Greenwood professor of hellenistic greek and indo-european philology in the victoria university of manchester tutor in new testament language and literature

:)


Download 3.25 Mb.
Page27/33
Date conversion08.11.2016
Size3.25 Mb.
1   ...   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   ...   33
where the optative shows the writer a bit of an Atticist, but not very successful.

No. 377 (p. 530) kateskeu h[r&?on e[aut^? kai> t&? a]ndri> au]th?j Eu]tu ei]

tini a}n zw?sa sunxwrh meta> th>n teleuth

273 (p. 394) ei] de> [e!teroj] a}n e]pixeirh<[sei, qh<]sei ktl. Add PFi 50113 (iii/A.D.)

ei@ ti de> e]a>n o]fi h[mw?n . . . e]a>n parab^?.

P. 170.—On mh< in questions see J. E. Harry, Gildersleeve Studies, 430.

He shows it was absent from orators and historians, and from the later writers

Aristotle, Polybills, and Diodorus. Plato uses it 24 times; but the 69 occur-

rences in NT outnumber those in all the prose and poetry of ten previous

centuries. The inference is that it was a feature of everyday language. In

nearly half the exx. the verb is be, can, or have; three-fourths of the total comes

from Jn and Paul (only Rom and Co).

P. 171.—For e]kto>j ei] mh< see Deissmann, BS 118. Cf also Ramsay, C. and B.

ii. 391 (no. 254) xwri>j ei] mh< ti pa


Ib.—On the encroachments of mh<, especially as to o!ti mh< and mh< c. inf. after

verba dicendi et cogitandi, see E. L. Green in Gildersleeve Studies, 471 ff. Green

shows how mh< intrudes increasingly in the Koinh< literature. Considering the

extent of this intrusion in the time of the NT, there are fewer exx. of mh<

wrongly used than would be expected, except that mh< holds almost undisputed

sway over the participle. There are 6 exx. of mh< c. inf. after a verb of saying

or denying [Lk 2234 must however be struck off (WH, following xBLT)];

2 with verbs of thinking (2 Co 115, Ac 2525); one case of causal o!ti mh<, Jn 318;

3 of mh< after relatives. (In excluding Col 218 because an imper. precedes, Green

ignores a yet more decisive reason—that mh< is indisputably spurious.) The

participle with mh< in orat. obl. occurs only in Ac 2329 286; in causal, concessive,

and temporal clauses it abounds. The comparison of Plutarch with the NT

shows a great advance in the use of o!ti mh<. The whole paper deserves study.

A few papyrus passages may be cited in illustration of the subjects of Green's

paper. For mh< in relative clauses:—BU 114 (ii/A.D.) prooi?ka h{n a]pode

au]t&? mh sunefw

verba dic. et cog.:—MP 25 (iii/B.C.) mh> o]fei

kategnwkw>j mh> du e]nkalei?n (classical, as o[m.=

240 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

undertakes), OP 237 (ii/A.D.) a]pekrei c. inf., and several cases with

dhlou?n (BR 5, 11, etc.). For e]pei> mh< cf BU 530 (i/A.D.) me mh>

a]ntel.c.).

On ei] ou], Blass notes (Hermes xxiv. 312) its identity with a}m mh< in the

illiterate OP 119 (see p. 28).

A note may be added mh> o!ti; for though the NT only uses ou]x o!ti, the

syntax is identical with that in mh3 ("not to speak of mere affairs

of daily life"). It occurs in BM 42 (ii/B.C.,= Witk. p. 40) mh> o!ti ge tosou

xro

P. 177.—In Mt 619 D reads mh> qhsauri

be added to the list. But it is more likely to be a mere mistake. An earlier

ex. of mh< c. fut. than those cited in the text is Par P 15 (ii/B.C.) mh> gou?n kai>

krath

P. 181.—Essentially the same principle must be traced in i@lew22),

"[God be] merciful to thee." The interjectional adjective and participle are on

the same footing, and must be explained in the same way. In CR xv. 436 are

quoted inscriptional parallels for this phrase (Gen 4323, 2 Sam 2020, 1 Chr 1115):

—Letronne 221 (iv/A.D.) i!lewj h[mi?n Pla e]nta?qa, and without subject

557 i!lew [Hra

another inscription (ii. 286) i!lewleg. ]Alu

Alypius," as I read it. With the development of a deprecatory force in such

phrases we may compare that in our vernacular expression, "Mercy on us!"

P. 182.—Dr Rendel Harris thinks the u[mei?j may be only translation Greek.

The suggested allusion to Paul is in any case only propounded tentatively.

It is curious that a]rca37 is fairly

hopeless as it stands, and Blass thinks a]rc. a]po> t. G. interpolated from Lk 235.

It is conceivable that a]rca

text, in which a new sentence beginning I there was continued with ]Ihsou?j o[ a]po>

N., o{n (D) e@xrisen . . . , ou$toj (D). The change needed to make the D reading

grammatical is but small. (See Wellh. 12.) A quasi-adverbial use of a]rca

may be seen in Syll. 5375, 5385, 540152, 5494, and with pres. ptc. in Tb P 526 (ii/A. D.).

P. 185.—The practically complete equivalence of subjunctive and future is

quite as evident in Phrygian inscriptions as in the Alexandrian Greek Bible or

late Egyptian papyri. Thus we have in JHS xxiii. 85 ei] de< tij a]nu

baC. and B. ii. 392 (no. 260) ei@ tina a@llon boulhq^?, 559

(no. 445, iii/A.D.) ei@ tij de> e!teroj e]pisene

391, 395, 399 al (pp. 472, 535-8) we have ou] teq^? for the ou] teqh

elsewhere. The progressive disappearance of the Future prepares us for MGr,

where the tense is a periphrastic one. For the papyri, cf BU 303 (vi/A.D.)

para

exx. of verbs in -sei and the like, in locutions requiring subjunctives, could be

cited from various sources; but these being itacistic prove less—see p. 35.

P. 194.—Prof. Thumb tells me that MGr mh> ge

of learned origin. (I notice that Pallis retains it in Lk 2016.) See p. 249.

P. 199 n. 2.—Prof. Thumb observes that he does not believe in itacism as

contributory to the obsolescence of the optative, "since the coincidence of oi

and ^ took place very late." It has been made clear in the text that the

optative was doomed from the very birth of the Koinh<, while oi (and u) did not

become simple i for several centuries.

P. 208.—By way of adding to our illustrations from the Bezan text of Ac,

we may note that in 1217 D substitutes i!na sig[ . . . ] sin for siga?n, and in 1618

i!na e]ce31 however the

ADDITIONAL NOTES. 241

omission of e]n ^$ me

tendency to use i!na more marked, it might help us to fix the provenance of D, by

the use of Thumb's canon (p. 205).

P. 216.—Some further exx. are noted by Votaw (p. 18) from the LXX.

He gives on p. 19 the totals for the articular infin. in OT, Apocrypha, and NT:

there are 1161 occurrences with a preposition, and 1614 without. The anar-

throus infin. occurs 6190 times in all. In the statistics of the articular infin.

1 have checked my count (based on MG) by Votaw's: they differ slightly where

I have omitted passages which WH enclose in double brackets, and also

through my not counting twice the places where two infinitives stand under the

government of a single article. Votaw's total for Heb has a slight error.

P. 224.—To the footnote it should be added that Hirt and Sommer make


sequimini imperative the original form, supposing it simply transferred to the

indicative at a later stage (Indog. Forsch,. xvii. 64).

P. 230.—The phrase in Mt 132 is quoted here purely as it stands in Greek;

exx. of this participle could be cited from almost any page of narrative in the

NT or other Greek writing. It happens however, as Dr Rendel Harris tells

me, that my example is a translation of a phrase meaning simply "he went on

board a boat." He observes, "'To go up and sit in a ship' is a pure Syriac

expression. Sometimes you get 'Bit in the sea' for 'embark'" (Mk 41, the

original here). This superfluous kaqh?sqai is rather like the pleonasms quoted

from Dalman on pp. 14 ff. Of course the recognition of this as translation Greek

does not affect the grammatical category in which we place e]mbaSince I have not given a chapter to Conjunctions, I may put at the end

of these addenda a note upon a use of a]lla< which has excited much discussion.

