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   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   33
Schwyzer (p. 191) quotes Moeris for poi&

Greek, and calls in the analogy of tim&

to d&

that doi

monosyllabic: see p. 45. Dw<^ (subj.) seems a syntact-

ical necessity in Eph 117 (B d&?), 2 Tim 225 (cf later

uncials in Eph 316 and Jn 1516): this form, well known in

Homer, survives in Boeotian and Delphian inscriptions, as

Michel 1411 (ii/B.C., Delphi), 1409 (do).4 It is quite intel-

ligible that NW Greek (cf above, p. 36 f.) should have

thus contributed to the Koinh<; an item which (like other

contributions from a single quarter, e.g. te

only a precarious existence by the side of other forms. We

return to this later (pp. 193 f.). From oi#da we have in papyri,

as in NT, ordinary perfect indic. flexion,5 and pluperf. for

^@dein, with occasional literary revival of the older irregular

forms. Finally, in the conjugation of ei]mi<, the middle forms

1 See below, p. 234.

2 The form –sta

pates the MGr. So NP 53 (iii/A.D.), in Wilcken's reading; Syl/. 73776 (ii/A.D.):

3 So in 2nd person also, a]podoi?j Lk 1259 D (as papyri).

4 See G. Meyer3 656. Witkowski, p. xxii, reads a]podou
5 Probably Ionic: so Herodotus, and even our texts of Homer (0d. i. 337).


are well established (h@mhn, h@meqa—see above, p. 37), as to a

still further extent in MGr. Even the MGr present ei#mai is

found already in a Phrygian inscription v. Ramsay C. and B.

ii. 565 (early iv/A.D.). G. Meyer (3 569) regarded e@stai as

the 3rd sing. of this, transferred to future meaning. Note

that the old 1st sing. h#n reappears in D at Ac 2018: elsewhere

h@mhn stands alone. The rarer h@tw alternates with e@stw, in

papyri and late inscriptions, as in NT.

Miscellaneous It is needless to add any details as to

noteworthy forms among the "principal

parts" of verbs. Papyrus parallels may be cited for h]noi

for the double formation of a[rpa

and h[rpa1), for the alternative

perf. of tugxa6), for the 1 aor. of a@gw, etc.

Note especially the intrusion of the m, from the present of lam-


(p. 149). This is normal in the papyri after the Ptolemaic

period, in which there is still some lingering of the older forms.

The same phenomenon occurred partially in Ionic; but the

Ionic fut. la

of the present, shows that it was an independent development

in the Koinh<. This will serve as a final example to show that

the late uncials and cursives, in restoring classical forms which

the best MSS set aside, were deserting the Greek of the NT

period in the interests of an artificial grammar.

1 So P 1 38 (? rightly) in Rev 22; cf dusba46. It is MGr.

ADDITIONAL Noms.—Superficially parallel with te

variant e]kaqeri41f. immediately follows kaqari

(App.2 157) note that this occurs only in augmented or reduplicated tense-forms:

so also in LXX (Thackeray). Clearly the e came in as a second augment, follow-

ing what looked like kata<. For the itacism of ai and e (WH ib.), cf Mayser

107, who shows that the change of ai was illiterate, and quite rare in Ptolemaic

times. Later it became normal, till ai and e were only distinguished ortho-

graphically. Mr Thackeray sends me statistics as to ou]qei

ing the tables of Mayser (pp. 180 ff.). The phenomenon seems to be of Attic

origin, appearing early in iv/B.C. Thence it spread to the Koinh<, where in

ii/B.C. it greatly predominated. But in i/A.D. ou]dei

and before 111/A.D. it had driven out ou]qei

is therefore significant. The compound e]couqenei?n, born perhaps in ii/B.C., is

found in the more literary LXX writers, and in Luke and Paul: the later LXX

books show e]coudenou?n coined when ou]dei

opt. in -san may be noted in D (Ac 1727 bis). The agreement of D with the

LXX in a formation markedly absent from the NT is curious; but it must not

(says Dr Thumb) be used to support any theory of Egyptian origin for the MS.



