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.
Date conversion08.11.2016
Size3.25 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   33
trust (B; "h) was keenly realised. The prepositional construc-

tion was suggested no doubt by its being a more literal

translation of the Hebrew phrase with B;. But in itself it

was entirely on the lines of development of the Greek

language, as we have seen. There was, moreover, a fitness

in it for the use for which it was specialised. To repose

one's trust upon God or Christ was well expressed by pisteu

the dative suggesting more of the state, and the accus-

ative more of the initial act of faith; while ei]j recalls at once

the bringing of the soul into that mystical union which Paul

loved to express by e]n Xrist&?. But as between e]pi<, and

cis, we may freely admit that it is not safe to refine too

much: the difference may amount to little more than that

between our own believe on and believe in.1 The really im-

portant matter is the recognition of a clear distinction between

believe on
or in and believe with the dative simply.2
1 For a closely allied equivalence, cf that of e]n and e]pi> t&? o]no

monstrated by Heitmuller, Im Namen Jesu (1903), 1. ch. i.

2 We may give a table of the constructions of pisteunot= entrust. As elsewhere, it depends on WH text, ignoring passages in [[ ]].

c. ei]j c. e]pi< c. e]n c. dat. Total.

dat. acc.

Mt 1 — 1 -- 4 6

Mk. — — — 1 1 2

Lk and Ac 3 1 4 — 9 17

Jn and 1 Jn. 37 — — — 18 55

Paul 3 4 2 — 6 15

Jas — — — — 1 1

1 Pet 1 1 — — — 2

Total 45 6 7 1 39 98

1 Jn 416 is omitted, as e]gnw14 and

Eph 113, for reasons given above. See Thumb, Neue Jahrb. 1906, p. 253.

Special. uses We have still to gather some noteworthy

of the Cases:-- points in the use of the cases, particularly

Nominative. the Nominative, on which nothing has been

said hitherto. The case has a certain tend-

ency to be residuary legatee of case-relations not obviously

appropriated by other cases. We have its use as the name-

case, unaltered by the construction of the sentence, in Rev

911: the fact that this has classical parallels (see Blass 85)

is perhaps only accidental, for we have already seen that

ungrammatical nominatives are prevalent in Rev (see p. 9),

and the general NT usage is certainly assimilation (Mt 121,

Mk 316, Ac 271). The classical parallels may serve for a

writer such as Luke, if we are to write e]laiw

1929 2137. In WH and the RV it is e]laiw?n, gen. pl., and so

Blass. We noted above (p. 49) the conclusive evidence which

compels us to accept the noun e]laiwolivetum, as a word

current in the Koinh<. WH (App2 165) regard the presence

of ]Elaiw?noj in Ac 112 as corroborating the argument drawn

from the unambiguous to> o@roj tw?n e]laiw?n. Tertullian's in

Elaeonem secedebat, the prevalence of olivetum in the Latin

versions, and the new fact (unknown to WH) that e]laiw

a word abundantly occurring in the vernacular, may together

perhaps incline us rather to the other view, with Deissmann,

Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Weiss (cf W. F. Moulton's note in

WM 227). Certainly, if we were forced to emend on

conjecture, to substitute ]Elaiw?na in Lk in one of which

places the initial a]. following makes it especially easy—would

cause much less disturbance than to force Blass e]laiw?n

upon Acts and Josephus. (See further on p. 235.)

"Nominativus The nominative which stands at the

Pendens. head of a clause without construction is

a familiar phenomenon hardly needing to

be illustrated: it is one of the easiest of anacolutha,

and as much at home in English as in Greek. The

special case in which the participle is concerned will en-

gage our attention later (p. 225). Typical text. are Lk 216,

Ac 740, Mt 540 D (o[ qe

reading, as t&? qe24,

Rev 226, etc. Note Mt 1714 and Mk 134 in D.

