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

Reflexive The reflexive pronouns have developed Pronoun


Download 3.25 Mb.
Date conversion08.11.2016
Size3.25 Mb.
1   ...   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   ...   33

Reflexive The reflexive pronouns have developed

Pronoun. some unclassical uses, notably that in the

plural they are all fused in to the forms

originally appropriated to the third person. The presence

or absence of this confusion in the singular is a nice test of

the degree of culture in a writer of Common Greek. In the

papyri there are examples of it, mostly in very illiterate docu-

ments,2 while for the plural the use is general, beginning to

appear even in classical times.3 This answers to what we

find in the NT, where some seventy cases of the plural occur

without a single genuine example of the singular;4 late

scribes, reflecting the developments of their own time, have

introduced it into Jn 1834 and Rom 139 (Gal 514). As in the

papyri, e[autoua and some-

times is itself replaced by the personal pronoun. In

translations from Semitic originals we may find, instead of

e[auto5 thus Lk 925, compared

with its presumed original Mk 836. But this principle will

have to be most carefully restricted to definitely translated

passages; and even there it would be truer to say that e[auto

has been levelled up to th>n yuxh>n au]tou?, than that yuxh<

has been emptied of meaning.6

"Exhausted" In one class of phrases e[autou? is used

e[autou? and without emphasis, in a way that brings up the

i@dioj. discussion of its fellow i@dioj.b In sepulchral

inscriptions we find a son describing his

1 Transactions of Cambridge Philological Society, v. i., 1899.

2 See CR xv. 441, xviii. 154, Mayser 304. It is rather perplexing to find it

in literature: e.g. Lucian, Dial. Marin. iv. 3; Polybius 10; Marcus vii.

13; Aristeas 215.

3 Polybius always uses au]tw?n (Kalker, Quaestiones, p.

4 In 1 Co 1029 e[autou?="one's."

5 See J. A. Robinson, Study of the Gospels, p. 114.

6 On the shorter forms au]tou?, etc. see Mayser 305 ff. [a b See p, 240.


father as o[ pathdifference between the three is not very easily discernible.

In a number of these inscriptions contained in vol. iii. of the

IMA. I count 21 exx. with i@dioj, 10 with e[autou?, and 16

with neither. The papyrus formula used in all legal

documents where a woman is the principal, viz. meta> kuri

tou? e[auth?j a]ndro

rather faded use of the reflexive. It starts the more

serious question whether i@dioj is to be supposed similarly

weakened in Hellenistic. This is often affirmed, and is

vouched for by no less an authority than Deissmann (BS

123 f.). He calls special attention to such passages in the

LXX as Job 2412 (oi@kwn i]di15 (tou? i]di

912 (tou? e[autou? a]mpelw?noj. . . tou? i]di7


ever answering to it in the original. He reminds us that

the "exhausted i@dioj" occurs in writers of the literary

Koinh<, and that in Josephus even oi]kei?oj comes to share this

weakening: a few Attic inscriptions from i/B.C. (Meisterhans3

235) show i@dioj with the like attenuated content. Our

inference must be that in Ac 2424 Luke is not ironically

suggesting the poverty of Felix's title, and that in Mt 225

there is no stress on the disloyal guest's busying himself with

his own farm instead of someone else's. (Cf p. 237 below.)

Perhaps, however, this doctrine of the exhausted i@dioj is

in some danger of being worked too hard. In CR xv.

440 f. are put down all the occurrences of i@dioj in BU vols.

i. and ii., which contain nearly 700 documents of various

antiquity. It is certainly remarkable that in all these

passages there is not one which goes to swell Deissmann's

list. Not even in the Byzantine papyri have we a single

case where i@dioj is not exactly represented by the English

own. In a papyrus as early as the Ptolemaic period we

find the possessive pronoun added—o@nta h[mw?n i@dion, which

is just like "our own." (Cf Pet 316, Tit 112, Ac 28.)

This use became normal in the Byzantine age, in which i@dioj

still had force enough to make such phrases as i]di


we cannot venture to deny in toto the weakening of i@dioj,

still less the practical equivalence of i@dioj and e[autou?, which


is evident from the sepulchral inscriptions above cited, as

well as from such passages as Prov 912 and 1 Co 72. But

the strong signs of life in the word throughout the papyri

have to be allowed for.

In correlating these perplexing phenomena, we may

bring in the following considerations:—(1) the fact that

Josephus similarly weakens oi]kei?oj seems to show that the

question turns on thought rather than on words. (2) It is

possible, as our own language shows, for a word to be

simultaneously in possession of a full and an attenuated

meaning.1 People who say "It's an awful nuisance," will

without any sense of incongruity say "How awfull" when

they read of some great catastrophe in the newspaper. No

doubt the habitual light use of such words does tend in

time to attenuate their content, but even this rule is not

universal. "To annoy" is in Hellenistic sku2 and in

modern French gener. There was a time when the Greek

in thus speaking compared his trouble to the pains of flaying

alive, when the Frenchman recalled the thought of Gehenna;

but the original full sense was unknown to the unlearned

speaker of a later day. Sometimes, however, the full sense

lives on, and even succeeds in ousting the lighter sense, as

in our word vast, the adverb of which is now; rarely heard

as a mere synonym of very. (3) The use of the English

own will help us somewhat. "Let each man be fully

assured in his own mind " (Rom 145) has the double

advantage of being the English of our daily speech and

of representing literally the original e]n t&? i]di<& noi~. What

function has the adjective there? It is not, abnormally, an

emphatic assertion of property: I am in no danger of being

assured in someone else's mind. It is simply method of

laying stress on the personal pronoun: e]n t&? noi~ and "in

his mind" alike transfer the stress to the noun.a This fact

at once shows the equivalence of i@dioj and e[autou? in certain

locutions. Now, when we look at the examples of "exhausted

i@dioj," we find that they very largely are attached to words

that imply some sort of belonging. Husband and wife

account for seven examples in the NT, and other relation-

1 Cf p. 237 below. 2 See Expos. VI. iii. 273 f. a See p. 246.


ships, including that of master and slave, for a good many

more. A large number come under the category of the

mind, thoughts and passions, and parts of the body. House,

estate, riding-animal, country or language, and similar very

intimate possessions receive the epithet. If occasionally

this sense of property is expressed where we should not

express it, this need not compromise the assertion that

i@dioj itself was always as strong as our English word own.