WE address ourselves to the syntax, beginning with that of

the Noun. There are grammatical categories here that

Number:— scarcely ask for more than bare mention.

On the subject of Number there is one

obvious thing to say the dual has gone. Many Greek

dialects, Ionic conspicuously, had discarded this hoary luxury

The Dual. long before the Common Greek was born

Neuter Plurals. and no theory of the relation of the Koinh< to

the dialects would allow Attic to force on

the resultant speech a set of forms so useless as these. The

dual may well have arisen in prehistoric days when men could

not count beyond two; and it is evidently suffering from

senile decay in the very earliest monuments we possess of

Indo-Germanic language. It had somewhat revived in Attic—

witness the inscriptions, and folk-songs like the "Harmodius";

but it never invaded Hellenistic, not even when a Hebrew

dual might have been exactly rendered by its aid. We shall

see when we come to the adjectives that the disappearance

of the distinction between duality and plurality had wider

results than the mere banishment of the dual number from

declensions and conjugations. The significant new flexion of


but in other respects du

appeared in favour of the normally declined @amfo

Apart from this matter the only noteworthy point under

Number is the marked weakening of the old principle that

neuter plurals (in their origin identical with collectives in

-a1) took a singular verb. In the NT we have a large

1 See Giles, Manual2, 264 ff. I might add here that Dr Giles thinks the

dual may have been originally a specialised form of the plural, used (as in

Homer always) to describe natural or artificial pairs. That this is its earliest



extension of what in classical Greek was a comparatively rare

licence, the plural verb being allowed when the individual

items in the subject are separately in view, while the singular

treats the subject as a collective unity.1 The liberty of using

the plural freely makes the use of the singular distinctly

more significant than it could be in classical Greek.

"Pindaric" It may be added that the converse

Construction. phenomenon, known as the sxh?ma Pinda-

riko41, Mt 519

619, 1 Co 1550, Rev 912. It is really only a special case of

anacoluthon, no more peculiar to Pindar than to Shakspere.

An interesting communication by Prof. Skeat to the Cam-

bridge Philological Society (Proceedings, lxvii. p. 2) describes

a rule in English, from Alfred downwards, that "when a verb

occurs in the 3rd person in an introductory manner . . . ,

it is often used in the singular number, though the subject

may be in the plural. "Thus" what cares these roarers for

the name of king?"-- "and now abideth faith, hope, [love],

these three,"—etc.; the last being as true to English idiom

as to its original Greek. That the construction is also pos-

sible with order inverted, is shown by another citation, "For

thy three thousand ducats here is six." (See also p. 234.)

Impersonal An idiomatic use of the plural appears

Plural. in passages like Mt 220 teqnh20

ai]tou?sin, where there is such a suppression

of the subject in bringing emphasis on the action, that

we get the effect of a passive, or of French on, German

man. Our "they say" is like it. Lightfoot compares the

"rhetorical plural" in Euripides IT 1359, kle

gh?j co quhpoi.e. Iphigenia). Add Livy ix. 1,

"auctores belli [one man] dedidimus." Winer gives other

parallels, but rightly refuses to put Mt 98 2744, 1 Co 1529

163 into this category. If Heb 101 has not a primitive

error (as Hort suspected), the plural subject of prosfeextant use is certain, but its origin may very well have been as suggested above.

There are savages still who cannot count beyond two: see Tylor, Primitive

, i. 242 f. The Indo-Germans had numerals up to 100 before their

separation; but the superfluous dual, I suggest, had been already utilised for a

new purpose.

1 This is conspicuous in D (Wellh. 12).


and dupriests are certainly not prominent in the writer's thought,

and a passive construction would have given the meaning

exactly. So Westcott (for prosf.) who quotes Jn 156 202,

Rev 126, Mt 716, Mk 1013, Lk.1723. See also p. 163, n. 2.