The parenthetic nominative in expressions of time is well


seen in Mt 1532, Mk 82, also Lk 928. In popular Attic the

construction goes as far back as v/B.C.1 Viteau (Sujet 41) cites

Parenthetic Eccles 216 (note emendation in A and xc.a.) and

Nominative Jos 111. On the latter Nestle notes (Exp T

xvi. 429) that B (e@ti h[me dia-

baia Deissmann adds from the Acta

Pauli et Theclae
(in OP p. 9) h[mer h@dh trei?j kai> nu

trei?j Qe2 We must leave it an open ques-

tion whether Ac 57 (see p. 16) belongs to this category: it

means an isolated return to the construction of e]ge

Luke used in his Gospel, but then abandoned. This may not

however be quite decisive. The use of parenthetic nominat-

ives appears in the papyri most abundantly in descriptions

with ou]lh< or gei2 will run, "to A.,

long-faced, straight-nosed, a scar on his right wrist"; and a

piece of land or a house is inventoried with " belonging to

A., its neighbours on the south the open street, on the west

the house of B."—all nominatives without construction. We

compare such examples as Jn 16.

Articular There is a very marked increase in the

Nominative use of the articular nominative in address.

in address. Nearly sixty examples of it are found in the

NT. There seems no sufficient reason for

assigning any influence to the coincident Hebrew use, for

classical Greek shows the idiom well established. The rough

and peremptory tone which characterises most of the other

examples seems to have disappeared. Contrast the Aristo-

phanic o[ pai?j a]kolou

(Blass), with the tender h[ pai?j e@geire2 in Lk 854: we may

still recognise a survival of the decisiveness of the older use.

Descriptiveness, however, is rather the note of the articular

nom. of address in the NT: so in Lk 1232, Jn 193, where we

may represent the nuance by "Fear not, you little flock!

"Hail, you 'King'!" In the latter passage we can easily

feel the inappropriateness of the basileu? found in x, which

would admit the royal right, as in Ac 267. Its appearance

1 Meisterhans3 203. See CR xvii. 197, where Cronert reads in BM ii. 299

(no. 417—iv/A.D.) e]peidh> a]sxolw? e]lqi?n pro>j se>n au]te> (=-ai>) h[me

—a violent example if true. Cf p. 11 n.1 ad fin. [a See p. 245.

2 See p. 235.


in Mk 1518 is merely a note of the writer's imperfect

sensibility to the more delicate shades of Greek idiom.

Vocative. Note that Lk, and perhaps Mt (xAL), cor-

rect Mk here. The anarthrous nom. should

probably be regarded as a mere substitute for the vocative,

which begins from the earliest times to be supplanted by

the nominative. In MGr the forms in -e are practically the

only separate vocatives surviving. Hellenistic has little

more, retaining some in -a and –eu?, with the isolated gu


itself even here, for path1a and quga

(see the evidence in Blass 86 n.). The vocative itself need

not detain us, the presence or absence of w# being the only

feature calling for comment. In the Lucan writings only is

the interjection used in the classical manner without emphasis.

Elsewhere it is mostly used as we use 0, except that this is

with us appropriate in prayer, from which it is markedly

absent in the NT, though not entirely in the translation

Greek of the OT. The progressive omission of w# is not wholly

easy to explain, for the classical examples (see Gerth's

Kuhner3 § 357. 4) show that the simple voc. has normally

a touch of dignity or reserve. A specially good ex. occurs in

Plato Crito 52A, tau de<, Sw


increase the impressiveness, since w# Sw

mode of address: in English we obtain the same effect by

exactly the opposite means" (Adam). NT use has thus

approximated to our own, and may well have travelled upon

the same path without any outside interference, such as A.