There are a host of places n the NT, as in the papyri,

where its emphasis is undeniable; e.g. Mt 91, Lk 641, Jn 141

(note its position) 518 etc., Ac 125, 1 Co 38, Gal 65, Heb 727,

and many others equally decisive. One feels therefore quite

justified in adopting the argument of Westcott, Milligan-

Moulton, etc., that the emphatic position of to>n i@dion in Jn 141

was meant as a hint that the unnamed companion of Andrew,

presumably John, fetched his brother. What to do in such

cases as Ac 2424 and Mt 225, is not easy to say. The Revisers

insert own in the latter place; and it is fair to argue that

the word suggests the strength of the counter-attraction,

which is more fully expressed in the companion parable,

Lk 1418. The case of Drusilla is less easy. It is hardly

enough to plead that i@dioj is customarily attached to the

relationship; for (with the Revisers) we instinctively feel

that own is appropriate in 1 Pet 31 and similar passages,

but inappropriate here. It is the only NT passage where

there is any real difficulty; and since B stands almost alone

in reading i]di<%, the temptation for once to prefer x is very

strong. The error may have arisen simply from the common-

ness of the combination h[ i]di

ferred to a context in which it was not at home.

[O i@dioj. Before leaving i@dioj something should

be said about the use of o[ i@dioj without a

noun expressed. This occur in Jn 111 131, Ac 423 2423

In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term

of endearment to near relations: e.g. o[ dei?na t&? i]di<&

xaiExpos. vi. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a

possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who

would translate Ac 2028 "the blood of one who was his

own." Mt 2724, according to the text of xL and the later

authorities, will supply a parallel for the grammatical


ambiguity: there as here we have to decide whether the

second genitive is an adjective qualifying the first or a noun

dependent on it. The MGr use of o[ i@dioj, as substitute for

the old o[ au]to

but in the papyrus of Eudoxus (ii/B.C.) we (find a passage

where th?i i]di

so that it seems inevitable to trace, with Blass, an anti-

cipation of MGr here. Perhaps the use was locally


Au]to>j o[ and There is an apparent weakening of

o[ au]to>j. au]to>j o[ in Hellenistic, which tends to blunt

the distinction between this and e]kei?noj o[.

Dean Robinson (Gospels, p. 106) translates Lk 1021 "in that

hour" (Mt 1125 e]n e]kei12 (Mk 1311

e]kei7. It is difficult to be satisfied with "John

himself " in Mt 34; and in Luke particularly we feel that

the pronoun means little more than "that." Outside Luke,

and the one passage of Mt, au]to>j o[ has manifestly its full

classical force. From the papyri we may quote OP 745

(i/A.D.) au]to>n to>n ]Anta?n," the said A.": note also GH 26

(ii/B.C.) o[ aut]o>j $Wroj, "the same Horus," i.e. "the aforesaid,"

and so in BU 1052 (i/B.C.). We find the former use in

MGr, e.g. au]to> to> kri

have already seen (p. 86) that the emphatic au]to>j standing

alone can replace classical e]kei?noj (See now Wellh. 26 f.)

Relatives :— Turning to the Relatives we note the

Use of o!stij. limiting of o!stij, a conspicuous trait of the

vernacular, where the nominative (with the

neuter accusative) covers very nearly all the occurrences of

the pronoun. The phrase e!wj o!tou is the only exception in

NT Greek. The obsolescence of the distinction between o!j

and o!stij is asserted by Blass for Luke, but not for Paul.

A type like Lk 24 ei]j pod h!tij kalei?tai Bhqlee

may be exactly paralleled from Herodotus (see Blass 173)

and from papyri: so in an invitation formula au@rion h!tij

e]sti>n ie, "to-morrow, which is the 15th"—cf Mt 2762. Hort,

on 1 Pet 211 (Comm. p. 133), allows that "there are some

places in the NT in which o!stij cannot be distinguished from

o!j." "In most places, however, of the NT," he proceeds," o!stij

apparently retains its strict classical force, either generic,


'which, as other like things,' or essential, 'which by its very

nature.'" A large number of the exceptions, especially in

Lucan writings, seem to be by no means cases of equivalence

between o!j and o!stij, whether agreeing or disagreeing with

classical use. Some of them would have been expressed

with o!sper in Attic: thus in Ac 1128 we seem to expect

h!per e]ge

which can be brought out by various paraphrases, as in Lk 120,

"which for all that." Or o!stij represents what in English

would be expressed by a demonstrative and a conjunction, as

in Lk 1042, "and it shall not be taken away." In Mt we

find o!stij used four times a the beginning of a parable,

where, though the principal figure is formally described as

an individual, he is really a type, and o!stij is therefore

appropriate. We may refer to Blass 173, for examples

of o!j used for o!stij, with indefinite reference. The large

number of places in which o!stij is obviously right, according

to classical use, may fairly stand as proof that the distinction

is not yet dead. We must not stay to trace the distinction

further here, but may venture on the assertion that the

two relatives are never absolutely convertible, however

blurred may be the outlines of the classical distinction in

Luke, and possibly in sporadic passages outside his writings.

Milker (Quest. 245 f.) asserts that Polybius uses o!stij for o!j

before words beginning with a vowel, for no more serious

reason than the avoidance of hiatus; and it is curious that

among twenty-three more or less unclassical examples in the

Lucan books fourteen do happen to achieve this result. We

chronicle this fact as in duty bound, but without suggesting

any inclination to regard it as a key to our problem. If

Kalker is right for Polybius—and there certainly seems

weight in his remark that this substitution occurs just where

the forms of o!j end in a vowel--we may have to admit that

the distinction during the Koinh< period had worn rather

thin. It would be like the distinction between our relatives

who and that, which in a considerable proportion of sentences

are sufficiently convertible to be selected mostly according

to our sense of rhythm or euphony: this, however, does not

imply that the distinction is even blurred, much less lost.

