Rom. xv.5; 2 Tim. i. 16, 18 (according to Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] also Eph. i. 17 [ed. 8; so Tr.]; iii. 16 ; 2 Tim. ii. 25 [ed. 8; so Tr.]; iv. 14) belong under this head, as the others have been changed in modern editions, some into the Subjunctive(da, d@7)some into the Future(dacev).

B. 8107, N. 1.8; H. $402; C. 8 806 ο.; D. p. 183; J. §277. The Aorist in κα of the three verbs τίθημι, δίδωμι, ἵημι is uniformly in use in the N.T., not only in the Sing. and 3d Pers. Plur. but also in the Ist and 2d Pers. Plur., so that in the Indicative it has almost completely supplanted the 2d Aorist; as, ἐδώκαμεν, -re, Matt. xxv. 35; Mark vii. 13; Gal. iv. 15; 1 Thess. iv. 2; ἀφήκαμεν, συνήκατε, etc. Matt. xiii. 51; xix. 27; xxiii. 23; Mark x. 28, etc.; (only once παρέδοσαν Luke i. 2). The Moods, on the other hand, are formed from the 2d Aor, throughout.

CONTRACT VERBS. 41

Respecting the very anomalous Subjunctive δώσῃ, see p. 86 above.

B. §107, N. I. 14; H. $401; ©. § 297; J. $274.

The 2d Aor. Imperative of ἵστημι occurs in both forms: ἀνάστα Acts xii. T ete., and ἀνάστηθι, ἐπίστηθι Acts ix. 6, 34; 2 Tim. iv. 2. Cf. the anomalous βαίνω, p. 54.

The Present Imperative Pass. of ἵστημι has only the full form ἵστασο: 2 Tim. ii. 16; Tit. iii. 9.

The 3d Pers. Sing. of the Imperf. and 2d Aor. Middle of δίδωμι ought, according to common usage, to run ἐδίδοτο, ἔδοτο, as Lchm. [so Treg.] reads in Matt. xxi. 83; Mark xii.1; Luke xx. 9. But in other passages according to pretty trustworthy authority (and in the [last two of the] above three also accord- ing to cod. A [and in all three according to codd. & B]) it is preserved for us with the ending -ero, as if from the theme δίδω. Thus dvedidero Acts iv. 35, amédero Heb. xii. 16, παρεδίδετο 1 Cor. xi. 23, and often in the Sept. e.g. Ex. ii. 21; v.13 Alex. That this erroneous inflection is not unexampled in later Greek may be seen from Stephanus, Thes. under δίδωμι ; cf., too, the theme ἕω under fs, p. 48. The more recent collations have shown that both cod. Vat. and cod. Sin. rather favor than oppose this form. Both codd. exhibit prima manu almost always -ετο. Hence it is not to be discarded from the N.T.; on the contrary, the form in -oro is rather a later (Grecizing) correction.

The Future form ἐκδόσεται (Matt. xxi. 41) has been set aside.

Β. § 107, m. 21; H. § 416; ©. § 50; J. § 819.

The Aorist and Future Pass. ἐστάθην, σταθήσομαι occur very frequently in a purely neuter force, interchangeably with ἔστην, στήσομαι. - Examples abound in all parts of the N. T., as Matt. xii. 25; Luke xviii. 10; xxi. 86; Rev. vi. 17; Rom. xiv. 4, etc. Both forms σταθῆναι and στῆναι are united in Mark iii. 24 sq. Ταῦ, [Treg.]. . Winer’s statement p. 252 (287) that the Ist Aor. Act. ἔστησα also occurs in an intransitive sense is without foundation; for in the isolated instance, Acts XXvil. 28, an object (as ναῦν or ἑαυτούς) is to be supplied, ac- cording to the well-known rule (δ 180, 4 p. 144), which is to be applied also to the N. T.

Of the syncopated forms of the Perfect, we find most frequently in use — but always alternating with the full forms —

tI

42

48 CONTRACT VERBS.

the Infin. ἑστάναι (Acts xii. 14; 1 Cor. x. 12) and the very common Partic. ἑστώς, ἑστῶσα. The Neuter in the abbreviated form is ἑστός Matt. xxiv. 15; Rev. xiv. 1 (Tdf. [ed. 2] ἑστώς [7, 8, Tr. ἑστός7). On the other hand, the full form ἑστηκός is found Mark xiii. 14 [-κότα T. Tr.]; Rev. v. 6 [-κώς T. Tr.].

Of the collateral form of the Present we find στήκει John i. 26 ete., στήκετε (Indic. and Imperat.), and the Subjunc. στήκητε 1 Thess. iii. 8, (see B. p. 187, Note *); and one ex- ample of the Perfect ἕστακα in a transitive sense, Acts viii. 11 (cf. 9 and 13).

ἵἕημι, B. 8 108, 109; H. § 408; C. p. 78; D. p. 295; J. § 283 sq. :

It is by far the most difficult task to lay down the N. T. use of the verb tu; for nowhere do the mss. (and consequently the editions also) vary so noticeably as in the case of this verb. Since its use is frequent, we will distribute the forms which occur under the various themes.

1) Present yc: Under this head we comprise the common use, which is in the main that of the N. T. also, as is attested by the forms ἀφίησι, ἀφίετε, συνιᾶσι (2 Cor. x. 12 Lehm. [T.Tr.]), ἀφιέτω, συνιῶσιν (Mark, Luke), cumeis; Aorist συνῆκα (see p. 46), παρεῖναι (Luke xi. 42), συνῶ, ava (Heb. xiii. 5), ἄφες, σύνετε (Mark vii. 14), aveis; Passive ἀφίεται, ἀφίενται, καθιέμενος, παρειμένος. The Aor. Pass. is only found unaugmented: ἀνέθη Acts xvi. 26, ἀφέθησαν Rom. iv. 7.

2) Theme ΕΏ. Here belongs (besides the regular Pres. Subjunc. given above) the Indic. 3d Pers. Plur. if accented as perispome (συνιοῦσιν, adiodow), as is done by Tdf. [eds. 2, T] Matt. xiii. 18 [ed. 8 also]; Rev. xi.9; 2Cor. x.12. But the form has few analogies. Still, they are now offered us by Hermas ; who, indeed, in the Infin. uniformly has συνιέναι, but elsewhere always συνιῶ, συνιεῖς. Yet since (according to cod. Simon.) Hermas gives the Imperat. ove, perhaps we ought also to read everywhere συνίω, συνίεις ; but in Mand. 6, 2 cvmeis is a Future. Lchm.[soTreg. ]has accordingly sometimes( with cod. B)changed it into the regular form, and sometimes accented it as proparoxy- tone [cf. T. on Rev. 1. c.]— in this way bringing it under the

8) Theme ‘IN. Here belong, besides this 3d Pers. Plur. ἵουσιν, the 1st Pers. ἀφίομεν Luke xi. 4 (and moreover, as an important variant in Matt. vi. 12, etc.), the Partic. συνίων Rom.

CONTRACT VERBS. 49

iii. 11 (Tdf. again from “IEQ: συνιῶν, see above; but quite erroneously in the Rec. συνιών Matt. xiii. 23), Eph. v. 17 var., ἀφίονται in cod. D (Matt. ix. 2, 5 [cod. Sin. also], etc.), and especially, the thoroughly established Imperfect form ἤφιεν Mark i. 384; xi. 16, (on which cf. B. p. 194, 5; J. § 284, and Lehm. praef. p. 43). Finally

4) Theme ‘EQ —to which belongs the isolated ἀφεῖς Rev. ii. 20.