In Mt 2023 some have translated a]lla<. "except," as if=ei] mh< or plh

this both Winer and his editor (p. 566) speak very decisively: thus, the latter

says," Even in Mk 422 a[lla< is simply but (but rather), not save, except." I have

a draft letter of his to a fellow-Reviser (dated 1871), in which he argues at length

against the lax use of a]lla<, which in Mt l.c. "would be equivalent to supplying

e]mo

passage, but on Mk 1.c. (p. 269) he says a]ll ] =ei] mh< "save that." It is certainly

difficult here to separate the a]lla< from the e]a

clause. I am very unwilling to challenge an opinion held so strongly after

careful study; but the discovery of Tb P 104 (i/B.C.) makes me ready to

believe that the note in WM might have been altered under stress of new

evidence. Kai> mh> e]ce ]Apollwni

must call for a sense of a]lla< very near to ei] mh<. That supplements may be

contrived we may allow, though they are often far from simple but is there

adequate motive for straining the natural meaning of the phrase? In Gen 2126

ou]de> e]gw> h@kousa a]lla> sh

l. c., it may well be that the AV or RV supplement is correct. But I cannot feel

at all sure of this; and it seems moreover that the meaning need not be affected

by reading a]lla< as ei] mh<. In Jn 154, Lk 426f., Ac 2722, Gal 216, Rev 2127, etc.,

we are familiar with the brachylogy—essentially akin to zeugma–which makes

ei] mh< and the like= but only: why not apply this to a]lla

that only the thought of dou?nai was carried on, and not that of e]mo

(Cf now Wellh. 24 in support of my position: also cf Kuhring, p. 149.)

The study of Wellhausen's illuminating forty pages increases my regret that

I can only refer to them generally in notes inserted at the last revision. My

argument in chapter i. is not affected by Wellhausen's exposition; but had his

242 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

book come into my hands earlier, I should have taken care to emphasise more

clearly what is said above concerning "translation Greek," and the tendency

to over-use a correct vernacular idiom where it exactly or nearly translates an

Aramaic original. Wellhausen rightly warns us against denying Aramaism

because we can scrape together one or two parallels from holes and corners of

Greek writing. That was the error of the old Purists, and we must be on our

guard. But if we neo-Hellenists need to be careful, Wellhausen's criticisms of

Dalman show that the neo-Semitists want watching as well. It is necessary in

studying Wellhausen to remember that he only professes to speak from the

Semitist's side: his fraggelou?n (bis) on P. 10 and e[auto

illustrate his limitation—non omnia vossumus omnes! Space forbids our

mentioning more than one further feature of his work, the great importance of

his treatment of the Bezan text. He shows that D in a large number of places

stands distinctly nearer the Aramaic which underlies the Synoptic records. If

this is proved, we have manifestly taken a large step towards the solution of our

great textual question. Let me finally quote his dictum that Mk is tolerably

free from Hebraisms, i.e. pieces of translation Greek due to the LXX: Mk is

however richest in Aramaisms, which Mt and Lk have largely pruned away

Of course Wellhausen's argument has not bearing on free Greek in the NT.

ADDITIONAL NOTES TO THE

SECOND EDITION.

P. 3.—To anticipate a possible objection, I may say that the evidence for

large Jewish settlements in Egypt from an early date is indisputable: see

for example Mahaffy's and Th. Reinach's contributions to Melanges Nicole

(pp. 619 ff., 451 ff.). Mahaffy speaks of Aramaic trade documents in Upper

Egypt from the time of Xerxes down. So far, however, no "Hebraist" has

tried to use this fact to discount the deductions of Deissmaun from the papyri;

and I need not meet the argument before it arises. (See Preface, p. xvi. f.)


Ib.—The Rev. J. Pulliblank sends me an interesting extract from his notes

of Bishop Lightfoot's lectures in 1863. Speaking of some NT word which had

its only classical authority in Herodotus, he said, "You are not to suppose

that the word had fallen out of use in the interval, only that it had not been

used in the books which remain to us: probably it had been part of the common

speech all along. I will go further, and say that if we could only recover letters

that ordinary people wrote to each other without any thought of being literary,

we should have the greatest possible help for the understanding of the language

of the NT generally."

P. 5.—A very striking testimony may be cited from Cicero, Pro Archia,

23:—Nam si quis minorem gloriae frustum putat ex Graecis versibus percipi

quam ex Latinis, vehementer errat, propterea quod Graeca leguntur in omnibus

fere gentibus, Latina suis finibus, exiguis sane, continentur.

P. 14.—To the exx. of ei]j a]pa

ei]j sunant.) from the Pelagia stories (Legenden der hl. Pelagia, ed. Usener),

pp. 19, 22. The documents are written in excellent vernacular, which does not

seem open to the charge of being merely modelled ou the biblical Greek.

ADDITIONAL NOTES TO THE SECOND EDITION. 243

P. 19.—Dr Marcus Dods finds a weak spot in my parallel, in that Greek

was generally "not the vernacular, but a second language acquired for com-

mercial or social purposes. The real parallel would therefore be the English-

speaking Hindu, or semi-Americanised German or Pole, or the pidgin-English-

speaking Chinaman, or bilingual Highlander or Welshman." So Dr Nestle.

I have modified the form of the parallel accordingly, and I think it will now

stand. The Hindu and the Welshman, "granted a tolerable primary education"

in English, will not show much difference in their written dialect.

P. 22.—A reviewer in the Athenaeum, to whom I am greatly indebted,

criticises my attitude towards the translation of Pallis. (So far from " strongly

objecting," Mr Pallis prefers to be so styled, and not as Palli.) I cannot go

into detail, but I would make two or three notes. (1) The Reviewer expresses

the "shock" which even a foreigner experiences in finding Christ's speeches

"abounding in Turkish words." Mr Pallis gives me a list of all the foreign

words in his version of Mt, some two dozen in all, and not a quarter of them

Turkish. This accusation of bringing in foreign words has been freely made by

many on mere hearsay. (2) A lover of Hellenism can feel nothing but sympathy

for the modern Greeks' national pride in their language. But whether Greek

artisans can repeat the NT Greek by heart or no, it is abundantly proved that

they cannot understand it; and that is sufficient justification for a popular

version. (3) The general question of the Purist movement tempts discussion;

but it has only one side which is relevant for this book. If the movement only

concerned the abolition of foreign words, the NT grammarian could quote Purist

as readily as popular Greek. But the kaqareu

grammar, and it is therefore obviously useless when we are seeking scientific

evidence bearing on ancient Hellenistic. The strongest sympathiser with

Purism as a national movement would have to admit that for such purposes

as ours the faintest suspicion of artificiality makes MGr valueless: nothing but

the unschooled speech of the people can help us here.

P. 23.—On the use of the term Koinh< Prof. Thumb observes that the

grammarians were far from consistent with themselves. A definition like koinh<

dia

be historically incorrect it is a pity to banish from science so well-established and

pregnant a word (Neue Jahrbucher f. d. klass. Altertum, 1906, p. 262).

P. 32.—Dr W. H. D. Rouse, who has an exceptionally intimate first-hand

knowledge of modern Greece, especially in the more out-of-the-way parts, tells me

he thinks it too sweeping an assertion to say that the old dialects died out com-

pletely, except for what they contributed to the Koinh<. He has heard the broad ā.

in Calymnos, and kia< po(Neue Jahrb. 1906,

p. 256), Prof. Thumb gives some interesting survivals of old dialectic forms in

Cyprus, which he has noticed in the curse-tablets of Audollent. We have in

fact to remember that the dialects existing within the Koinh< were partly or even

mainly characterised by the survivals from the old local dialect which the

levelling process failed to destroy.

P. 34.—A good illustration of my point that dialectic differences very largely

lay in pronunciation is found in Dr Rouse's remark that "a [modern] Athenian,

a Lesbian and an Astypaliote all will write kai<, while they pronounce it respect-

ively kye, ce, tse."

