Addenda 3rd ed.



I. The Sentence and Syntax. In point of fact syntax deals with the sentence in its parts and as a whole. And yet it is not tautology to have a chapter on the sentence, a thing few grammars do. It is important, to get a clear conception of the sentence as well as of syntax before one proceeds to the work of detailed criticism. The sentence is the thing in all its parts that syntax treats, but the two things are not synonymous. At bottom grammar is teaching about the sentence.1

II. The Sentence Defined.

(a) COMPLEX CONCEPTION. A sentence is the expression of the idea or ideas in the speaker's mind. It is an opinion (sententia) expressed ( auvtotelh.j lo,goj). This idea is in itself complex. It is this combination of "the small coin of language" into an intelligible whole that we call a sentence.2 Just a mere word accidentally expressed is not a sentence. "The sentence is the symbol whereby the speaker denotes that two or more ideas have combined in his mind."3

(b) TWO ESSENTIAL PARTS. Only two parts are essential to this complex intelligible whole to form a sentence. These two parts are subject and predicate. A statement is made about something and thus an idea is expressed. These two parts are called substantive and verb, though the line of distinction between substantive and verb was originally very dim, as is now often seen in the English ("laugh," "touch," "work," etc.). Many modern linguists hold that the verb is nominal in origin,


since some primitive languages know only nominal sentences. We do not know which is the oldest, subject or predicate.4 In the Greek verb indeed subject and predicate are united in the one form, the original sentence.5

(c) ONE-MEMBERED SENTENCE. The sentence in form may be very brief, even one word in truth. Indeed the long sentence may not express as much as the short one. In moments of passion an exclamation may be charged with more meaning than a long rambling sentence.6 We have plenty of examples of one-word sentences in the N. T., like avpe,cei (Mk. 14:41), profh,teuson (Mk. 14:65), proece.meqa (Ro. 3:9), qe,lw (Mt. 8:3), ouvci, (Lu. 1:60). Compare also proeu,qhti├ e;rcou├ poi,hson (Mt. 8:9).

(d) ELLIPTICAL SENTENCE. Indeed, as seen in the case of ouvci, (Lu. 1:60) the sentence does not absolutely require the expression of either subject or predicate, though both are implied by the word used. This shortening or condensation of speech is common to all the Indo-Germanic languages.7 Other examples of such condensation are the vocative, as ku,rie (Mt. 8:2), with which compare u[page├ Satana (Mt. 4:10), the interjections like a;ge (Jas. 5:1), e;a (Lu. 4:34), ivdou, (Rev. 14:14), i;de (Jo. 1:29), ouvai, (Rev. 8:13). These interjections may be used alone, as e;a (Lu. 4:34), or with other words, as ouvai, and i;de above. Cf. Martha's Nai,, Ku,rie (Jo. 11:27), two sentences. Jo. 11:35 ( evda,krusen o`` vIhsou/j) is the shortest verse, but not the shortest sentence in the N. T.

(e) ONLY PREDICATE. The subject may be absent and the predicate will still constitute a sentence, i.e. express the complex idea intended. This follows naturally from the preceding paragraph. The predicate may imply the subject. The subject in Greek is involved in the verbal personal ending and often the context makes it clear what the subject really is. Indeed the Greek only expressed the personal subject as a rule where clearness, emphasis or contrast demanded it. The N. T., like the koinh, in general, uses the pronominal subject more frequently than the older Greek (cf. English). Often a glance at the context is


Addenda 3rd ed.

all that is needed, as with kai. paregi,nonto kai. evbapti,zonto (Jo. 3: 23), e;rcontai (Mk. 2:3), etc. Sometimes indeed close attention is required to notice a change of subject which is not indicated. So kai. e;fagon pa,ntej kai. evcorta,sqhsan├ kai. h=ran to. perisseu/on tw/n klasma,twn (Mt. 14:20). For this change of subject with no indication see Lu. 8:29; Jo. 19:31; 2 Cor. 3:16; 1 Jo. 5:16.8 Sometimes the subject is drawn out of the verb itself, as in salpi,sei (1 Cor. 15 : 52), 'the trumpet shall trumpet.' So in ou;te gamou/sin ou;te gami,zontai (Mt. 22:30) men have to be supplied with the first and women with the second verb. God is considered by some the unexpressed, but well-known subject, as with bre,cei (Mt. 5: 45), ei;rhken (Ac. 13:34), le,gei (Eph. 4:8), fhsi,n (Heb. 8:5).

Often what is said is a matter of common remark or usage and the subject is designedly concealed, indefinite subject. So when Paul uses fhsi,n (2 Cor. 10:10) of his opponent unless we follow B and read fasi,. The plural is very common in this sense as o[tan ovneidi,swsin u`ma/j (Mt. 5:11), mh,ti sulle,gousin; (Mt. 7:16), w`j le─ gousin, (Rev. 2:24) like German man sagt, French on dit. Cf. also, not to pile up examples, Mt. 8:16; Mk. 10:13; Lu. 17: 23; Jo. 15:6; 20:2; Ac. 3:2; Rev. 12:6. This general or rhetorical plural appears in prosfe,rousin and du,nantai (Heb. 10:1) if the text is genuine. Moulton (Prol., p. 58) cites kle,ptontej (Eurip. I. T., 1359). Sometimes the plural purposely conceals the identity of the person referred to, as when teqnh,kasin (Mt. 2:20) is used of Herod the Great. The same principle applies to aivtou/sin (Lu. 12:20). Then again the verb may imply the subject, as with e;brexen (Jas. 5:17), avpe,cei (Mk. 14:41), a;gei (Lu. 24:21), ouv me,lei soi (Mt. 22:16), eiv tu,coi (1 Cor. 14:10). Cf. ovye. evge,neto (Mk. 11:19). So the modern Greek still (Thumb, Handb., p. 179). Usually, then, such a verb in the N. T. is in the passive voice, so that the subject is involved in the action of the verb. Thus metrhqh,setai (Mk. 4:24), doqh,setai (Mk. 4:25), pisteu,etai and o`mologei/tai (Ro. 10:10), spei,retai and evgei,retai (1 Cor. 15:42), etc. Sometimes indeed a verb appears to be without a subject, when really it is not. So e;stw de, (2 Cor. 12:16) has the previous sentence as the subject. In 1 Pet. 2:6 the subject of perie,cei is the following quotation. In Ac. 21:35 sune,bh has as its subject the infinitive basta,zesqai. So in general whenever the infinitive is used as subject, the verb is not without a subject, as avne,bh evpiske,yasqai. (Ac. 7:23). The examples are numerous, as e;xestin poiei/n (Mt. 12:2), e;doxe gra,yai (Lu. 1:3), e;dei


die,rcesqai (Jo. 4:4), pre,pon evsti.n plhrw/sai (Mt. 3:15), kaqh,ken zh/n (Ac. 22:22), evnde,cetai avpole,sqai (Lu. 13:33), and even avne,ndekto,n evstin tou/ mh. evlqei/n (Lu. 17:1) and evge,neto tou/ eivselqei/n (Ac. 10:25) where the genitive infinitive form has become fixed. vEge,neto does indeed present a problem by itself. It may have the simple infinitive as subject, as diaporeu,esqai (Lu. 6:1) and eivslqei/n (Lu. 6: 6). Cf. Mk. 2:15. But often kai. evge,neto or evge,neto de, is used with a finite verb as a practical, though not the technical, subject. So kai. evge,neto├ evla,loun (Lu. 2:15), evge,neto de,├ sunh,thsen (Lu. 9: 37). So also kai. e;stai├ evkcew/ (Ac. 2:17). One is strongly reminded of the similar usage in the LXX, not to say the Hebrew yhiy.w;. Moulton9 prefers to think that that was a development from the koinh, (papyri) usage of the infinitive with gi,nomai as above, but I see no adequate reason for denying a Semitic influence on this point, especially as the LXX also parallels the other idiom, kai. evge,neto kai. h=n dida,skwn (Lu. 5:17, cf. 5:1, 12, etc.), a construction so un-Greek and so like the Hebrew vav. Here kai, almost equals o[ti and makes the second kai, clause practically the subject of evge,neto) The use of a o[ti or i[na clause as subject is common either alone or in apposition with a pronoun. Cf. Mt. 10:25 ( i[na); 1 Jo. 5:9 ( o[ti); Jo. 15:12 ( i[na). In a case like avrkei/ (Jo. 14:8), avnh/ken (Col. 3:18), evlogi,sqh (Ro. 4:3) the subject comes easily out of the context. So also the subject is really implied when the partitive genitive is used without the expression of tine,j or polloi, as sunh/lqon de. kai. tw/n maqhtw/n (Ac. 21:16) and ei=pan ou=n evk tw/n maqhtw/n (Jo. 16:17), a clear case of the ablative with evk. The conclusion of the whole matter is that the subject is either expressed or implied by various linguistic devices. The strictly impersonal verbs in the old Greek arose from the conception of qeo,j as doing the thing.10

(f) ONLY SUBJECT. Likewise the predicate may be absent and only implied in the subject. Yet naturally the examples of this nature are far fewer than those when the predicate implies the subject. Sometimes indeed the predicate merely has to be mentally supplied from the preceding clause, as with qlibo,meqa (2 Cor. 1:6), avgaph,sei (Lu. 7:42), e;cei (Lu. 20:24), lamba,nei, (Heb. 5:4). Cf. Eph. 5:22. It may be that the verb would be


Addenda 3rd ed.

Addenda 3rd ed.

slightly changed in form, if expressed, as skandalisqh,somai (Mk. 14:29), u`potasse,sqwsan (Eph. 5:24), ti,qemen (2 Cor. 3:13), etc. Sometimes again the affirmative is to be inferred from a negative as in 1 Cor. 7:19; 10:24. In Mk. 12:5 the principal verb has to be drawn from the idea of the two participles de,rontej and avpok─ tennu,ntej. In particular with eivde. mh, (or mh, ge) the verb is always absent (as Mt. 6:1), so that the idiom becomes a set phrase (Lu. 10:6; 13:9). In Ro. 5:3 with ouv mo,non de,├ kaucw,meqa, is to be supplied, and in 5:11 swqhso,meqa. In Ro. 9:10 the verb has to come from verse 9 or 12. In Ro. 4:9 probably le,getai (cf. verse 6) is to be supplied. Often ei=pen is not expressed, as in Ac. 25:22. In Ro. 5:18 Winer11 supplies avpe,bh in the first clause and avpobh─ setai in the second. In 2 Cor. 9:7 he likewise is right in suggesting do,tw from the context, as in Gal. 2:9 after i[na ,we must mentally insert euvaggelizw,meqa├ euvaggeli,zwontai. In epistolary salutations it is not difficult to supply le,gei or le,gei cai,rein as in Jas. 1:1; Ph. 1:1; Rev. 1:4. These are all examples of very simple ellipsis, as in 2 Pet. 2:22 in the proverb. Cf. also 1 Cor. 4:21; 2 Cor. 5:13; Gal. 3:5.

(g) VERB NOT THE ONLY PREDICATE. But the predicate is not quite so simple a matter as the subject. The verb indeed is the usual way of expressing it, but not the only way. The verb eivmi,, especially evsti, and eivsi,n, may be merely a "form-word" like a preposition and not be the predicate. Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in evgw. eivmi, (Jo. 8:58) and h` qa,lassa ouvk e;stin e;ti (Rev. 21:1). Cf. Mt. 23:30. But more commonly the real predicate is another word and eivmi, merely serves as a connective or copula. Thus the predicate may be complex. With this use of eivmi, as copula ("form-word") the predicate may be another substantive, as o` avgro,j evstin o` ko,smoj (Mt. 13:38); an adjective, as to. fre,ar evsti. baqu, (Jo. 4:11); a prepositional phrase, as evggu,j sou to. r`h/ma evstin (Ro. 10:8); and especially the participle, as h=n dida,skwn (Mt. 7:29). Other verbs, besides eivmi, may be used as a mere copula, as gi,nomai (Jo. 1:14), kaqi,stamai (Ro. 5:19), e[sthka (Jas. 5:9), and in particular fai,─ nomai (2 Cor. 13:7), u`pa,rcw (Ac. 16:3).12 Predicative amplifica-


Addenda 3rd ed.

tions belong to apposition and will be so treated as an expansion of the predicate. The subject also has amplifications.