The attraction of the Relative—which, of course, does


not involve o!stij—is a construction at least as popular in late

Attraction. as in classical Greek. It appears abundantly

in their papyri, even in the most illiterate

of them; and in legal documents we have the principle

stretched further in formula, such as a]rourw?n de

h} o!swn e]a>n w#sin ou]sw?n. There are to be noted some

exceptions to the general rule of attraction, on which see

Blass 173. In several cases of alleged breach of rule we may

more probably (with Blass) recognise the implied presence

of the "internal accusative": so in 2 Co 14, Eph 16 41, where

Dr Plummer (CGT, 2 Co i.e.) would make the dative the

original case for the relative.

Relatives and Confusion of relative and indirect inter-

Interrogatives roative is not uncommon. " !Osoj, oi#oj,

confused. o[poi?oj, h[li

interrogatives, and also—with the exception

of h[li

and in the papyri even o!j can be used in an indirect question.

Good examples are found in PP ii. 37 (ii/B.C.) kalw?j ou#n


(iii/B.C.) fra e]n h$i kw

oi]kou?sin kai> p[oAntig.

542, OT 1068 (see Jebb's notes) ; and in Plato, Euth. 14E

a{ me>n ga>r dido dh?lon. It is superfluous to say

that this usage cannot possibly be extended to diect question,

so as to justify the AV in Mt 2650. The more illiterate

papyri and inscriptions show ti

seldom, as eu$ron georgo>n ti e[lkun xri

e@x^j--ti1 etc. Jebb on Soph. 0T 1141

remarks that while "ti

only where there is an indirect question, . . . Hellenistic Greek

did not always observe this rule: Mk 1436." There is no ade-

quate reason for punctuating Jas 313 so as to bring in this

misuse of ti19 and Lk 178 are essentially similar;2

nor does there seem to be any decisive reason against so reading

Ac 1325. Dieterich (Unters. 200) gives several inscriptional

exx., and observes that the use was specially strong in Asia

1 BU 822 (iii/A. D. ), BM 239 (iv/A.D.), JHS xix. 299. See p. 21 above. Gn 3825

is a clear ex. from LXX. 2 I must retract the denial I gave in CR xv. 441.

Minor. It is interesting therefore to note Thumb's statement

(ThLZ xxviii. 423), that the interrogative is similarly used in

Pontic now—a clear case of local survival. The NT use of

o!ti, for ti< in a direct question is a curious example of the

confusion between the two categories, a confusion much

further developed in our own language.

Developments MGr developments are instructive when

in MGr. we are examining the relatives and inter-

rogatives. The normal relative is pou?, fol-

lowed by the proper case of the demonstrative, as o[ giatro>j

pou? to>n e@steila, "the doctor whom I sent," etc. The

ingenious Abbe Viteau discovers a construction very much

like this, though he does not draw the parallel, in Jn 917 o!ti

h]ne<&cej o]fqalmou

opened": he cites Mk 617f. 824 as further exx. Since o! ti

and rw,xE are passable equivalents, we have here a "pure

Hebraism"—a gem of the first water! We might better

Viteaa's instruction by tracing to the same fertile source

the MGr idiom, supporting our case with a reference to

Jannaris HG § 1439, on MGr parallels to Mk 725 (h$j. . .

au]th?j) and the like.1 It will be wise however for us to sober

ourselves with a glance at Thumb's remarks, Hellen. 130,

after which we may proceed to look for parallels nearer home

than Hebrew. In older English this was the regular con-

struction. Thus, "thurh God, the ic thurh his willan hider

asend waes" (Gen 458); "namely oon That with a spere

was thirled his brest-boon " (Chaucer, Knightes Tale 1851 f.).

Cf the German "der du bist" = who art.2 The idiom is

still among us; and Mrs Gamp, remarking "which her

name is Mrs Harris," will hardly be suspected of Hebraism!

The presence of a usage in MGr affords an almost decisive

disproof of Semitism in the Koinh<, only one small corner of

whose domain came within range of Semitic influences; and we

have merely to recognise afresh the ease with which identical

idioms may arise in totally independent languages. It does

not however follow that Blass is wrong when he claims
1 See below, p. 237; also Wellh. 2, who adds exx. from D.

2 See Skeat's Chaucer, Prologue and Knightes Tale, p. xxxvi. I owe the

gestion to my friend Mr E. E. Kellett.

Mk 725 17 1319, Lk 316, and passages in Rev, as "specialy

suggested by Semitic usage." The phenomenon is frequent

in the LXX (see WM: 185), and the NT exx. are nearly

all from places where Aramaic sources are presumed. A

vernacular use may be stretched (cf pp. 10 f.) beyond its

natural limits, when convenient for literal translation. But

Blass's own quotation, ou$ h[ pnoh> au]tou? e]n h[mi?n e]sti1 comes

from a piece of free Greek. That this use did exist in the

old vernacular, away from any Semitic influence, is proved

by the papyri (p. 85). The quotations in Kuhner-Gerth

§ 561 n.2, and in Blass and Winer, show 'that it had

its roots in the classical language. As was natural in a

usage which started from anacoluthon, the relative and

the pleonastic demonstrative were generally, in the earlier

examples, separated by a good many intervening words.

The modern Interrogative is mostly poio

practically worn down to the indeclinable ti<, just as our

what (historically identical with the Latin quod) has become

indifferent in gender. The NT decidedly shows the early

stages of this extension of poi?oj. It will not do for us to

refine too much on the distinction between the two pronouns.

The weakening of the special sense of poi?oj called into being a

new pronoun to express the sense qualis, namely, potapo

was the old podapo

etymology to suggest po

tion in meaning with a]llod-apo2

Numerals :— We take next the Numerals. The use

ei$j as ordinal; of ei$j as an ordinal is "undoubtedly a

Hebrew idiom," according to Blass, p. 144.