Gender:— On Gender likewise there is not much to

say. There are sundry differences in the

gender of particular words; but even MGr is nearly as much

under the domination of this outworn excrescence on language

as was its classical ancestor. That English should still be almost

the only European language to discard gender, indicating only

distinction of sex, is exceedingly strange. As in the case of

Number, we have to refer to ordinary grammars for some

uses of gender which NT Greek shares with the classical.

One or two cases of slavish translation should be mentioned.

In Rom 114 the LXX t&? Ba

occurs however three times in LXX, and in Ascensio Isaiae 12.

Prof. F. C. Burkitt (CR xiv. 458), in commenting on this last

passage, accepts the explanation that the gender is deter-

mined by the Q’ri tw,Bo, translated ai]sxu11

and Mt 2142 we have the LXX au!th=txzo: the translators

may perhaps have interpreted their own Greek by recalling

Breach of kefalh>n gwni
Concord. has been already alluded to in a note on the

Greek of Rev (p. 9).a The very difficult ei@ tij

spla oi]ktirmo< of Phil 21 comes in here, involving

as it does both number and gender. We might quote in illus-

tration Par P 15 (ii/B.C.) e]pi ti mi

BU 326 (ii/A.D.) ei] de< ti perissa> gra

But Blass's ei@ ti, read throughout, is a great improvement:

si quid valet is the sense required, as Lightfoot practically

shows by his translation. H. A. A. Kennedy (EGT in loc.)

makes independently the same suggestion. Note that the Codex

Amiatinus (and others) read si quid viscera. [a b See p. 241.

A significant remark may be quoted from the great

Byzantinist, K. Krumbacher, a propos of these breaches of

concord. In his Problem. d. neugr. Schriftsprache (p. 50) he

observes: "If one finds in Greek literature, between the early

Byzantine age and the present day, mistakes like leainw?n mh>

sugxwrou katalabo


etc., it shows that we have to do with a half-dead form, in

which mistakes slip in as soon as grammatical vigilance nods."

When we remember that the MGr present participle, e.g.


we can see some reason for the frequency of non-agreement

in this part of the verb. What became common in the early

Byzantine literature would naturally be incipient in the

vernacular of imperfectly educated persons centuries before,

like the author of Rev.1 A few nouns wavering in gender

may be named. Limo

feminine in 26, which is written by the same hand; further

parallels need not be sought for the inconsistency between

Lk 425 and Ac 1128, Lk 1514. The apparently purposeless

variation between h[ qeo

inscriptions.2 Some masculine -oj nouns like e@leoj, h#xoj,

plou?toj, passed into the neuter declension in Hellenistic,

and remain there in MGr: see Hatzidakis, pp. 356

Case:— We are free now to examine the pheno-

Disappearance mena of Case. To estimate the position of

of the Hellenistic cases along the line of develop-

Local Cases. ment, we may sum up briefly what may be seen

at the two ends of this line. MGr has only the three cases

we ourselves possess—nominative, accusative, and genitive.

(The survival of a few vocative forms, in which MGr and

Hellenistic are on practically the same footing, does not affect

this point, for the vocative is not really a case.) At the

very dawn of Greek language history, as we know it, there is

only one more, the dative, though we can detect a few

moribund traces of instrumental, locative, and ablative. For

all practical purposes, we may say that Greek lost in pre-

1 Cf Reinhold 57 f., and p. 234 below. We may cite typical breaches of con-

cord from the papyri. Firstly, case:—KP 37 (ii/A.D.) !Hrwn e@graya u[pe>r au]tou?

mh> ei]dw>j gr(a

So BU 31 (ei]doLetr.