P. 36.—The case of te

that this is isolated, as the only early cardinal which ever had a separate acc.

form. In the first 900 of Wilcken's ostraka I find 42 exx. of the indeclinable,

and 29 of te

244 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

language before 200 A.D. In the same documents I find te

konta only once each (both ii/A.D.): cf p. 46 above.

Ib.—A "probably Ptolemaic" ostrakon in Melanges Nicole, p. 185 (E. J.

Goodspeed), has filanqropi<% and do

of o and w; kata> mh?nan (see p. 49) and mhdeni> doi?j (p. 55 n.3) evidence the writer's

scanty culture. Earlier still is logeuw

(ii/B.C.). See Mayser, pp. 98 f., 139.

P. 38.—The point about Koinh< needs perhaps to be stated less concisely.

Brugmann makes it probable that in early Attic, as in its sister dialect Ionic, it

became n universally, but that in Attic ih and rh (u[gih?, prh

ia, ra, whenever the h did not arise from a pre-Greek ē: this ē long maintained

a different quality. But this specially Attic power of r became obsolete while

koFh was still pronounced with digamma.

P. 41.—Thumb (op. cit. 260) holds out hopes that we may get some not

inconsiderable help in dating and localising textual types from such peculiarities

as the confusion of tenuis, aspirata and media in Egypt and Further Asia, and

that of e and i sounds in Asia Minor and Syria.

P. 44.—Among the irregular aspirations might have been given ou]x

]Ioudai*kw?j (Gal 214 x*ACP 17 37). Here the ou]xi< of BD* al probably helps

us; a repetition of the i after ou]k would lead to the correction of ou]xi< and this to

ou]x by the dropping of the same letter. This seems simpler than Lightfoot's

explanation from the Hebrew initial which would not explain ou]x idou< (B


decies in 3 K, says Mr Thackeray).

P. 48.—Usener, Pelagia, p. 50, quotes h[ [Ieroso

xi/A.D. In the same book we find the vocative ku

note, p. 34). An additional early ex. of this shortening of -io- nouns may be

found in a Ptolemaic ostrakon in Melanges Nicole, p. 184, sunye

(The document has the word kra

P. 49.—The NT forms suggeniApp2 165) are both

cited by Thumb from Asia Minor (JHS xxii. 358 and BCH xxiv. 339).

Mayser cites suggene per contra suggeneal. So we

have double forms, e]sqh?sin OP 466 and e]sqh

P. 59.—An apparent false concord in B, peri> pa

(Lk 1937), is corrected by Prof. Burkitt from the Old Syriac, which shows

that duna

tion, while D (geinome

present a completely regularised text. (The textual phenomena here are most

instructive: cf what is quoted from Wellhausen about B and D, p. 242.) Note

that in MGr pa?sa survived pa?j, as pa?sa e!naj "every one."

Ib.—For indeclinable ti Dr Rouse reminds me of the MGr ka@ti, as ka@ti

h[suxi

P. 60.—Mr Ottley calls my attention to Is 3738, where it is very hard to

resist the impression that an accusative stands for a genitive in apposition to

an indeclinable.

Ib.—A better account of h[ qeo37 is given by G. Thieme, Die


Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander and das NT (Gottingen, 1905), pp. 10 f.

He notes that the classical h[ qeo

describe the great goddess of the city, while other people's goddesses were Beat,

the usual Koinh< term. The town clerk is accordingly using the technical

term, as we might expect. Plentiful quotations are given by Nachmanson,

p. 126. We may therefore keep Blass's comment on Luke's accuracy, but

apply it in a different way.

ADDITIONAL NOTES TO THE SECOND EDITION. 245


P. 63.—It might be added that before e]n disappeared it was often used for

ei]j, just as ei]j was for e]n. Thus in the late gloss at Jn 54; alsi four times in Tob,

as Mr Thackeray notes, adding that it is a feature of the LXX in Jd--4 K. Cf

in Pelagia, a]nh

e@fugon e]n toi?j o@resi (ii. 1). Some further quotations for late uses of e]n will be

found in Kuhring, pp. 43


Ib.—On w!ran (Jn 452, Au 1030 al) see Usener, Pelagia 50, and Abbott JG 75,

Who suggests that the change from vernacular ace. to dat., Jn 452f., is brought

in to denote exact time.

P. 64.—For xra?sqai c. acc. add Wis 714 (B—so RV), and Syll. 65362

(kataxr.). The Purist Kontos (Glwssikai> Parathrh

complains of writers who used kataxra?sqai (and even e!pesqai!) with gen. As

early as ii/A. D. we find a chiliarch of a Thracian cohort writing [Wrii.e. -i)

xaiOstr. ii. 927): so su>n Mhnofiib. 240 (same date). See

Ramsay CR iii. 332.

P. 66.—On the construction of a]kou

JG 76-78.

P. 70.—Dr Rouse compares with this nominative in ime - expressions

Aeschines' nu>c e]n me parh?men (In Ctes. 71).

P. 71.—On the threefold pathJG 96 f.

P. 72.—A full study of prepositions replacing the simple gen. may be found

in Kuhring, Praepos. 11 ff., 20. Dr Rouse notes that a]po< is regularly used

in partitive sense now: dw?se mou a]po> tou?to, "give me some of that."

P. 75.—For e@rxomai< soi am I should have quoted the well-known line of Aeschy-

lus (PV 358), a]ll ] h#lqen au]t&? Zhno>j a@grupnon be

P. 76.—Reference should have been made to Eph 55, i@ste ginw

Dean Robinson assumes Hebraism, comparing 1 Sam 203, ginw

(49)22, i@ste (imper.) ginw

can only suppose Paul definitely citing OT language, just as a preacher using

the archaic phrase "Know of a surety" would be immediately recognised as

quoting. (It may be noted that if lore is indic. it is a purely literary word,

such as Paul is not very likely to have used: it would be less improbable in

Heb 1217. But in these places and Jas 119 the imper. seems better, somewhat in

the sense of the common classical eu# i@sq ] o!ti, "you may be sure": see LS s.v.

oi#da 7.) It is, however, at least as probable that we are to separate the verbs

and read "For you must be assured of this (the following), recognising for

yourselves that . . . " So E. Haupt, Salmond, and T. K. Abbott.

P. 79.—Dr E. A. Abbott (Joh. Gram. 510) makes it seem probable that the

Leyden papyrus is quoting from Jn 115. He would translate prw?to

Chief." See pp. 11-14 for his exposition, which brings in several harmonics

beside the main note. I am not yet disposed to give up the view defended

in the text. If Dr Abbott takes away one parallel, he gives me two new ones

instead, in the quotations from scholiasts on Euripides; and his exegesis seems

open to the charge of over-subtlety. Moreover, the Aelian passage, oi[ prw?toi<

mou tau?ta a]nixneu18; and the

doubts as to the reading expressed by the Thesaurus editor here and in Plutarch,


Cato Minor § 18 (ou@te prw?tomean that a modern scholar thought prw?toj incorrect, which is undeniable.

I am tempted to claim that Dr Abbott has proved my point for 'me.

P. 80.—I must confess to a rather serious oversight in omitting to discuss

the "Hebraistic" use of pa?j with negative in the seise of ou]deiCR

xv. 442, xviii. 155, I quote a number of exx, of pa?j with prepositions and

246 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

adjectives of negative meaning: thus a@neu or xwri>j pa

formula, a]nupeuj e]piti

Plutarch Cons. ad Uxor. 1 (cf Heb 77). Closely allied to this is the Koinh< use of

tij with negative, as mhdemia?j krath kurieij e]ggai

au]tw?i TP 1 (ii/B.C.), which has analogues in MGr (Jannaris HG § 1 449 c).

This was accordingly claimed as “a very slight extension of a vernacular

usage under the encouragement of a similar idiom in Hebrew.” It is found

not only in presumed translation, as Mk 1320, but in Paul, as Eph 55.

Ib.—Mr J. B. Shipley sends me an ingenious suggestion that e[pta<, arose

from a gloss, Skeua?= fbw= e[pta<.