Our doubts, nevertheless, will not be repressed; and they

are encouraged by the query in Thumb's review. To

begin with, why did the Hebraism affect only the first

numeral, and not its successors? If the use was vernacular

Greek, the reason of the restriction is obvious: prw?toj is

the only ordinal which altogether differs in foam from the
1 Clement ad Cor. 21 fin. (Lightfoot, p. 78). Nestle (ZNTW i. 178 ff.)

thinks the writer was of Semitic birth. Gal 210 will serve instead.

2 The suffix is that of Latin prop-inquos, long-inquos
, Skt. anv-anc, etc.: pod-

and a]llod- are quod, what, aliud, while h[med-, u[med-, answer to ablative forms

in Skt.


cardinal.1 When we add that both German and English say

"page forty" (WM 311), we are prepared for the belief that

the Greek vernacular also had his natural use. Now, although

ei$j kai> ei]kostounus et vicesimus, one and twentieth, are (as

Blass says) essentially different, since the ordinal element is

present at the end of the phrase, this is not so with t^? mi%? kai>

ei]ka2 BU 623 A.D.). But the matter is really settled

by the fact that in MGr the cardinals beyond 4 have ousted

the ordinals entirely (Thumb, Handbuch 56); and Dieterich

(Unters. 187 f.) shows from inscriptions that the use is as old

as Byzantine Greek. It would seem then that the encroach-

ment of the cardinal began in the one case where the ordinal

was entirely distinct in form, spread thence over other

numerals, and was finally repelled from the first four, in which

constant use preserved alike the declension and the distinct

ordinal form. Had Semitic influence been at work, there is

no conceivable reason why we should not have had t^? pe

at the same time. Simultaneously with this process we note

Simplification the firm establishment of simplified ordinals

of the “teens”; from 13th to 19th, which now (from iii/B.C.

onwards) are exclusively of the form triskai-


Similarly we find de

papyri, and de3a These phenomena

all started in the classical period: cf Meisterhans3 160.

ei$j as Indefinite There is a further use of ei$j which calls

Article. for remark, its development into an indefinite

article, like ein in German, un in French, or

our own an: in MGr the process is complete. The fact that
1 Deu

connect them. Curiously enough, Hebrew shares the peculiarity noted above,

which somewhat weakens our argument Aramaic, like Latin and English, uses

a word distinct from the cardinal for second as well as first. Hebrew has lost

all ordinals beyond 10, and Aramaic shows them only in the Jerus. Targ. See

Dalman, Gramm. 99 f. For clays of the month, the encroachment of cardinals

has gone further still in both dialects. The fact that the ordinals up to 10 are

all treated alike in Hebrew, reinforces our view.

2 Ei]kaNo. 20 or a set

of 20, though used only for the 20th of the month. Cf in Philo tria(LS), and tetra

3 Wellhausen notes that D has only deADJECTIVES, PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS. 97

ei$j, progressively ousted tij in popular speech, and that even

in classical Greek there was a use which only needed a little

diluting to make it essentially the same,1 is surely enough to

prove that the development lay entirely within the Greek

language, and only by accident agrees with Semitic. (See

Wellh. 27.) We must not therefore follow Meyer (on Mt

819), in denying that ei$j is ever used in the NT in the sense

of tij: it is dangerous to import exegetical subtleties into the

o[ ei$j NT, against the known history of the Common

Greek. The use of o[ ei$j in Mk 1410 is, as

noted in Expos. VI. vii. 111, paralleled in early papyri.2

In Blass's second edition (p. 330) we find a virtual sur-

Distributives. render of the Hebraism in dusumpo39f.), desma>j desma30

in Epiphanius --a very probable reading, as accounting for the

variants): he remarks on mi

that "Atticists had evidently complained of it as vulgar, and

it was not only Jewish-Greek." Winer compared Aeschylus

Persae 981, muriThLZ,

1898, p. 631) cites dh

and (as W. F. Moulton noted WM 312 n.) the usage is

found in MGr.3 Thumb is undeniably right in calling the

coincidence with Hebrew a mere accident. In the papyri

(e.g. Tb P 635 --ii/B.C.) the repetition of an adjective produces

an elative = mega

that in Lk 101 we have a mixed distributive a]na> du

(B al): so in Ev. Petr. 35, as Blass notes, and Acta Philippi

92 (Tisch.).4 See Brugmann, Distributiva (cites above, p. 21).

"Noah the Two single passages clai a word before

eighth person. we pass on from the numerals. @Ogdoon

Nw?e e]fu5 presents us with

1 It is difficult to see any difference between ei$j and tij in Aristophancs,

Av. 1292 :—

pen ei$j ka

xwlon tou@noma, k.t.l.

From the papyri we may cite as exx. AP 30 (ii/B.C.) Konduj tw?n a[liei

(Sc. prosklhqe
2 We may add good exx. from Par P 15 (ii/B.C.) to>n e!na au]tw?n $Wron—tou? e[no>j

tw?n e]gkaloumej au]tw?n patro

3 Thumb, Hellen. 128, Handbuch, 57.

4 See W. Schulze, Graeca Latina 13. Add now Wellh. 31.


a classical idiom which can be shown to survive at any rate in

literary Common Greek: see exx. in WM 312, and Schaefer l.c.

I have only noticed one instance in the papyri (p. 107), and

in 2 Pet we rather expect bookish phrases. The AV of

this passage is an instructive illustration for our inquiries

as to Hebraisms. "Noah the eighth person" is not English,

for all its appearing in a work which we are taught to regard

as the impeccable standard of classic purity. It is a piece of

"translation English," and tolerably unintelligible too, one

may well suppose, to its less educated readers. Now, if this

specimen of translators' "nodding" had made its way into

the language—like the misprint "strain at a gnat"—we

should have had a fair parallel for "Hebraism" as hitherto

understood. As it stands, a phrase which no one has ever

thought of imitating, it serves to illustrate the over-literal

translations which appear very frequently in the LXX and in

the NT, where a Semitic original underlies the Greek text.

(Compare what is said of Gallicisms in English on p. 13.)

