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.
Size3.25 Mb.
1   ...   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   ...   33
(cf Ac 317) is his ex. In Mt 627 we have a choice—"Who

can by worrying," or "even if he does worry, add a span to his

Concessive, life?" Concessive clauses are often expressed with the participle alone: Rom 132 "though

they know," Jas 34 "big though they are," 1 Co 919 "free

though I am," Jude 5 (not causal, as Winer), etc. Where

ambiguity is possible, we sometimes find the meaning fixed by

4, 2 Pet 112, and Heb ter; once by kai

Heb 43, kai> tau?ta Heb 1112, or kai< ge Ac 1727--note

Causal, the ou] there surviving, with characteristic

emphasis. The opposite causal sense is ex-

ceedingly common: so Ac 421, Heb 66 (unless temporal), Jas

225, Mt 119, etc. Purpose is less often expressed by the parti-

Final, ciple, as the future was decaying:1 we have

however Mt 2749, and two or three in Luke.

The present sometimes fulfils this function, as in Ac 1527.

Finally come the temporal clauses, or those which describe

Temporal and the attendant circumstances of an action: e.g.

Attendant Mt 132 w!ste au]to>n ei]j ploi?on e]mba
Circumstances qh?sqai, "when he had entered, he sat down."2

Clauses. We should not usually put a temporal

clause to represent these, as it would overdo the emphasis:

in comparatively few cases, like Ac 171 and similar narra-

tive passages, we might replace with e]pei< or o!te. Our

English participle is generally the best representative, unless

we change it to the indicative with and: Latin, unless the

ablative absolute can be used, necessarily has recourse to

cum c. subj., its normal method of expressing attendant;

circumstances. The pleonastic participles labw
1 It was not however by any means dead: cf the string of final fut. parti-

ciples in OP 727 (ii/A.D.); BU 98 (iii/A.D.), Ch P 4 (ii/B.C., =Witk. p. 70), etc.

2 Sec p. 241.


poreuqeihave been already referred to (p. 14). One interesting

Aramaism may be noted here from Wellhausen (p. 22). He

asserts that in Mk 27 lalei? blasfhmei?, (without stop) liter-

ally translates two Aramaic participles, the second of which

should in Greek appear as a participle. In Lk 2265 we find

blasfhmou?ntej e@legon correctly. But it must be noted that

with the RV punctuation Mk l.c. is perfectly good Greek, so

that we have no breach of principle if we do allow this

account of the passage.

The large use of participles in narrative, both in gramma-

tical connexion with the sentence and in the gen. abs. con-

struction (p. 74), is more a matter of style than of grammar,

and calls for no special examination here.

Ou] with We may close our discussion with some

Participle notes on the places in which the ordinary

rule, that mh< goes with the participle, is set

aside. The number of passages is not large, and they may

well be brought together.1 Mt (2211) and Jn (1012) have one

each; Luke (Lk 642, Ac 75 2622 2817.19) five; and there are

two each in Heb (111. 35) and 1 Pet (18 210--quotation).

Paul has Rom 925 and Gal 427 bis (quoted), 1 Co 26, 2 Co 48. 9

quciter, Gal 48, Phil 32, Col 219: 1 Th 21 and 2 Pe 116 have ou]

. . . a]lla<. Before discussing them, let us cite score papyrus

exx. for ou]. OP 471 (ii./A.D.) to>n ou]k e]n leukai?j e]sqh?sin e]n

qeatr&? peplhrwkol.c. OP 491 (ii/A.D.) e]a>n teleuth


(ii/A.D.) ou] duna1

OP 726 (ii/A.D.) ou] duna

cannot): so 727 (ii/A.D.). Tb P 41 (ii/B.C.) ou] stoxasa<-

menoj (= -ou) w$n e@xomen . . . pi

succession): so Par P 40 ou@te tou? i[erou? stoxasa

tou? kalw?j e@xontoj. Par P 13 kratou?sin ou]k a]napem-

yantej th>n fernhn. Tb P 34 (ii/B.C.) mh> paranoxlei

u[p ] ou]deno

menoj ti< e]kei?noj a]pekrei

TP 1 (ii/B.C.), 3 and 8 (ii/B.C.). In many of these

1 I omit ou]k e]cotuxw . . . the negative tinges the whole sentence.


exx. we can distinctly recognise, it seems, the lingering con-

sciousness that the proper negative for a statement of a

downright fact is ou]. The same feeling may have made ou]