Ib.— In Gal 16f. Ramsay maintains against Lightfoot that e!teroj when

definitely contrasted with a@lloj denotes specific difference against generic,

"another of the same kind," against "another of a different kind." Space

precludes examination of his classical exx.; but it must not be too hastily

assumed that Lightfoot is wrong. Abbott JG 611 supports him against Blass.

P. 86.—Add Hb P 44 (253 B.c.), o[rw?ntej . . . w@mhn as an early ex.

P. 87.—The reciprocal ei$j to>n e!na (1 Th 511) may be noted, with the MGr

o[ e!naj to>n a@llon. (Dr Rouse tells me the Purists say e@sface o[ me>n to>n de


Ib.—On "exhausted i@dioj" see new Kuhring, Praep. 13.

P. 89.—Dr Marcus Dods criticises my treatment of e]n t&? i]di<& noi~, remark-

ing that the danger was of a man's being "assured by some other person's

convictions." That is, of course, quite true, but I think my statement holds

that the phrase simply lays stress on the personal pronoun—"let each man be

fully assured for himself."

P. 96.—Note that dw

P. 102.—In Kuhring's account of a]po< (Praep. 35 ff., 52 ff.) there is striking

evidence of the encroachments of this preposition. The common commercial

e@sxon a]po> (for para> ) sou? may save us from over-refining in 1 Co 1123. The

note as to the perplexing rarity in the papyri of a]po< with the agent after passive

verbs will prevent us from assuming it too readily in the NT, though its occa-

sional presence is undoubted. For ou]ai> . . . a]po> tw?n skanda7) I

may quote excellent parallels from Pelagia, w} bi tou? . . . lh

(Usener, pp. 11 bis, 27), and w} a]po> tw?n Xristianw?n (p. 28): the difference in the

interjection shows that this was not imitation. Usener (p. 44) notes w} bi

"Murder!" as a vernacular phrase. So Acta Thomae, p. 224, o} a]po> tou? doliis simply the classical w@ c. gen. (cf Ep. Diogn. 9 w} th?j u[perballou

with the gen. strengthened, as so often. ]Ek of material (as Mt 2729) Kuhring

only finds once, AP 99 (ii/A.D.): add Mel. Nicole p. 281, peritraxhli

kaqormi

survival of e]k to-day authorities differ: the Athenaeum reviewer cites among

others Psichari, who says of e]k to

P. 103.—There seem to be places where ei]j actually stands for the posses-

sive genitive, as Deissmann BS 117 f. shows it does for the dative: TbP 16 ou]

lhj au]qadi<%, "not desisting from their violent

behaviour " (ii/B.C.); xwri>j tou? ei]j au]th>n oi@kon (=ou) Par P 5, "her house "

(ib.). It is tempting to seek help here for 1 Pet 111 ln, but the illiteracy of the

documents must be remembered.

P. 106.—One more quotation should be made from Kuhring, whose pamphlet

must be constantly in our hands a we study the NT prepositions. He seems

to demolish even the solitary Hebraism I had left to Aterct, that in Lk 158.

AP 135 (ii/A.D.) has ti< de> h[mei?n sune tw?n a]rxo

in connexion with the magistrates?" (G. and H.). So also BU 798 (Byz.).

ADDITIONAL NOTES TO THE SECOND EDITION 247

Kontos (Parathrhwith,"

i.e. “against”; but he is at least eighteen centuries late.

Ib.—One force of para< in composition is noted by Thumb (Neue Jahrb. '06,

p. 249), with reference to parh?lqen in Mt 1415. He parallels Welhausen's

“vorgeruckt” (our "advanced ") by citing MGr parapa

"far under," parame

which Wilcken (Ostraka, i. 78 f.) illustrates as a commercial word, giving Momm-

sen's "ungultig werden, etwa wegen eines Formfehlers." He compares Xen.



Hell. i. 6. 4, and Polybius, xviii. 36. 6, where it is co-ordinated with a]gnoei?n,

=parapi

P. 110.—Th the weighty authorities for e@xomen in Rom 51 is now added

Prof. H. A. A. Kennedy: see ExpT for July 1906, p. 451. I still agree with SH.

P. 112.—Usener (Pelagia, 49) remarks on a]pe

is transferred to the thought of the goal. Thus a]ph

e]kklhsi<% = "we arrived at the great church." ]Afiknou?mai was much earlier in

showing this result of perfective a]po<.

P. 115.—In Neue Jahrb. 1906, pp. 254 ff., Prof. Thumb justifies his view

that Miss Purdie's general position is right, though pure Koinh< texts like the

NT and the papyri would have served better than a writer like Polybius,

belonging to a transition period of the language. He points out that by this

development of the prepositions Hellenistic gains the means lof expressing

aoristic Aktionsart in present time. Thus “a]pe2. 5. 16) is in its


Aktionsart identical with e@labon or e@sxon, that is, it is an aorist-present, which

denotes the present answering to labei?n or sxei?n." The recognition of punctiliar

force in this commercial word (see Deissmann BS 229 and Licht v. Osten 74 ff.)

makes it very vivid in Mt l.c. . the hypocrites have as it were their money

down, as soon as their trumpet has sounded.

P. 122.—Mr H. D. Naylor sends me some additional notes as to the mh>

poi

note Aristoph. Av. 1534, where the conative present seems clear, and Ran.

618-622. Mr Naylor remarks, "I venture to hold the view that the distinction

is a growth. It was beginning in classical times; it was nearly crystallised in

NT Greek; and it is completely so in the modern language." In other words,

usage progressively restricted the various possible forces of voiet in this locution,

till only one was left. Mullach treated the matter well (pp. 345 f.), as the

Athenaeum reviewer notes. Add to my papyrus refl. HbP 45 (iii/B.C.) real

ta> loipa> peira?sqe suna mh> u[polimpa

P. 129.—The present of this conative h]na12:

of also Jn 1032. With reference to Thumb's argument on prosfe

it easier to deny him Heb 1117, as I can give him a good ex. in a less literary

writer: pro dw?ron in Mt 524 is very probably aorist in action.



Ib.—The differentia of the aorist may be effectively brought in to decide

the famous difficulty in 1 Co 721. If Paul meant "go on in youll slavery," he

must have said xrw?: the aorist xrh?sai can only be "seize the opportunity."

We can now see that Origen took the passage this way: see JTS ix. 508.

P. 134.—For Jn 156 Epictetus iv. 1. 39, a}n me>n strateu

pa28 and Gal 54 may be noted. See Abbott JG 586 for other exx.

P. 135.—An idiomatic old aorist belonging to this category still survives:

a traveller in Cos "had a pleasant shock, on calling for a cup of coffee, to hear

the waiter cry @Efqasa."

P. 141.—In a discussion of aorist and perfect (Am. Journ. Theol. x. 102 f.),

in which Latinism is regarded as contributory to the fusion, E. J. Goodspeed

248 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.

remarks on the curious development in the formula with the verb diagra

"pay," in receipts. The Ptolemaic do uments have diage

Roman diagegra

aorist suddenly and completely ousts he perfect, having previously only

appeared once, cir. 40 A.D., and the hange occurs simultaneously in Ele-

phantine and Thebes. It affects no other words: meme

unchanged.

P. 142.—Mr Ottley has noted no case of aoristic perfect in Isaiah except in

the category of aorist and perfect standin together, joined by kai<.

Ib.—Gal 318 423 are Pauline exx. of the perfect for what "stands written."

P. 145.—The constative "we possessed" clearly will not suit e]sxh

Rom 52. Can it have been a mannerism which Paul dropped between the

writing of "3 Corinthians" and Romans? On the other hand, another papyrus

can be quoted where "possessed" suits he sense well, and the perfect stands

in close connexion with the aorist: BU 97 (end of ii/A.D.), toi?j dikai

e]sxhko a@neu tino>j a]mfisbhth

Ib.—I venture to question the rendering "began to amend " in Ju 452. The

idiomatic English "got better" suits the punctiliar e@sxen, and the comparative

does not differ from the positive in e]a

than "got better" differs from "got well." The father does not suggest a



gradual recovery.