" Seventy times Last in this division comes a note on

seven." Mt 1822. Blass ignores entirely the ren-

dering "seventy-seven times" (RV margin),

despite the fact that this meaning is unmistakable in Gen 424

(LXX). It will surely be felt that W. F. Moulton (WM

314) was right in regarding that passage as decisive. A

definite allusion to the Genesis story is highly probable:

Jesus pointedly sets against the natural man's craving for

seventy-sevenfold revenge the spiritual man's ambition to

exercise the privilege of seventy-sevenfold forgiveness. For

a partial grammatical parallle see Iliad xxii. 349, deka

kai> Fei
Prepositions :— It will be worth while to give statistics

Relative for the relative frequency of Prepositions in

Frequency. the NT, answering to those cited from Helbing

(above, pp. 2 f.) for the classical and post-

classical historians. If we represent e]n by unity, the order of

precedence works out thus:-- ei]j 64, e]k 34, e]pi< 32, pro

25, dia 24, a[po< 24, kata< 17, meta< 17, peri< 12, u[po<

08, para< 07, u[pe

a]na< 0045. We shall have to return later to prepositions

compounded with verbs, following our present principle of


dealing with them in connexion with the parts of speech

with which they are used. A few miscellaneous matters

come in best at this point. First let us notice the pro-

Prepositions minence in Hellenistic of combinations of

joined with prepositions with adverbs. In papyri we

Adverbs. find such as e]k to

peBS 221), and even a]f ]

o!te e]lousa

NT we have a]po> to pe

a!pac, e]pi> tri

the classical e]j a]ei<, and the like. Some of these combinations

became fixed, as u[poka

be set beside the abundance of "Improper" prepositions. All

of these, except e]ggu1 Thumb

comments2 on the survival of such as e!wj, e]pa


have been responsible for the coining of e]nw

mann proved it vernacular.3 The compound preposition a]na>


in the papyri,—not however in any use which would help

1 Co 65, where it is almost impossible to believe the text

sound. (An exact parallel occurs in the Athenaeum for Jan.

14, 1905, where a writer is properly censured for saying,

"I have attempted to discriminate between those which are

well authenticated," i.e. (presumably) "[and those which are

not]." It is hard to believe Paul would have been so slovenly

in writing, or even dictating.) We have a further set of

"Hebraisms" in the compound prepositions which are freely

made with pro

above, p. 81. Even here the Semitism is still on the

familiar lines: a phrase which is possible in native Greek

is extended widely beyond its idiomatic limits because it

translates exactly a common Hebrew locution; and the

conscious use of Biblical turns of speech explains the appli-

cation of such phrases on the lips of men whose minds are

saturated with the sacred writers' language. As early as iii/B.C.

1 Paraplh27. xACD has dat. 2 TLZ xxviii. 422. 3 BS 213.

Cf Expos. vii. 113: add OP 658 (iii/A.D.), and Tb P 14 (114 B.C.) parhggel-


earliest ex. Cf Par P 63 (ii/B.C.) e]nopi

in a Libyan's will, we meet with kata> pro1 and

in mercantile language we constantly find the formula dia>


hand to hand," as contrasted with "through an intermediary."

We may refer to Heitmuller's proof2 that the kindred phrase

ei]j to> o@noma< tinoj is good vernacular. The strong tendency

to use compound prepositional phrases, which we have been

illustrating already, would make it all the easier to develop

these adaptations of familiar language.

Prepositions The eighteen classical prepositions are,

with one case. as we have just seen, all represented in NT

Greek, except a]mfi<, which has disappeared

as a separate word, like ambi in Latin, and like its correlative

in English, the former existence of which in our own branch

is shown by the survival of um in modern German. It

was not sufficiently differentiated from peri<, to assert itself

in the competition; and the decay of the idea of duality

weakened further a preposition which still proclaimed its

original meaning, "on both sides," by its resemblance to


use, which accounts for seven instances, the phrase a]na> me

for four, and a]na> me

but a]nq ] w$n reduces the number of free occurrences to 17.

Rare though it is, it retains its individuality. "In front of,"

with a normal adnominal genitive, passes naturally into "in

place of," with the idea of equivalence or return or substitu-

tion, our for. For the preposition in Jn 116, an excellent

parallel from Philo is given in WM (p. 456 n.).3 Pro< occurs

48 times, including 9 exx. of pro> tou? c. inf., which invades

the province of pri21 we have pro> e{c h[merw?n

tou? paante diem tertiwm,

Kalendas. The plausible Latinism forces itself on our

attention all the more when we compare IMA iii. 325 (ii/A.D.)

1 Deissmann BS 140.

2 Im Namen Jesu 100 ff. So p. 63, for e]n o]no41.

3 Blass compares gh?n pro> gh?j e]laue]lpiDe

Poster. Caini § 145 (p. 254 M.): dio> ta>j prw xan koresqee]cubrij laxon kai> tamieusa

kai> tri tw?n deute ai]ei> ne palaioteADJECTIVES PRONOUNS, PREPOSITIONS. 101

pro ie Kalandw?n Au]gou

documents to be seen in Viereck's Sermo Graecus (see pp. 12,

13, 21, etc.). And yet it is soon found that the same

construction occurs in phrases which have nothing in

common with the peculiar formula of Latin days of the

month. In the Mysteries inscription from Andania (Michel

694, i/B.C.) we recognise it in Doric—pro> a[mera?n de


prw> du o]rniqa

fowls two days before the feast"), when combined with Jn l. c.,

makes the hypothesis of Latinism utterly improbable. The

second genitive in these three passages is best taken as an

ablative—"starting from the mysteries," etc. It is found as

early as Herodotus, who has (vi. 46) deute

the second year from these events": cf also OP 492 (ii/A.D.) met ]

e]niauto>n e!na th?j teleuth?j mou, "a year after (starting from)

my death." See also the note on o]ye<, supr. p. 72. There

remains the idiomatic use of pro<, seen in 2 Co 122 pro> e]tw?n


cites pro> a[mera?n de

1001), written in the Doric of Thera, "end of iii/B.C. or

beginning of ii/B.C., therefore pre-Roman"—to cite Blass's own

testimony.1 It becomes clear that historically the resem-

blance between the ante diem idiom and the Greek which

translates it is sheer coincidence, and the supposed Latinism

goes into the same class as the Hebraisms we have so often

disposed of already.2 This enquiry, with the general con-

siderations as to Latinisms which were advanced above (pp.