(h) COPULA NOT NECESSARY. Naturally this copula is not always considered necessary. It can be readily dispensed with when both subject and the real predicate are present. This indeed is the most frequent ellipsis of all in all stages of the language, especially the form evsti,. But strictly speaking, the absence of the copula is not ellipsis, but a remnant of a primitive idiom, since some primitive tongues could do without the copula. Still, as Blass13 observes, the ellipsis never became a fixed usage save in a few phrases like dh/lon o[ti (1 Cor. 15:27) or o[ti ) ) ) dh/lon (Gal. 3:11). In i[na ti, (Mt. 9:4), ge,nhtai has dropped out. There are many idiomatic uses of ti, without the copula. So ti, h`mi/n kai. soi, (Mk. 1:24), ti, pro.j se, (Jo. 21:22), ou-toj de. ti, (Jo. 21:21), ti, o;feloj (Jas. 2:14), ti, ou=n and ti,j h` wvfe,leia (Ro. 3:1), ti, ga,r (Ro. 3:3), etc. Exclamations, as well as questions, show the absence of the copula. Thus w`j w`rai/oi (Ro. 10:15), w`j avnexerau,nhta (Ro. 11:33), mega,lh h` ;Artemij vEfesi,wn (Ac. 19:28). As a matter of fact the copula may be absent from any kind of sentence which is free from ambiguity, as maka,rioi oi` kaqaroi, (Mt. 5:8), vIhsou/j Cristo,j ) ) ) o` auvto,j (Heb. 13:8), a;xioj o` evrga,thj (Mt. 10:10), e;ti mikron (Jo. 14:19), e;ti ga.r mikro.n o[son o[son (Heb. 10:37), pa/j ) ) ) a;peiroj lo,gou dikaiosu,nhj (Heb. 5:13), w`j oi` u`pokritai, (Mt. 6:16). Cf. Ro. 11:15 f. for several further examples, which could be easily multiplied not only for evsti, and eivsi,, but for other forms as well, though the examples for the absence of eivmi, and ei= are not very numerous. Forms of the imp., fut., imper., subj., opt., inf. and part. (often) are absent also. For eivmi, see 2 Cor. 11:6. For ei= see Jo. 17:21; Gal. 4:7 bis. Observe logi,zomai and ivdiw,thj in 2 Cor. 11:5 f., but the participle avll v evn panti. fanerw,santej evn pa/sin eivj u`ma/j goes over to the literary plural, about which see further in this chapter. Compare also 2 Cor. 8:23. In Mk. 12:26 eivmi, is absent, though evgw, is used. For further examples of the absence of evsme,n see Ro. 8:17; Ph. 3:15. For ei= see Rev. 15:4 ( o[ti mo,noj o[sioj). In Jo. 14:11 both eivmi and evsti,n are absent, o[ti evgw. evn tw|/ patri. kai. o` path.r evn evmoi,. The imperfect h=n may also be absent as with w|- o;noma (Lu. 2:25), o;noma auvtw|/ (Jo. 3:1), kai. to. o;noma auvth/j (Lu. 1: 5). In 1 Pet. 4:17 we find wanting evsti,n e;stai. Cf. also 1 Cor. 15:21 for h=n and e;stai. The other moods, besides indicative, show occasional lapses of this copula. Thus the subjunctive h|= after o[pwj (2 Cor. 8:11) and after i[na (2 Cor. 8:13). The op-


tative ei;h more frequently drops out in wishes, as ca,rij u`mi/n kai. eivrh,nh (Ro. 1:7), o` de. qeo.j eivrh,nhj meta. pa,ntwn u`mw/n (Ro. 15:33), i[lew,j soi (Mt. 16:22). As Blass14 observes, in the doxologies like euvloghto.j o` qeo,j (2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3) one may supply either evsti,n or ei;h or even e;stw, though Winer15 strongly insists that ei;h is necessary because of the LXX examples. But Blass very properly points to Ro. 1:25, o[j evstin euvloghto.j eivj tou.j aivw/naj. Cf. also 1 Pet. 4:11, where A drops evsti,n. The imperative shows a few examples of the dropping of e;ste as with the participles in Ro. 12:9, though, of course, only the context can decide between the indicative and imperative. Winer16 is right against Meyer in refusing to supply evste, the second evn w|- (simply resumptive) inthe Eph. 1:13. But some clear instances of the absence of e;stw appear, as in Col. 4:6 o` lo,goj u`mw/n pa,ntote evn ca,riti, Mt. 27:19 mhde.n soi,, 2 Cor. 8:16 ca,rij tw|/ qew|/, Heb. 13:4 ti,mioj o` ga,moj. The infinitive ei=nai is present in Ph. 3:8, but absent in Ph. 3:7. The participle shows a similar ellipsis as in Jo. 1:50 ei=do,n se u`poka,tw th/j sukh/j, Lu. 4:1 vIhsou/j de. plh,rhj. The other verbs used as copula may also be absent if not needed, as with gi,nomai (Mt. 6:10; Ac. 10:15).

The absence of the copula with ivdou, is indeed like the construction after the Heb. hne■hi as Blass17 points out, but it is also in harmony with the koinh, as Moulton18 shows. But it is especially frequent in the parts of the N. T. most allied to the O. T. Like other interjections ivdou, does not need a verbal predicate, though it may have one. As examples see Mt. 17:5; Lu. 5:18; Rev. 4:1. In the last example both ei=don, and ivdou, occur and the construction follows, now one now the other, as is seen in verse 4.

(i) THE TWO RADIATING FOCI OF THE SENTENCE. Thus, as we have seen, the subject and predicate are the two foci of the sentence regarded as an ellipse. Around these two foci all the other parts of the sentence radiate, if there are any other parts. The sentence may go all the way from one abrupt word to a period a couple of pages long, as in Demosthenes or Isocrates. Schoolboys will recall a sentence in Thucydides so long that he forgot to finish it. Giles19 speaks of the sentence as a kingdom with many provinces or a house with many stories. That is true potentially. But the sentence is elastic and may have only the two foci (subject and predicate) and indeed one of them may exist only by im


plication. The context can generally be relied on to supply the other focus in the mind of the speaker or writer. Thus by the context, by look and by gesture, words can be filled to the full and even run over with meanings that of themselves they would not carry. Emotion can make itself understood with few words. The matters here outlined about the Greek sentence apply to Greek as a whole and so to the N. T. Greek.

(j) VARIETIES OF THE SIMPLE SENTENCE. It is immaterial whether the simple sentence, which is the oldest sentence, be declarative, interrogative or imperative. That affects in no way the essential idea. All three varieties occur in great abundance in the N. T. and need not be illustrated. So likewise the simple sentence may be affirmative or negative. That is beside the mark in getting at the foundation of the sentence. All these matters (and also abstract and concrete) are mere accidents that give colour and form, but do not alter the organic structure. For an extensive discussion of the various kinds of independent seritences in the N. T. (declarative, interrogative, hortatory, wish, command) see Viteau, Syntaxe des Propositions, pp. 17-40. The matter will be discussed at length in the chapter on Modes.

III. The Expansion of the Subject.

(a) IDEA-WORDS AND FORM-WORDS. There are indeed, as already seen, two sorts of words in general in the sentence, ideawords and form-words, as the comparative grammars teach us.20 The idea-words (called by Aristotle fwnai. shmantikai, have an inner content in themselves (word-stuff), while the form-words $fwnai. a;shmai) express rather relations21 between words. Substantive, verb, adjective, adverb are idea-words, and pronouns, prepositions, some adverbs (place, time, etc.), the copula are form-words. In reality the form-words may have been originally idea-words (cf. eivmi,, for instance, and the prepositions). The distinction is a real one, but more logical than practical. The form-words, when prepositions, really help out the meanings of the cases.

(b) CONCORD AND GOVERNMENT. Clyde22 offers another distinction, that between concord and government, which has something in it if it is not pushed too far. "In concord, the substantive is, as it were, a syntactical chief, and all his followers wear the same badge as himself; in government, the substantive appears, as it were, in various conditions of service, and is dressed each time according to the particular function he discharges."


He uses concord where the substantive is king and government where the verb rules. There is something in this distinction between the two parts of the sentence, only at bottom the verb has concord too as well as the substantive, as can be shown, and as Clyde really admits by the term congruity for the case-relations with the verb. This distinction is not one between subject and predicate, but between substantive and verb.

(c) THE GROUP AROUND THE SUBJECT. This may be formed in various ways, as, for instance, by another substantive, by an adjective, by the article, by a pronoun, by an adverb, by a prepositional phrase (adjunct), by subordinate clause.23 Each of these calls for illustration and discussion. They may be explained in inverse order for practical reasons.

1. For Subordinate Clause take Lu. 1:43.

2. With the Article. In Ro. 7:10 we have h` evntolh. h` eivj zwh,n. Here the article shows that this prepositional phrase or adjunct is under the wing of the substantive evntolh,. In the chapter on the Article this matter will call for more elaborate discussion. For the article and pronoun take ou-toj o` vIhsou/j (Ac. 1:11).

3. The Adverb. As examples of adverbs with substantives take th|/ nu/n vIerousalh,m (Gal. 4:25) and h` de. a;nw vIerousalh.n (verse 26).

4. The Adjective. The origin of the adjective and its close relation to the substantive was discussed under Declensions (chapter VII) and will be further shown in the chapter on Adjectives in Syntax. Take as an example o` poimh.n o` kalo.j (Jo. 10:11).

5. The Substantive. The earliest and always a common way of expanding the subject was by the addition of another substantive. It was done in either of two ways.

(a) By an oblique case, usually the genitive. Even the dative may occur. The ablative is seen in xe,noi tw/n diaqhkw/n (Eph. 2:12). But the genitive, the case of genus or kind, is the case usually employed to express this subordinate relation of one word to another. This whole matter will be discussed under the genitive case and here only one example will be mentioned, o` path.r th/j do,xhj (Eph. 1:17), as illustrating the point.

( b) Apposition. This was the earliest method. Apposition is common to both subject and predicate. Sometimes indeed the


genitive is used where really the substantive is in apposition, as peri. tou/ naou/ tou/ sw,matoj auvtou/ (Jo. 2:21), a predicate example where "temple" and "body" are meant to be identical. So with h` oivki,a tou/ skh,nouj (2 Cor. 5:1) and many other examples. But in general the two substantives are in the same case, and with the subject, of course, in the nominative. As a matter of fact apposition can be employed with any case. The use of avnh,r├ a;nqrwpoj, gunh, with words in apposition seems superfluous, though it is perfectly intelligible. The word in apposition conveys the main idea, as avnh.r profh,thj (Lu. 24:19), a;nqrwpoj oivkodespo,thj (Mt. 21:33). Cf. a;ndrej avdelfoi, (Ac. 1:16) and a;ndra fone,a (Ac. 3:14). So also a;ndrej vIsrahlei/tai (Ac. 2:22), a;ndrej vAqnhai/oi (Ac. 17:22), an idiom common in the Attic orators. Such apposition, of course, is not confined to the subject, but is used in any case in every sort of phrase. So pro.j gunai/ka ch,ran (Lu. 4:26), avnqrw,pw| oivkodespo,th| (Mt. 13:52, but note also 21:33), Si,mwnoj Burse,wj (Ac. 10:32). Sometimes the word in apposition precedes the other, though not usually. Thus o` ko,smoj th/j avkiki,aj├ h` glw/ssa (Jas. 3:6); kai. ga.r to. pa,sca h`mw/n evtu,qh├ Cristo,j (1 Cor. 5:7). But this is largely a matter of definition. The pronoun, of course, may be the subject, as evgw. vIhsouj (Rev. 22:16). So evgw. Pau/loj (Gal. 5:2). Cf. nu/n u`mei/j oi` Farisai/oi (Lu. 11:39). The word in apposition may vary greatly in the precise result of the apposition, a matter determined wholly by the word itself and the context. Thus in vAbraa.m o` patria,rchj (Heb. 7:4) a descriptive title is given. Cf. also eiv evgw. e;niya u`mw/n tou.j po,daj├ o` ku,rioj kai. o` dida,skaloj (Jo. 13:14). Partitive or distributive apposition is common, when the words in apposition do not correspond to the whole, as oi` de. avmelh,santej avph/lqon├ oa}j me.n eivj to.n i;dion avrgro,n├ oa}j de. evpi/ th.n evmpori,an auvtou/ (Mt. 22:5). Often the word in apposition is merely epexegetic, as h` e`orth. tw/n vIoudai,wn, h` skhnophgi,a (Jo. 7:2). Auvto,j is sometimes used in emphatic apposition, as o` Cristo.j kefalh. th/j evkklhsi,aj├ auvto.j swth.r tou/ sw,ma─ toj (Eph. 5:23). The phrase tou/t v e;stin is used in epexegetical apposition with the subject, as ovli,goi├ tou/t v e;stin ovktw. yucai, (1 Pet. 3:20). But the phrase is a mere expletive and has no effect on number (as seen above) or case. It can be used indifferently with any case as the locative (Ro. 7:18), the instrumental (Mk. 7:2), the accusative (Ac. 19:4; Heb. 13:15; Phil. 1:12), the genitive (Heb. 9:11; 11:16). Any number of words or phrases may be in apposition, as in evblh,qh o` dra,kwn o` me,gaj├ o` o;fij├ o` avrcai/oj├ o`kalou,─ menoj Dia,boloj kai. o` Satan/j├ o` planw/n th.n oivkoume,nhn o[lhn (Rev. 12:9).


An infinitive may be in apposition with the subject, as ouv ga.r dia. no,mou h` evpaggeli,a├ tw|/ vAbraa.m h' tw|/ spe,rmati auvtou/├ to. klhrono,mon auvto.n ei=nai ko,smou (Jo. 4:13). Cf. 1 Th. 4:3; 1 Pet. 2:15. Once more, a clause with o[ti or i[na may be in apposition with the subject (or predicate either), as au[th ga,r evstin h` avga,ph tou/ qeou/ i[na ta.j qeo.j h`mi/n (1 Hi, 5:11) and au[th ga,r evstin h` avga,ph tou/ qeou/ i[na ta.j evntola.j auvtou/ thrw/men (1 Jo. 5: 3). Cf. Jo. 6:29, 39, 40. For many more or less interesting details of apposition in the N. T. and the LXX see Viteau, Sujet, Complement et Attribut (1896), pp. 220236. On apposition in John see Abbott, Johannine Grammar, pp. 36 ff. On the general subject of apposition see Delbruck, Vergl. Syntax, Dritter Teil, pp. 195-199; Kuhner-Gerth, I, pp. 281-290.

IV. The Expansion of the Predicate.

(a) PREDICATE IN WIDER SENSE. Here predicate must be taken in its full sense and not merely the verb, but also the other ways of making a predicate with the copula. One cannot do better here than follow Brugmann,24 though he makes the verb, not the predicate, the centre of this group. It is simpler just to take the predicate as the other focus answering to the subject. The predicate can be expanded by other verbs, by substantives, by pronouns, by adjectives, by adverbs, by prepositions, by particles, by subordinate clauses.

(b) THE INFINITIVE AND THE PARTICIPLE. These are the common ways of supplementing a verb by another verb directly. They will both call for special treatment later and can only be mentioned here. Cf. h;qelen parelqei/n (Mk. 6:48) and e;laqo,n tinej xeni,santej (Heb. 13:2). But sometimes two verbs are used together directly without any connective, as pou/ qe,leij e`toima,swmen (Mt. 26:17). See discussion of asyndeton in this chapter (xii, Connection in Sentences).

(c) THE RELATION BETWEEN THE PREDICATE AND SUBSTANTIVES. This matter receives full treatment under the head of Cases, and a word of illustration suffices here. It is not the accusative case alone that occurs, but any oblique case of the substantive or pronoun may be used to express this relation, as prose,cete e`autoi/j (Lu. 21:34). In the case of a copula this case will be the nominative and forms the predicate, as au[th evsti.n h` evpaggeli,a (1 Jo. 2:25).