149 (ii/A.D.) tou? a]delfou? . . . o[ dia

Serha Then gender:—BU 997 (ii/B.C.) th

u[pan leinou?n. Ib. 1013

(i/A.D.) h[ o[mologw?n. Ib. 1036 (ii/A.D.) stolh>n leinou?n. LPu (ii/B.C.) th>n tw?n

qew?n a@nasson a]kouj au]th?j mh
2 Cf Blass on 1927: "Usitate dicitur h[ qeo

Ephesia . . . t^? megi

. . . Itaque formulam sollemnem h[ mega. "A. mira diligentia L. conservavit."

ab See p. 244.

historic times three out of the primitive seven cases (or eight,

if we include the vocative), viz., the from case (ablative), the

with case (instrumental1), and the at or in case (locative), all

of which survived in Sanskrit, and appreciably in Latin,

though obscured in the latter by the formal syncretism of

ablative, instrumental, and (except in singular of -a- and

-o- nouns) locative. In other words, the purely local cases,

in which the meaning could be brought out by a place-

adverb (for this purpose called a preposition), sacrificed their

distinct forms and usages.2 Greek is accordingly marked,

Encroachment like English, by the very free use of preposi-

of Prepositions. tions. This characteristic is most obviously

intensified in Hellenistic, where we are per-

petually finding prepositional phrases used to express rela-

tions which in classical Greek would have been adequately

given by a case alone. It is needless to illustrate this fact,

except with one typical example which will fitly introduce

the next point to be discussed. We have already (pp. 11 f.)

referred to the instrumental e]n, formerly regarded as a trans-

lation of the familiar Hebrew B;, but now well established as

vernacular Greek of Ptolemaic and later times. The examples

adduced all happen to be from the category "armed with";

but it seems fair to argue that an instrumental sense for e]n

is generally available if the context strongly pleads for it,

without regarding this restriction or assuming Hebraism.3

Nor is the intrusion of e]n exclusively a feature of "Biblical"

Greek, in the places where the prep. seems to be superfluous.

Thus in Gal 51 the simple dative appears with e]ne

Par P 63 (ii/B.C.—a royal letter) gives us tou>j e]nesxhme

1 The instrumental proper all but coincided with the dative in form

throughout the sing. of the 1st and 2nd decl., so that the still surviving

dative of instrument may in these declensions be regarded as the ancient case:

the comitative "with," however, was always expressed by a preposition, except

in the idiom au]toi?j a]ndra
2 Note that the to case also disappeared, the "terminal acculsative" seen in

ire Romam,. The surviving Greek cases thus represent purely grammatical

relations, those of subject, object, possession, remoter object, and instrument.

3 I should not wish to exclude the possibility that this e]n, although correct

vernacular Greek, came to be used rather excessively by translators from

Hebrew, or by men whose mother tongue was Aramaic. The use would be

explained on the same lines as that of i]dou< on p. 11.

e@n tisin a]gnoh

dialuqh?nai, while the contemporary 28 has dialuo

t&? lim&?. What gave birth to this extension of the uses

of e]n? It seems certainly to imply a growing lack of

clearness in the simple dative, resulting in an unwilling-

ness to trust it to express the required meaning without

further definition. We may see in the multiplied use of pre-

positions an incipient symptom of that simplification of cases

which culminates in the abbreviated case system of to-day.

Decay of the The NT student may easily overlook the

Dative :— fact that the dative has already entered

the way that leads to extinction. I take

a page at random from Mk in WH, and count 21 datives

against 23 genitives and 25 accusatives. A random page

from the Teubner Herodotus gives me only 10, against

23 and 29 respectively one from Plato 11, against 12

and 25. Such figures could obviously prove nothing con-

clusive until they were continued over a large area, but

they may be taken as evidence that the dative is not dead

Uses with yet. Taking the NT as a whole, the dative

Prepositions. with prepositions falls behind the accusative

and genitive in the proportion 15 to 19 and

17 respectively. This makes the dative considerably more

prominent than in classical and post-classical historians.1

The preponderance is, however, due solely to e]n, the commonest

of all the prepositions, outnumbering ei]j by about three to

two: were both these omitted, the dative would come down

to 2 ½ in the above proportion, while the accusative would still

be 10. And although e]n, has greatly enlarged its sphere of

influence2 in the NT as compared with literary Koinh<, we

1 Helbing, in Schanz's Beitrage, No. 16 (1904), p. 11, gives a table for the

respective frequency of dat., gen., and accus. with prepositions, which works out

for Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon, taken together, at 1 : 1 2 : 3 ; for

twelve post-classical historians, from Polybius to Zosimus, at 1 : 15 : 24.