5) Besides, there is still the Perf. Pass. 8d Pers. Plur. ἀφέωνται, already mentioned in B. p. 191, Note *. This seems to be a Dorism not peculiar to the N. T. but, on the contrary, rather widely extended, and even received by Attic writers ; see Ahrens, Dial. Dor. p. 344; Bredow, Dial. Herod. p. 395. Tdf. [eds. 2,7] adopted it throughout, Lchm. [Tdf. ed. 8, Treg. ] only in Luke and John (also in 1 John ii. 12), but in Matt. and Mark ἀφίενται instead. See the passages in Wahl, and Winer § 14, p. 80 (77).

ἦἣμαι.

The 2d Pers. Sing. κά θῃ and Imperat. κάθου, noticed (in Β. p- 192) as later forms, are both found in the N. T. — the former in Acts xxiii. 3, the latter in a quotation from the O. T. (Ps. ex.) in several passages (Matt. xxii. 44, Acts, Heb., etc.), and else- ‘where also: Jas. li. 3.

ἕννυμι.

Instead of ἀμφιέννυμι (Matt. vi. 80, etc.) the N. T. has a by-form ἀμφιέξω Luke xii. 28 Tdf. [Treg.] which has been formed, it is supposed, from the ordinary Fut. ἀμφιέσω. Lehm. (after cod. B) substitutes for it the still more anomalous form ἀμφιάζει, not found elsewhere in the N. T., with which we have to compare only the (unreceived) reading of cod. D ἠμφιασμένος in Matt. xi. 8. The form ἀμφιάζειν, however, is found in the O. T. (e.g. Job xxix. 14; xl. 5) and sometimes elsewhere also in later writers; see Steph. sub voce. On the derivation of this form (held by the ancient grammarians to be a Dorism) cf. Lobeck, Rhemat. p. 228.

εἰμί,

The later by-form of the Imperat. 3d Pers. Sing. (B. p. 198, Note +; C. p. 14. ; Ὁ. p. 229; J. 8 286, 2), ἤτω, is found in 1 Cor: xvi. 22; Jas. v. 12, (on the other hand, ἔσθιε in Matt.

7

43

44

50 CONTRACT VERBS.

11.13; 1 Tim. iv. 15; ἔστω in 1 Pet. iii. 3; ἔστωσαν, etc.). Further, the Imperf. 2d Pers. Sing. ἧς (questioned by Winer 80 (76)) is found without variant, and has accordingly been received, in Matt. xxv. 21,23; John xi. 21,32; xxi. 18; Rev. iii. 15. On the other hand ἦσθα as usual in Matt. xxvi. 69; Mark xiv. 67.

The 2d Pers. Plur. of the Imperf. is only ἦτε, Rom. vi. 20, etc. As to Luke ii. 33 (ἣν .. . θαυμάζοντες) see § 129, 3 p. 127.

In the 1st Pers. Sing. the Imperf. has uniformly the Mid. form ἤμην (so that ἣν in the N. T. is only 3d Pers. Sing.), as Matt. xxv. 35, etc. (see Wahl); rarely in the 1st Pers. Plur. ἤμεθα, Matt. xxiii. 30; Acts xxvii. 37. On the other hand, ἦμεν as usual in Rom. vii. 5; Eph. ii. 3[Tdf. Treg. ἤμεθα], ete

With regard to the inclination of εἰμί the remarks made, Ρ- 6 above, hold true.

As an example of the peculiar style of the Apocalypse, often setting at defiance the laws of Grammar, may be here set down the frequently recurring formula ὁ ὧν καὶ ὁ ἣν; for here the Imperf. 3d Pers. Sing. ἦν, ἴῃ the want of a Partic. Pret. of εἷναι, is not only used as such a Partic., but also the entire expression itself (by the use of the Art.) is treated like an indeclinable noun: i. 4,8; iv. 8; xi. 17.

εἶμι,

This verb, so common with the Greeks, does not occur as a simple verb in the whole N. T. (also not in the O. T., with the exception, perhaps, of ἔθε Prov. vi. 6); but instead of it other and more expressive verbs are everywhere used, as ἔρχομαι, Baivw, ὑπάγω, etc. Even in John vii. 34, 36, where some would read εἶμι, the only correct reading is εἰμί.

In composition it appears, but almost exclusively in the Acts (which approximates most closely to the Greek diction), as €&-, ἀπήεσαν, eistévat, (εἴςιθε in cod. B Acts ix. 6), eisyes, ἐξιόντων, ἡ ἐπιοῦσα 50. ἡμέρα ; see the passages in Wahl. Else- where isolated compound forms occur; but still only in Luke (viii. 4) συνιόντος, and the Ep. to the Heb. (ix. 6) eislacw.

κεῖμαι. This verb is plainly used as Perf. Pass. οἵ τίθημι (B. p. 198,4) in Acts xxviii. 20 ταύτην τὴν ἅλυσιν περίκειμαι. Of. § 134, 7 p. 189.

DEPONENTS PASSIVE. 51

οἶδα.

Of οἶδα the regular (unsyncopated) forms of the Indicative are the only forms in use; thus 2d Pers. οἶδας (Matt. xv. 12, etc.), Plur. οἴδαμεν, οἴδατε (xxii. 16; xx. 25, etc.), also 3d Pers. οἴδασιν (Jude 10; Luke xi. 44, etc.). Only in the Acts again do we find once (xxvi. 4) the Attic 8d Pers. Plur. ἴσασιν, and in James i. 19 the best Mss. give ἴστε (Vulg. also scitis) instead of the reading of the Rec. ὥστε, although the author elsewhere (iv. 4) writes οἴδατε.

The forms of the Moods correspond to the Attic, even in the Imperat. of which the syncopated form ἴστε occurs Eph. v. 5; Heb. xii. 17.1

The Imperfect has only ἤδεις in the 2d Pers. Sing., Luke xix. 22 etc., and in the 3d Pers. Plur. always ἤδεισαν, according to what was said on p. 43; as, Mark xiv. 40; Luke iv. 41; John ii. 9; Acts xvi. 3, ete.

DEPONENTS PASSIVE. B. § 118, 4; H. § 418; C. § 266; D. §§ 387. 438; J. § 820.

The custom of Deponent Verbs — or of such as in the Middle form receive a peculiar meaning, whether transitive or intrans- itive — to form their Aorist out of the Passive steadily increased in later times, as may be gathered, for example, from the list of those verbs which may have both Aorists, since then the Pas- sive Aor. belongs for the most part to the latér period. Thus ἀπεκρίθη, is far more common in the N. T. than ἀπεκρίνατο (this occurs e.g. Matt. xxvii. 12; Acts iii. 12, etc.) ; ἀνάγομαι, αὐλίζομαι, have only ἀνήχθην, οἴο. Yet there are also cases of the opposite kind, as ἀρνέομαι, ὁπλίζομαι, and others still are used quite promiscuously, as ἀγαλλιάομαι 5 (John v. 35; viii.

1 At any rate the Vulg. has scitote in both passages. Still, in both passages it suits the contents better to take this form as 2d Pers. Plur. Indicative, — especially in the Ep. to the Heb., which, moreover, in many respects approximates to the classic Greek more nearly than do the other Epp.

2 This verb (peculiar to the N. T. and Sept. and also to the ecclesiastical au- thors, but to profane writers almost unknown) is in all probability not a Greek word but of oriental origin, coined out of the Hebr. bry (δ, D53R, abstr. mma) to rejoice, which is often, especially in the prophetic writings, rendered by ἀγαλ- λιᾶσθαι. Accordingly, with the word ἀγάλλομαι it has originally nothing to do. Probably, however, it may have found support in this well-known word (as is the case with all languages in the ad-ption of foreign words, Grimm, deutsch. W6rterb. Vorr. p. xxvi) to which in signification also it has a distant resemblance. The Hebr. consonant " on the reception of the word took its place after the liquids, — a position better suited to the Greek utterance.