(d) THE PRONOUN. It is sometimes the expanded object, as toiou,touj zhtei/ tou.j proskunou/ntaj auvto,n (Jo. 4:23).


(e) ADJECTIVES. They are common with predicates and as predicates. So avpekatesta,qh u`gih,j (Mt. 12:13). Cf. h=lqen prw/toj (Jo. 20:4), avpara,baton e;cei th.n i`erwsu,nhn) (Heb. 7:24). The article and the participle often form the predicate, as Mt. 10:20.

(f) THE ADVERB. The use of the adverb with the predicate is so normal as to call for no remark. So o`mologoume,nwj me,ga evsti.n to. th/j euvsebei,aj musth,rion (1 Tim. 3:16). Cf. ou;twj ga.r plousi,wj evpicorhghqh,setai (2 Pet. 1:11).

(g) PREPOSITIONS. Let one example serve for prepositions: i[na plhrwqh/te eivj pa/n to. plh,rwma tou/ qeou/ (Eph. 3:19).

(h) NEGATIVE PARTICLES ouv AND mh,) These are not confined to the predicate, but there find their commonest illustrations. Cf. ouv ga.r tolmw/men (2 Cor. 10:12) and mh. ge,noito (Gal. 6:14).

(i) SUBORDINATE CLAUSES. Most commonly, though by no means always, they are expansions of the predicate. The adverbial clauses are mainly so, as e;graya u`mi/n i[na eivdh/te (1 Jo. 5:13), and most object (substantival) clauses, as the o[ti zwh.n e;cete aivw,nion in the same sentence. But adjective clauses likewise often link themselves on to a word in the predicate, as evn Cristw|/ vIhsou/ oa}n proe,qeto (Ro. 3:24).

(j) APPOSITION WITH THE PREDICATE AND LOOSER AMPLIFICATIONS. It is common also, but calls for little additional remark. Predicative amplifications, as Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 527) calls them, are common. So eivj oa} evgw. evte,qhn kh,rux (1 Tim. 2:7), oa}n proe,qeto o` qeo.j i`lasth,rion (Ro. 3:25). The participle with w`j is frequent, as h`ma/j w`j kata. sa,rka peripatou/ntaj (2 Cor. 10:2). Cf. 1 Pet. 2:5. Note also eivj as eivj ui`o,n (Ac. 7:21), a Greek idiom parallel to the Hebrew and very abundant in the LXX. A common construction is to have a clause in apposition with tou/to in an oblique case. So we see the accusative as tou/to ginw,skete o[ti h;ggiken h` basilei,a tou/ qeou/ (Lu. 10:11), ablative as in mei,zona tau,thj avga,phn ouvde.j e;cei i[na tij th.n yuch.n auvtou/ qh|/ u`pe.r tw/n fi,lwn auvtou/ (Jo. 15:13), locative evn tou,tw| ginw,skomen o[ti evn auvtw|/ me,nomen (1 Jo. 4:13). Cf. le,gw tou/to o[ti e[kastoj u`mw/n le,gei (1 Cor. 1:12). Likewise the infinitive may be in apposition with tou/to, as e;krina evmautw|/ tou/to├ to. mh. pa,lin evn lu,ph| pro.j u`ma/j evlqei/n (2 Cor. 2:1). Cf. also Lu. 22:37 where to, kai. meta. avno,mwn evlogi,sqh is in apposition with to. gegramme,non dei/ telesqh/nai evn evmoi,) For an extended predicate with numerous classes see Rev. 13:16, poiei/ pa,ntaj├ tou.j mikrou.j kai. tou.j mega.louj├ kai. tou.j plousi,ouj kai. tou.j ptwcou,j├ kai. tou.j evleuqe,rouj kai. tou.j dou,louj)


V. Subordinate Centres in the Sentence. Each of the words or phrases that the subject or predicate groups around itself may form a fresh nucleus for new combinations. Thus the long sentences with many subordinate clauses resemble the cell multiplication in life. The N. T. indeed does not show so many complications in the sentence as the more rhetorical writers of Athens. In Mt. 7:19 the subject de,ndron has the participle poiou/n├ which in turn has its own clause with mh, as negative and karpo.n kalo,n as object. In Jo. 5:36 the predicate mei,zw has marturi,an as object, which has the predicate adjective mei,zw, which in turn is followed by the ablative tou/ vIwa,nou. This is all too simple to need further illustration. Even adverbs may have expansive appositives as in w-de evn th|/ patri,di sou (Lu. 4:23). Cf. Delbuick, Vergl. Syntax, pp. 222-227, for discussion of the adjective and its connection, and p. 228 for the adverb.

VI. Concord in Person. The concord between subject and predicate as to person is so uniform as to call for little remark. In Greek the person was originally expressed in the ending. In the later Greek the pronoun was increasingly used in addition (see chapter on Pronouns). But only ignorance would allow one to mix his persons in the use of the verb. The only problem occurs when the subject comprises two or even all three persons. Then, of course, the first prevails over both the second and the third. So evgw. kai. o` path.r e[n evsmen (Jo. 10:30). Cf. Mt. 9:14; Lu. 2:48; 1 Cor. 9:6. But in Gal. 1:8 ( eva.n h`mei/j h' a;ggeloj evx ouvranou/ euvaggeli,shtai) the reverse is true either because Paul follows the nearest in both person and number or (Winer-Thayer, p. 518) because he acknowledges thus the superior exaltation of the angel. Then again in cases like Ac. 11:14 ( swqh,sh| su. kai. pa/j o` oi=koj sou) the speaker merely uses the person and number of the first and most important member of the group. Cf. Ac. 16: 31. The subject of person thus easily runs into that of number, for the same ending expresses both. Sometimes indeed the first and second persons are used without any direct reference to the speaker or the person addressed. Paul in particular is fond of arguing with an imaginary antagonist. In Ro. 2:1 he calls him w= a;nqrwpe pa/j o` kri,nwn. So also 2:3. In Ro. 9:20 Paul is very earnest, menou/nge su. ti,j ei=; cf. also 11:17; 14:4. In 1 Cor. 10: 30 the first person may be used in this representative way. The same may be true of Gal. 2:18, but not of 2:19. Ro. 7:7-25 is not so clear. The vehemence of passion argues for Paul's own experience, but note se in 8:2. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk.,


p. 317. On the whole subject of agreement in person see Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., p. 229 f.; Kuhner-Gerth, I, p. 82. For change in person see 2 Jo. 1:8; 1 Cor. 10:7-10.

VII. Concord in Number. Here we have a double concord, that between subject and predicate (both verb and adjective if copula is used) and that between substantive and adjective in general. It is simpler, however, to follow another division.


1. Two Conflicting Principles. One follows the grammatical number, the other the sense ( kata. su,nesin). The formal grammatical rule is, of course, usually observed, a singular subject having a singular verb, a plural subject having a plural verb. This is the obvious principle in all languages of the Indo-Germanic group. It was once true of the dual also, though never to the same extent. Moulton25 aptly says: "Many Greek dialects, Ionic conspicuously, had discarded this hoary luxury long before the common Greek was born." The Attic gave it a temporary lease of life, "but it never invaded Hellenistic, not even when a Hebrew dual might have been exactly rendered by its aid." I doubt, however, as previously shown (ch. VII, 1,3), Moulton's explanation that the dual probably arose in prehistoric days when men could count only two. That was indeed a prehistoric time! Probably the dual was rather the effort to accent the fact that only two were meant, not more, as in pairs, etc. Hence the dual verb even in Attic was not always used, and it was an extra burden to carry a special inflection for just this idea. No wonder that it vanished utterly in the koinh,.

2. Neuter Plural and Singular Verb. But the koinh, fails to respond to the Attic rule that a neuter plural inanimate subject takes a singular verb. Homer indeed was not so insistent and the "modern Greek has gone back completely and exclusively to the use of the plural verb in this instance as in others."26 The N. T., like the koinh, in general, has broken away from the Attic rule and responds more to the sense, and also more often regards a neuter plural as really plural. It never was a binding rule, though more so in Attic than in Homer. In the vernacular koinh, the people treated the neuter plural like other plurals. (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 96.) Usually a neuter plural in the N. T. that has a personal or collective meaning has a plural verb.27 So evpanasth,sontai te,kna (Mt. 10:21),


Addenda 3rd ed.

Addenda 3rd ed.

ta. daimo,nia pisteu,ousin (Jas. 2:19), e;qnh evpizhtou/sin (Mt. 6:32), ta. pneu,mata prose,pipton (Mk. 3:11). But the only rule on the matter that is true for N. T. Greek is the rule of liberty. The papyri show the same variety of usage.28 So does the LXX. In the examples given above the MSS. often vary sharply and examples of the singular verb occur with all of them, daimo,nia more frequently with the singular verb, as eivsh/lqen daimo,nia polla, (Lu. 8:30), but pareka,loun in next verse. So in Lu. 4:41 we have daimo,nia evxh,r─ ceto and a little further on o[ti h|;deisan. In Jo. 10:4 we see a similar change in the same sentence, ta. pro,bata auvtw|/ avkolouqei/ o[ti oi;dasin. The same indifference to the Attic rule appears about things as about persons. Thus i[na fanerwqh|/ ta. e;rga tou/ qeou/ (Jo. 9:3) and evfa,nhsan ta. r`h,mata (Lu. 24:11). In Rev. 1:19 we find aa} eivsi.n kai. aa} me,llei gene,sqai. The predicate adjective will, of course, be plural, even if the verb is singular, as fanera, evstin ta. te,kna (1 Jo. 3:10). Cf. Gal. 5:19. Winer29 and (to some extent) Blass30 feel called on to explain in detail these variations, but one has to confess that the success is not brilliant. It is better to regard this indifference to congruity as chiefly an historical movement characteristic of the koinh, as shown above. Even the Attic did not insist on a singular verb with a neuter plural of animate objects when the number of individuals was in mind. The neuter plural was in origin a collective singular. In 1 Cor. 10: 11 the MSS. differ much between sune,bainen and - on.

3. Collective Substantives. These show a similar double usage. Thus we have evkaqhto peri. auvto.n o;cloj (Mk. 3:32) and so more commonly with these collective substantives like o;cloj├ plh/qoj├ oivki,a├ lao,j. But plenty of examples of construction according to sense occur. So o` de. plei/stoj o;cloj e;strwsan (Mt. 21:8). Sometimes we have both together, as hvkolou,qei auvtw|/ o;cloj polu,j, o[ti evqew,roun (Jo. 6:2). Where there was such liberty each writer or speaker followed his bent or the humour of the moment. The same variation is to be noticed with the participle. Thus o` o;cloj o` mh. ginw,skwn to.n no,mon evpa,ratoi, eivsin (Jo. 7:49). Here the predicate is plural with the verb. Cf. also Lu. 23:1. But in Ac. 5:16 the participle fe,rontej is plural, though the verb sunh,rceto is singular like plh/qoj. Cf. also Ac. 21:36; 25:24; Lu. 2:13. It is not, of course, necessary that a predicate substantive should agree in number with the subject. So evste. evpistolh. Cristou/ (2 Cor. 3:3).

4. The Pindaric Construction. Another complication is possible


when several subjects are united. If the predicate follows this compound subject, it is put in the plural nearly always. But the "Pindaric construction" ( sch/ma Pindariko,n% puts the verb in the singular. Blass says German cannot do this, and he ignores the N. T. examples.31 In Jas. 5:2 f. we have a striking example: `O plou/toj u`mw/n se,shpen├ kai. ta. i`ma,tia u`mw/n shto,brwta ge,go─ nen├ o` cruso.j u`mw/n kai. o` a;rguroj kati,wtai. Here kati,wtai is natural like the English translation, 'is cankered ' (A.V.). Note also Mt. 6:19, o[pou sh.j kai. brw/sij avfani,zei ('where moth and rust doth corrupt,' A.V.). Other examples are Mk. 4:41, kai. o` a;nemoj kai. h` qa,lassa u`pakou,ei auvtw|/; 1 Cor. 15:50, o[ti sa.rx kai. ai-ma basilei,an qeou/ klhronomh/sai ouv du,natai. Here the principle of anacoluthon suggested by Moulton32 will hardly apply. It is rather the totality that is emphasized by the singular verb as in the English examples. But when the predicate comes first and is followed by several subjects, anacoluthon may very well be the explanation, as in the Shakespearean examples given by Moulton. The simplest explanation (see under 5) is that the first subject is alone in mind. Thus in 1 Cor. 13:13 nuni. de. me,nei pi,stij├ evlpi,j├ avga,ph├ ta. tri,a tau/ta (cf. English 'and now abideth faith, hope, love, these three,' like the Greek). Cf. also 1 Tim. 6:4. However, in Mt. 5:18, e[wj a'n pare,lqh| o` ouvrano.j kai. h` gh/ it seems rather the totality that is emphasized as above. See Jo. 12:22. In Rev. 9:12, ivdou. e;rcetai e;ti du,o ouvai. meta. tau/ta, probably the neuter conception of the interjection prevails, though just before we have h` ouvai. h` mi,a. In Lu. 2: 33, h=n o` path.r auvtou/ kai. h` mh,thr qauma,zontej, the copula follows one plan and the participle another. So also h=n kaqh,menai (Mt. 27:61). Just so w;fqh Mwush/j kai. vHlei,aj sunlalou/ntej (Mt. 17:3). Cf. Eph. 4:17 f. In Rev. 21:16, to. mh/koj kai. to. pla,toj kai. to. u[yoj auvth/j i;sa evsti,n, the neuter plural adjective and singular copula are regular.