20 f.), will serve to encourage scepticism when we note the

1 Add FP 122 (i/ii A.D. ), BU 180 (ii/iii A.D.), 592 (ii/A.D.), NP 47 (iii/A.D.),

Ch P 15 (iv/A.D.), BU 836 (vi/A.D).

2 W. Schulze, Graec. Lat. 14-19, has a long and striking list of passages

illustrating the usage in question, which shows how common it became. His

earliest citation is pro> triw?n h[merw?n th?j teleuth?j from Hippocrates (v/B.C.),

which will go with that from Herodotus given above. We have accordingly

both Ionic and Doric warrant for this Koinh< construction, dating from a period

which makes Latin necessarily the borrower, were we bound to deny independent

development. Schulze adds a parallel from Lithuanian! Our explanation of

the dependent gen. as an ablative is supported by pro> mia?j h[meacc. et inf.,

in OGIS 435 (ii/B.C.) and Jos. Ant. xiv. 317: h@ replaces the ablative genitive

exactly as it does after comparatives.

resemblance of w[j a]po> stadi13) to a milli-

bus passuum duobus (Blass 95). Blass cites Jn 218, Rev 1420,

and the usage of Koinh< writers like Diodorus and Plutarch.

Mutatis mutandis, this idiom is identical in principle with that

just quoted for pro<. After noting the translation-Hebraism

fobei?sqai a]po< in Mt 1028 ( = Lk 124),1 we proceed to observe

the enlargement of the sphere of a]po<, which encroaches upon

e]k, u[po<, and para<.a The title of the modern vernacular

Gospels, "metafrasme to>n ]Alec. Pa

that a]po< has advanced further in the interval. Already in

the NT it sometimes expressed the agent after passive verbs

(e.g. Lk 843), where it is quite unnecessary to resort to

refinements unless the usage of a particular writer demands

them. The alleged Hebraism in kaqaro>j a]po< is dispelled by

Deissmann's quotations, BS 196. The use of prepositions,

where earlier Greek would have been content with a simple

case, enables e]k in NT to outnumber a]po< still, though

obsolete to-day,b except in the Epirot a]x or o]x.2 Thus a]po<

is used to express the partitive sense, and to replace the

genitive of material (as Mt 2721 34); e]k can even make a

partitive phrase capable of becoming subject of a sentence, as

in Jn 1617. For present purposes we need not pursue further

the NT uses of a]po< and e]k, which may be sought in the

lexicon; but we may quote two illustrative inscriptional

passages with e]k. Letronne 190 and 198 have swqei>j e]k,

"safe home from" (a place), which has affinity with Heb 57;

and u[paj e]k qeou? kai> qea?j, from the Rosetta stone

(OGIS 90—ii/B.C.), will elucidate Phil 35, if the reader of

the Greek should, conceivably, fall into the misconceptions

which so many English readers entertain. It gives us an

unpleasant start to find the language of the Nicene Creed

used centuries earlier of Ptolemy Epiphanes!3

We have already (pp. 62 f.) sketched the developments of

1 Were the active fobei?n still extant (below, p. 162), this might be taken as

"do not be panic-stricken by." It is like prose1. See p. 107.

2 Thus o]x to> bouno<, " from the hill," occurs in a modern song, Abbott 128 f.

3 Epiphanes=Avatar: the common translation " illustrious " is no longer

tenable. See Dittenberger's note, OGIS p. 144. So this title also antici-

pates the NT (e]pifa

terms, above, p. 84. (On a]po< see also below, p. 237.) [a b See p. 246,

ei]j, and need say no more of the single-case prepositions,

with one very large exception.a The late Greek uses of

Further uses e]n would take too much space if discussed in

of e]n. full here. It has become so much a maid-of-

all-work that we cannot wonder at its ulti-

mate disappearance, as too indeterminate. Students of Pauline

theology will not need to be reminded of Deissmann's masterly

monograph on "The NT Formula e]n Xrist&? ]Ihsou?," with its

careful investigation of LXX uses of and proof of the

originality of Paul's use. But SH (on Rom 611) seem rightly

to urge that the idea of the mystic indwelling originated with

the Master's own teaching: the actual phrase in Jn 154 may

be determined by Pauline language, but in the original Aramaic

teaching the thought may have been essentially present.

While there are a good many NT uses of e]n which may be

paralleled in vernacular documents, there are others beside

this one which cannot: in their case, however, analogy makes

it highly improbable that the NT writers were innovating.

If papyri have probebhko

we need not assume Hebraism in Lk 17 merely because the

evangelist inserts e]n: his faithful preservation of his source's


(LXX) we have e]n = "amounting to," from which that in

Mk 48 bis does not greatly differ. This is precisely paralleled

by BU 970 (ii/A.D.) prooi?ka e]n draxmai?j e]nnakosi

(ii/A.D.) e@sxej th>n prw

BU 105 0 (i/A.D.) i[ma

the value of"). The use in Eph 215 e]n do

in," is akin to this. For e]n toi?j = "in the house of," as in

Lk 249, we have RL 382 (iii/B.C.) e]n toi?j ]Apollwni

(ii/B.C.) e]n toi?j ]Amenne

e]n toi?j Klaudi Prwta


official documents e]n meaning "in the department of": so

Tb P 27 (ii./B.C.) to> e]n au]tw?i o]feilo

topogrammatei?, al. I do not recall an exact NT parallel, but

1 Co 62, ei] e]n u[mi?n kri

have another use of e]n with a personal dative in 1 Co 1411

"in my judgement": possibly Judel e]n qe&? is akin to this.

Such uses would answer to para< c. dat. in classical Greek

a See v. 246.