Buttmann would find in Latinism.2

Common to nominative and accusative is the use of ei]j

with acc. to replace a predicate, in such phraes as ei#nai ei]j

and e]gei23 1322 ). This cannot fairly be described

1 There seems no adequate reason to write paApp2 165).

2 J. A. Scott, in AJP xxvi. 32-43, has a careful study of the classical use

of w#. He shows that w#, "with the vocative was familiar, and was not freely

used until the familiar language of comedy, dialectic, and the law courts became

the language of literature, when the vocative rarely appears without the inter-

jection." The Attic sermo valgaris in this case did not determine the usage of

the Hellenistic vernacular. [a See p. 245.

as a Hebraism, for the vernacular shows a similar extension

of the old use of ei]j, expressing destination: so for example

Predicates KP 46 (ii/A.D.), e@sxon par ] u[mw?n ei]j da<(neion)

with ei]j. spethat "I received it as a loan" and "for a

loan" do not differ except in grammar. The fact that this

ei]j is mainly found in translation falls into line with other

phenomena already discussed—the overdoing of a correct

locution in passages based on a Semitic original, simply

because it has the advantage of being a literal rendering.

Genitive. We may pass over the accusative, as

little remains to be said of it except on

points of detail. As to the genitive, readers of Winer will

perhaps hardly need reminding now-a-days that to call the

case "unquestionably the whence-case" is an utterly obsolete

procedure. The Greek genitive is syncretic (cf p. 61); and

the ablative, the only case which answers to Winer's "case

of proceeding from or out of," is responsible for a part of the

uses of the genitive in which it was merged. Most of the

ordinary divisions of the case we find still in extensive use.

The objective gen. is very prominent, and exegesis has often

to discuss the application of this or the subjective label to a

particular phrase. It is as well to remember that in Greek

this question is entirely one of exegesis, not of grammar.

There is no approximation to the development by which we

have restricted the inflexional genitive in our language almost

entirely to the subjective use. The partitive gen. is largely

replaced by the abl. with a]po< or e]k,a but is still used freely,

sometimes in peculiar phrases. In Mt 281 (RV) we have

o]ye< with this gen.,"late on the sabbath:" cf Tb P 230 (ii/B.C.)

o]yi th?j w!raj, and

Philostratus (ap. Blass2 312) o]ye> tw?n Trwikw?n, "at a late

stage in the Trojan war." This last writer however has also

o]ye> touafter these thing,” and Blass now (l.c.) adopts

this meaning in Mt, giving other quotations. This use of

after involves an ablative gen., "late from." There

remains the vespere sabbati of the Latt. and the Lewis Syr.,

favoured by Weiss, Wright, etc. Since o]ye< could be used

practically as au indeclinable noun (see Mk 1111 al), this seems

a natural development, but the question is not easy to

a See p 245.


decide.1 How freely the partitive gen. was used in the Koinh<

may be seen in passages like Ac 2116, where it is subject of a

sentence. See WM 253 for classical parallel: add OGIS 5659

o[ profh

it was there for Dittenberger to insert tij, may be seen from

the standing phrase o[ dei?na tw?n fi

Council" (as Par P 15 (ii/B.C.), etc.).

Genitive of The papyri show us abundantly the

Time and Place. genitive of time and place like no

the south," e@touj b "in the 2nd year." It

comes most naturally from the simplest of all genitives, that

of possession, "belonging to"; but the abl. is possible, as we

find the place idea expressed in Rev 2113 by a]po> no

"Time or place within which"—cf tou? o@ntoj mhno

the current month," FP 124 (ii/A.D.)—is the normal differentia

of this genitive, which has thus perhaps its closest affinity

with the partitive. For time, this genitive is common in

NT, as in phrases like nukto

loipou?. For place, we have mostly stereotyped words and

phrases like poi19, and ancient words like au]tou?,

pou?. It is strange that the commentators and grammarians

have so much neglected the difficult gen. in Ac 1926. Dr

Knowling merely declines Hackett's suggestion that ]Efe

and pa

we might quote a good parallel in Sophocles OT 236 (see

Jebb). The gloss e!wj (D), "within," may possibly express

the meaning; but the vernacular supplies no parallel, except

the stereotyped phrases for points of the compass, nor was it

ever normal in classical Greek after the Epic period: see the

exx., nearly all poetical, in Kuhner-Gerth i. 384 f. On the

whole, one feels disposed to make o@xlon responsible after all.