5. Singular Verb with First Subject. It is very common indeed for the verb to have the singular with the first of the subjects. Cf. Jo. 2:2, 12; 3:22; 18:15; Ac. 11:14. But on the other hand we have prosporeu,ontai auvtw|/ vIa,kwboj kai. vIwa,nhj oi` ui`oi. Zebedai,ou (Mk. 10:35). Cf. also Lu. 23:12; Jo. 21:2; Ac. 5:24. In Ac. 25:23 one participle is singular and the other plural. So in Ac. 5:29 we meet avpokriqei.j de. Pe,troj kai. oi` avpo,stoloi ei=pan. With h;


the verb is usually in the singular in the N. T. So Mt. 12:25 pa/sa po,lij h' oivki,a merisqei/sa kaq v e`auth/j ouv staqh,setai. Cf. also Mt. 5:18; 18:8; Eph. 5:5. In Gal. 1:8 Blass33 thinks it would be impossible to have euvaggelizw,meqa with h`mei/j h' a;ggeloj. But the impossible happens in Jas. 2:15, evan avdelfo.j h' avdelfh. gumnoi. u`pa,rcwsin. We have a similar difficulty in English in the use of the disjunctive and other pronouns. One will loosely say: "If any one has left their books, they can come and get them."

6. The Literary Plural. We have already mentioned the use of the plural in a kind of impersonal way to conceal one's identity, as teqnh,kasin (Mt. 2:20), aivtou/sin (Lu. 12:20) and the general indefinite plural like w`j le,gousin, (Rev. 2:24). The critics disagree sharply about it (the literary plural). Blass34 flatly denies that we have any right to claim this literary plural in Paul's Epistles because he associates others with himself in his letters. Winer35 insists that Paul often speaks in his apostolic character when he uses the plural and hence does not always include others. Moulton36 considers the matter settled in favour of the epistolary plural in the koinh,. He cites from the papyri several examples. So Tb.P. 26 (ii/B.C.) o;nti moi evn Ptolemai,dei - prose,pesen h`mi/n, B.U. 449 iii/A.D.) avkou,saj o[ti nwqreu,h| avgwniou/men J.H.S. xix 92 (ii/A.D.) cai/re, moi├ mh/ter glukuta,th├ kai. fronti,zete h`mw/n. Dick37 has made an exhaustive study of the whole subject and produces parallels from late Greek that show how easily evgw, and h`mei/j were exchanged. The matter can be clarified, I think. To begin with, there is no reason in the nature of things why Paul should not use the literary plural if he wished to do so. He was a man of culture and used to books even if he used the vernacular koinh, in the main. The late Greek writers did; the papyri show examples of it. G. Milligan (Thess., p. 132) cites Tb. P. 58 (ii/B.C.) eu`rh,kamen - eu-ron - bebou─ leu,meqa; P. Hib. 44 (iii/B.c.) evgra,yamen - o`rw/ntej - wvi,mhn; P. Heid. 6 (iv/A.D.) pisteu,omen- gra,fw kai. fluarh,sw; and an inscription, possibly a rescript of Hadrian, 0. G. I. S 484, lou/men - [ metepem──] ya,mhn - boulhqei,j- e;doxen h`mei/n──evdokima,samen──evpi,steuon──h`ghsa,mhn ──nomi,zw. Besides, Blass38 admits that we have it in 1 Jo. 1:4, where gra,fomen does not differ in reality from gra,fw of 2:1. But in Jo. 21:24 oi;damen probably is in contrast to John, who uses oi=mai just


below. In Jo. 1:14, as certainly in 1:16, others are associated with the writer. The author of Hebrews also uses the singular or plural according to the humour of the moment. Thus peiqo,meqa- e;comengrk grk(13:18) and the next verse parakalw/- avpokatastaqw/) Cf. also 6:1, 3, 9, 11, with 13:22 f. Now as to Paul. In Ro. 1:5 he has di v ou- evla,bomen ca,rin kai. avpostolh,n. Surely he is talking of no one else when he mentions avpostolh,n. Blass39 overlooks this word and calls attention to ca,rin as applicable to all. Then again in Col. 4:3 h`mi/n is followed in the same verse by de,demai. It is clear also in 1 Th. 2:18, hvqelh,samen- evgw. me.n Pau/loj. But what really settles the whole matter40 is 2 Cor. 10:1-11:6. Paul is here defending his own apostolic authority where the whole point turns on his own personality. But he uses first the singular, then the plural. Thus parakalw/grk grk(10:1), qarrw/├ logi,zomaigrk grk(10:2), stra─ teuo,meqa $10:3), h`mei/jgrk grk(10:7), kauch,swmai├ aivscunqh,somaigrk grk(10:8), do,xwgrk grk(10:9), evsme,n grk(10:11), kauchso,meqagrk grk(10:13), etc. It is not credible that here Paul has in mind any one else than himself. Cf. also 2 Cor. 2:14-7:16 for a similar change from singular to plural. The use of the literary plural by Paul sometimes does not, of course, mean that he always uses it when he has a plural. Each case rests on its own merits. Jesus seems to use it also in Jo. 3:11, oa} oi;damen lalou/men kai. oa} e`wra,kamen marturou/men. In Mk. 4:30 ( pw/j o`moiw,swmen th.n basilei,an tou/ qeou/*) Christ associates others with him in a very natural manner.

(b) SUBSTANTIVE AND ADJECTIVE. The concord between adjective and substantive is just as close as that between subject and verb. This applies to both predicate and attributive adjectives. Here again number is confined to the singular and the plural, for the dual is gone. Cf. in lieu of the dual the curious kairo.n kai. kairou.j kai. h[misu kairou/ (Rev. 12:14). When adjectives and participles deviate from this accord in number or gender (Eph. 4:17 f.; 1 Cor. 12:2; Rev. 19:14), it is due to the sense instead of mere grammar, kata. su,nesin. Thus in Mk. 9:15 we have o` o;cloj ivdo,ntej, Ac. 3:11 sune,dramen pa/j o` lao.j e;kqamboi, Lu. 2:13 stratia/j aivnou,ntwn, Mk. 8:1 o;clou o;ntoj kai. mh. evco,ntwn, (note both), Ac. 21:36 plh/qoj kra,zontej, etc. Cf. o` o;cloj evpa,ratoi (Jo. 7:49). In Ph. 2:6 to. ei=nai i;sa qew|/ the plural adjective differs little from i;son in adverbial sense. Cf. tau/ta ti, evstin eivj tosou,touj (Jo. 6:9), ti, aa}n ei;h tau/ta (Lu. 15:26).


Addenda 3rd ed.

(C) REPRESENTATIVE SINGULAR. But other points come up also about the number of the substantives. One is the use of the singular with the article to signify the whole class. The examples are frequent, such as o` avgaqo.j a;nqrwpoj (Mt. 12:35), shmei/a tou/ avposto,lou (2 Cor. 12:12), o` evrga,thj (Lu. 10:7), tou/ vIoudai,ou (Ro. 3:1), to.n ptwco,n (Jas. 2:6). This discussion about the number of nouns could more properly be treated under syntax of nouns, but I have no such chapter. Cf. Cases.

(d) IDIOMATIC PLURAL IN NOUNS. Abstract substantives occur in the plural in the N. T. as in the older Greek, an idiom foreign to English. Thus pleonexi,ai (Mk. 7:22), proswpolhmyi,aij (Jas. 2:1). Cf. also fo,noi Mt. 15:19; pa.j pornei,aj 1 Cor. 7:2. In 2 Cor. 12:20 and 1 Pet. 2:1 both the singular and the plural occur in contrast. This use of the plural of abstract substantives does indeed lay stress on the separate acts. Some words were used almost exclusively in the plural, or at any rate the plural was felt to be more appropriate. So aiw/nej in the sense of 'world' (Heb. 1:2) or 'eternity,' as eivj tou.j aivw/naj tw/n aivw,nwn (Gal. 1:5), or with singular and plural, as tou/ aivnoj tw/n aivw,nwn (Eph. 3:21). Cf. also ta. a[gia for 'the sanctuary' (Heb. 8:2) and a[gia a`gi,wn for 'the most Holy Place' (Heb. 9:3). The word ouvra─ no,j is used in the singular often enough, and always so in the Gospel of John, as 1:32, but the plural is common also. Cf. Paul's allusion to "third heaven" (2 Cor. 12:2), an apparent reflection of the Jewish idea of seven heavens. In English we use "the heavens" usually for the canopy of sky above us, but h` basi─ lei,a tw/n ouvranw/n uniformly in the N. T., as Mt. 3:2. The Hebrew ~yim;v' is partly responsible for ouvranoi,. The so-called "plural of majesty" has an element of truth in it. For further details see Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 83. A number of other words have this idiomatic plural, such as evk dexiw/n├ evx avristerw/n├ evx euvwnu,mwn (Mt. 25:33), eivj ta. dexia. me,rh (Jo. 21:6), evn toi/j dexioi/j (Mk. 16:5), avpo. avnatolw/n (Mt. 2:1), avpo dusmw/n (Mt. 8:11), qu,rai (Ac. 5:19), pu,lai (Mt. 16:18), ko,lpoi (Lu. 16:23). But the singular of some of them is also found, as evn th|/ avnatolh|/ (Mt. 2:9), evn dexia|/ (Eph. 1: 20), pro. th/j qu,raj (Ac. 12:6). The plural of i`ma,tion seems to mean only i`ma,tion (not citw,n also) in Jo. 19:23 (cf. 19:2). For the plural ai[mata note Jo. 1:13. The names of feasts are often plural, such as ta. evgkai,nia (Jo. 10:22), ta. gene,sia (Mk. 6:21), ta. a;zuma (Mk. 14:1), ga,moi (Mt. 22:2), sa,bbata (Ac. 17:2). So also some cities have plural names, as vIeroso,luma (Mt. 2:1), vAqh/nai (Ac. 17:16), Kolossai, (Col. 1:2). Different are evpistolai, (1 Cor.


16:3), ta. avrgu,ria (Mt. 27:5), ta. ovyw,nia (Lu. 3:14), diaqh/kai (Ro. 9:4).

(e) IDIOMATIC SINGULAR IN NOUNS. On the other hand the singular appears where one would naturally look for a plural. A neuter singular as an abstract expression may sum up the whole mass. Thus pa/n o[ in Jo. 6:37 refers to believers. Cf. also Jo. 17:2. The same collective, use of the neuter singular is found in to. e;latton (Heb. 7:7). So not to. gennw,menon (Lu. 1:35) but pa/n to. gegennhme,non (1 Jo. 5:4). The same concealment of the person is seen in to. kate,con oi;date (2 Th. 2:6). The neuter plural indeed is very common in this sense, as ta. mwra,├ ta. avsqenh/, etc. (1 Cor. 1:27 f.). Then again the singular is used where the substantive belongs to more than one subject. So pepwrwme,nhn e;cete th.n kar─ di,an (Mk. 8:17), e;qento evn th|/ kardi,a| auvtw/n (Lu. 1:66), e;pesan evpi. pro,swpon auvtw/n (Mt. 17:6), perizwsa,menoi th.n ovsfu.n u`mw/n (Eph. 6: 14), evdo,qh auvtoi/j stolh. leukh, (Rev. 6:11), avpo. prosw,pou tw/n pate,─ rwn (Ac. 7:45), sia. sto,matoj pa,ntwn (Ac. 3:18), evk th/j ceiro.j auvtw/n (Jo. 10:39). In 1 Cor. 6:5, avna. me,son tou/ avdelfou/, the difficulty lies not in me,son, but in the singular avdelfou/) The fuller form would have been the plural or the repetition of the word, avdelfou/ kai. avdelfou/. In all these variations in number the N. T. writers merely follow in the beaten track of Greek usage with proper freedom and individuality. For copious illustrations from the ancient Greek see Gildersleeve, Greek Syntax, pp. 17-59.41

(f) SPECIAL INSTANCES. TWO or three other passages of a more special nature call for comment. In Mt. 21:7 ( evpeka,qisen evpa,nw auvtw/n) it is probable that auvtw/n refers to ta. i`ma,tia, not to th.n o;non kai. to.n pw/lon. In Mt. 24:26 evn th|/ evrh,mw| and evn toi/j tamei,oij are in contrast. In Mt. 27:44 oi` lh|stai, is not to be taken as plural for the singular. Probably both reproached Jesus at first and afterwards one grew sorry and turned on the other, as Lu. 23:39 has it. In Mt. 22:1 and Mk. 12:17 ei==pen evn parabolai/j is followed by only one parable, but there were doubtless others not recorded. In Mt. 9:8, evdo,xasan ton qeo.n to.n do,nta├ evxousi,an toiau,thn toi/j avnqrw,poij├ we have a double sense in do,nta├ for Jesus had the evxousi,an in a sense not true of avnqrw,poij who got the benefit of it. So in Ac. 13:40 to. eivrhme,non evn toi/j profh,taij is merely equivalent to evn bi,blw| tw/n profhtw/n (Ac. 7:42). On these special matters see WinerSchmiedel, p. 251. Cf. ceroubei,n (Aramaic dual) and karaskia,─ zonta (Heb. 9:5).


VIII. Concord in Gender. Here we deal only with nouns, for verbs have no gender. But gender plays an important part in the agreement of substantive and adjective.