46

52 DEPONENTS PASSIVE.

56, etc.), ἐμβριμάομαι (Matt. ix. 80; Mark i. 43). However, a complete exhibition of the use of all deponent and middle verbs would carry us too far, and the subject must consequently be left (as being of a lexical rather than a grammatical nature) to the special dictionaries, or to a more extended discussion.

But that in the language of the N. T. the Passive formation was employed in general, far more than was the case earlier, to denote the reflexive or intransitive sense answering to the Active, may for example’s sake be illustrated in a few instances. Thus we have already seen (on p. 47) that the Aor. Pass. ἐστάθην often stands precisely in the sense of ἔστην, and is interchanged with it. So e.g. in Matthew κριθῆναι means in Vv. 40 merely litigate (but vii. 1 μὴ κριθῆτε purely Pass. be yudged), διακριθῆναι xxi. 21 doubt, EnpavOjvar xxi. 19 etc. dry up, φιμωθῆναι xxii. 12 grow dumb, σκανδαλισθῆναι, -θήσεσθαι Xi. 6 etc. take offence, σπλαγχνισθῆναι ix. 36 etc. feel compassion, ἄρθητι καὶ βλήθητι xxi. 21 raise yourself and cast yourself (cf. Luke xvii. 6), ἠγέρθη xxvii. 64 swrrexit (Vulg.), ἐγέρθητε xvii. T, ἐνεβριμήθη ix. 80 comminatus est, συνήχθησαν xxii. 84; ΧχΥ. 32 convenerunt; and connected with a new object (according to ὃ 135, 3 p. 191): ἐντραπήσονται τὸν υἱόν μου xxi. 81 vere- buntur filiwm meum. ᾿Εγενήθην, γενηθήτω (vi. 10; ix. 29) alternates with the ordinary Aor. Mid. γενέσθαι; and ὥφθη, so common (xvii. 3, etc.), means not was seen but appeared, and hence is connected with the Dative αὐτοῖς (not ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν; with which ef. the familiar use ὃ 184, 2 p. 187). Or to take examples from James: μαρανθήσεται i. 11 will wither away, ὑποτάγητε iv. T a pure reflexive submit yourselves, so too μεταστραφήτω iv. 9, ταπεινώθητε iv. 10, etc.

B. § 113, N. 6; H. $415; C. 8. 688; J. § 368.

That certain tenses of deponent verbs, especially the Perf. Aor. and Fut. Pass., are used in a passive sense, abundant examples may be brought from the N. T. fo show ; for in fact the usage was somewhat current among the Greeks. Thus are used θεαθῆναι Matt. vi. 1; xxiii. 5, ἀσφαλισθῆναι from ἀσφα- λίσασθαι xxvii. 64, 65, ἴαται Mark v. 29, ἰαθήσεται Matt. viii. 8, χαρισθῆναι, λογισθῆναι, μνησθῆναι (Acts x. 31), ἐπιλελησμένον ἐστίν (Luke xii. 6), ete. Very rarely (as also among Greek

ANOMALOUS VERBS. 53

authors) does this take place in the Present, e.g. λογίζεται Rom. iv. 4, 5, and probably also βιάζεται Matt. xi. 12, see the commentaries and cf. Luke xvi. 16, and relative to the similar use of βιάζεσθαι by the Greeks see Pape.

B. § 118, N.7; H. ὃ 412; C. § 584; Ὁ. § 844; J. § 321.

Exactness in the employment of the Fut. Mid. of many verbs as an ordinary Fut. has undergone a marked dimi- nution in the N. T. and among the «ovvol in general. To be sure, ἀκούσομαι still occurs often enough, especially in the Acts (the Mid. form almost exclusively in the 1st and 3d Pers. Plur., John v. 25, 28; Acts xxi. 22; xxviii. 28; xvii. 32; Rom. Χ. 14 var.; Active, John x. 16. Cf. κλαίω p. 60 sq.), but likewise often ἀκούσω, -σετε Matt. xiii. 14 etc. ; further ἀπαντήσω Mark

xiv. 13, γελάσω Luke vi. 21, διώξω John xv. 20 etc., ἐπαινέσω

1 Cor. xi. 22 Tdf. [eds. 2, 7,8; Tr.], ἐπιορκήσω Matt. v. 33, κλέψω Rom. xiii. 9 etc., σπουδάσω 2 Pet. i. 15. The Future form in Luke xii. 9 cod. Sin. ἀπαρνήσεται (although in itself considered genuine Greek, see B. § 113, 6) rests probably on a mistake of the copyist (for -νηθήσεται).

Β. 8118, N.9; C. § 576.

The remark that the alleged Passive sense of the Aor. Mid. is extremely rare, holds good also in reference to the N. T., inasmuch as the examples referred by some to this head (Gal. v.12; 1 Cor. x. 2 Tdf. [eds. 2,7; Treg.]; 2 Cor. v. 4) are all to be taken in a Middle or Neuter (not Passive) sense. Acts xv. 22 even the Vulgate translates correctly, eligere viros ex eis et mittere.

ANOMALOUS VERBS.

! Β. $114; Η. § 451; ©. 8 50; Ὁ. § 868; J. § 250 sqq.

ayvupe. The retention of the augment in tenses other- wise without it occurs Matt. xii. 20 (xared&ev), John xix. 31 (xateayaow). Of. ἀνοίγω under οἴγω, p. 62.

ἄγω. For an example of the 1st Aor. in composition see 2 Pet. ii. 5 ἐπάξας. On the other hand, κατ-, ἐπωγαγεῖν Acts v. 28, etc.

aipéw. Respecting the Alexandrian Aor. 3d Pers. Plur. εἷλαν (Acts x. 39), Mid. εἱλάμην, etc., see p. 89. Examples of the Fut. ἑλῶ in composition see in Luke xii. 18 (καθελῶ), Rev. xxii. 19 (ἀφελεῖ) ; of. Josh. ii. 18 ἐξελεῖσθε.

41

48

54 ANOMALOUS VERBS.

ἅλλομαι. The Aorist has the form ἥλατο Acts xiv. 10; but Partic. ἐφαλόμενος Acts xix. 16 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.] (al. ἐφαλλ.).

ἁμαρτάνω. Future ἁμαρτήσω Matt. xviii. 21. The Aorist always has in the Indic. the form ἥμαρτον ; in the Subjune. alternate the 2d Aor. ἁμάρτῃ, ἁμάρτητε (1 John ii. 1, etc.) and the 1st Aor. ἁμαρτήσῃ Matt. xviii. 15, ἁμαρτήσωμεν Rom. vi. 15 (Rec. -σομεν), even in close proximity, as Luke xvii. 3, 4. The Partic. is always ἁμαρτήσας : Rom. v. 14,16; 2 Pet. ii. 4; Heb. iii. 17. Hermas invariably uses ἡμάρτησα, ἁμαρτήσας, etc.

ἀπειλέω threaten, elsewhere only Active (1 Pet. ii. 23), is used by Luke as Mid. in the same sense, Acts iv. 17, 21.

ἁρπάξω has the first formation throughout: Fut. ἁρπάσω Matt. xii. 29; Mark iii. 27; Johu x. 28, Aor. ἥρπασα Acts viii. 39 etc., (Perf.) Pluperf. συνηρπάκει Luke viii. 29, Ist Aor. Pass. ἡρπάσθην Acts xxvii. 15; Rev. xii. 5. On the other hand, from the second formation it has only tenses with a pure characteristic: 2d Aor. Pass. ἡρπάγην 2 Cor. xii. 2, 4, Fut. ἁρπαωγήσομαι 1 Thess. iv. 17.