rise to the lips when an emphatic phrase was wanted, as in

the illiterate Tb P 34 above. The closeness of the participle

to the indicative in the kinds of sentence found in this list

makes the survival of ou], natural. Much the same principles

may be applied to the NT, though in Luke, Paul and Heb

we have also to reckon with the literary consciousness of an

educated man, which left some of the old idioms even where

mh< had generally swept them away. In two passages we

have ou] and mh< in close contact. Mt 2211 (see parallel

above) is followed in the king's question by pw?j ei]sh?lqej

w$de mh> e@xwn. . . ; The distinction is very natural: the

first is a plain fact, the second an application of it. The

emphasis would have been lost by substituting mh<. In

Pallis's MGr version of the Gospels the two phrases are alike

translated with de

levelling is well illustrated by his version of Lk and Jn

The former becomes kai> . . . de>n c. indic.; the latter is

kai> bosko>j mh>n o@natj, followed by pou> de>n ei#nai ta> pro

dika< tou, "whose own the sheep are not." Outside the

indicative de8 is best left to Hort:

"The change of negative participles . . . is not capricious.

The first is a direct statement of historical fact; the second

is introduced as it were hypothetically, merely to bring out

the full force of pisteu

ficial to distinguish, it is hard to believe that any but a slovenly

writer would have brought in so rapid a change without any

reason. The principles already sketched may be applied to

the remaining passages without difficulty, in so far as they

are original Greek. In the quotations from the LXX we

have, as Blass notes, merely the fact that xlo c. partic. was

regularly translated with ou]. The passages in question

would also come very obviously under the rule which admits

ou] when negativing a single word and not a sentence.


P. 2.—Thumb points out (Hellen. 125) that Josephus has only been con-

victed of one Hebraism, the use of prosti

(l; Jysiho, i.e. "to do again"). (For this, cf Wellh. 28.) He refers to Schmidt

Jos. 514-7, and Deissmann BS 67 n. That the solitary Hebraism in the Pales-

tinian writer should be a lexical one, not a grammatical, is suggestive.

P. 7.—In the Expositor for September 1905, Prof. Ramsay says that the

earlier tombs at Lystra show Latin inscriptions, while at Iconium Greek is

normal. This may involve our substituting Latin as the language of Paul's

preaching at Lystra: such a conclusion would not in itself be at all surprising.

P. 8.—"Even a Palestinian like Justin knew no Hebrew," says Dalman

(Words 44) in arguing against Resch's theory of a primitive Hebrew Gospel.

P. 10.—Lightfoot (on Gal 46) prefers to regard ]Abba< o[ path36 as

spoken by our Lord in this form. He cites from Schottgen the address yryk yrm,

in which the second element (ku

compares Rev 911 129 202. Thus understood, the phrase would be a Most emphatic

"testimony to that fusion of Jew and Greek which prepared the way for the

preaching of the Gospel to the heathen." But Lightfoot's first alternative

(practically that of the text) seems on the whole more probable.

P. 16.—In Ac 21 D, Blass puts a full stop at the end of the verse. But we

might translate without the stop:—"It came to pass during those days of

fulfilment of the day of Pentecost, while they were all gathered together, that

lo! there was . . ." This is the (b) form, with kai< i]dou<, so that it comes

near (a). This punctuation helps us to give adequate force to the durative infin.

sumplhrou?sqai. On this view D gives us one ex. of the (a) forth, and one of

the (b), to reinforce the more or less doubtful ex. of (b) in the ordinary text of

Ac 57. Those who accept Blass's theory of Luke's two editions might say that

the author had not quite given up the (a) and (5) constructions when he wrote

his first draft of Ac: before sending the revised edition to Theophilus, he

corrected what remained of these (like a modern writer going over his proofs to

expunge "split infinitives"), but overlooked 57. I am not commending that

view here; but I may suggest a systematic study of the gramnar of the D

text in Luke as a probably fruitful field for those who would contribute to the

greatest of all textual problems in the NT.