The last might seem to be expressed more naturally by the

"dative of person judging" (like Ac 720 a]stei?oj t&? Qe&?, or

1 Co l.c. e@somai t&? lalou?nti ba

uses of dative and locative have some common ground, which

is indeed the leading cause of their syncretism. Thus we find

loc. in Sanskrit used quite often for the dat. of indirect object

after verbs of speaking. How readily e]n was added to the

dative, which in older Greek would have needed no preposi-

tion, we see well in such a passage as OP 48 8 (ii/iii. A.D.),

where " more . . . by one aroura" is expressed by e]n. This

particular dative is an instrumental—the same case as our

"the more the merrier"—, and is therefore parallel to that

of e]n maxai

mentioned (pp. 12, 61). We may fairly claim that "Hebraistic"

e]n is by this time reduced within tolerably narrow limits. One

further e]n, may be noted for its difficulty, and for its bearing

on Synoptic questions,--the i[mmologei?n e@n tini which is common

to Mt 1032 and Lk 128: this is among the clearest evidences

of essentially identical translations used in Mt and Lk. W. F.

Moulton (WM 283 n.) cites, apparently with approval, Godet's

explanation—"the repose of faith in Him whom it confesses":

so Westcott, quoting Heracleon, who originated this view

(Canon5 305 n.). Deissmann (In Christo 60) quotes Delitzsch's

Hebrew rendering ybi hd,Oy , and puts it with Mt 317 934 116

2321, as an example of a literal translation "mit angstlicher,

die hermeneutische Pedanterie nahelegender Pietat." Dr

Bendel Harris recalls the Graecised translation in Rev 35, and

gives me Syriac parallels. On the whole, it seems best not

to look for justification of this usage in Greek. The agreement

of Mt and Lk, in a point where accidental coincidence is out

of the question, remains the most important element in the

whole matter, proving as it does that Luke did not use any

knowledge of Aramaic so as to deal independently with the

translated Logia that came to him.1

Prepositions Of the prepositions with two cases, di
with two and meta< show no signs of weakening their

Cases; hold on both; but kata< c. gen. and peri<

1 Cf the similar agreement as to fobei?sqai a]po<, above, p. 102.


We may give the statistics in proof. Dia< gen. 382, acc,

279; meta< gen. 361, acc. 100; kata< gen. 73, acc. 391;

peri<, gen. 291, acc. 38; u[pe

165, acc. 50. Comparing this list with that in a classical

Greek grammar, we see that meta<, peri< and u[po<1 have been

detached from connexion with the dative a fact in line

with those noted above, pp. 62 ff. Turning to details, we

find that kata<, (like a]na<, Rev 2121) is used as an adverb

distributively, as in to> kaq ] ei$j or ei$j kata> ei$j Mk 1419, [Jn] 89,

Rom 125. The MGr kaqei

which probably started from the stereotyping of to> kaq ] e!na,

e{n kaq ] e!n, etc., declined by analogy: cf e@ndhmoj from e]n

dhproconsul from pro console. The enfeebling of

the distinction between peri< and u[pe

some importance in the NT, where these prepositions are

used in well-known passages to describe the relation of the

Redeemer to man or man's sins. It is an evident fact that

u[pe23: it is used,

for example, scores of times in accounts, with the sense of

our commercial "to." This seems to show that its original

fullness of content must not be presumed upon in theological

definitions, although it may not have been wholly forgotten.

The distinction between a]nti< and the more colourless u[pe

applying the metaphor of purchase, is well seen in Mk 1045

( Mt 2028) lu pollw?n, and the quotation of this

logion in 1 Tim 26 a]ntir pa2 Dia< c. acc.

mostly retains its meaning "for the sake of," "because

of," distinct from "through," "by the instrumentality of,”

which belongs to the genitive. As early as MP 16 and

20 (iii/B.C.), we have i!na dia> se> basileu? tou? dikai

but if the humble petitioner had meant "through you,"

he would have addressed the king as a mere medium of

favour: referring to a sovereign power, the ordinary meaning

"because of you" is more appropriate. This applies exactly

to Jn 657. So Rom 820, where Winer's explanation is correct

(p. 498). In much later Greek, as Hatzidakis shows (p. 213)

1 For u[po< c. dat. can be quoted OGIS 54 (iii/B.C.) u[f ] e[autw?i poihsaand OP 708 (as late as ii/A.D.) e]k tou? u[po> soi> nomou?. LXX has peri< c. dat.

2 Note that dou>j e[auton

yuxh>n au]tou?: on this see above, p. 87. See further on u[pe

dia< c. acc. monopolised the field, which it still holds in

MGr.1 With the genitive, dia< is often contrasted with

e]k, u[po<, etc., as denoting mediate and not original authorship:

as 1 Co 86, Mt 122. In Heb 210 it is used of God, who is "the

final Cause and the efficient Cause of all things" (Westcott).

There seems no adequate reason for accepting Blass's con-

jectural emendation, di ] a]sqenei13: "because of an

illness" is an entirely satisfactory statement (see Lightfoot

in loc.), and the Vulgate per is not strong enough to justify

Blass's confidence.2 Meta< c. gen. has in Lk 158 a use

influenced by literal translation from Semitic.a Its relations

with su

very much the commoner way of saying with. Thumb

points out (Hellen. 125) that MGr use disproves Hebraism

in polemei?n meta< tinoj, Rev 127 al.b Thus, for example, Abbott

44: pole trei?j xilia

3000 Turks."

and with The category of prepositions used with

three. three cases is hurrying towards extinction,

as we should expect. Meta<, peri< and u[po<

have crossed the line into the two-case class and in the NT


c. gen. 1 (Ac 2734, literary), dat. 6 ( = "close to" or "at,"

in Mk, Lk, Jn ter and Rev), acc. 679. With the dative,

however, it occurs 104 times in LXX, and 23 times c. gen.:

the decay seems to have been rapid. Cf however PFi 5

pro>j t&? pulw?ni, as late as 245 A.D. For para< the numbers

are, c. gen. 78, dat. 50, acc. 60. Blass notes that c. dat. it

is only used of persons, as generally in classical Greek, except

in Jn. 1925. One phrase with para< calls for a note on its

use in the papyri. Oi[ par ] au]tou? is exceedingly common

there to denote "his agents" or “representatives.” It has

hitherto been less easy to find parallels for Mk 321, where

it must mean "his family": see Swete and Field in loc.