(a) FLUCTUATIONS IN GENDER. The whole matter is difficult, for substantives have two sorts of gender, natural and grammatical. The two do not always agree. The apparent violations of the rules of gender can generally be explained by the conflict in these two points of view with the additional observation that the grammatical gender of some words changed or was never firmly settled. All the constructions according to sense are due to analogy (Middleton in Syntax, p. 39). For further general remarks on gender see chapter on Declensions. In Ac. 11:28 Luke has limo.n mega,lhn, not me,gan. In Rev. 14:19 two genders are found with the same word, e;balen eivj th.n lhno.n tou/ qumou/ tou/ qeou/ to.n me,gan. Cf. Lu. 4:25 and 15:14. The papyri vary also in the gender of this word (Moulton, Prol., p. 60). The common gender of qeo,j (Ac. 19:37, cf. qea,. 19:27) and similar words is discussed in the chapter on Declensions. In Rev. 11:4 ai` e`stw/tej skips over lucni,ai curiously42 and goes back (the participle, not the article) to ou-toi $ou-toi, eivsin ai` du,o evlai/ai kai. ai` du,o lucni,ai ai` evnw,pion tou/ kuri,ou th/j gh/j e`stw/tej) . But more about the Apocalypse later. In Mk. 12:28, poi,a evsti.n evntolh. prw,th pa,ntwn, Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 178) thinks that pasw/n would be beside the point as it is rather the general idea of omnium. Is it not just construction kata. su,nesin? In Ph. 2:1 ei; tij spla,cna is difficult after ei; ti paramu,qion and ei; tij koinwni,a. Blass43 cuts the knot boldly by suggesting ei; ti in all the examples here which Moulton44 accepts with the sense of si quid valet, but he cites papyri examples like evpi, ti mi,an tw/n ) ) ) oivkiw/n, Par. P. 15 (ii/B.C.); eiv de, ti perissa. gra,mmata B.U. 326 (ii/A.D.). See also eva.n de, ti a;lla avpaithqw/men, Amh. Pap. II, 85, 11, and eva.n de, ti a;brocoj ge,nhtai, ib., 15. Cf. Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 184. Perhaps after all this correction may be right or the text may be corrupt. The scribe could easily have written tij for tina because of the preceding examples. A nodding scribe may even have thought spla,cna feminine singular. But what is one to say of oval in Rev. 9:12; 11:14? Shall we think45 of qli,yij or talaipw─ ri,a? In Mt. 21:42 (Mk. 12:11), para. kuri,ou evge,neto au[th kai. e;stin


qaumasth,, we may have a translation of the Hebrew tazo (Ps. (117) 118:23), for ou-toj is used just before in reference to li,qon. Tou/to would be the Greek idiom for au[th. It is even possible that au[th may refer to kefalh.n gwni,aj. So also th|/ ba,al in Ro. 11:4 comes from the LXX (Jer. 2:8; 2:28; 7:9; Hos. 2:8). Cf. th|/ Ba,al th|/ dama,lei in Tobit 1:5 B. See Declensions for further remarks.

(b) THE NEUTER SINGULAR. This is not always to be regarded as a breach of gender. Often the neuter conveys a different conception. So in the question of Pilate, ti, evstin avlh,qeia (Jo. 18:38). Cf. also ti, ou=n o` no,moj; (Gal. 3:19), ti, evstin a;nqrwpoj; (Heb. 2:6), ti a'n ei;h tau/ta; (Lu. 15:26), eiv dokei/ tij ei=nai ti mhde.n w;n; (Gal. 6:3). But on the other handy note ei=nai tina (Ac. 5:36), au[th evsti.n h` me─ ga,lh evntolh, (Mt. 22:3), ti,j h` pro,slhmyij; (Ro. 11:15), ti,j evstin h` evlpi,j* (Eph. 1:18). In particular observe ti, o` Pe,troj evge,neto (Ac. 12:18) and ou-toj de. ti, (Jo. 21:21). Cf. also tou/to ca,rij (twice) in 1 Pet. 2:19 f., where tou/to is predicate and really refers to eiv u`po─ fe,rei tij and eiv u`pomenei/te. Cf. also h` yuch/ plei/o,n e`stin th/j trofh/j (Lu. 12:23). Indeed tau/ta may be the predicate with persons, as tau/ta, tinej h=te (1 Cor. 6:11). The neuter adjective in the predicate is perfectly normal in cases like i`kano.n tw|/ toiou,tw| h` evpitimi,a au[th 2 Cor 2:6). So also avrketo.n th|/ h`me,ra| h` kaki,a auvth/j (Mt. 6:34). Cf. also the reading of D avresto.n in Ac. 12:3. Blass46 treats avrke─ to,n above and i`kano,n evstin, in Lu. 22:38 as like the Latin satis. The neuter singular in the collective or general sense to represent persons is not peculiar to the N. T. So to. kate,con (2 Th. 2:6), pa/n o[ (Jo. 17:2), to. avpolwlo,j (Lu. 19:10), etc. So the neuter plural also as ta. mwra. tou/ ko,smou ├ ta. avsqenh/ (1 Cor. 1:27). The neuter article to. [Agar (Gal. 4:25) deals with the word Hagar, not the gender of the person. In Jas. 4:4 moicali,dej in W. H. stands without moicaloi. kai,, but none the less may be regarded as comprehensive.47 Cf. genea. moicali,j (Mt. 12:39) and Hos. 2: 4, 23. In 1 Cor. 15:10 note eivmi. o[ eivmi, not o[j, a different idea.

(C) EXPLANATORY o[ evstin AND tou/ v e;stin. A special idiom is the relative o[ as an explanation ( o[ evstin) and the demonstrative tou/t v e;sti, which are both used without much regard to the gender (not to say number) of antecedent or predicate. Thus in Mk. 3:17 o;noma Boanhrge,j├ o[ evstin ui`oi. bronth/j; 12:42 lepta. du,o o[ evstin kodra,nthj; 15:16 th/j auvlh/j├ o[ evstin praitw,rion* 15:22 Golgoqa.n to,pon├ o[ evstin krani,ou to,poj (cf. Mt. 27:33); r`abbei,├ oa} le,getai (Jo. 1:38); 1:42 Mesi,an o[ evstin; Col. 3:14 th.n avga,phn├ o[ evstin su,ndesmoj*


Eph. 6:17 ma,cairan├ o[ evstin r`h/ma qeou. Blass48 observes that it is only in the Apocalypse that this explanatory relative is assimilated to the antecedent or predicate, as lampa,dej├ a[ eivsin ta. pneu,mata (Rev. 4:5), but ovfqalmou.j e`pta,├ oi[ eivsin ta. pneu,matagrk grk(5:6). But it is otherwise with the ordinary relative, as o` nao.j tou/ qeou/├ oi[tine,j evste u`mei/j (1 Cor. 3:17) Fili,ppouj├ h[tij evsti.n prw,th po,lij (Ac. 16 : 12); u`po. tw/n avntikeime,nwn├ h[tij evsti.n auvtoi/j e;ndeixij avpwlei,aj (Ph. 1:28); evn tai/j qli,yesi,n mou u`pe.r u`mw/n├ h[tij evsti.n do,xa u`mw/n (Eph. 3:13). The use of tou/t v e;stin is a common idiom in the later Greek (less so in the older) and is exactly equivalent to the Latin id est and has no regard to case, number or gender. So vElwi,──tou/t v e;stin qee, mou (Mt. 27:46); tou/t v e;stin tou.j avdelfou,j (Heb. 7:5). Cf. Heb. 2: 14; 9:11, etc. See further p. 399, and ch. XV, VII, (d), 10.

(d) THE PARTICIPLE. It often has the construction kata. su,ne─ sin, as in Mk. 9:26, kra,xaj kai. polla. spara,xaj referring to to. pneu/ma. Cf. Lu. 2:13 stratia/j aivnou,ntwn* plh/qoj kra,zontej (Ac. 21:36); bow/n─ tejgrk grk(25:24). But on the other hand note avnasta.n plh/qoj (Lu. 23: 1). So also in 1 Cor. 12:2 e;qnh avpago,menoi; Eph. 4:17 f. e;qnh evsko─ twme,noi; Rev. 4:8 zw|/a├ e[n kaq v e[n e;cwn le,gontej; 11:15 fwnai. mega,─ lai le,gontej (cf. fwnh.n le,gonta, Rev. 9:14); 19:14 strateu,mata evndedume,noi. Cf. qhri,on ge,monta (Rev. 17:3). Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 526) takes evskotwme,noi in Eph. 4:18 with u`ma/j: Cf. also plh/qoj fe,rontej (Ac. 5:16). Cf. Lu. 19:37. So ( ai` evkklhsi,ai) avkou,ontej (Gal. 1:22 f.). But in Rev. 21:14 to. tei/coj e;cwn, seems a mere slip. But zw|/on- e;cwn (Rev. 4:7) may be mere confusion in sound of e;con and e;cwn. See also fwnh.──le,gwngrk grk(4:1), fwnai.──le,gontejgrk grk grk(11:15), lucni,ai- e`stw/tejgrk grk(11:4). Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 87) cites zw|/on- avstra,ptwn from Apocalypsis Anastasiae (pp. 6, 13).

(e) ADJECTIVES. The question of an adjective's using one form for more than one gender has been already discussed at length in the chapter on Declensions. Thus stratia/j ouvrani,ou (Lu. 2:13) is not a breach of concord, for ouvrani,ou is feminine. If masculine and feminine are used together and the plural adjective or participle occurs, the masculine, of course, prevails over the feminine when persons are considered. Thus h=n o` path.r auvtou/ kai. h` mh,thr qauma,zontej (Lu. 2:33). So also vAgri,ppaj ka. Berni,kh avspa─ sa,menoi (Ac. 25:13) and even with the disjunctive h;├as avdelfo.j h' avdelfh. gumnoi, (Jas. 2:15). In Rev. 8:7 the neuter plural is used of two nouns (one feminine and one neuter), ca,laza kai. pu/r memigme,na. Cf. fqartoi/j├ avrguri,w| h' crusi,w| (1 Pet. 1 : 18), same gender. So poiki,laij no,soij kai. basa,noij (Mt. 4:24), pa,shj avrch/j kai.


evxousi,aj (Eph. 1:21), etc. Thus we may note po,lij h' oivki,a merisqei/sa (Mt. 12:25), the same gender. But when different genders occur, the adjective is usually repeated, as in potatpoi. li,qoi kai. potapai. oivkodomai, (Mk. 13:1), pa/sa do,sij kai. pa/n dw,rhma (Jas. 1: 17), ouvrano.n kaino.n kai. gh/n kainh.n (Rev. 21:1), etc. There is emphasis also in the repetition. But one adjective with the gender of one of the substantives is by no means uncommon. Thus in Heb. 9:9, dw/ra, te kai. qusi,ai mh. duna,menai, the last substantive is followed, while in Heb. 3:6, eva.n th.n parrhsi,an kai. to. kau,chma me,cri te,louj bebai,an kata,scwmen, the first rules in gender.49 Per contra note ui`o.n a;rsen Rev. 12:5. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 86) cites fi,le te,knon from the Iliad, XXII, 84.

IX. Concord in Case. This is not the place for the syntax of the cases. That matter belongs to a special chapter.

(a) ADJECTIVES. They concur in the case of the substantive with which they are used. The variations are either indeclinable forms like plh,rhj50 in Jo. 1:14 (agreeing with auvtou/ or do,xan) or are due to anacoluthon, as Jas. 3:8 th.n de. glw/ssan ouvdei.j dama,sai du,natai avnqrw,pwn\ avkata,staton kako,n├ mesth. ivou/ (so W. H. punctuate).

(b) PARTICIPLES. They lend themselves readily to anacoluthon in case. Thus e;doxe toi/j avposto,loij kai. toi/j presbute,roij├ gra,yantej (Ac. 15:22 f.). See Mk. 7:19 kaqari,zwn. Mk. 6:9 has u`podede─ me,nouj, whereas before we have auvtoi/j and ai;rwsin, but W. H. read evndu,sasqai (Nestle, evndu,shsqe). In Mk. 12:40, oi` kate,sqontej kai. proseuco,menoi we have a nominative in apposition with the ablative avpo. tw/n grammate,wn tw/n qelo,ntwn. In Ph. 3:18 f. tou.j evc─rou,j is in agreement with the case of ou[j, while of oi` fronou/ntej below skips back to polloi,. Sometimes, as in evpisteu,qhsan ta. lo,gia (Ro. 3:2), the substantive will make sense as subject or object of the verb. In Heb. 9:10 dikaiw,mata- evpikei,mena in apposition with qusi,ai skips over the parenthetical clause between. Cf. also perhaps avrxa,menoi (Lu. 24:47), avrxa,menoj (Ac. 1:22. Cf. Lu. 23:5), avrxa,menoj (Ac. 10:37). Note this idiom in Luke's writings.

(c) THE BOOK OF REVELATION. It is full of variations (solecisms) from case-concord, especially in appositional clauses. Thus in Rev. 7: 9 after ei=don├ kai. ivdou, we first have the nomina-


Addenda 2nd ed.

Addenda 3rd ed.

tive with ivdou, and then the accusative with ei=don. Thus o` ma,rtuj (Rev. 1:5) retains the nominative rather than the ablative avpo. vIhsou/ Cristou/, whereas in 11:18 tou.j mikrou,j is in apposition with the dative toi/j dou,loij├ ktl) Cf. 20:2 where o` o;fij (text, marg. acc.) is in apposition with the accusative to.n dra,konta. The papyri show the idiom. Cf. tou/ avdelfou/- o` dia,tocoj - $╩diad)) in Letr. 149 (ii/A.D.), vAntifi,lou [Ellhn- i`ppa,rchj in B.G.U. 1002 (i/B.C.). Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 60. The Apocalypse is thus by no means alone. See also para. to[ u/ Prost] ou,mou to.n eu`ro,nta B.G.U. 846 (ii/A.D.), h;kousa Toqh/j le,gwn P. Par. 51 (B.C. 160), evme. le,lukaj polia.j e;cwn, ib. In particular the participle is common in the nominative in the Apocalypse. In the case of avpo. o` w'n kai. o` h=n kai. o` evrco,menoj the nominative is evidently intentional to accent the unchangeableness of God God(1:4). Cf. this formula in 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 16:5. `O nikw/n occurs as a set phrase, the case being expressed by auvto,j which follows. So in 2:26 auvtw|/ ( thrw/n also); 3:12 auvto,n, 21 auvtw|/. But in tw|/ nikw/nti dw,sw auvtw|/ 2:7, 17, the case is regularly in the dative without anacoluthon. The wrong case appears with e;cwn in 1:16 (almost separate sentence) if it is meant to refer to auvtou/ or gender if fwnh,; 9:14 ( o` e;cwn, in apposition with avgge,lw|); 10:2 e;cwn (sort of parenthesis, cf. 1:16); 14:14 e;cwn (loosely appended); 19:12 (loose connection of e;cwn). In 5:6 and 17:3 e;cwn has wrong gender and case. This participle seems to be strung on loosely generally, but in 21:11 f. the proper case and gender occur. Cf. also h` le,gousagrk grk(2:20) and le,gwngrk grk(14:7). In 14:12 oi` throu/ntej is a loose addition like h` katabai,nousagrk grk(3:12). More difficult seems evn kami,nw| pepurwme,─ nhjgrk grk(1:15), margin pepurwme,noi. In 19:20 th.n li,mnhn tou/ puro.j th/j kaiome,nhj the participle agrees in gender with li,mnhn and in case with puro.j. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 86) cites avpe,cw par v auvtou/ to.n o`mologou/nta (Amh. Pap. II, in to 113, where regularly the accusative of a participle is in apposition with a genitive or ablative). He gives also Oxy. P. I N 120, 25, ouv de,doktai ga.r h`mi/n e;cein ti dustucou/ntej; Flinders-Pet. Pap. III 42 C (3) 3, avdikou,meqa u`po. vApollwni,ou evmba,llwn. Dittenberger (Or. inscr. 611) gives Sebastou/ and ui`o,j in apposition. But the point of difficulty in the Revelation of John is not any one isolated discord in case or gender. It is rather the great number of such violations of concord that attracts attention. As shown above, other books of the N. T. show such phenomena. Observe especially Luke, who is a careful writer of education. Note also Paul in Ph. 1:30 where e;contej (cf. this word in Rev.) is used with u`mi/n├