P. 159.—On the verb pareOstraka, i. 107) that

even in RL (iii/B.C.)—e.g. 51—the word occurs often both in act. and in mid.

without apparent distinction. These sporadic exx. of irregular middles occur in

the earliest period of the Koinh<, but they do not invalidate the general rule.

P. 168.—The papyrus exx. of o!tan=when make it an open question whether

in Mk 1119 we are not to translate "when evening fell," that is the evening

before the prwi~ of v.20. In such a writer as Mk this is at least possible, and

the other rendering produces an awkward sequence. The impf. e]ceporeu

may be pictorial quite as well as iterative.

P. 177.—Prof. W. Rhys Roberts suggests to me another ex. of c. fut. in

Eurip. Med. 822, le mhde

that order) has always seemed to him a bitrary. "Probably there are other

similar cases in which the MS reading should be carefully weighed."

P. 179.—Add Epict. iv. 1. 41, i!na mh> mwro>j ^, a]ll ] i!na ma

a fool, but learn. . . ." Dr J. 0. F. Murray suggests to me that this la may

be seen in Rev 1413. Since the jussive Requiescant falls from Divine lips, it has

no bearing on controverted questions. Its superior fitness in the grammatical

structure of the verse is undeniable. In I Co 145 we have a good ex. of qe>;w

i!na and qe

Ib.—Prof. Burkitt (Evang. da-Mepharr. ii. 252 f.) reads in M. 2323 tau?ta

de> poih?sai ka]kei?na mh> a]fei?nai, after the Lewis, supposing the MSS readings to

be corrections. In 2 Co 121 he would follow x in reading kauxa?sqai—ou] sumfe

me>n—e]leu k.tl., which is presumably "Now to boast!—it is not ex-

pedient, but I shall be coming," etc. There seems no special difficulty about

infin. for imper. here, and Aramaism is entirely out of court. Prof. Burkitt's

reading in Mt i.e. is “translation Greek” no doubt, but perfectly allowable.

P. 185.—The use of mh< in warning retains still the consciousness of its

paratactic origin. Dr. Rouse quotes fobou?mai mh

11, 2 Co

113) with the independent mh

(mh

Ib.—In Gal 610 WH read w[j kairo>n e@xwmen (xB*17). As we have seen on

Rom 51, the MSS can hardly perhaps be egarded as decisive between o and w;

ADDITIONAL NOTES TO THE SECOND EDITION. 249

but the subj. is justifiable with the sense "as long as we have opportunity, let

us continue to work." ( [Wj in MGr takes the meaning of e!wj as well as its own.)

In classical Greek this futuristic subj. would demand a@n, but words meaning

until constantly drop it in Hellenistic.

P. 188.—Dr Giles tells me that Gildersleeve's suggestion of an independent

ou] in ou] mh< was anticipated in the Middle Ages: in one if not both of the best

MSS of Aristophanes it is regularly punctuated ou@ mh< . . .

P. 205.—Prof. Thumb (Neue Jahrb. '06, p. 259) observes that the infin. of

purpose is commoner in Homer than in Attic: the preference accordingly has

lingered in Asiatic and island Greek for three thousand years.

P. 206.—Dr E. A. Abbott reinforces the depleted ranks of scholars who

would press the telic force of i!na in Jn. We might cite such passages as 1513

as affording scope for exegetical ingenuity on these lines. If we had no evidence

from Hellenistic and MGr as to the loss of this force in i!na, we might accept

such subtleties of interpretation as at least not out of character with so allusive

a writer. But with our present knowledge we need much stronger evidence

to prove that Jn differed so greatly from his contemporaries.

P. 207.—Prof. Burkitt notes (Ev. da-Meph. ii. 183) that Tatian took w!ste

as consecutive in Lk 429, "so that they cast him down."

P. 209.—The consecutive o!ti which Blass would read in Jn 316 does appear

in later Greek, e.g. Pelagia, 20, ti< didoi?j toi?j a]mnoi?j sou, o!ti zwh>n ai]w

See Abbott JG 534.

P. 210.—The consecutive use of i!na was recognised by Lightfoot in Gal 517,

1 Th 54: see his notes, and cf what he says on ei]j to> c. inf. in 1 Th 216.

P. 212.—For classical exx. of acc. and infin. where no. would have been

regular, cf Aeschylus PV 268 f. and the note of Sikes and Wynne-Willson; also

Adam's note on Plato Apol. 36 B.

P. 215.—Dr Abbott touches a weak spot in my treatment of e]n t&? c. inf.

He reminds me that, to prove the Biblical use free from Semitism, we must find

classical parallels for it with the sense "during." Birklein's statistics un-

fortunately do not give us the opportunity of testing this, and in the face of

Blass's dictum (p. 239) it is not worth while to try. I should transfer this

"Hebraism" to the category of "possible but unidiomatic" Greek (supra, p. 76).

Ib.— Zh?n, like pei?n and fagei?n, our living, had become a noun in the ver-

nacular. Thus BM iii. p. 131 (a poor weaver's petition, 140 A.D.) misqou? pori<-

zontoj to> zh?n TbP 283 (illiterate, i/B.C.) kinduneu

P. 227.—The periphrastic imperf. occurs several times in Pelagia, as p. 14,

h@mhn a]perxo

in Mt 521. Cf Usener's note p. 50. That this is pure vernacular, untainted by

Hebraism, is beyond question. Dr Rouse observes that it is used now in

Zaconian, as forou?nter e@me=e]forou?men, o[rou

P. 237.—A further addition to the list on p. 95 is given by Prof. Burkitt in

Mt 1011 D and 28, h[ poEv. da-Meph. ii. 75).

This goes with the passages supporting Wellhausen's thesis (above, p. 242).

P. 240.—If mh> ge

parallel with some other survivals in idiomatic phrases, fo which Dr Rouse

instances meta> xara?j, a]po> broxh?j, te Dr Rouse

himself has never heard mh> gej na> fula

1. INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.

(a) NEW TESTAMENT.


MATTHEW MATTHEW--continued MATTHEW--continued

PAGE PAGE PAGE

1.18 74 6. 17 85, 236 12. 28 140

1. 19 230 6. 19 58, 240 12. 42 236

1. 20 124 6. 27 239 13. 2 230, 241

1. 21 69, 86 6. 28 117 13. 5-8 79

1. 22 106 7. 1 191 13. 14 75

2. 1 48 7. 4 175, 176 13. 15 140

2. 2 138, 204 7. 9 193 13. 17 139

2. 3 48 7. 13 174 13. 24 140

2. 4 120 7. 16 59 13. 28 140

2.10 117 7. 22 138 13. 30 97

2. 15 138 7. 23 174 13. 32 53

2. 20 58 8. 1 74 13. 44 139.