2 This is well seen by comparing the statistics of Helbing, pp. 8 f. He gives

the figures for the three favourite prepositions of the historians. ]En is one of

the three in every author except Polybius, Diodorus, and Josephus; ei]j falls out

of the list in Eusebius only. The total occurrences of ei]j in the three classical

historians amount to 6,531, those of e]n to 6,031; while in the twelve Hellenistic

writers ei]j comes to 31,651, and e]n, to only 17,130. Contrast the NT, where

ei]j is preferred to e]n, only in Mk and Heb, and the total occurrences amount to

1,743 and 2,698 respectively. See the list in p. 98 below: note there also the


find very clear examples of ei]j encroaching on its domain.a

There are many NT passages where a real distinction between

ei]j and e]n is impossible to draw without excessive subtlety,

for which all the motive is gone when we find in MGr sto<

with accusative ( = ei]j to

dative; while the language in its intermediate stages steadily

tends towards this ultimate goal.1 By the side of this we

may put the disappearance of u[po< with the dative, the

accusative serving to express both motion and rest: in the

classical historians the dative is nearly as frequent as the

accusative, and some of their successors, notably Appian and

Herodian, made it greatly outnumber its rival--see Helbing,

op. cit., p. 22. Similarly prothe ratio of less than 01 to pro

classical historians it averages nearly 12; in the later twelve,

01 again. ]Epi<, and para< are the only prepositions in which

the use with three cases is really alive; and even e]pi<, rather

illustrates our tendency than contradicts it—see p. 107.

Other cases We pass on to other symptoms of sen-

substituted. escence in the dative. In the papyri there

are some clear examples of an accusative

expressing point of time instead of duration (see CR xviii.

152); and in Ac 2016 and Jn 452, Rev 33 we may recognise the

same thing.2 Of course the dative of "time when" was still

very much more common. There were not wanting, indeed,

instances where a classical use of the accusative, such as that of

specification (Goodwin Greek Gram. § 1058), has yielded to a

dative of reference (instrumental).3 We have examples of

its survival in Jn 610 al (WM 288 f.); but, as in the papyri,

the dative is very much commoner. The evidence of the

decay of the dative was examined with great minuteness by

F. Krebs in his three pamphlets, Zur Rection der Casus in der

spateren historischen Gracitat (1887-1890). He deals only
marked drop in the total for e]pi< which in the twelve writers of literary Koinh<

comes not far behind e]n, (14,093).

1 See below, p. 234.

2 Thus OP 477 (ii/A.D.) to> peformula. Add Gen 4316 (Dieterich, Unters. 151). With w!ran, however, the

use began in classical times: see Blass 94. See also p. 245.

3 Of CR. xv. 438, xviii. 153, and the useful Program b Compernass, De

Sermome Gr. Volg. Pisidiae Phrygiaeque meridionalis, pp. 2 f. [a See p. 245.

with the literary Koinh<; but we may profitably take up his

points in order and show from the NT how these tendencies

of the artificial dialect are really derived from the vernacular.