αὐξάνω has not only the causative sense, make grow, 1 Cor. iii. 6, Fut. αὐξήσω 2 Cor. ix. 10 etc., but also the immediative, grow, (Matt. vi. 28, etc.), for which also the Mid. or Pass. form αὐξάνομαι is used, 2 Cor. x. 15; Col. i. 10. The Aorist in this sense is both ηὔξησα Acts vii. 17 and ηὐξήθην Matt. xiii. 82; 1 Pet. ii.2. The simple Pres. form αὔξω only in the latter sense Eph. ii. 21,—also in Col. ii. 19 αὔξει τὴν αὔξησιν according to ὃ 131, 5 p. 148.

Baivw. The syncopated Imperat. Aor. has in composition both forms, as in the case of ἴστημι (see p. 47); thus κατά-, μετάβηθι John iv. 49; vii. 8 etc., μετάβα Matt. xvii. 20, ἀνάβα Rev. iv. 1 Tdf. [also Treg.]. The further inflection appears Matt. καταβάτω xxiv. 17 Lchm. [Tdf. Treg.], Mark xiii. 15; Luke xvii. 91, ἀνάβατε Rev. xi. 12.

βαρύνω. This theme does not occur at all in the N. T. (also no longer in Luke xxi. 34), but instead the un-Attic (except in the Perf., see Thom. Mag. sub voce) theme βαρέω: BapeicOw, βεβαρημένος, βαρηθῶσιν, ἐπιβαρῆσαι, etc., [yet κατα- βαρυνόμενοι Mark xiv. 40 Lchm. Tdf. ΤΥ θρ.].

βιόω has been almost completely supplanted (in the Fut. and Aor. also) by the verb &v, as we find only βιῶσαι, 1 Pet. iv. 2. See ζῇν, p. 58.

ANOMALOUS VERBS. 55

βλαστάνω has in the Aorist only the later form of the 1st Aor. ἐβλάστησα Matt. xiii. 26; Heb. ix. 4; also in an Active sense Jas. v. 18, on which cf. § 131, 4 p. 147. The Subjunce. Pres. is βλαστᾷ in Mark iv. 27 (Rec. βλαστάνῃ) from a col- lateral form βλαστάω, hardly to be found elsewhere (see Schol. Pind. Pyth. 4. 113 θάλλει καὶ βλαστᾷ). “

γαμέω. The Aor. runs indiscriminately now ἔγημα Luke xiv. 20 etc., now ἐγάμησα Mark vi. 17 etc., both side by side 1 Cor. vii. 28. As respects signification, it is used in the Active as well of the man as of the woman, as in the above passage from Cor., where the difference in form does not indicate a difference in sense, but is purely accidental; for subsequently (vs. 84) γαμῆσαι is used also of the woman. In the Mid. (Pass.) it is always used of the woman, but in the Aor. it has only the Passive form γωμηθῆναι, instead of the Attic γήμασθαι, vs. 89 etc. On the collateral form γαμίζω, éxyapifw, see the lexicons.

γίνομαι. The Aorist has far more frequently the Attic form of the 2d Aor. Mid., especially in the Subjunc. and Optat. (μὴ γένοιτο), than the emulctic 1st Aor. Pass. ἐγενήθην 1 Thess. li. 5 etc., of which the Imperat. γενηθήτω often occurs in the πϑυόνν, the Partic. in Heb. iv. 8. Partic. γεγονώς in sense like natus, old, in 1 Tim. v. 9.

γινώσκω. Respecting yvot (Aor. Subjunctive) see under δίδωμι. p. 46.

That the Pass. of γινώσκω should sometimes (1 Cor. viii. 3; xiii. 12 ; Gal. iv. 9) be taken as Pass. of the causative signification (cause to know, bring to the knowledge of) like the Heb. Hophal, so that ἐγνώσθην ὑπὸ θεοῦ would mean ‘I was brought to knowledge by God, is an error which modern interpretation has already left behind it. See the com- mentaries on the above passages, and Winer 263 (247).

δέομαι. The uncontracted form ἐδέετο [Tdf., also cod. Sin.] in Luke viii. 38, Lchm. has altered after several Mss. into the still more anomalous form ἐδεεῖτο (cf. Job xix. 16 Alex.), thus formed as it were from the same theme from which comes the common Aor. ἐδεήθην Matt. ix. 38, etc. Cf. the form δεούμεθα in the anti-Atticist, Anecd. Bekk. I. p. 90.

δύναμαι. By the side of the common 2d Pers. Sing. δύνασαι is found sometimes the form (censured as Indic.) δύνῃ, Mark ix. 22; Rev. ii. 2. On the other hand, δυνήσῃ is now

49

56 ANOMALOUS VERBS.

read [yet Treg. Tdf. ed. 8, δύνῃ ; so x also] in Luke xvi. 2. Respecting the augment see p. 33.

δύω has in the Present, as often in later writers and the Sept., the intransitive sense: (of the sun) ἐπιδυέτω Eph. iv. 26. The neuter by-form δύνω, Luke iv. 40, ought to form the Aorist ἔδυν, as also was formerly read in Mark i. 32. But recent editors, after preponderant Ms. authority [yet see be- low], give even here the 1st Aor. ἔδυσαν (in Luke iv. 40, also, cod. D has dvcavtos) used by Greeks only transitively ; and the compound παρειςέδυσαν, Jude 4, also has this intransi- tive sense. Elsewhere the Ist Aor. Act. in composition (ék-, evdvw) regularly has the transitive signification; in the in- transitive or reflexive (clothe one’s self) the form of the 1st Aor. Mid. makes its appearance. The syncopated Aor. ἔδυν has consequently passed quite out of use in the N.T.; cf. φύω p. 68. Yet the reading ἔδυ (Mark.i. 32 Tdf.) gains now a new support in cod. Sin. Instead of παρειςέδυσαν cod. Vat. gives -δύησαν, formed quite after the analogy of ἐφύην. Cf. Lobeck’s note in Buttm.’s Ausf. Sprachl. 11. p. 821, under dda.

The Present by-form (διδύσκω) ἐνδιδύσκω, Mark xv. 17; Luke viii. 27; xvi. 19, analogously formed but unknown to earlier brhinig has a iinsitive sense.

éyeipw. The Present Active has sometimes, but as it seems only in the Imperative (Matt. ix. 5,6; Mark x. 49; Acts iii. 6; Eph. v. 14), the intransitive signification (similar to ἄγε). In the Rec. it was formerly,in opposition to settled au- thority, altered into the Mid. form ἔγειραι ; this form was the less admissible as the Aorist in a neuter sense always in the N. T. has the Passive form ἠγέρθην ; see p. 52 above. Cobet has everywhere restored éyepar again. But Suidas (sub voce) censures expressly the erroneous (and hence actually occur- ring) use of ἔγειρε.

(ἕξομαι) καθέζομαι. The Imperf. ἐκαθεζόμην has every- where plainly the Imperf. signification sat, was sitting, Matt. xxvi. 55; John iv. 6; xi. 20, synonymous therefore with the Imperf. ἐκαθήμην John vi. 3; Mark ili. 32, or with the very common periphrasis ἣν καθήμενος Acts ii. 2, etc. In the Present καθέζομαι is not in use except in the Participle (Luke ii. 46; Acts vi. 15). See the N.T. use of the forms which belong here under iw, p. 60.