2. 23 17 8. 8 208 13. 46 142, 143, 145

3. 4 91, 102 8. 10 140 14. 2 140

3. 7 116, 138 8. 19 97 14. 15 140, 247

3. 9 15, 124 8. 25 114 14. 19 107

3. 11 208 8. 32 172 15. 5 177

3. 14 208 8. 34 14 15. 6 140

3. 17 104 9. 1 90 15. 13 139

4. 3 208 9. 8 58 15. 24 138

5. 12 129, 174 9. 10 16, 17 15. 32 70

5. 17 138 9. 18 74, 140 16. 7 139

5. 18 58, 191 9. 34 104 16. 17 140

5. 21, etc. 138, 140, 186 10. 5 138 16. 20 208

5. 25 174, 226 10. 8 139 16. 22 190, 191, 240

5. 26 191 10. 9 125 16. 26 230

5. 27 138 10. 10 38 17. 9 125

5. 28 65, 140, 218 10. 19 93 17. 12 138, 140

5. 29 210 10. 25 140 208, 210 17. 14 74

5. 31 136, 186 10. 26 191 18. 1 78

5. 33 138 10. 28 102 18. 6 236

5. 34, 36 126 10. 29 236 18. 11 137

5. 38 138 10. 32 104 18. 13 137

5. 39 79, 174 10.34 f.. 138 18. 15 140

5. 40 69 10. 42 188 18. 22 98

5. 42 129, 174 11. 1 17 18. 23 140, 160

5. 43 138 11. 3 185 18. 25 219

5. 47 186 11. 6 104 19.6 140

6. 2 159, 186 11.17 139 19. 12 139

6. 3 174 11. 20 79 19. 27 140

6. 11 129, 174 11. 25 91, 136, 139 19. 29 140

6. 12 137, 140 11. 27 140 20.7 140

6. 13 125 12. 3, etc. 140 20. 12 140

6. 16 186 12. 7 148 20. 20, 22 160


250

INDEX TO QUOTATIONS. 251


MATTHEW- continued MATTHEW --continued MARK-continued

PAGE PAGE Page

20. 22 45 27. 44 58 8.7 52

20. 23 241 27. 16 140 8. 14 170

20. 28 105 27. 49 175, 230 8. 19 50

21. 16 138, 140 27. 62 91 8. 24 91

21. 19 179 28. 1 72. 73 8. 26 125

21. 20 139 28. 7 140 8. 36 87

21. 32 216 28. 15 139 9. 18 186

21. 42 59, 138, 139, 140 28. 18 140 9. 25 125

22. 1 131 28. 20 139 9. 38 129

22. 2 140 9. 39 125, 174

22. 5 88, 90 MARK 9. 41 100, 188

22. 11 231, 232 10. 7 91

23. 21 104 1. 7 96, 237 10. 13 59

23. 23 140, 185, 248 1.11 134 10. 20 159

23. 30 201 1. 15 67 10. 29 191

23. 33 116, 185 1. 17 45 10. 32 227

23. 39 191 1. 25 176 10. 35, 38. 160

24. 17, 18 174 1. 36 116 10. 35 179

24. 23 124 1. 44 124 10. 45 105

24. 30 150 2. 1 82 10. 51 179

24. 35 190 2. 3 222. 11.11 72

24. 43 201 2. 5 119 11. 14 165, 179

24. 45 140 2. 7 231 11. 16 176

24. 48 142 2. 15 16, 17 11. 19 168, 248

25. 6 14, 146 2. 23 16, 17, 159 11. 25 168

25. 9 181, 189, 192 3. 9 208 12.11 59

25. 16 116 3. 11 168 12. 14 185

25. 19 160 3. 16 69, 235 12. 23 145

25. 20 140 3. 21 106, 134 12. 40 50

25. 20, 24. 238 3. 26 187 13.1 74

25. 22 140 4. 1 241 13.2 189, 191

25. 24, 25 238 4. 5-8 79 13.6 175

25. 24, 26 138 4. 8 103 13. 11 91

25. 40 138 4. 22 191, 241 13. 13 150

25. 41 221 4. 26 185 13. 19 95

26. 2 120 4. 28 46, 50 13. 24-27 150

26. 4 157 4. 32 53 13. 31 190, 191

26. 10 116, 140 4. 39 176 14. 3 55, 176

26. 13 140 4. 41 58 14. 6 175

26. 24 200 5. 10 208 14.8 176

26. 25 140 5. 13 172 14. 10 97

26. 32 212 5. 15 145 14. 14 151

26. 35 190, 191 5. 19 143 14. 18 111

26. 50 93 5. 23 179 14. 19 105

26. 51 157 5. 34 174, 226 14. 21 171, 200

26. 53 50 5. 36 124 14. 28 149

26. 64 86, 140 6. 14, 24 127 14. 30 151

26. 65 140 6. 17 f.. 94 14. 31 190, 191

27. 1 207 6. 22-25 160 14. 32 169

27. 4 149, 177 6. 25 179 14. 36 93, 233

27.5 155 6. 26 51 14. 38 178

27.11 86 6. 38 170 14. 42 175

27. 19 140 6. 39 f. 97, 107, 14. 47 157

27. 19, 25 183 6. 56 167, 168 14. 63 38

27. 21 77, 102 7. 12 191 14. 72 131

27. 23 140 7. 25 13, 94, 95 15. 1 159

27. 24 90 7. 26 75 15. 2 86

27. 32 14 7. 28 20 15. 15 20

27. 35 157 8. 2 139 15. 18 71

27. 40 127 8. 3 53 15. 25 12

252 INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.
MARK--continued LUKE- conitinued LUKE--continued

PAGE PAGE PAGE

15. 36 175 8. 6-8 79 15. 14 60

15. 42 51 8. 27 75 15. 17 114

16.6 135, 137, 163 8. 29 75, 113, 148 15. 19 208

[16.] 9-20 . 216 8. 38 54 15. 26 198

[16.] 18 191 8. 42 114 15. 32 135

8. 43 102 16. 17 191

8. 46 229 16. 22 16

LUKE 8. 49 121, 125 17. 1 217

1. 7 75, 103 8. 52 125 17. 8 93

1. 15 177, 191 8. 54 70 17. 23 59

1. 18 75 9. 3. 179 18. 1 218

1. 20 92 9. 13 171, 187 18. 2 65

1. 28 183 9. 25 87, 230 18. 7 159

1. 38 195 9. 28 70 18. 10 205

1. 43 208, 211, 217 9. 31 53 18. 16 124

1. 54, 72 210 9. 36 . 52, 144 18. 36 198

1. 58 106, 246 9. 45 210 18. 41 185

1. 59 129 9. 46 198 19. 2 86

1. 62 198 9. 54 185 19. 13 35, 118

1. 76 f.. 217 10. 1 97 19. 17 174, 226

1. 79 217 10. 4 125 19. 29 69

2. 1 47 10. 7 91, 125 20. 16 194, 240

2. 1, 3 162 10. 18 134 20. 23 117

2. 4 91, 212 10. 20 125 20. 36 114

2. 5 162 10. 21 91 21.6 69, 191

2. 26 169 10. 36 146 21. 8 125

2. 36 75 10. 42 92 21. 22 217

2. 39 130 11. 3 129, 173, 174. 21. 33 190, 191

2. 49 103 11. 4 119 21. 37 69

3. 8 15 11. 7 125 22. 6 220

3. 15 194, 199 11. 35 192 22. 23 199

3. 16 95, 237 11. 41 f. 15 22. 34 239

3. 23 227 11. 46 56 22. 44 51

3. 23 ff.. 236 12. 1 102, 157 22. 49 12, 185

4. 10 116 12. 2 191 22. 65 231

4. 18 143 12. 4 102 22. 70 86

4. 25 60 12. 8 104 23. 3 86

4. 26 f. 241 12. 12 91 23. 5 45, 240

4. 33 227 12. 15 157, 178 23. 28 125

4. 42 220 12. 20 58 24. 22 51

5. 19 73 12. 24, 27 117 24. 34 135

5. 23 119 12. 26 236 24. 47, 49 182

5. 38 222 12. 32 70

6. 1 17 12. 35 176

6. 3 168 12. 36 74 JOHN

6. 4 171 12. 39 201

6. 11 198 12. 58 . 174 1. 5 158

6. 13 65 12. 59 55, 191 1. 6 70

6. 23 129, 174 13. 8 169 1. 9 227

6. 29 79, 125, 174 13. 16 11 1. 11 90

6. 30 119, 129, 174 13. 24 174 1. 12 115

6. 35 65 13. 27 174 1. 14 50, 82, 83

6. 37 191 13. 34 45 1. 15 79, 147, 245

6. 41 90 13. 35 191 1. 16 100

6. 42 175, 231, 232 14. 7 157 1. 18 144, 235

7. 6 156 14. 8 125 1. 27 208, 237

7. 13 125 14. 12 125 1. 41 90

7. 16 135 14. 18 90 2. 5 186

7. 19 f.. . 80 14. 20 135 2. 16 125

7. 32 82 14. 28 194 3. 7 124, 126

INDEX TO QUOTATIONS. 253
JOHN-continued JOHN-continued ACTS- continued

PAGE PAGE PAGE

3. 16 209 15. 6 59, 134, 247 5. 2 237

3. 18 171, 239 15. 8, 13 208 5. 7 16, 70, 233

3. 19 140 15. 13 211 5. 14 67, 68

3 32 143 15. 16 55 5. 15 35

4.10 201 15. 18 79, 245 5. 17 228

4. 18 145 15. 22, 24 52 5. 21 237

4. 23 66 15. 27 119 5. 24 198

4. 29 170, 193 16. 17 102 5. 39 193

4, 34 208, 210 16. 23 66 6. 3 50

4. 35 12 17. 3 113, 206 6. 5 50

4. 52 63 17. 23 234 7. 5 232

5. 7 219 17. 24 179 7. 11 107

5.13 210 17. 25 113 7. 12 235

5. 14 125 18. 20 236 7. 14 103

5. 18 90 18. 34 87 7. 20 104

5. 24 67 18. 37 86 7. 26 129

5. 36 49 18. 39 210 7. 31 117

5. 37 144 19.3 70 7. 35 144

5. 38 67 19. 11 148 7. 36 133

6. 10 63, 75 19. 21 125 7. 40 69

6. 25 146 . 19. 24 157 7. 60 125

6. 57 105 19. 25 106 8. 16 107

6. 59 236 20. 1 222 8.20 195

6. 68 83 20. 2 59 8. 23 71, 235

7. 4 212 20. 17, 27 125 8. 31 198

[8. 9] 105 20. 19 183 9. 7 66

8. 31 67 20. 25 49, 204 9. 15 217

8. 32, 33 149 21. 3 204 9. 34 119

8. 33 144 21. 5 170 9. 38 125

8. 38 85 21.8 102 10. 15 125

8. 57 234 21. 10 135 10. 17 198

8. 59 156, 161 21. 23 114 10. 25 16, 217

9. 2 210 21. 24 9 10. 28 236

9. 17 94 21. 25 205 10. 33 131, 228

10. 5 190 10. 37 240

10. 12 231, 232 11. 25 235

10. 29 50 ACTS 11. 28 60, 92

10. 37 125 12. 6 114

11.2 132 1. 1 79 12. 17 240

11. 17 36 1. 5 21 12. 25 133

11. 18 102 1. 12 49, 69, 235 13. 1 228

11. 21, 32 201 1. 15 107 13.8 236

11. 28 131 1. 25 90 13. 9 83

11. 42 135 2. 1 233 13. 10 177 .