Krebs starts with verbs which are beginning to take the

accusative, having been confined to the dative in the earlier

language. The distinction in meaning between transitive

verbs and verbs whose complement was properly instrumental

(as with xra?sqai--which itself takes an abnormal accus. in

1 Co 731),a or the dative of person interested, inevitably faded

away with time, and the grammatical distinction became

accordingly a useless survival. Of Krebs' exx., polemei?n

takes accus. also in vernacular, e]nedreu

NT; but ceni

there.1 The movement was accompanied with various

symptoms of reaction. Proskunei?n in the NT takes the

dative about twice as often as the accusative.2 The phrase


its innovating dative by paraboleu30. We

will dismiss the decay of the dative with the remark that

the more illiterate papyri and inscriptions decidedly show it

before the NT had acquired any antiquity. The schoolboy

of OP 119, referred to already (p. 28), uses se< for soi< after

graCR as above) include such

monstrosities as tin tw?n ui[w?n, xari3b

Dittenberger would actually recognise the same thing in

OGIS 17 ]Aqhna?i Swtei basile

But at the beginning of iii B.C. this confusion is surely

unthinkable, and there is a curious asyndeton left: should

the kai<, be transposed?4 Even OP 811 (A.D. 1), eu]xaristw?n


follow Krebs further as he shows the encroachments of the

accusative upon the genitive, and upon the field of verbs

which were formerly intransitive. It will be seen that the
1 Also, we may add, peiqarxei?n, which takes a gen. (like a]kou

(i/B.C.), OP 265 (i/A.D.), and the "Gadatas" inscr. (Michel 32). For the dat.,

as in NT, cf Magn. 114, etc. Eu]dokei?n. acc. is only in a quotation (Mt 1218).

2 Contrast the inscriptions: see CR xv. 436. But note Par P 51 (ii/B.C.)

i!na proskunh3 See other exx. in Dieterich, Unters. 150.

4 D.'s further ex., No. 87 (iii/B.C.) u[pe>r basile basilikai> Ptolemai

No. 364 (18 B.C.), and exx. in his hide, p. 238. [a b See p. 245.
NT does not tally in details with the literary Koinh<, though

it independently shows the same tendencies at work. In

Accusative gains his second part Krebs turns to the genitive.

from genitive, The first verb in which we are interested is

the late compound a]pelpi

rally takes acc. instead of the natural gen. This it seems

to do in Lk 635, if we read mhde

Lewis Syriac:1 so Ti WHmg RVmg. Kratei?n (Krebs

ii. 14) takes the gen. only 8 times in NT, out of 46 occur-

rences, but diafe


2 and so does klhronomei?n.


occurs (1 Co 319, altered from LXX). ]Epiqumw? may be added

to this list, if we may follow BD al. in Mt 528. Add likewise

the sporadic exx. of acc. with verbs of filling (Rev 173 al.;

see Blass 102): Thumb observes (ThLZ 422) that

the usage lives on in MGr.3 There follows a category

from intransitive of intransitive verbs which in Hellenistic

construction, have begun to take a direct object in the

acc. Of these we recognise as NT examples

e]nergei?n (six times), sunergei?n, (in Rom 828 AB and Origen),

pleonektei?n (four times, and once in passive), and xorhgei?n.

and from dat. The third part of Krebs' work' deals with

and gen. after compound verbs and their cases. Here

compounds. prosfwnei?n c. acc. may claim 613, but it

has the dat. four times; u[potre

in its only occurrence; e]pe

phrase; katabarei?n occurs once, c. acc.; katalalei?n takes gen. in

NT, but is once passive, as is kataponei?n in its two occurrences;