ANOMALOUS VERBS. BT

ἐθέλω. Although in the Present only the shorter form θέλω occurs, yet the augmented forms alwaystake 9: ἤθελον, ἠθέλησα. The Perf. does not occur. (On τεθέληκα Ps. xli. 12 see Phryn. sub voce and Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 64.)

εἰπεῖν. Respecting εἶπον and εἶπα see p. 39. Besides the forms of εἶπα usual in Attic writers (εἶπας, εἴπατε, etc.) we find 1st Pers. εἶπα Heb. iii.10 [Tdf.Tr. retain εἶπον] in quotation, Acts xxvi.15, προείπαμεν 1 Thess. iv. 6, 3d Plur. εἶπαν frequently interchanged with εἶπον (e.g. Matt. xxvii. 4, 6), Partic. e/mas Acts vii. 37 etc. and εἰπών vs. 60 etc. The Imperative with the ending -ov is accented by the recent editors εὐπόν (Acts xxviii. 26; Mark xiii. 4, cf. Luke x. 40 var.). This accentuation, if the form is taken as Ist Aor. Imperat., conflicts with the rules of the old grammarians (Arcad. p. 169 δισύλλαβα παροξύνονται ἢ προπερισπῶνται" νεῖμον, εἶπον ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰπέ K.T.r.), ANA εἶπον accordingly is the only correct Attic accentuation, see Ph. Buttm. Exc. I. ad Plat. Men. and Xen. Mem. 3,6, 8. But as respects the Scriptures, the testimony of the old grammarian

50

Jo. Charax (see Etym. Mag. sub voce; Varini Hcl. p. 172 Dind.) ΄

is too clear and definite to allow us to adhere to the same accentuation in the N. T. (λέγει ὁ Χάραξ, ὅτι τὸ παρὰ τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ προςτακτικὸν ὀξυτόνως λεγόμενον, οἷον εἶπόν ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰπέ, δευτέρου ἀορίστου ἐστὶ κατὰ τὴν Συρακουσίων γλῶσσαν λεγόμενον ... οἷον λάβε λάβον, καὶ τὸ ἄνελε ἄνελον. εἰ οὖν εἰπέ ὀξυτόνως, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ εἶπόν K.T.r.) ; On the other hand, the same gram- marian expressly lays down the accentuation εἶπον for Me- nander. Mid. ἀπειπάμην 2 Cor. iv. 2. The less Attic mode of writing the 1st Aor. Pass. ἐρρέθην instead of ἐρρήθην (Matt. v. 21, etc. [yet Tdf. reads -ἐθην even here]) is now everywhere established in Paul (Rom. ix. 12, 26; Gal. iii. 16) and in the Apocalypse (vi. 11; ix. 4), so also commonly in

the Sept. (Gen. xv. 13; 2 Sam. v. 6, etc.). The Partic. is

always ῥηθείς, even in the Sept. (Gen. xlv. 27).

ἐλεέω. The collateral Pres. form éAed is not only estab- lished by the ss., Rom. ix. 16 [so x], (18 [not x]); Jude 23 [so x], but is also sufficiently attested by the testimony of the old grammarians (see Etym. Mag. and Steph. Thes. sub voce) as wellas by other analogous examples (as ξυρέω, Evpaw). In such verbs, however, the forms that arise by flexion always take η: ἐλεήσω, ἐλέησον, ξυρήσωνται, ἐξυρημένος, etc. See

8

51

58 ANOMALOUS VERBS.

Etym. Mag. p. 129, 49 and cf. ἐλλογᾶτο Rom. ν. 18 (A, [-αται x*]), ἐλλόγα Philem. 18.

ἑλκόω. Respecting the augment see p. 34.

épavvdaw, the Alexandrian spelling (see Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 117) for épevvdw, hence often found in cod. Alex., as Rom. xi. 35; 1 Pet. i. 10; 1 Cor. ii. 10, has been received only once by Lehm., in Rev. ii. 23; on the other hand by [Treg. and] Tdf. everywhere (even in Rom. viii. 27 with cod. Sin.).

ἔρχομαι. Respecting the Alexandrian Aor. see p. 39, Since εἶμι is not used in the N. T. (except in composition, see Ρ. 50), the Pres. in its mood-forms (ἔρχου καὶ ide), the Im- perf. ἠρχόμην, and the Fut. ἐλεύσομαι make their appearance again; in connection with which it is to be noticed, that (like the Pres. ejus in Attic authors) ἔρχομαι here, agreeably to its signification, often has a future force, John ix.4; xiv. 3 (πάλιν ἔρχομαι καὶ παραλήμψομαι) etc., (cf. the Germ. ich komme). See the passages in Winer 265 (249), and cf. p. 38 above; also § 137, 10 p. 203.

ἐσθίω. The by-form ἔσθω, otherwise only poetic (Zon. Lex. sub voce ἔσθειν σπανίως καὶ, εἴπερ dpa, οἱ ποιηταί), has sometimes, although not very strongly attested, been adopted into the text: Luke xxii. 30 ἔσθητε, Mark i. 6 Tdf. [Treg.] ἔσθων. Yet the form is found also in the O. T.: Lev. xvii. 10, 13; Sir. xx. 16, etc. [cf. Tdf.N. T. ed. 7 Proleg. p. il].

Instead of the Attic Fut. ἔδομαι the N. T. employs the anal- ogous form φάγομαι, as Jas. v. 3 (ἔσται καὶ φάγεται), Rev. xvii. 16 (in the midst of Futures), Luke xiv. 15 (μακάριος ὃς φάγεται, Vulg. manducabit), and with a new anomaly in the 2d Pers. Sing. φάγεσαι, Luke xvii. 8 (Micah vi. 14, etc.). See p. 42.

εὑρίσκω. On the Alexandrian Aorist see p. 40, on the augment p. 84, and on the formerly received readings εὑρήσηῃς, -σωμεν p. 36.

ἔχω. On εἶχαν 8668 p. 40, εἴχοσαν p. 43. On the augment of ἀνέχομαι see p. 3d.

am. This verb, common in the N. T., has both forms of the Future: ζήσω John v. 25; 2 Cor. xiii. 4 etc. and ζήσομαι Matt. iv. 4 etc., see the lexicons. The Future and the Aorist ἔζησα have also the signification of ava ζῆν come to life (again) in Matt. ix. 18; Rom. xiv. 9; Rev. xx. 4,5; and in Luke xv.

ANOMALOUS VERBS. 59

24, 82 cod. B [and in vs. 32 x also, which Tdf. and Treg agree with] has ἔζησεν instead of the received ἀνέζησεν.

Instead of the Imperf. 1st Pers. Sing. ἔζων, Rom. vii. 9, cod. B exhibits ἔζην ---- a form analogous in structure to ἔζη, ζῆθι, ζῆναι; hence it early became current and has been often pre- served in the manuscripts of Attic authors even. Respecting its doubtful Attic currency and the contradictory statements of the Atticists, see Ellendt, Lex. Soph. under ζάω, and Buttm. Ausf. Sprachl. § 114.

ἡγέομαι. The Perf. ἥγημαι ἴῃ Phil. iii. 7, taken by some as a Pres., stands plainly in antithesis to the following ἡγοῦμαι. Cf. however Acts xxvi. 2 and Bhdy. Synt. p. 379.