11. 55 12 2. 8 88 13. 22 71

11.56 191 2. 17, 21 16 13. 25 93

12. 1 100, 101 2. 45 167 14. 6, 8 48

12. 7 175 2. 47 107 14. 8 221

12. 9 84 3. 8 161 14. 13 228

12. 13 14 3. 12 217 14. 14 157

12. 19 135 3. 17 230 14. 18 217, 220

12. 35 158 3. 19 237 15. 17 237

12. 40 117 3. 23 . 16 15. 20 217

13. 1 90, 135 4. 5 16 15. 23 179

13.8 177, 191 4. 13 158 15. 27 230

13. 13 235 4. 16 236 15. 29 171, 176, 228

13. 27 236 4. 21 212, 230 15. 37 f. 130

13. 31 135 4. 23 90 15. 39 209

14. 31 177 4. 35 167 16. 6 133, 134

15. 4 103, 241 4. 36 75 16.13 82


254 INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.
ACTS-continued ACTS-continued ROMANS-continued

PAGE PAGE PAGE

16. 18 119, 240 25. 25 239 12. 6-8 183

16. 28 125 26. 2 148 12. 6 225

16. 34 67, 235 26. 5 78 12. 9 ff. 182

16. 36 52 26. 7 70 12. 9-19 180

17. 1 230 26. 11 128 12. 14, 15, 16, 19 180

17. 9 20 26. 20 225 12. 15 179, 180

17. 18 198 26. 22 231, 232 12. 16 f. 182

17. 26 133 26. 29 198 13. 1 228

17. 27 230 27. 1 69, 217 13. 9 87

17. 28 81 27. 10 151 13. 1 1 182, 183

17. 31 240 27. 12 211 14. 5 89

18. 8 67, 235 27. 22 241 14. 20 125

18. 9 125 27. 29 36 14. 23 134

19. 14 80, 246 27. 34 106 15. 1 221

19. 15 131 27. 39 117, 196 15. 4 115

19. 16 80 28.6 239 15. 5, 13 195

19. 26 73 28. 15 14 15. 22 217

19. 27 60 28 17 228 15. 23 217

19. 28 50 28. 17, 19 231, 232 15. 24 167

19. 32 236 16. 7 52, 141, 144

20. 3 217 16. 25 75

20. 10 125 ROMANS

20. 16 17, 63, 196

20. 18 56 1. 5 136 1 CORINTHIANS

20. 22 151 1. 9 68

20. 27 217 1. 10 194 1. 18 114

20. 28 117, 219 1. 20 117, 219 3. 8. 90

20. 29 26 I. 24 217 3. 19. 65

21. 14 134 1. 31 222 4. 3 210, 236

21. 16 73, 223 1. 32 230 4. 8 200

21. 22 52 3. 13 52 4. 21 12

21. 28 143 5. 1 35, 110, 247, 248 6. 2. 103, 236

21. 31 74 5. 2 145 6. 3 240

21. 33 198, 199 5. 11 224 6. 5 . 99

21. 40 7 5. 12 107 6.7 162

22. 2 7 5. 20 207 6. 11 163

22.5 149 6. 4 83 7. 2 89

22. 9 66 6. 6 218 7. 5 169

22. 16 163 6. 11 103 7. 15 172

22. 17 74 6. 13 125, 129 7. 27 125

22. 19 227 7. 3 217 7. 31 64

22. 24 133 8. 3 221 7. 37 . 224

23. 8 80 8. 9 171 8. 6 106

23. 21 125 8. 12 217 8. 13 191

23. 26 179 8. 15 10 9. 6 220

23. 27 117 8. 18 114 9. 10 217

23. 29 239 8. 20 105 9. 19 230

23. 30 74, 176 8. 28 65 9. 21 236

23. 35 133 9. 3 212 9. 26 231

24. 2 106 9. 5 228 10. 2 163

24. 5 224 9. 25 231 10. 13 217

24. 10 229 9. 26 16 10. 29 87

24. 19 196 10.3 163 11. 23 237, 246

24. 22 133 236 10.6 124 11. 29 87

24. 23 90 10. 14 124 11. 29 230

24. 24 88, 90 11. 4 59 11. 34 167

25. 9 131 11. 11 207 12. 2 115, 167

25. 10 236 11. I8. 20 125 13. 13 58, 78

25. 13 132, 133 12. 3 219, 227 14. 5 187, 208, 248

25. 16 169 12. 5 105, 183 14. 8 156

INDEX TO QUOTATIONS. 255
CORINTHIANS-Contd. GALATIANS PHILIPPIANS-continued

PAGE PAGE PAGE

14. 10 196 I. 5 183 2. 26 227

14. 11 103, 104 1. 6f. 80, 246 2. 30 64

14. 27 79 1. 7 171 3. 3 231

14. 39 125 1. 22 f. 227 3. 4 230

15 . 2 171 2. 2 193, 201 3. 5 10, 102

15. 4 137, 141 2. 10 179 3. 7 148

15. 6 136 2. 13 209 3. 10 218

15. 9 79, 236 3. 17 117 3. 11f. 187, 194

15. 22 114 3. 17 219. 212 3. 13 212

15. 28 149, 163 3. 23 114 3. 16 179, 204

15. 29 58 4. 6 10, 233 3. 19 50

15. 31, 32 114 4. 8. 217 3. 21 217

15. 32 120 4. 11 193, 248 4. 11 229

15. 33 45 4. 13 106 4. 14 228

15. 37 151, 196 4. 27 127, 231

15. 50 58 4. 30 177

16. 2 54 5. 1 61, 125 COLOSSIANS

16. 3 58 5. 12 163, 201

16.1 4 216, 217 5. 14 87 1. 4. 8 236

16. 5 120 5. 15 124 1. 26 224

16. 6 74 5. 16 118, 130, 191 2. 1 52

16. 11 178 5. 26 177 2. 2 182

6. 5 90 2. 8 178, 192, 228

2 CORINTHIANS 2. 18 239

2. 19 231

1. 4 93 EPHESIANS 2. 21 124

1. 8 217, 220 3. 9 126

1. 9 145 1. 1 228 3. 16 181, 182

1. 17 210 1. 6 93 3. 17 181, 183

2. 7 193 1. 10 107 3. 18 163

2. 13 145, 220 1. 13 67,68 4. 6 183

4. 8 237 1. 15 236 4. 15 48

4. 8, 9 231 1. 16 159

5. 3 115 1. 17 55, 196

5. 4 107 2. 5, 8 127 1 THESSALONTIANS

5. 19 212, 227 2. 11 84, 236

6. 9 114 2. 15 103 2.4 231

7. 5 145, 182, 225 3. 4 117 2. 12 219

8. 6 219 3. 8 236 2. 16 219

8. 7 179 3. 16 55 3. 1 231

8. 11 217 3. 17 182 3.2 68

8. 18 68 4. 1 84, 93, 236 3. 5 163, 201

8. 23 105 4.2, 3 181 3. 8 168

8. 24 181 4. 2 f 182 3. 11 179

9. 11 182 4. 26 125 4. 9 219

9. 11, 13 181 4. 28 127 4. 14 149, 162