and 2 Cor. 7:5 h`mw/n- qlibo,menoi. Similar discords occur in the LXX, as in Jer. 14:13; Dan. 10:5-7; 1 Macc. 13:16; 1 Macc. 15:28; and indeed occasionally in the very best of Greek writers. The example in 1 Macc. 13:16 ( lao.n le,gontej) is worth singling out for its bearing on both case and number. Nestle (Einf. in das griech. N. T., p. 90 f.) notes the indeclinable use of le,gwn and le, gontej in the LXX, like rxael. Cf. Nestle, Phil. Sacra., p. 7. See also Thackeray, Gr., p. 23. One Must not be a slavish martinet in such matters at the expense of vigour and directness. The occasion of anacoluthon in a sentence is just the necessity of breaking off and making a new start. But the Apocalypse demands more than these general remarks. Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 534) calls attention to the fact that these irregularities occur chiefly in the description of the visions where there would naturally be some excitement. Moulton51 argues from the fact that the papyri of uneducated writers show frequent discord in case that John was somewhat backward in his Greek. He speaks of "the curious Greek of Revelation," "the imperfect Greek culture of this book." He notes the fact that most of the examples in both the papyri and Revelation are in apposition and the writer's "grammatical sense is satisfied when the governing word has affected the case of one object."52 Moulton53 cites in illustration Shakespeare's use of "between you and I." This point indeed justifies John. But one must observe the comparative absence of these syntactical discords in the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John. In Ac. 4:13 both Peter and John are called avgra,mmatoi kai. ivdiw/tai. This need not be pushed too far, and yet it is noteworthy that 2 Peter and Revelation are just the two books of the N. T. whose Greek jars most upon the cultured mind and which show most kinship to the koinh, in somewhat illiterate papyri. One of the theories about the relation between 1 Peter and 2 Peter is that Silvanus (1 Pet. 5:12) was Peter's scribe in writing the first Epistle, and that thus the Greek is smooth and flowing, while in 2 Peter we have Peter's own somewhat uncouth, unrevised Greek. This theory rests on the assumption of the genuineness of 2 Peter, which is much disputed. So also in Acts Luke refines Peter's Greek in the reports


of his addresses. Now in Jo. 21:24 we seem to have the comment of a brother (or several) on the Gospel of John which he has read and approved. Moulton54 naturally suggests the hypothesis that the Gospel and Epistles of John had the smoothing hand of this brother of culture (perhaps in Ephesus), while in the Apocalypse we have John's own rather uncultured Greek. One may add to this the idea of Winer about possible excitement and passion due to the great ideas of the book. In the Isle of Patmos John, if still there, would have little opportunity for scholarly help and the book may have gone out unrevised. There are other theories, but this matter of authorship is not the grammarians' task.

(d) OTHER PECULIARITIES IN APPOSITION. Further examples of apposition call for illustration. Thus in 1 Jo. 2:25, au[th evsti.n h` evpaggeli,a├ h[n auvto.j evphggei,lato h`mi/n├ th.n zwh.n th.n aivw,nion we have th/n zwh.n in the case of the relative (because nearer) and not in that of the antecedent. Then again in Jo. 1:38 r`abbei, is explained as dida,skale, vocative in the predicate (cf. also 20:16), while in 1:41 Messi,an is naturally interpreted as Cristo,j. In Jo. 13:13 o` dida,─ skaloj is in apposition with me where we would use quotation-marks. But this passage needs to be borne in mind in connection with Revelation. In 1 Cor. 16:21, th|/ evmh|/ ceiri. Pau,lou, note the genitive in apposition with the possessive pronoun evmh|/ according to the sense of the possessive, not its case. Once more the common use of the genitive of one substantive in practical apposition has already been noted in this chapter, III, (e), 5, Apposition. Thus h` e`orth. tw/n avzu,mwn (Lu. 22:1). The use of tou/t v e;stin with any case has already been alluded to under Gender. Note Mk. 7:2; Ac. 19:4; Ro. 7:18; Phil. 1:12; 1 Pet. 3:20; Heb. 9:11; 11:16, etc. In auvto.j swth.r tou/ sw,matoj $Eph. 5:23) auvto,j gives emphasis to the apposition. Inverse attraction of antecedent to case of the relative (see Pronouns) is really apposition.

(e) THE ABSOLUTE USE OF THE CASES (nominative, genitive, ablative and accusative). These will receive treatment in the chapter on Cases. Some of the peculiar nominatives noted in Revelation are the nominativus pendens, a common anacoluthon. Cf. tau/ta aa} qewrei/te (Lu. 21:6), o` nikw/n kai. o` thrw/n (Rev. 2:26). The parenthetic nominative is seen in Jo. 1:6, o;noma auvtw|/ vIwa,nhj, where vIwa,─ nhj might have been dative. But here merely the mention of the fact of the absolute use of the cases is all that is called for.55


Addenda 2nd ed.

X. Position of Words in the Sentence.

(a) FREEDOM FROM RULES. The freedom of the Greek from artificial rules and its response to the play of the mind is never seen better than in the order of words in the sentence. In English, since it has lost its inflections, the order of the words in the sentence largely determines the sense. Whether a substantive is subject or object can usually be seen in English only thus, or whether a given word is verb or substantive, substantive or adjective. Even the Latin, which is an inflectional tongue, has much less liberty than the Greek. We are thinking, of course, of Greek prose, not of poetry, where metre so largely regulates the position of words. The N. T. indeed enjoys the same freedom56 that the older Greek did with perhaps some additional independence from the vernacular koinh, as contrasted with the older literary language. The modern Greek vernacular has maintained the Greek freedom in this respect (Thumb, Handb., p. 200). The Semitic tongues also have much liberty in this matter. In English it is common to see words in the wrong place that make absurd bungles, as this, for instance: "The man rode a horse with a black hat." In Greek one may say filei/ o` path.r to.n ui`o,n├ o` pa─ th.r filei/ to.n ui`o,n, or filei/ to.n ui`o.n o` path.r, according to the stress in the mind of the speaker.57

(b) PREDICATE OFTEN FIRST. In Greek prose, where the rhetorical element has less play, the predicate very commonly comes first, simply because, as a rule, the predicate is the most important thing in the sentence. Thus maka,rioi oi` ptwcoi. tw|/ pneu,─ mati (Mt. 5:3), euvloghme,nh su. evn gunaixi,n (Lu. 1:42), evge,neto de, (Lu. 2:1), kai. evporeu,ontogrk grk(2:3), avne,bh de,grk grk(2:4), etc. But this is true so often, not because of any rule, but simply because the predicate is most frequently the main point in the clause. Blass58 even undertakes to suggest a tentative scheme thus: predicate, subject, object, complementary participle, etc. But Winer59 rightly remarks that he would be an empirical expositor who would insist on any unalterable rule in the Greek sentence save that of spontaneity.

(c) EMPHASIS. This is one of the ruling ideas in the order of words. This emphasis may be at the end as well as at the beginning of the sentence, or even in the middle in case of antithesis. The emphasis consists in removing a word from its usual position to an unusual one. So a`luko.n gluku. poih/sai u[dwr (Jas. 3:12). Thus


in Lu. 1:12 we have kai. fo,boj evpe,pesen evp v auvto,n, but in Ac. 19:17 kai. evpe,pesen fo,boj evpi. pa,ntaj auvtou,j) Sometimes the words in contrast are brought sharply together, as in Jo. 17:4, evgw, se evdo,xasa, and 17:5, nu/n do,xaso,n me su,) So u`mw/n evmou/ Lu. 10:16. Note also the intentional position of o` patria,rchj in Heb. 7:4 w|- deka,thn vAbraa.m e;dwken evk tw/n avkroqini,wn├ o` patria,rchj. So also in 1 Pet. 2: 7, u`mi/n ou=n h` timh. toi/j pisteu,ousin, note the beginning and the end of the sentence. This rhetorical emphasis is more common in the Epistles (Paul's in particular) than in the Gospels and Acts for obvious reasons. Thus observe the position of au in Ro. 11:17 and of kavkei/noi in verse 23. In Heb. 6:19 avsfalh/ te kai. bebai,an do not come in immediate contact with a;gkuran as adjectives usually do. Observe also the emphatic climax in teteleiwme,non at the end of the sentence in Heb. 7:28. Cf. h;dh - kei/tai in Mt. 3:10. Note the sharpness given to ouv in 1 Cor. 1:17 by putting it first. So 10:5. In 1 Cor. 2:7 qeou/ sofi,an throws proper emphasis upon qeou/. The position of the subordinate clause varies greatly. It often comes first, as in Lu. 1:1-4.

(d) THE MINOR WORDS IN A SENTENCE. In general they come close to the word to which they belong in sense. Thus the adj. is near the subst. and after it. So u[dwr zw/n (Jo. 4:10), di─ da,skale avgaqe, (Mk. 10:17), zwh.n aivw,nion (ib.). But observe o[lon a;nqrwpon u`gih/ (Jo. 7:23), both adjs. So also note di v avnu,drwn to,pwn, (Mt. 12:43), kalo.n spe,rma (Mt. 13:27), evcqro.j a;nqrwpoj (Mt. 13: 28), where the adj. gives the main idea. With the repeated article the adj. has increased emphasis in o` poimh.n o` kalo.j (Jo. 10: 11). With pneu/ma a[gion this is the usual order (as Mt. 3:11), but also to. a[gion pneu/ma (Ac. 1:8) or to. pneu/ma to. a[gion (Jo. 14:26). In Ac. 1:5 the verb comes in between the substantive and adjective ( evn pneu,mati baptisqh,sesqe a`gi,w|) to give unity to the clause. So in Mt. 1:20, evk pneu,mato,j evstin a`gi,ou. Cf. zwh.n e;cete aivw,nion (1 Jo. 5:13). In Ac. 26:24 note se thus, ta. polla, se gra,mmata eivj mani,an peritre,pei. So also in 1 Cor. 10:4 e;pion comes between to, and po,ma. The position of the genitive varies greatly, but the same general principle applies. The genitive follows as in toi/j lo,goij th/j ca,ritoj (Lu. 4:22), unless emphatic as in tw/n avllotri,wn th.n fwnh,n (Jo. 10:5). There is sharp emphasis in tw/n i[ppwn in Jas. 3 : 3. A genitive may be on each side of the substantive as in h`mw/n oivki,a tou/ skh,nouj (2 Cor. 5:1). Sharp contrast may be expressed by proximity of two genitives, as in to.n sunstratiw,thn mou, u`mw/n de. avpo,stolon (Ph. 2:25). There may be some contrast also in su, mou ni,pteij tou.j po,daj (Jo. 13:6). But the personal enclitic


pronouns have a tendency to come early in the sentence without emphasis, as pw/j hvnew|,cqhsa,n sou oi` ovfqalmoi, (Jo. 9:10). Cf. i[na sou proskunh,sw th.n ce/ran B.G.U. 423 (ii/A.D.). Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 90) notes great freedom in the position of the genitive in the Attic authors and in the inscriptions. In the case of o` a;nqrw─ poj ou-toj and ou-toj o` a;nqrwpoj one must not look for any fine-spun distinction, though the same general principle of emphasis exists. In the matter of tau/ta pa,nta (Lu. 12:30) and pa,nta tau/ta (Mt. 6:32) the first word carries the emphasis just as in pa/j o` o;cloj and o` o;cloj pa/j. Cf. pa,nta ta. me,lh tou/ sw,matoj (1 Cor. 12:12) and oi` pate,rej h`mw/n pa,ntej (1 Cor. 10:1) with o` pa/j no,moj (Gal. 5:14). Note the common Greek su. ti,j ei= (Jo. 8:25). The vocative is often at the beginning of the sentence, as path.r di,kaie (Jo. 17:25), but not always, as in paraklw/ de. u`ma/j├ avdelfoi, (1 Cor. 1:10). In Jo. 14:9 ouvk e;gnwka,j me├ Fi,lippe the vocative naturally comes after the pronoun. It comes within the sentence, as w= qeo,file (Ac. 1: 1), or at either end according as occasion requires. Some set phrases come in formal order, as a;ndrej avdelfoi. kai. pate,rej (Ac. 7: 2), like our "brethren and sisters," "ladies and gentlemen," etc. Other conventional phrases are a;ndrej avdelfoi. kai. pate,rej (Ac. 8:3), cwri.j gunaikw/n kai. paidi,wn (Mt. 14:21), nu,kta kai. h`me,ran (Ac. 20:31), sa.rx kai. ai-ma (Mt. 16:17), brw/sij kai. po,sij (Ro. 14:17), zw,twn kai. nekrw/n (Ac. 10:42); th.n gh/n kai. th.n qa,lassan (Ac. 4:24), h`li,w| kai. lo,gw| (Lu. 21:25), tou/ ouvranou/ kai. th/j gh/j (Mt. 11:25), e;rgw| kai. lo,gw| (Lu. 24:19), vIoudai,ouj te kai. [Ellhnaj (Ro. 3:9), dou/loj ouvde. evleu,qeroj (Gal. 3:28). The adverb generally has second place, as u`yhlo.n li,an (Mt. 4:8), but not always, as li,an ga.r avne,sth (2 Tim. 4:15). Blass60 notes that Matthew often puts the adverb after imperatives, as kataba,tw nu/n (Mt. 27:42), but before indicatives, as e;ti u`sterw/ (Mt. 19:20), a refinement somewhat unconscious, one may suppose. In general the words go together that make sense, and the interpretation is sometimes left to the reader's insight. In Eph. 2:3, h;meqa te,kna fu,sei ovrgh/j, note the position of fu,sei between te,kna and ovrgh/j. In Ro. 8:3, kate,krine th.n a`marti,an evn th|/ sarki,, the adjunct evn th|/ sarki, goes in sense with kate,krine, not a`marti,an. But this matter comes up again under the Article. In Mt. 2:2, ei;domen ga.r auvtou/ to.n avste,ra evn th|/ avnatolh|/, probably evn th|/ avnatolh|/ belongs in sense to the subject ('we being in the east,' etc.).61