ἥκω. The Perf. 8d Pers. Plur. ἥκωσιν, very anomalous not only as respects form but signification also (for the Present has already the sense of the Perfect), Lchm. [so Tdf. Treg.] has adopted in Mark viii. 3, sustained by the codd. AD [x also ] and the translation (venerwnt). As the form does not occur again in the N.T., the readings ἥκουσιν (Rec.) and εἰσίν (Tdf. feds. 2 and 7] after cod. B) seem plainly to be mere correc- tions. This Perfect is one of those isolated irregularities of the language, occasioned by the signification and perpetuated by the thoroughly analogous appearance of the form (ef. διαπεφυλάκασι Xen. Cyr. 8, 6,3), of which examples are to be met with not only in deteriorating Greek but in all ages, especially in dialects less cultivated than the Attic. Moreover, the form ἧκα as Perfect has Alexandrian precedent (caper, -te, -ow Gen. ΧΙ. 7; xlv.16; xlvii.4; Job xvi. 22; Sus. 52, etc.), and is found elsewhere also in writers of the κοινή ; see Steph. Thesaur.; Lob. ad Phryn.; Ep. Clem. 1, 12, etc.

Respecting the Subjunc. ἥξῃ see p. 36.

ἡττάομαι. The Ionic form of the 180 Aor. Pass. (but with the augment) ἡσσώθητε for ἡττήθητε (A) has been received by Lchm. [Treg.] after a few mss. [δὲ also] in 2 Cor. xii. 18.

θάλλω. The 2d Aor. ἀνεθάλετε, very rare elsewhere or even doubtful (Lob. Paral. p. 557), is used by Paul, Phil. iv. 10, as also sometimes in the O. T., Ps. xxviii. 7; Sap. iv. 4; Sir. xlvi. 12.

θαυμάζω. The Passive which elsewhere means only to be won- dered at (2 Thess. i. 10) is used in the Apocalypse quite like a depo- nent Pass.: Aor. ἐθαυμάσθη wondered, Fut. θαυμασθήσονται, xiii. 3 [Tdf. reads ἐθαύμασεν dAnetc.|; xvii. 8 [Tdf. Treg. read θαυμάσονται].

52

53

60 ANOMALOUS VERBS.

θνήσκω. The syncopated form τεθνάναι is given Acts xiv. 19 by Tdf. [ed. 2; but in eds. 7 and 8 τεθνηκέναι with Lchm. Treg. ].

θύω. On ἐθύθην see p. 7.

(t€w) καθίξζω. Respecting the Future see p. 37.

This verb is used by the N. T. writers in both senses (set, and seat one’s self). The Middle occurs only twice in the Future, and that too in the 2d Pers. Plur. καθίσεσθε, Luke xxii. 30; Matt. xix. 28.

Further, since the ideas fo sit and to seat one’s self pass over into each other variously, the common N. T. uses of all these related verbs may be grouped as follows:

καθίζω set, καθίσω. καθιῶ, etc.

καθίζω seat one’s self, Fut. καθίσω, -ιῷ (2d Pers. Plur. καθίσεσθε), Aor. ἐκάθισα. The Perf. κεκάθικα (Heb. xii. 2.) synonymous with

κάθημαι sit (Imperat. κάθου see p. 49, Infin. καθῆσθαι, Partic. καθήμενος and καθεζόμενος), Imperf. ἐκαθήμην and éxabefounv. The Future in this sense is supplied by the Fut. of καθίζω.

ἱκνέομαι appears only once, in the 3d Pers. Sing. of the 2d Aor. ἀφίκετο Rom. xvi. 19.

καίω. The 2d Aor. Pass. is κατεκάην, Rev. viii. T; hence Fut. Pass. κατακαήσομαι 1 Cor. iii. 15; 2 Pet. iii. 10, but also καυθήσομαι Rev. xviii. 8. Respecting καυθήσωμαι (1 Cor. xiii. 8) see p. 86. The Fut. Act. is regularly καύσω, Rev. xvii. 16. But the Partic. καυσούμενα, 2 Pet. iii. 10, 12, belongs to Kavoow, see the lexicons...

Kap pve see μύω p. 62.

κεράννυμι. The Perf. Pass. κεκέρασμαι occurs Rev. xiv. 10 ; Heb. iv.2 Lchm. [Treg. Tdf.,sox] (where Tdf. [eds. 2, 7] reads Kexpapévos ),

κερδαίνω. The formation (xepdjcopar) Aor. ἐκέρδησα is almost the only one in use in the N. T.: Matt. xviii. 15, ete. Accordingly the Aor. Subjunc. κερδάνω 1 Cor. ix. 21, although the other form (xepdjcw) is used four times in the same con- nection either just before or afterwards, is surprising, but established by the ss. [x also].

κλαίω. Fut. 2d Pers. Plur. κλαύσετε Luke vi. 25; John

ANOMALOUS VERBS. 61

xvi. 20, 8d Pers. Plur. κλαύσονται Rev. xviii. 9, as in the case of ἀκούω, see p. 53; (οἷ, Origen on Luke vi. 25 πενθήσουσι καὶ κλαύσονται).

κράξω with long a (Herodian π. μον. p. 23), hence κρᾶζον

Gal. iv. 6 (ef. Lob. Parall. p. 408), and 2d Perf. κέκραγα ir —

sense of Pres. (John i. 15 μαρτυρεῖ καὶ κέκραγεν), never has [ (except ἀν-έκρωγον Luke xxiii. 18 Tdf.Treg.)] the 2d Aor., but always, as in later writers, the Ist ἔκραξα Matt. viii. 29 etc. The Future occurs only once: Luke xix. 40. But since the author- ities there are divided between κεκράξονται A, κράξουσιν B [x], κράξονται 1), and further, in favor of the first the usage of the Sept. (Ps. Ixv. 14 etc.) [where κράξουσι is nowhere found ; see Tdf. crit. com. in Luc. 1.0.1 and the perhaps mutilated reading of cod. D may be adduced, while the authority of the [two] oldest ms[s.] and the usage of later authors (Lob.’s note in Buttm. Ausf. Sprachl. II. 2280 weigh in favor of the second, a decision cannot be given with confidence in a case which stands so by itself. Among modern editors Lchm. has given the pref- erence to the common form κεκράξονται, Tdf. [Treg.] to the reading xpafovow. With xpafov may be compared προςπλᾶζον Il. μ, 285, — as according to the intimations of Lobeck (in the Ausf. Sprachl. Il. 268) it is perhaps more correctly written. Kpepavevvut. From the Middle κρέμαμαι we have in Luke xix. 48 the regular éefexpéuaro. The oldest ms[s.], however, read instead é£expéuero, probably not a clerical error, and cer- tainly no more anomalous than ἐξέδετο, διεδίδετο (see δίδωμι Ρ. 47). But on account of the little support which other codices give it, this rare form, which occurs besides only here and there in Mss., has not been adopted by the editors [except Tdf.].

κρύπτω. See p. 40.

κτείνω. Besides this form there exist two other by-forms :

of the Pres.: the most common ἀποκτέννω with a doubling of the liquid, after the Aeolic fashion (see Ahrens, Dial. Aeol. ρ. 52sq.), Matt.x.28; Luke xii. 4; Rev. vi. 11, and ἀποκταίνω, which is said to have been the Doric spelling (id. Dial. Dor. p. 186), 2 Cor. iii. 6; Rev. xiii. 10. Yet this last form, which is but weakly attested by the Mss., has with reason not been adopted by Tdf. [or Treg.], and seems, if it was really the original reading, to be less a (doubtful) Dorism, than to rest

54

62 ANOMALOUS VERBS.

upon an erroneous spelling of the word, occasioned by the common Aorist ἀπεκτάνθην (see p. 41) and the familier poetic forms ἔκταν, κτανέω, etc.