10. 2 212 5. 18 126 4. 15 191

10. 9 167 5. 22 181 4. 17 14

10. 14 68 5. 33 179 5. 3 191

11. 1 200 6. 13 115 5. 4 210

11. 2 160 6. 22 135

11. 5 239 2 THESSALONIANS

11. 16 178

11. 21 212 PHILIPPIANS I. 8 9

11. 25 144, 145, 148 1.5 236 2. 2 212

12. 2 101, 229 1. 5 178 2.3 178

12. 9 130 1. 30 179 2. 17 179

12. 17 144 2. 1 59 3. 5 179

12. 19 119 2. 12 174 3. 6 52

3. 5 171 2. 23 167 3. 13 124

256 INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.
1 TIMOTHY HEBREWS-continued 1 PETER-continued

PAGE PAGE PAGE

1. 13 230 7. 27 90 2. 15 53

2. 6 105 8. 6 56 2. 18 181

4. 14 125 8. 9 74 2. 24 237

4. 15 184 8. 10 107, 224 3. 1, 7 181

5. 1 124, 125 9. 12 51, 132 3. 1, 7, 9, 15, 16 182

5. 13 229 9. 18 143 3. 3 236

5. 22 125 10. 1 58, 225 3. 7 181

5. 23 125 10. 14 127 3. 8 f. 180

6. 3 171 10. 16 107, 224 3. 14 196

10. 17 190 3. 17 196

10. 28 114 4. 3 11

2 TIMOTHY 10. 35 124 4. 7 181

11. 1 231 4. 8 ff. 181

1. 8 124, 125 11. 3 219 4. 11 181

1. 11 234 11.4 224 4. 12 125

1. 12 204 11. 5 217 4. 17 217

1. 16, 18 195 11. 12 230 4. 18 150

1. 18 78, 236 11. 15 204 5. 7 181

2. 19 113 11. 17 129, 142, 143, 238

2. 25 55, 193, 194 11. 21 114

11. 28 144 2 PETER

11. 32 237

TITUS 11. 33 116 1. 1 84

11. 34 116 1. 9 171

1. 11 171 11. 35 224, 231 1. 10 191

1. 12 88, 233 12. 7 82 1. 12 230

2. 2-10 179 12. 15 178 1. 18 222

2. 13 84 12. 25 124, 200 1. 19 47, 169, 228

3. 8 207 13. 5 182 2. 5 97

13. 6 150 2. 14 47, 74 13. 9 125 2. 22 155, 156, 238

PHILEMON 13. 24 237 3. 16 88

20 195


JAMES 1 JOHN

HEBREWS 1. 1 179 1. 3 143

1. 11 135 1. 9 210

1.1 107 1. 13 74 2. 19 148, 201

2. 10 106 1. 24 135, 139, 144 2. 24 69

2. 15 215 2. 1 125 4. 1 125

3- 5 151 2. 25 230 4. 2 229

3. 8, 15 124 3. 4 230 4. 3 171

3. 12 74, 178, 193 3. 13 93 4. 16 68

3. 16 36 4. 2f. 160 5. 3 211

4. 1 185 5. 16 156 5.10 171

4. 3 230 5. 17 217 5. 15 160, 168

4. 7 124

5. 1 218


5. 7 102 1 PETER 2 JOHN

6. 41 66


6. 6 230 1. 2 82 7 229

6. 10 204, 210 1. 8 231. 232 8 . 50, 116

7. 1 224 1. 10 f. 115 10 125

7. 2 224 1. 14 181

7. 5 53 1. 18 84 3 JOHN

7. 8 114 1. 24 135

7. 9 204 2. 10 231 4 236

7. 13 143 2. 11 91, 181 , 5 116

7 24 212 2. 12 181, 182 6 228

INDEX TO QUOTATIONS. 257

JUDE REVELATION-continued REVELATION-Continued

PAGE PAGE PAGE

1 103 3.16 114 11. 18 118

5 230 4. 4 36 12. 4 114

4. 9 168 12.6 59

5. 5 125 12. 7 106, 217. 218

5. 7 143, 145 12. 9 233

REVELATION 6. 6 125 13. 8, 12 237

7 . 1 36 14.4 168

1. 4 9 7. 2 237 14.8 135

I. 5 9, 12 7. 3 125 14. 13 114, 248

1. 16 36 7. 9 237 14. 20 102

1. 20 9 7. 14 145 17.3 65

2. 2 56 8. 1 168 18. 2 134, 135

2. 3, 5 52 8. 4 75 18. 14 190, 192

2. 4 52 8. 5 143, 145 18. 22 192

2. 5, 16 75 8. 6 190 19. 3 145

2. 7 85 9. 11 69, 233, 235 19. 10 178

2. 13 12 9. 12 58 20. 2 233

2. 26 69 9. 14 36 20. 4 130

2. 27 145 9. 20 210 20. 8 237

3. 2 114 10. 2 225 21. 12, 14. 225

3. 3 63, 143, 145 10.4 125 21.13. 73

3. 5 104 10. 10 111, 115 21. 21 105

3. 8 237 11. 5 187 21. 27 241

3. 15 200 11. 17 52, 145 22.9 178

(b) OLD TESTAMENT.

N.B.-The numbering of the chapters is according to the English Ilible ; where

the LXX differs, the numbers are added in brackets. So with titles of

Books.

PAGE PAGE PAGE



Gen. 1. 10 46 1 Sam. (1 K.) 1.11 191 Ca. 8. 1 194

3. 10 161 “ 9. 9 235 Isai. 5. 27 189

4. 24 98 “ 13. 15 14 “ 14. 31 176

6. 17 49 2 Sam. (2 K.) 18. 33 194 “ 28. 16 68

8. 13 237 “ 20. 20 240 “ 33. 24 185

21. 26 241 “ 21. 24 50 “ 53.5 143

24. 11 162 1 Chr. 11. 19 240 Jer. 9. 2 194

43. 16 63 Job 22. 3 168 “ 31 (38). 33. 107

43. 23 240 “ 24. 12 . 88 Ezek. 26. 131 192

45. 8 94 “ 30. 20 147 Dan. 10. 13, 20 217

Ex. 1. 16 54 “ 31. 31 198 Hos. 11. 1 138

“  3. 14 228 “ 31. 35 194

“   32. 1 142 Ps. 6. 9 174

Num. 11. 29 194 “   32 (31). 3 147 APOCRYPHA

Deut. 23. 1 163 “ 120 (119). 3 194

28. 24 ff. 194 “ 141 (140). 1 147 Esth. 13. 3 198

Jos. 1. 11 70 Prov. 3. 5 226 “ 14. 3 54

17. 13 76 “ 9. 12 . 88, 89 2 Mac. 3. 16 16

Judg. 9. 29 194 “ 22. 7 88 “ 9. 24 194

9. 53 112 “ 27. 15 88 “ 12. 4 167

Ruth 1. 9 194 Eccles. 2. 16 70 4 Mac. 5. 13 198

258 INDEX TO QUOTATIONS.
(c) INSCRIPTIONS.




1   ...   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   ...   33
:)


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page

:)