(e) EUPHONY AND RHYTHM. It will not do to say that em-


phasis alone explains every unusual order of words in a Greek sentence. Take Jo. 9:6, for instance, evpe,qhken auvtou/ to.n phlo.n evpi. tou.j ovfqalmou,j. Here auvtou/ is entirely removed from ovfqalmou,j and is without particular emphasis. It was probably felt that the genitive of the pronouns made a weak close of a sentence. Observe also Jo. 9:10, sou oi` ovfqalmoi, (cf. 9:11). Thus also 9:17, 26, 30. Note e;pesen auvtou/ pro.j tou.j po,daj (Jo. 11:32) and ouvk a;n mou avpe,qanen o` avdelfo,j (ib.). So su, mou ni,pteij tou.j po,daj (Jo. 13:6) where some emphasis by contrast may exist in spite of the enclitic form mou) Cf. u`mi/n evmoi, in Ph. 3:1. But on the other hand we have o` avdelfo,j mou in Jo. 11:21 (cf. 11:23 sou) and tou/ patro,j mou (Jo. 10: 18). The tendency to draw the pronouns toward the first part of the sentence may account for some of this transposition, as in ta. polla, se gra,mmata eivj mani,an peritre,pei (Ac. 26:24), but the matter goes much beyond the personal pronouns, as in evn pneu,mati baptisqh,─ sesqe a`gi,w| (Ac. 1:5), mikra.n e;ceij du,namin (Rev. 3:8), etc. But a large amount of personal liberty was exercised in such trajection of words.62 Is there any such thing as ryhthm in the N. T.? Deissmann63 scouts the idea. If one thinks of the carefully balanced sentences of the Attic orators like Isocrates, Lysias and Demosthenes, Deissmann is correct, for there is nothing that at all approaches such artificial rhythm in the N. T., not even in Luke, Paul or Hebrews. Blass64 insists that Paul shows rhythm in 1 Cor. and that the book is full of art. He compares65 Paul with Cicero, Seneca, Q. Curtius, Apuleius, and finds rhythm also in Hebrews which "not unfrequently has a really oratorical and choice order of words."66 He cites in Heb. 1:4 tosou,tw| krei,ttwn geno,menoj tw/n avgge,lwn o[sw| diaforw,teron par v auvtou.j keklhrono,mhken o;noma; 1:5; 11:32; 12:1, 8, etc. In Greek in general he suggests that lively and animated discourse gives rise to dislocations of words. Now one would think Blass ought to know something of Greek style. But Deissmann will have none of it. He refers Blass to Schramm, who wrote in 1710 of De stupenda eruditione Pauli apostoli and thinks that Blass is wilful and arbitrary in his


use and proof of rhythm. On the other hand Sir W. M. Ramsay67 contends that Paul was a better Hellenist in point of culture than some suppose, and knew Greek philosophy and used it. It is after all partly a dispute about terms. If by rhythm one means grace and charm of diction that naturally belong to the expression of elevated ideas under the stress of chastened passion, surely one would be hypercritical to deny it to 1 Cor. 13 and 15, Ac. 17, , Ro. 8 and 12, Eph. 3, , Jo. 14-47, , Heb. 2 and 11, not to mention many beautiful passages that seem perfect like pearls. At white heat nature often strikes off what is better than anything mere art can do even as to beauty of form and expression. Luke68 may even have known Thucydides, and yet one has no right to expect the "niceties of language69 in the vernacular which contribute so much to the charm of Plato." Intonation and gesture in spoken language take the place of these linguistic refinements to a very large extent. It is true that Paul's "Greek has to do with no school, with no model, but streams unhindered with overflowing bubbling direct out of the heart," but "yet is real Greek," as Wilamowitz-Mollendorff70 remarks. Wilamowitz-Mollendorff does indeed hold that Paul knew little Greek outside of the Greek Bible, but he thinks that his letters are unique in Greek literature. On Paul's Hellenism see chapter IV, and also G. Milligan, Epistles to the Thess., p. lv. On p. lvi Milligan takes the writer's view that the "well-ordered passages" and "splendid outbursts" in Paul's writings are due to natural emotion and instinctive feeling rather than studied art. Bultmann (Der Stil der Paulinischen Predigt and die Kynisch-stoische Diatribe, 1910) finds that Paul had the essential elements of the Stoic Diatribe in his argumentative style (question and answer, antithesis, parallelism, etc.). Paul's art is indeed like that of the Cynic-Stoic Diatribe as described by Wendland,71 but he does not have their refinement or overpunctiliousness.72 It is not surprising to find that occasionally N. T. writers show unintentional metre, as is common with speakers and writets of any language. In the Textus Receptus of Heb. 12:13 there is a good hexameter, kai troci| aj or| qaj poi| hsate | toij posin|


umwn, but the critical text spoils it all by reading poiei/te. So also one may find two trimeters in Heb. 12:14 f. ( ou-──avpo,) one in Jo. 4:35 ( tetra,mhno,j- e;rcetai), one in Ac. 23:5 ( a;rconta──kakw/j). Green (Handbook to the Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 356) cites the accidental English anapaestic line "To preach the acceptable year of the Lord," the hexameter "Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them," and the iambic couplet "Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace." But surely no one would call these writers poets because occasional metre is found in their writings. There is an unconscious harmony of soul between matter and form. Paul does indeed quote the Greek poets three times, once an iambic trimeter acataleptus from the comic poet Menander (1 Cor. 15:33) fqeirou| sin h | qh crh | sta omi| liai| kakai, though one anapaest occurs (some MSS. have crhsq v), once half an hexameter from Aratus (Ac. 17:28) tou/ gar| kai genoj | esmen, and a full hexameter from Epimenides of Crete (Tit. 1:12) krhtej a| ei yeu| stai kaka| qhria | gasteres| argai. How much more Paul knew of Greek poetry we do not know, but he was not ignorant of the philosophy of the Stoics and Epicureans in Athens. Blass73 indeed thinks that the author of Hebrews studied in the schools of rhetoric where prose rhythm was taught, such as the careful balancing of ending with ending, beginning with beginning, or ending with beginning. He thinks he sees proof of it in Heb. 1:1 f., 3, 4 f.; 12:14 f., 24. But here again one is inclined to think that we have rather the natural correspondence of form with thought than studied rhetorical imitation of the schools of Atticism or even of Asianism. We cannot now follow the lead of the old writers who saw many fanciful artistic turns of phrase.' Antitheses and parallelisms could be treated here as expressions of rhythm, but they can be handled better in the chapter on Figures of Speech. As a specimen of an early Christian hymn note 1 Tim. 3:16. Harnack (The Independent, Dec. 28, 1912) takes this as a Christmas hymn. Elizabeth (Lu. 1: 42-45), Mary Mary(1:46-55) and Zacharias Zacharias(1:67-79) break forth into poetic strains with something of Hebrew spirit and form. In Eph. 5:14 we have another possible fragment of a Christian hymn. The Lord's Prayer in Mt. 6: 9-13 is given in metrical arrangement by W. H. Cf. Hort, Intr. to N. T. in Gk., p. 319 f. In general on N. T. parallelism see Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels


and Messiah of the Apostles. In 1 Cor. 13 one can see the beauty and melody of a harmonious arrangement of words. See also the latter part of 1 Cor. 15.

(f) PROLEPSIS is not uncommon where either the substantive is placed out of its right place before the conjunction in a subordinate clause like th.n avga,phn i[na gnw/te (2 Cor. 2:4) and biwtika. krith,ria eva.n e;chte (1 Cor. 6:4), or the subject of the subordinate clause even becomes the object of the previous verb like ivdei/n to.n vIhsou/n ti,j evstin (Lu. 19:3). Cf. Ac. 13:32. But this betokens no studied art. Cf. Mk. 8:24; Lu. 10:26; Ro. 9:19, 20; 14:, 10; 1 Cor. 15:36. So h`mi/n in Ac. 3:12.

(g) HYSTERON PROTERON. We occasionally meet also an example of u[steron pro,teron like avgge,louj tou/ qeou/ avnabai,nontaj kai. katabai,nontoj (Jo. 1:51), a natural inversion from our point of view. But Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 553) does not admit this figure in the N. T. Certainly not all the apparent examples are real. The order of pepisteu,kamen kai. evgnw,kamen (Jo. 6:69) is just as true as that of e;gnwsan kai. evpi,steusan (Jo. 17:8). Cf. also peripatw/n kai. a`llo,menoj (Ac. 3:8) and h[lato kai. periepa,tei (Ac. 14:10) where each order suits the special case. Cf. 1 Tim. 2:4 and 2 Pet. 1:9 for alleged examples that disappear on close examination.

(h) HYPERBATON. Adverbs sometimes appear to be in the wrong place, a phenomenon common in all Greek prose writers. In 1 Cor. 14:7 o[mwj would come in more smoothly just before etv, but it is perfectly intelligible where it is. Cf. also Gal. 3:15 for similar use of o[mwj. Cf. distance of h;dh from kei/tai (Mt. 3:10). In Ro. 3:9 ouv pa,ntwj is our 'not at all,' while in 1 Cor. 16:12 pa,ntwj ouvk 'wholly not,' just as in 1 Cor. 15:51 pa,ntej ouv koimhqhso,meqa means 'all of us shall not sleep,' not 'none of us shall sleep.' Cf. also ouv pa,ntwj in 1 Cor. 5:9 f., an explanation of the negative mh. sunanami,gnusqai just before, 'not wholly.' In the case of ouv mo,non in Ro. 4:12, 16, the words ouv mo,non are separated and in 4:12 the repetition of the article toi/j makes ouv mo,non seem quite misplaced. Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 555) is certainly right in insisting that ouvc o[ti (2 Cor. 3:5) is not to be treated as o[ti ouvk. Cf. ouvc i[na- avll v i[na (2 Cor. 13:7). A more difficult passage is found in Heb. 11:3, eivj to. mh. evk fainome,nwn ta. blepo,mena gegone,nai, where mh, is the negative of the phrase evk faino─ me,nwn to. blepo,menon gegone,nai. In general the negative comes before the word or words that are negatived. Hence ouvk ei;wn (Ac.19:30), ouvk e;stin (Gal. 3:20). But note mh. polloi. dida,skaloi gi,nesqe (Jas. 3:1). Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 257) notes the possible am


Addenda 2nd ed.

Addenda 2nd ed.

Addenda 3rd ed.

biguity in Ac. 7:48 because of the use of ouvc before o` u[yistoj instead of before katoikei/. Observe in strong contrasts how ot; stands over against avlla, (Ro. 2:13). Blass74 has little sympathy with the grammatical device of hyperbaton to help out exegesis. The construction, found in w`j avpo. stadi,wn dekape,nte (Jo. 11:18) has been supposed to be a Latinism when compared with Lu. 24:13. So also with pro. ea}x h`merw/n tou/ pa,sca (Jo. 12:1) was formerly considered a Latinism. But Moulton75 shows conclusively that it is Doric and Ionic before the possibility of Latin influence, and besides is common in the koinh, papyri, a mere coincidence with the Latin. See also ch. XIII, VII, (m), 5.

(i) POSTPOSITIVES. A number of words are always postpositive in Greek. In the N. T. a;n├ ga,r├ ge,├ de,├ me,n├ me,ntoi├ ou=n├ te never begin a sentence, in harmony with ancient Greek usage. These words commonly in the N. T. come in the second place, always so with me,ntoi (Jo. 4:27, etc.). In the case of me,n, the third place is occasionally found as 1 Pet. 2:4, the fourth as 2 Cor. 10:1, the fifth in Eph. 4:11; Jo. 16:22, or even the sixth in Jas. 3:17. It occupies the seventh place in Herm. Sim. viii, 5:1 (Mr. H. Scott has noted). In general these words vary in position according to the point to be made in relation to other words. So also ou=n is more commonly in the second, but varies to the third (Jo. 16:22) and fourth (1 Cor. 8:4). The same remark applies to ga,r, for which see Mk. 1:38; 2 Cor. 1:19. As to de,├ may not only go to the fourth place (Jo. 8:16), but even appears in the fifth (1 Jo. 2:2), ouv peri. tw/n h`mete,rwn de,) It stands in the sixth place in Test. XII. Patr. Judah, 9:1 (Mr. H. Scott reports). In the case of ge it follows naturally the word with which it belongs as in Ro. 8:32 $o[j ge%, even in the case of avlla, ge (Lu. 24:21) which is always separated in the older Greek. Cf. also ei; ge Eph. 3:2. ;An in the apodosis (not= eva,n) or with relatives or conjunctives, never begins a clause in Greek. It is usually the second word in the apodosis, either after the verb, as ei=pon a;n (Jo. 14:2), or after ouvk├ as ouvk a;n (Mk. 13:20), or the interrogative, as ti,j a;n (Lu. 9:46). With the relative a;n follows directly or as the third word, as oa}j a;n and oa}j d v a;n (Mt. 23:16). Te usually follows the word directly, as in ponhrou,j te (Mt. 22:10), even after a preposition, as su,n te cili,arcoij (Ac. 25:23); but note tw/n evqnw/n te (Ac. 14:5).