(κύων) ἀποκύω or ἀποκυέω (forms between which no dif- ference can be found in Greek authors as respects signification, see Lob. ad Aj. p. 103) has, where it occurs, the transitive meaning, bear, bring forth, and forms the Aor. ἀπεκύησα Jas. i. 15,18. Recent editors accentuate ἀποκύει.

λαμβάνω. In spelling this verb the recent editors have everywhere introduced the Alexandrian mode with μ (Sturz, p. 180) ; thus, Fut. λήμψομαι Acts i. 8 etc., Aor. Pass. ἐλήμφθην Mark xvi. 19 etc. In the same way in derivatives Ajpris, ἀνα- ἀντι- μετα- πρόςλημψις, προςωπολημπτέω, etc.

The 2d Aor. Imperat. λάβε, according to the uniform diree- tion of the old grammarians (e.g. Jo. Alex. p. 21 τὸ λαβέ καὶ ἰδέ ὀξυνόμενα ἀττικά ἐστι" TA γὰρ κοινὰ τούτων βαρύνεται), must, like ἴδε, be accented as paroxytone in the N.T.: Rey. x. 8, 9; John i. 47, ete.

Adoxw. The 1st Aor. ἐλάκησεν occurs once, Acts i. 18.

λείπω has as usual the 2d Aor., and only once the 1st Aor. καταλείψαντες Acts vi. 2. ihe Gollinteral form λυμττάνω occurs 1 Pet. ii. 21.

μεθύω and μεθύσκομαι are both united without any important difference of meaning: 1 Thess. v. 7 οἱ μεθυσκόμενοι νυκτὸς μεθύουσιν. Aor. Pass. ἐμεθύσθην Rev. xvii. 2.

(μέλ ων μεταμέλομαι, Fut. μεταμεληθήσομαι Heb. vii. 21 (in quotation), Aor. μετεμελήθην. On the other hand, from ἐπεμέ- Aouat we have the Fut. ἐπιμελήσομαι 1 Tim. iii. 5.

μιαίνω. Respecting the Perf. Pass. see p. 41.

55 (μύω). The abbreviated (after the Epic fashion, B. ὃ 117 N. 2; H.§ 73D; Ὁ. 8 136; D.§ 140; J.§19.) compound καμμύω for καταμύω, which is severely censured by Phrynichus (sub voce ), appears, according to the words of the same gram- marian, to have passed over into somewhat general use in prose from the time of the comic poet Alexis. At any rate the Alexandrians employ it frequently (Isa. xxix. 10; xxxiii. 15; vi. 10),! and from this last passage it passed over into the N. T. (Matt. xiii. 15; Acts xxviii. 27).

1 Whether in Lem. iii. 43 we should accent’ καμμῦσαι after the poetic fashion, or καμμύσαι as commonly, may be doubtful. Yet in the case of a word manifestly

ANOMALOUS VERBS. 68

νίξω. Only the other Present νέπτω is in use in the N. T. (Matt. xv. 2 ete.) as in the Sept. (Hx. xxx. 18; 2 Chron. iv. 6).

(vioow) κατανύσσω forms, quite according to analogy, a 2d Aor. Pass. κατενύγην Acts ii. 37, which is not in use by the earlier writers, but frequent in the O. T.: Gen. xxxiv. 7, etc. This Aorist has everywhere the ethical sense; Hesych.: κατενύγησαν., ἐλυπήθησαν ; Suidas sub voce.

€vpéw. On the by-form ξυράω 1 Cor. xi. 6, see Etym. Magn. sub voce ; Lob. on the Ajax p. 181; and under ἐλεέω p. 57.

(otyw) ἀνοίγω. The variations in the form of this very common verb are very great, both in the mss. and in the dif- ferent editions. In order to get a summary view of the forms we will bring them together as given in Lchm.’s text which here departs in many respects from the Rec. : Future regularly ἀνοίξω Matt. xiii. 35; Isr Aorist 7v0+&a— John ix. 17, 21, 26, 30,32; Acts v.19; ix. 40; xii. 14; xiv. 27; Rev. through- out, (Subjunc. ἀνοίξω Luke xii. 36 etc., Imperat. ἄνοιξον xiii. 25, Infin. ἀνοῖξαι Acts xxvi. 18 etc., Partic. ἀνοίξας Matt. v. 2, etc.) —and avéwéa John ix. 14 (and frequently as a variant, as ix. 80 etc.) ; 2p PERFECT in an intransitive sense ἀνέῳγα 1 Cor. xvi. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 11 (Partic. ἀνεῳγότα John i. 52). Passive: Ist Aor. nvoly@nv Rev. xx. 12, ἀνεῴχθην Luke i, 64, and with double (threefold) augment ἠνεῴχθην Matt. iii. 16; ix. 30; John ix.10; Acts xvi. 26 CInfin. ἀνεῳχθῆναι Luke iii. 21 with retention of the Augment, as in ἄγνυμι, which see); Ist Fur. ἀνοιχθήσομαι Luke xi. 10; 2D Aor. ἠνοίγην (was opened, or opened itself) Acts xii. 10; Rev. xv. 5; xi. 19 (Subjunc. ἀνουγῶσιν Matt. xx. 33); 2p Fur. ἀνοιγήσομαι Matt. vii. 7; Luke xi. 9; Perr. Partic. ἀνεῳγμένος Rev. iv. 1; Acts x. 11 etc.; 2 Cor. ii. 12, ἠνεῳγμένος Acts ix. 8; Rev. x. 2, 8; xix. 11, and διηνοιγ μένος Acts vii. 56 (also in ix. 8 ἠνοιγμένος according to A [δὲ ; adopted by Tdf.]). More- over, we find several times in two of the oldest mss. (A B) the 1st Aor. Act. with the double augment ἠνέῳ ξε John ix. 17, 21, 82 [but not so cod. Sin.], which has at least as much inter- nal probability as ἠνεῴχθην etc. above. Of course, where the MSS. vary, different editors have decided in many passages now in

borrowed from the language of poetry the former accentuation is probably to be preferred.

56

7

64 ANOMALOUS VERBS.

favor of one reading and now in favor of another. As, however, the number of forms in use, which is all we are here concerned with, is the same (Tdf. agrees in the main with Lchm.), we will leave disagreements respecting particular instances to the reader’s own observation. -οἰκτείρω: Fut. οἰκτειρήσω Rom. ix. 15 (as in the Sept. where we find also Aor. Imperat. οἰκτείρησον Ps. iv. 2).

(ὄλλυμ.ι) ἀπόλλυμι. For the collateral form of the Pres. in vw see p. 45. The Future Active is commonly ἀπολέσω Matt. xxi. 41 etc.; on the other hand, only once ἀπολῶ 1 Cor. i. 19, in a quotation from the O.T. In the Middle the Fut. is always ἀπολοῦμαι Matt. xxvi. 52; Rom. ii. 12; Matt. ix. 17 Tdf. [eds. 2, 1].

ὁμείρομαι is a by-form of ἱμείρομαι, given only in 1 Thess. ii. 8 (and a few times in the versions of the O. T.), but established by the Mss., and also attested by Hesychius and Photius sub voce. See Steph. Thesaurus, and Fritzsche on Mark, excurs. tert. p. 792.

ὄμνυμι. Respecting the form in ὕω see p. 45.

opdw. The N.T. agrees in the main with the Attic use of this verb, excepting the forms of the Alexandrian Aor. (see Ρ. 89) and the accentuation ide (see under λαμβάνω p. 62). On isolated cases like προορώμην see p. 34; on the Subjune. ὄψησθε see p. 36. The mode of spelling the Perf. (employed in Attic poetry, B. p. 251 Note +; H. § 450, 4; C. § 50) ἑόρακα is often exhibited by the mss., but has not been received by the editors before Tdf., who in his Tth ed. introduced it several times, e.g. Luke ix. 36; John ix. 37, [but in ed. 8 ap- pears to have returned to the usual form, — yet noé in Col. ii. 181. The Passive ὥφθην, ὀφθήσομαι commonly means fo appear (apparere) cf. p. 52. Respecting ἐδού see p. 70.