We can now cite GH 36 (ii/B.C.) oi[ par ] h[mw?n pa1 Contrast Ac 242 with OP 41 (iii/iv A.D.) pollw?n a]gaq?n a]polau

dia> sai<.

2 Ou] dunaand a like phrase from OP 261 (i/A.D.), but of course they prove little of

nothing. [a See pp. 246 f.; b see p. 247.


BU 998 (ii/B.C.), and Par P 36 (ii/B.C.).1 Finally we come

to e]pi<, the only preposition which is still thoroughly at home

with all the cases (gen. 216, dat. 176, acc. 464). The

weakening of case-distinctions is shown however by the very

disproportion of these figures, and by the confusion of meaning

which is frequently arising. In Heb 810 1016 we construe

kardi th>n dia

it in the latter passage: on the other hand, the original in

Jer 31(38)33 is singular, which favours taking it as genitive.2

Our local upon can in fact be rendered by e]pi< with gen.,

dat., or acc., with comparatively little difference of force.

Particular phrases are appropriated to the several cases, but

the reason is not always obvious, though it may often be

traced back to classical language, where distinctions were

rather clearer. Among the current phrases we may note

e]pi> to> au]to< "together," "in all," perpetually used in arith-

metical statements: see Ac 115 247. Cf Blass2 330. The

common e]f ] &$ c. fut. indic. "on condition that," does not appear

in the NT. But with a pres. in 2 Co 54, and an aor. in Rom 512,

the meaning is essentially the same ("in view of the fact that"),

allowing for the sense resulting from a jussive future.

1 Expos. vi. vii. 118, viii. 436. See Witkowski's note, p. 72.

2 For Mk 639 e]pi> t&? xo19 substitutes e]pi> tou? x., but with e]pi> to>n x.

in D. In Ac 711 D has gen. for acc., and in 816 acc. for dat. In Eph 110 it

seems difficult to draw any valid distinction between the cases of e]pi> toi?j

ou]ranoi?j and e]pi> th?j gh?j. Nor can we distinguish between e]p ] e]sxa1

and the dative in Tb P 69 (ii/B.C.), w$n h[ dioi

ADDITIONAL NOTES.—P. 79. Mr Thackeray says prw?toj is used for pro

regularly in LXX. The latter occurs not infrequently in Ptolemaic papyri, but

seems to have weakened greatly in the Roman period.—P. 98. The Ptolemaic

PP iii. 28 has e]dragmatokle

JG 562 on p. mo

Jn 615x. On Mt 1822, W. C. Allen takes 70 x7 in Gen and Mt ll. cc. alike.

A further parallel for cardinal in place of adverb is BU 1074 (late D.)

trispuqioneiSyll. 3859 Hadrian says

he could not find e]k po h@rcasqe. This is a fairly close parallel to

the e!wj po

If it "may be quotable from early Greek," I cannot quite see why it is for

Dr Nestle "a Hebraism, even if it is still used by Palls in his MGr translation."

I seem to hear the shade of Hadrian demanding "Am I a Jew?"—P. 102.

BU 1079 (41 A. D. ) ble

n a]po> tw?n ]Ioudaithe Jews (i.e. moneylenders)," contains an idiom which the Hebraists will

hardly care to claim now!—P. 103. Fresh exx. of e]n accumulate in a great

variety of meanings. Amongst them I have only room for the Delphian inscr.,

Syll. 8508 (iii/B.C.) kriqejudges," a good illustration of e]n in Ac 1731.



OUR first subject under the Verb will be one which has

not yet achieved an entrance into the grammars. For

the last few years the comparative philologists—mostly in

Aktionsart.” Germany—have been busily investigating

the problems of Aktionsart, or the "kind of

action" denoted by different verbal formations. The subject,

complex in itself, has unfortunately been entangled not a

little by inconsistent terminology; but it must be studied by

all who wish to understand the rationale of the use of the

Tenses, and the extremely important part which Compound

Verbs play in the Greek and other Indo-Germanic languages.

The English student may be referred to pp. 477 ff. of Dr P.

Giles's admirable Manual of Comparative Philology, ed. 2.

A fuller summary may be found in pp. 471 of Karl Brug-

mann's Griech. Gramm., ed. 3, where the great philologist sets

forth the results of Delbruck and other pioneers in compara-

tive syntax, with an authority and lucidity all his own.

Conjugation The student of Hebrew will not need

and Tense telling that a Tense-system, dividing verbal

Stems. action into the familiar categories of Past,

Present and Future, is by no means so

necessary to language as we once conceived it to be. It

may be more of a surprise to be told that in our own

family of languages Tense is proved by scientific inquiry to

be relatively a late invention, so much so that the elementary

distinction between Past and Present had only been developed

to a rudimentary extent when the various branches of the

family separated so that they ceased to be mutually intel-

ligible. As the language then possessed no Passive whatever,

and no distinct Future, it will be realised that its resources


needed not a little supplementing. But if they were scanty

in one direction, they were superabundant in another. Brug-

mann distinguishes no less than twenty-three conjugations,

or present-stem classes, of which traces remain in Greek;

and there are others preserved in other languages. We

must add the aorists and perfect as formations essentially

parallel. In most of these we are able to detect an

Aktionsart originally appropriate to the conjugation, though

naturally blurred by later developments. It is seen that the

Point Action; Aorist has a "punctiliar" action,1 that is, it

regards action as a point: it represents the

point of entrance (Ingressive, as balei?n "let fly," basileu?sai

"come to the throne"), or that of completion (Effective, as

balei?n "hit"), or it looks at a whole action simply as having

occurred, without distinguishing any steps in its progress

(Constative,2 as basileu?sai "reign," or as when a sculptor

says of his statue, e]poi

1   ...   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   ...   33

The database is protected by copyright © 2017
send message

    Main page