The question of Hebraism is raised again by the genitive

of definition. Some of the "long series of phrases" coming

1 See below, p. 101, for a construction which may be parallel. There is a

rote in Dalman's Gram. d. jud,.-pal. Aram. p. 197, in which Lightfoot's yqpmb

(Hor. Hebr. 500) is tentatively approved as the original of o]ye<. The phrase

"means always the time immediately after the close of the Sabbath." In Mt 281,

accordingly, "at most a late hour of the night would. be designated: the term

is impossible for dawn. A reckoning of the Sabbath from sunrise to sunrise

(Weiss in loc.) is unheard of."


under this head "obviously take their origin from Hebrew,"

says Blass (p. 98). The poetical examples collected in

Genitive of Jebb's note on Sophocles, Antig. 114 (or

Definition. more fully in Kuhner-Gerth, i. 264), include

some which are quite as remarkable as the

"Hebraisms" quotable from the NT. Thus kardi

a]pisti12) will pair off well with to

pro OT 533). That many of these phrases

really are literal translations from the Hebrew need not be

questioned; and if an existing usage was available for the

purpose, we can understand its being overstrained. Our

only concern is with passages where no Semitic original

is admissible. In these it seems fair to assume that the

poetical phraseology of the Attic period had come down

into the market-place, as happened also, for example, in

a]pei13, a]katapa

2 Pet 214, which have plentiful illustration from papyri.1

Genitive The rapid extension of the genitive

Absolute. absolute is a very obvious feature of Hel-

lenistic Greek—so obvious, indeed, that we

are not tempted to dwell on it here. In the papyri it may

often be seen forming a string of statements, without a finite

verb for several lines. We also find there a use frequently

seen in the NT—e.g., in Mt 118 81 918, Mk 131, Lk 1236, Ac

2217, etc.--the gen. abs. referring to a noun or pronoun already

in the sentence, without any effort to assimilate the cases.2

Rarely in NT, but frequently in papyri, we find a participle

standing by itself in gen. abs. without a noun or pronoun in

agreement: thus Mt 1714, Ac 2131. A violent use occurs in

Heb 89 (LXX) e]n h[me

the construction was probably suggested immediately by the

original Hebrew. Westcott compares Barn 228 e]n h[me


verbs, has vanished except in the word tuxo

166): Blass points out how Luke avoids it in Ac 2330, where

classical Greek would demand mhnuqe c. acc. et inf. The papyri

show e]coit being allowed.
1 See p. 235.

2 Cf exx. from Polybius in Kalker 281; and below, p. 236.


One example of a noteworthy pure dative, the dativus

incommode; may be briefly referred to. In Rev 25.16 e@rxomai,

soi is used rather markedly in place of e@. pro

Dative of for the peculiar phraseology is offered in

Disadvantage. JTS iii. 516. It should however be added

now that the very phrase occurs in a recently

published papyrus, BU 1041 (ii/A.D.), an illiterate document,

with context less clear than we should like. See p. 245.

Datives of Side by side with the common locative

time, reference, dative of time (point of time), we have an

accompaniment. instrumental dative of extension of time,

which is not always easy to distinguish from

it. Thus in Lk 829 plloi?j xro

in RV text, "of a long time" (instr.) in mg. The latter,

which is clearly found in xro27, and xro

ai]wni25, is supported by the recurring formula in

private letters, e]rrw?sqai< se eu@xomai polloi?j xro1 The

field of accusative and instrumental is contiguous also in the

"dative of reference": ge26, Ac 436 al, as in BU 887

(ii/A.D.) ge10 affords one of the few NT exx.

of the acc. in similar construction. TP 1 (ii/B.C.) probebh-

ko7.18 236,

shows how the ubiquitous e]n came in with datives that did

not need it: here we may presume an Aramaic background.