παίξω. The Fut. Mid. παίξομαι is the common form in the Alexandrian dialect (Ezek. xxii.5; Hab. i. 10), as with later writers in general (Luc. Dial. Deor. 4,3; Apoll. Lex. Hom. under μωμήσονται) ; the Future occurs but once in the N.T., and then (according to B. § 113, N. 7) in the Active form ἐμπαίξουσιν Mark x. 34, which is not unknown to the Sept. also (Isa xxxiii.4). The other tenses also occur in the gut- tural formation : ἔπαιξα, ἐπαίχθην, etc., Matt. xxvii. 81; ii. 16; Luke xviii. 32, etc.

παύω. The 2d Fut. Pass. of this verb is found once (Rev.

ANOMALOUS VERBS. 65

xiv. 13) formed after the analogy of καίω (xatow, ἐκάην) ἀναπαήσονται. (Yet according to codd. Vat. and Sin. we must so read also in Luke x. 6 [Tdf.]; the Aor. παῆναι occurs twice in Hermas: (Vis. 1,3; 8, 9 Sin.).) That this form, unparalleled in earlier authors, was actually current in the common speech (ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ) is attested by Choerob. in Anecd. Bekk. p. 13824, where it is used as an example by the side of éxanv and ἐχάρην. Other examples in very late Greek may be seen in Steph. Thesaur. under παύω. But in Rev. vi. 11 we have again the regular ἀναπαύσονται [so Lchm. in ed. min., Ταῦ, eds. 2,7; but now Lchm. Tdf. Treg. -cwvta: ; so x].

The verbal adjective (παυστός, καταπαυστός) with a@ priv. ἀκατάπαυσπτος is read by most editions in 2 Pet. ii. 14. Lehm., however, has adopted instead the reading of codd. AB: ἀκαταπάστους. To explain the word in this form asa verbal from παύω would conflict with all analogy, and the sense forbids us to derive it from πάσσω (conspergo). Hence Tdf. [so Treg.] has adopted ἀκαταπαύστους, with codd. [x] C and the Rec.

πέτομαιν occurs only in the Apocalypse, and in the forms πετόμενος (Rec. πετώμενος) and πέτηται, xiv. 6 [δὲ here meTapevov |, etc.

1 Since, however, the existence of the a in the penult in two of the oldest mss weighs heavily against this, it may be that the error is to be found elsewhere Perhaps it is not the second a, but the first, that is written by mistake, and arose from the preceding καὶ, so that the word was originally katamdorous, a verbal which occurs elsewhere also (see Stephanus, Thesaur.), formed regularly from κατα- πάσσω (frequent in the Sept.), and here has the meaning spotted, soiled, which then corresponds very well with the preceding μεστούς (ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντες μεστοὺς μοιχαλίδος καὶ καταπάστους Guaptias). Suidassub voce and the Scholiast on Arist. Eq. 502 expressly render κατάπαστος by κατάμεστος, πλήρης, πεποικιλμένος, and in the same way καταπάσω by καταποικιλῷ, πληρώσω. Hesychius, who has so many biblical terms, has neither ἀκατάπαυστος nor ἀκατάπαστος, but he has the gloss κατάπαστος πεποικιλμένος. The unintelligible ἀκαταὶ dorouvs, having once arisen by a clerical blunder, was easily corrected into ἀκαταπαύστους, and naturally passed over in this form into most of the later Mss. Finally, as respects the derivation of the word ἀκατάπαστος from the ancient IMAOMAI (whence the poetic πάσασθαι to taste, eat), the resulting meaning would be appropriate (insatiable), but the deri- vation is opposed by the following considerations: (1) that the word in this form * does not occur again in all Greek literature; (2) that even the underlying verb was as good as obsolete, and at the most was only sought out by imitative poets as an archaic term; (3) that it was used at no time by any author in composi- tion with κατά ; (4) that a N. T. writer should coin so poetic a word, and that the ancient grammarians, lexicographers, commentators should pass over in complete silence a term so unusual and so much needing explanation.

9

59

66 ANOMALOUS VERBS.

πίμπλημι occurs but once in the Participle of the un- Attic form in dw: ἐμπιπλῶν Acts xiv. 17. Cf. ἵστημι p. 44 sq.

πιέζω. Of this form we find only the Perf. Pass. Partie. πεπιεσμένος, Luke vi. 88; in all other instances it has been supplanted by the Doric form with @ for e (which in the Doric dialect has the palatal characteristic: mid&@ ete., see Ahrens, Dial. Dor. p. 116), but with the ordinary inflection Fut. πιάσω, Aor. ἐπίασα, πιάσαι, Pass. ἐπιάσθην, John vii. 30 ete.

πίνω never has the later Future πιοῦμαι, but the Attic πίομαι Matt. xx. 23; Mark x. 39; Rev. xiv. 10, 2d Pers. πίεσαι Luke xvii. 8, see ἐσθίω p. 58. The Aor. Imperat. again is ac- cording to, rule πίε Luke xii. 19, Infin. as usual πιεῖν. But besides, this Infin. is several times preserved in the form miv or πεῖν : least questionably in John iv. 9, probably also in iv. 7,10 Tdf. ['Treg.], Rev. xvi.6 Lehm. [Tdf. eds. 7,8], and not unfrequently as a variant in the oldest Mss., as in Matt. xxvii. 34; Mark xv. 23; x. 88; 1 Cor. ix.4; x. 7. These forms (πῖν and πεῖν) have now been established in many passages by the most recent collations of B, as well as by cod. Sin. That this anomalous Infin. actually existed, at least in the popular speech, is established by other testimony also, besides those Ms. authorities. Thus the Grammarian Herodian (in Herm. de Emend. rat. p. 317) expressly rejects the form vei as corrupt (ἁμαρτάνουσιν οἱ λέγοντες ἱπεῖν βούλομαι’ μονοσυλλάβως, δέον λέγειν πιεῖν δισυλλάβως. μόνως γὰρ οὕτως καὶ παρὰ τοῖς ἀρ- Aaiow πᾶσιν εἴρηται), and an epigram on the grammarians in Anthol. Pal. xi. 140 employs, apparently with design, this form which they censured (οἷς οὐ σκῶμμα λέγειν, οὐ πεῖν φίλον). Now as respects the form itself, it has been explained —ac- cording as the preference is given to πεῖν or mivy—either as syncopated from πιεῖν, or as apocopated from iva: (like dv from φῦναι, see Ph. Buttm. in the Mus. Antiq. p. 248). The first explanation has little internal probability,! although, since it has appearances in its favor, it became current among the grammarians, and may even have occasioned the spelling πεῖν (so the cod. Cantabr. always). Philologically the other explanation has a better foundation, although no

1 We can hardly compare with this the extremely rare dialectic absorption of the « before w in isolated poetic passages (βώσεσθε Apollon., cwmdw Pind.) ; see Ausf. Sprachl. under βιόω, II. 130.

ANOMALOUS VERBS. 67

Infin. πῖῆναι existed, or at least can be proved. But that the Aorist ἔπιον had an inclination to form syncopated Aorists is shown by the Imperat. wi: ; and the abbreviation of the Infin., used as it must have been very frequently (δός μοι πῖν, wiv βού- Aowar), would arise thus in the mouth of the people