while katisxu

Limits of the It would of course be easy to supplement

blurring of old. from the NT grammar these illustrations of

distinctions. a general tendency, but exhaustive discussion

is not needed here. We must (proceed to

note a few special characteristics of the individual cases as

they appear in NT Greek, in uses deviating from earlier

1 Mhde nil desperantes.

2 A passage from Dionysius (Krebs 16), ou@te qei?on fobhqea]nqrwpi2.

3 See further, p. 235.
language. Before doing so, however, we must make some

general observations, by way of applying to noun syntax the

principles noted above, p. 20. We should not assume, from

the evidence just presented as to variation of case with verbs,

that the old distinctions of case-meaning have vanished, or

that we may treat as mere equivalents those constructions

which are found in common with the same word. The very

fact that in Jn 423 proskunei?n is found with dat. and then

with acc. is enough to prove the existence of a difference,

subtle no doubt but real, between the two, unless the writer

is guilty of a most improbable slovenliness. The fact that

the maintenance of an old and well-known distinction between

the acc. and the gen. with a]kou7

and 229 from a patent self-contradiction, should by itself be

enough to make us recognise it for Luke, and for other writers

until it is proved wrong. So with the subtle and suggestive

variation in Heb 64f. from gen. to acc. with geu1a

Further, the argument that because ei]j often denotes rest

in or at, and sometimes represents that motion towards (as

distinguished from motion to) which may perhaps have been

the primitive differentia of the dat., therefore it is immaterial

whether ei]j or e]n or the simple dat. be used with any par-

ticular word, would be entirely unwarrantable. It depends

upon the character of the word itself. If its content be

limited, it may well happen that hardly any appreciable

difference is made by placing it in one or another of cer-

tain nearly equivalent relations to a noun. But if it is a

word of large content and extensive use, we naturally expect

to find these alternative expressions made use of to define the

different ideas connected with the word they qualify, so as to

set up a series of phrases having a perfectly distinct meaning.

In such a case we should expect to see the original force of

these expressions, obsolete in contexts where there was no-

1 To illustrate with a lexical example, we need not think that the evidence

which proves e]rwta?n in the vernacular no longer restricted to the meaning

question (cf Expos. vi. viii. 431), compromises the antithesis between the verbs

in Jn 1623, rightly given by RVmg. Our English ask is the complete equivalent

of the Hellenistic e]rwta?n; and if we translated ai]th
beg or petition, we should naturally take ask to mean question there. See West-

cott or Milligan-Moulton in loc., or Loisy, Le Quatribne Eeangile, p. 789.

a See p. 245.


thing to quicken it, brought out vividly where the need of a

distinction stimulated it into new life. A critical example

is afforded by the construction of pisteu

Construction of (p. 110) declares that (beside the prepositional


it takes the dat. "passim even in the sense

'to believe in,' as in Ac 514 188."1 Again, p. 123, "pisteu

ei]j alternates with pist. e]n (Mk 115) and pist. e]pi<, in

addition to which the correct classical pist. tini< appears."

Let us examine this. In classical Greeks as LS observe,

"the two notions [believe and believe in] run into each

other." To be unable to distinguish ideas so vitally different

in the scheme of Christianity would certainly have been a

serious matter for the NT writers. Blass allows that with

the preposition the meaning is believe in. Is this meaning

ever found with the simple dat., or is pisteu

priated entirely for the other idea? The answer must, it

would seem, come from examination of the NT passages,

rather than from outside. There are about forty occurrences

of pisteu
entrust. It will be admitted that in the great majority of

these passages the meaning is believe. There remain a few

passages where the alternative is arguable, such as Jn 524. 38

(in which the lo

appropriate), 831 (where the variation from the previous p. ei]j

cannot be merely accidental), Ac 514 (where the dat. may be

construed with proseti34 and 188 (where

accepting the truth of God's word satisfies the connexion).

(See p. 235.) It might be said that the influence of the

LXX tends to weaken the normal distinction in the phrase

p. t&? qe&?. But it is very clear that the LXX is not re-

sponsible for the NT use of pisteu

positional phrase used in the LXX is that with which

is itself very rare, and this occurs in only one NT passage,2

Mk 115, where there can be little doubt hat Deissmann

is right3 in translating " believe in (the sphere of)a the

1 The second passage is dropped in 2, but not in the English edition.

2 Eph 113 is only an apparent exception, for the second e]n &$ is assimilated to

the first, and its sense is determined by e]sfragi2.)

3 In Christo 46 f Cf Gal 321 (B) e]n noa
See p. 245.


Gospel": he compares 1 Th 32, Rom 19, 2 Co 818 1014, etc.

The construction pist. e]pi<, which outside John is commoner

than ei]j, is found in Is 2816, where B omits e]pi<, and conformity

to the NT application of the passage may well have occasioned

its insertion in xAQ. It would seem therefore as if the

substitution of ei]j or e]pi<, for the simple dative may have ob-

tained currency mainly in Christian circles, where the import-

ance of the difference between mere belief (l;; Nymix

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   33

The database is protected by copyright © 2019
send message

    Main page