A difficult dative in Rev 84, tai?j proseuxai?j (RV text "with

the prayers," and so Milligan and Holtzmann), is probably

to be taken as the sociative instrumental: cf BU 6 9 (ii/A.D.)

a{j kai> a]podw

(i.e. at the time of) my next wages." Cf Abbott Joh. Gr. 519.

"Hebraic" Finally, we may speak of one more dative

Dative. use, that of which a]ko^? a]kou14,

will serve as a type. In giving a list of

these phrases, Blass (p. 119) remarks that "the usage is an

imitation of the Hebrew infinite absolute like tUmyA tOm, and

is consequently found already in the LXX"; also that " the

analogous classical phrases such as ga
1 W. Schulze (Gr. Lat. 14) would make Latin responsible for the first start

of this extension. But it must be allowed that the classical phrase t&? xro

"by lapse of time," was capable of giving the impulse. For the antiquity of

this instrumental, see Delbruck, Grundr. § 109. Cf CR xv. 438, xviii. 153.


wedlock'), fug^? feu

accidentally similar to these." I should state this rather differ-

ently. It may be allowed that this construction, and that

with the participle (ble

"translation Greek." But in what sense are they imitations of

the Hebrew? It seems to me that such a description implies

something much nearer and more literal, such as a]kou

a]kou1 Is it then mere adeident that we find the Hebrew

locution represented by Greek which recalls respectively the


known Aeschylean

oi{ prw?ta me>n ble


or the feu

endeavouring to be as literal as he could, nevertheless took care

to use Greek that was possible, however unidiomatica—a

description well suiting the kind of language used in every

age by translators who have gained the conscientious accuracy,

but not the sure-footed freedom, of the mature scholar.
1 As we actually find in Jos 1713 e]coleqreu?sai de> au]tou>j ou]k e]cwle

A emends o]leqreu 2 The idea of these

words became proverbial: cf [Demosthenes] 797, w!ste, to> th?j paroimi

mh> o[ra?n kai> a]kou a]koul.c. is more

superficial than real, for Aeschylus means "though they saw, they saw in vain."

But there is enough nearness to suggest the NT form as possible Greek. An

exact parallel is quoted by Winer from Lucian (Dial. Marin. iv. 3) i]dw>n ei#don:

the participle has vanished in the Teubner text, whether with or without MS

authority I cannot stop to examine. It should be made penal to introduce

emendations into classical texts without a footnote! [a See p. 245.

ADDITIONAL NOTES.—The predicative cis occurs in M. Aurelius vi. 42—see

Wilamowitz, Leseb. ii. 198. Marcus at any rate will not be suspected of

Semitism! A similar use of e]n is quotable from Hb P 42 (iii/B.C.) dw


days of its obsolescence may be further illustrated with vernacular exx. For

the dat. ethicus cf e@rrwso< moi, Tb P 31p, 314 (both ii/A.D). Dat. commodi, BM

iii. p. 1 (iii/B.C.) compel him e]kxwrh?sai< moi tw?n e]mw?n merw?n. The instrumental

of time-duration is common. So Polyb. xxxii. 12 polloi?j xroSyll. 734

(ii/A.D.) polloi?j e@tesi (to>n dei?na)= "long live X!" Str P 22 ( iii/A.D. ) h[ gunh> e]n

t^? nom^? ge]n a]nw

(classical). Note the remarkable instr. in Ep. Diogn. 7, w$ tou>j ou]ranoiu>j e@ktisen:

see Gildersleeve in loc. Instr. also is PFi 2 (iii/A.D.), we appoint X. in charge of

the gaol kindu

e]a>n a]fuster^? kauin fuel." OP 742 (2 B. C., With. 94) i!na t^?

a]nabaj a@cwmen (1st aor.), "our return." In the same papyrus is a

curious instrumental: para



1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   33

The database is protected by copyright © 2017
send message

    Main page