P. 23.—We might have expected to find a specimen of Cretn Tit 112 ;

but if Epimenides the Cretan was really the author of this unflattering descrip-

tion of his countrymen, he waited till he came to Athens, where (among other

advantages for this composition) he could write a aei< and disyllabic a]rgai<. Plato

makes him reach Athens just before the Persian War.

P. 30.—It may be worth while to add a note illustrating the early date at

which some characteristic MGr elements began to appear in the vernacular,


On a Galatian tombstone of vi/A.D.(BCH 1903, 335) the word a]na

written a]nayij, showing the fully developed result of the pronunciation of

au as au: cf MGr e@paya, from pauC. and B. ii. 537) notes kates-

skeBCH 1888, 202), which is an ex. of the same phenomenon. He also

gives a Christian inscription of iii/A.D. from Phrygia, containing the 3 pl.


boulhq^? a]noi

as OP 119, 528, 531, al. But Thumb (in BZ ix. 234) cites a yet earlier ex.,

e@xousej for nom. or acc. pl. fem., from an inscription of i/A.D. Cod L reads


P. 43.—S. Langdon (AJP xxiv. 4 47 ff.) examines the history of e]a

and agrees with Winer, who thinks it a peculiarity of the popular language

(WM 390). Mr Langdon attributes it to "the effort to emphasise the abstract

conditional aspect of the relative clause. This would of course occur much

more frequently with relatives without antecedent than when they were defined

by an antecedent. . . . This popular idiom met the necessity which the LXX

translators felt in their effort to distinguish between the complete and in-

complete relative clauses when translating from Hebrew. . . . In the NT

the rule of using e]a

almost invariably in the OT and in Christian Greek writers." Mr Langdon's

trust in his one or two exx. from classical MSS can hardly be shared; and

before we can feel sure that the LXX translators themselves used this e]a

meant anything by the distinction, we should at least have examined the early

papyri very carefully. The earliest exx. quotable are Hb P 96 and 51, PP iii.

43, of iii/B.C., and BM 220 bis, G 18,1Th P 12 bis, 105, 107, from ii/B.C.. A sug-

gestive ex. is Tb P 59 (99 B. C.), where the sentence is translatable with either

interpretation of e]a

relative sentences makes it easy to misinterpret statistics. See Mayser, p. 152.

P. 44.— ]Efiorkei?n, banned by WH as "Western," occurs frequently in

inscriptions and papyri. See Schwyzer Perg. 118 for exx. and au explanation


P. 55.—A more peculiar produc is [e]pika]le

189 (Rome), to which Prof. Thumb calls my attention. So kale ib. no. 15

(Syria, iii/A.D.). That these are genuine survivals of uncontracted forms (e.g.

from Epic dialect) is very improbable.

P. 58.—"Pindaric Construction," when the verb follows, is hardly ana-

coluthic: it is due to a mental grouping of the compound subject into one entity

—"flesh and blood".= "humanity,” "heaven and earth" = "the universe."

A papyrus ex. may be cited: BU 225 (ii/A.D.) u[pa au]t^? e]n t^? kw

du ktl. So also 537.

P. 60.—Meisterhans 3203 (§ 84) cites a number of exx. from Attic inscrip-

tions of v/ and iv/B.C., where in a continued enumeration there is a relapse

into the nominative. Gildersleeve adds CIA I. 170-173 (v/B.C. =Roberts-

Gardner no. 97) ta

P. 63.—To discuss this large question for individual exx. would take us too

long. Blass in § 39. 3 states this fairly: he notes that the misuse of ei]j

was still a provincialism, which in respect of the local signification of ei]j and

e]n is not present in the Epistles nor strangely enough) in Rev, though found in

all the narrative writers of the NT. Hatzidakis 210 f. illustrates both the use

of ei]j for e]n and that of e]n for ei]j: for the latter, add the early Par P 10

a]nakexw11, where ei]j is

perfectly normal.) We need not accept all Blass's exx.: thus Jn 1723 is

surely "perfected into one." But it must be confessed that our evidence now


makes it impossible to see in Jn 118 (o[ w}n ei]j to>n koof rest and motion, of a continuous relation with a realisation of it" (Westcott).

Without further remark we will reserve discussion till the time comes for

treating the prepositions systematically, only noting that in D there are

suggestive substitutions of e]n for ei]j in Ac 712 823 (the latter however probably

involving an entirely different sense—see p. 71), and ei]j for e]n in Ac 1125 (e]sti>n

ei]j Ta

P. 65.—D often, as Wellhausen notes (p. 13), shows acc. with a]kou

kathgorei?n, and kratei?n, where the other texts have gen.

P. 67.—Both in Ac 1634 and in 188, D alters the dat. to e]pi< (ei]j) c. acc.;

but in the latter a clause is added containing pisteu

P. 69.—Blass's objection to recognising the noun ]Elaiw12 and

Josephus, rests upon the fact that assimilation of case is generally practised,

and that in to> o@roj tw?n e]laiw?n the genitive is unmistakable. But the nom. is

frequent in LXX (Thackeray): thus Gen 320, Num 2114. See also Deissmann

BS 210. Blass rightly, I think, regards Jn 1333 as a vocative and not as

equivalent to fwnei?te< me to>n dida9 is a clear ex. to

put by Rev 911 and Blass's own Mk 310 (as found in D and the Latt.. It is note-

worthy that both Luke and Josephus (Ant. xx. 169 pro>j o@roj to> prosagoreuo<-

menon ]Elaiwn, Bell. Jud. ii. 262 ei]j to> ]Elaiwn kalou

the unambiguous genitive –w?noj (Ant. vii. 202 dia> tou? ]Elaiw?noj o@rouj) but also

put the anarthrous e]laiwn in combination with the word called. This seems to

show that the name was not yet fixed in the Greek speech of Jerusalem

residents, and that the halfway-house to the full proper name wanted some

apology. To> o@roj tw?n e]laiw?n will thus be a translation of the native name.

The new name for the hill would spring from two sources, the vernacular word

for oliveyard, and the impulse to decline the stereotyped e]laiw?n. An exact

parallel for the latter was quoted in Expos. vi. vii. 111. In the Ptolemaic

papyri Tb P 62, 64, 82, 98 the noun i]bi

closely with i]bi

as nom. sing. instead of gen. pl.: they observe that "the declension of the

village called ]Ibi

In both words then we see a gen. pl. made into a new nominative which

coincides with a noun of slightly different meaning already existing.

P. 70.—Prof. Thumb tells me that the construction (parenthetic nomina-

tive) survives in MGT: thus (a]p ]) e]dw> kai> peAJP xxiv. 1) cites a rare use from Skt.: "a year

(nom.) almost, I have not gone out from the hermitage." Contra, I Wellh. 29.

Ib.— Ei]ko

(i/B.C.) to the personal descriptions which accompany an IOU, receipt, bill of

sale, census paper, etc.

Ib.—The vocative h[ pai?j, as Dr Rendel Harris reminds me, literally trans-

lates the Aramaic absolute xtAyliF; (as Dalman gives it, Gramm. 118 n). I should

have remarked that the usage is commonest where there is translation from

Semitic. The author of Heb does not use it except in OT citations, nor does

Luke in Ac 13-28 (though we may note that in the three citations involved

there is no article in the Hebrew). It is only another instance of over-use of an

idiom through its coincidence with a native usage

P. 74.—See Kuhner-Gerth 401 n. 5. 6, for these genitives after a negative

adjective. Typical exx. are Tb P 105 (ii/B.C.) al, a]kij kindu

a]nupoj e]piti



aboh21 =a@neu nodiffers only in that the genitive is subjective, while the rest are either objective

genitives or pure ablatives.

Ib.—One or two parallels may be added for the free use of the gen. abs.

For the substitution of gen. for the case in construction, cf Tb P 41 (ii/B.C.),

i[kanw?n h[mw?n u[po

tau?ta e]poi

Share with your friends:
1   ...   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   ...   33

The database is protected by copyright © 2019
send message

    Main page