(j) FLUCTUATING WORDS. There is another group of words that vary in the matter, now postpositive, now not. Thus a;ra


may be first in the clause (Mt. 12:28), contrary to older Greek custom. So also a;rage (Mt. 7:20) and a;ra ou=n (Ro. 7:3). Except in a few instances like Ro. 8:1 the examples where a;ra is postpositive in the N. T. are in questions after the interrogative or after a conjunction. Once (Ro. 10:18) menou/nge begins the sentence. Toi,nun occurs only three times and twice begins the sentence (Lu. 20:25; Heb. 13:13) as toigarou/n does (Heb. 12:1). The indefinite ti.j sometimes comes first in the sentence, as tine.j de, (Lu. 6:2). Enclitics can therefore stand at the beginning, though not commonly so. In the case of e[neken its position is usually before the word except with the interrogative, as ti,noj e[neken (Ac. 19:32), or a relative, as ou- ei[neken (Lu. 4:18). But ca,rin follows its case save in ca,rin ti,noj (1 Jo. 3:12). Cwri,j precedes the word, but note ou- cwri,j (Heb. 12:14). The N. T. therefore shows rather more freedom with these words.

(k) THE ORDER OF CLAUSES IN COMPOUND SENTENCES. Blass76 considers this a matter of style rather than of grammar. When the whole sentence is composed of a principal clause, with one or more subordinate clauses, the order of these clauses is largely dependent on the flow of thought in the speaker's mind. In the case of conditional as Mt. 17:4, final as in Mt. 17:27, and relative clauses as in Mt. 16:25, the dependent by rule precedes the principal clause. There is usually a logical basis for this order. But in Jo. 19:28 the final clause somewhat interrupts the flow of the sentence. Cf. also Ro. 9:11. In 2 Cor. 8:10, oi[tinej ouv mo,non to. poih/sai avlla. kai. to. qe,lein proenh,rxasqe avpo. pe,rusi, there is no violent change of order. Logically the willing preceded the doing and makes the natural climax. Blass77 is undoubtedly right in refusing to take ti,ni lo,gw| euvhggelisa,mhn as dependent on eiv ka─ te,cete (1 Cor. 15:2). In Jo. 10:36 we meet a somewhat tangled sentence because the antecedent of o[n is not expressed. Here le,gete is the principal verb, the apodosis of the condition, and has two objects (the relative clause and the o[ti clause) with a causal clause added. So in Jo. 10:38 we have a good example of the complex sentence with two conditions, a final clause, an objectclause, besides the principal clause.78

XI. Compound Sentences.

(a) TWO KINDS OF SENTENCES. The sentence is either simple or compound. The compound is nothing but two simple sentences


put together. All that is true of one part of this compound sentence may be true of the other as to subject and predicate. The same linguistic laws apply to both. But in actual usage each part of the compound sentence has its own special development. The two parts have a definite relation to each other. Originally men used only simple sentences. Cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 552.

(b) TWO KINDS OF COMPOUND SENTENCES (Paratactic and Hypotactic). In parataxis ( para,taxij) we have co-ordination of two parallel clauses. Take Mk. 14:37 as an example, kai.. e;rcetai kai. eu`ri,skei auvtou.j kaqeu,dontaj├ kai. le,gei tw|/ Pe,trw|. In hypotaxis ( u`po,taxij) one clause is subordinated to the other, as in ouvk oi;date ti, aivtei/sqe (Mk. 10:38) where ti, aivtei/sqe is in the accusative case, the object of oi;date. Parataxis is the rule in the speech of children, primitive men, unlettered men and also of Homer. Cf. Sterrett, Homer's Iliad, N. 49.

On the two kinds of sentences see Paul, Principles of Language, p. 139 f. See also Delbruck, Vergl. Syntax, 3. Tl., pp. 259-286; Brugmann, Griech. Gr., pp. 551 ff.; Kuhner-Gerth, Bd. II, p. 351.

(c) PARATACTIC SENTENCES. They are very common in the Sanskrit and in Homer (cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 555) and in the Hebrew. In truth in the vernacular generally and the earlier stages of language parataxis prevails. It is more common with some writers than with others, John, for instance, using it much more frequently than Paul or even Luke. In John kai, sometimes is strained to mean 'and yet,' as in 3:19; 4:20, etc.79 The koinh, shows a decided fondness for the paratactic construction which in the modern Greek is still stronger (Thumb, Handb., p. 184). As in the modern Greek, so in the N. T. kai,, according to logical sequence of thought, carries the notion of 'but,' 'that,' besides 'and yet,' introducing quasi-subordinate clauses. For details concerning paratactic conjunctions see chapter on Particles. In the use of kai, (cf. Heb.7) after evge,neto the paratactic kai, borders very close on to the hypotactic o[ti. Thus evge,neto de. kai. ──auvto.j to. pro,swpon evsth,risen (Lu. 9:51).

(d) HYPOTACTIC SENTENCES. They are introduced either by relative pronouns or conjunctions, many of which are relatives in origin and others adverbs. The subject of conjunctions will demand special and extended treatment later on (chapters on Modes and on Particles), and so will relative clauses. On the use of the relative thus see Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 553. The propensity of the later Greek for parataxis led to an impoverishment of particles.


Hypotactic sentences, once more, are either substantival, adjectival or adverbial, in their relation to the principal or another subordinate clause. Thus in Lu. 22:2 to. pw/j avne,lwsin is the substantive object of evzh,toun, as to. ti,j ei;h is of sunzhtei/n in Lu. 22:23. As a sample of the subject-clause in the nominative take ouv me,lei soi o[ti avpollu,meqa (Mk. 4:38). In Mt. 7:12 o[sa eva.n qe,lhte is an adjective sentence and describes pa,nta. In Mt. 6:16 o[tan nhsteu,─ hte is an adverb in its relation to gi,nesqe.

In the beginning the hypotactic sentence corresponded closely to the principal sentence. Cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 554. On the whole subject of substantive, adjective and adverb sentences see Kuhner-Gerth, Bd. II, pp. 354-465. The matter has further discussion under Modes (Subordinate Clauses).

XII. Connection in Sentences.

(a) SINGLE WORDS. These have connectives in a very natural80 way, as du,namin kai. evxousi,an- daimo,nia kai. no,souj (Lu. 9:1). But common also is kai,──kai, (Jo. 2:14), te- kai,grk grk(2:15), and rarely te - te (Ac. 26:16). This tendency to break up into pairs is well shown in Ac.. 2:9-11. For see Mt. 5:17, avlla, 2 Cor. 7:11, ouvde, Rev. 5:3. In enumerations the repetition of kai, gives a kind of solemn dignity and is called polysyndeton. Cf. Rev. 7:12 h` euvlogi,a kai. h` do,xa kai. h` sofi,a kai. h` euvcaristi,a kai. h` timh. kai. h` du,namij kai. h` ivscu.j tw|/ qew|/) Cf. also Rev. 4:11; 5:12; Ro. 9:4. Note also a similar repetition of ou;te Ro. 8:38 f. For mh,te see Jas. 5:12. So with in Mk. 10:29. Perhaps, as Blass suggests,81 polysyndeton is sometimes necessary and devoid of any particular rhetorical effect, as in Lu. 14:21. But asyndeton is frequent also. It often gives emphasis. See Mt. 15:19; Jo. 5:3; 1 Cor. 14:24; 15:1 f. For a striking example of asyndeton see Ro. 1:29-31, where some variety is gained by change in construction (case) and the use of adjective instead of substantive, peplhrw─ me,nouj pa,sh| avdiki,a| ponhri,a| pleonexi,a| kaki,a|├ mestou.j fqo,nou fo,nou e;ridoj do,lou kakohqi,aj├ yiqurista,j├ katala,louj├ qeostugei/j├ u`brista,j├ u`perhfa,nouj├ avlazo,naj├ evfeureta.j kakw/n├ goneu/sin avpeiqei/j avsune,touj├ avsunqe,touj├ avsto,rgouj├ avneleh,monaj. Cf. also 1 Cor. 3:12. Sometimes the connective is used with part of the list (pairs) and not with the rest, for the sake of variety, as in 1 Tim. 1:9 f. An example like euvkai,rwj avkai,rwj is compared by Blass82 to nolens volens.


(b) CLAUSES. But connection is by no means uniform between sentences. This remark applies to both the paratactic and the hypotactic sentences. Asyndeton in sentences and clauses is on the whole repugnant to the Greek language in the opinion of Blass.83 Hence compound sentences in the N. T. usually have connectives, but not always.

1. Paratactic Sentences. The co-ordinating conjunctions form the most frequent means of connecting clauses into one paratactic sentence. These conjunctions will receive special treatment in the chapter on Particles and here only some illustrations can be given. Kai,├ te├ de, ouvde, mhde,├ me,n and de,├ ou;te├ avlla, are the most frequent particles used for this purpose. They are more common indeed in historical writings, as in the Gospels and Acts. But in the Gospels the use of kai, varies a good deal. Mark, for instance, has it more than 400 times, while John contains it only 100.84 Deissmann calls this use of kai, primitive popular Greek. The presence of dialogue in John hardly explains all the difference, and even in John the first chapter uses it much more frequently than the last. As a good example of the use of kai, turn to Mt. 4:23-25. Cf. Lu. 6:13--17 and Mk. 9:2. Te is common chiefly in the Acts, as 14:11-13. Sometimes the use of kai, between clauses amounted to polysyndeton, as in Jo. 10:3, 9, 12. De is perhaps less common in clauses (Jo. 4:6) except with me,n (Mt. 3:11). For de. kai, see Jo. 2:2. Ouvde, is illustrated by Mt. 5:15, avlla, 5:17, are by Ac. 28:21. But asyndeton appears also, as in Lu. 6:27 f., avgapa/te├ poiei/te├ euvlogei/te├ prose,cesqe, even if it be to a limited extent. Cf. Gal. 5:22. Blass85 points out that that is not a case of asyndeton where a demonstrative pronoun is used which reflects the connection. Cf. thus the use of tou/ton, in Ac. 16:3; Jo. 5:6. Winer86 finds asyndeton frequent in cases of a climax in impassioned discourse, as in 1 Cor. 4:8, h;dh kekoresme,noi evste,\ h;dh e`plouth,stae├ cwri.j h`mw/n evbasileu,sate. The absence of the connective gives life and movement, as in siw,pa├ pefi,mwso (Mk. 4:39). Observe also u[page prw/ton dialla,ghqi (Mt. 5:24), u[page e;legxongrk grk(18:15), e;geire a=ron (Mk. 2:11), evgei,resqe a;gwmen (Mt. 26:46), a;ge├ klau,sate (Jas. 5:1). This use of a;ge is common in the old Greek (Gildersleeve, Greek Syntax, p. 29). But in Jo. 1:46 we have e;rcou kai. i;de. In 1 Tim. 3:16 the fragment of an early hymn is neatly balanced in Hebrew parallelism.


}Oj evfanerw,qh evn sarki,├
evdikaiw,qh evn pneu,mati├
w;fqh avgge,loij├
evkhru,cqh evn e;qnesin├
evpisteu,qh evn ko,smw|
avnelh,mfqh evn do,xh|)

Here the connective would be quite out of place.

In contrast the connective may also be absent, as in u`mei/j proskunei/te oa} ouvk oi;date├ h`mei/j proskunou/men oa} oi;damen (Jo. 4:22). So Ac. 25:12. Cf. in particular 1 Cor. 15:42 ff., spei,retai evn fqora|/├ evgei,retai evn avfqarsi,a|\ spei,retai evn avtimi,a|├ evgei,retai evn do,xh|\ spei,retai evn avsqenei,a|├ evgei,retai evn duna,mei\ spei,retai sw/ma yuciko,n├ evgei,retai sw/ma pneumatiko,n. Here the solemn repetition of the verbs is like the tolling of a bell. Cf. also Jas. 1:19, tacu.j eivj to. avkou/sai├ bradu.j eivj to. lalh/sai├ bradu.j eivj ovrgh,n. John is rather fond of repetition with asyndeton in his report of Jesus' words, as evgw, eivmi h` o`do.j kai. h` avlh,qeia kai. h` zwh,\ ouvdei.j e;rcetai pro.j to.n pare,ra eiv mh, div evmou/grk grk(14:6). Cf. 10:11; 15:13, etc. But this sort of asyndeton occurs elsewhere also, as in 1 Cor. 7:15, ouv dedou,lwtai o` avdelfo,j. Cf. also 7:23; Rev. 22:13. A common asyndeton in Luke occurs after kai. evge,neto without another kai,, as ei=pe,n tijgrk grk(11:1).

2. Hypotactic Sentences. In the nature of the case they usually have connectives. The subordinating conjunctions are more necessary to the expression of the exact shade of thought than in paratactic clauses. The closeness of connection varies greatly in various kinds of subordinate clauses and often in clauses of the same kind. The use of the correlative accents this point, as oi-oj o` evpoura,nioj├ toiou/toi kai. oi` evpoura,nioi (1 Cor. 15:48); w[sper- ou[twj (Mt. 12:40). But real antithesis may exist without the correlative, as in Mt. 5:48; 6:2. In relative clauses the bond is very close and is sometimes made closer by agreement of the relative and antecedent not only in number and gender but even in case, as oi-j (Lu. 2:20) and to.n a;rton o[n (1 Cor. 10:16). There may be several relative clauses either co-ordinate (Ac. 3:2 f.) or subordinate to another (Ac. 13:31; 25:15 f.). So also the use of ei=ta, to,te├ a;ra├ kai,├ avlla,├ de, in the apodosis accents the logical connection of thought. Cf. Mt. 12:28; Mk. 13:14; Jo. 7:10; 20:21; 1 Cor. 15:54; 2 Cor. 7:12, etc. But much closer than with temporal, comparative, conditional, or even some relative clauses is the tie between the principal clause and the subordinate objective, consecutive, final and causal clauses. These are directly de


pendent on the leading clause. Interrogative sentences when in indirect discourse really become object-clauses, like to. ti,j a;ra ei;h (Lu. 22:23), object of sunzhtei/n. The o[ti├ i[na├ o[pwj (and w`j rarely) clauses are closely knit to the principal clause as subject, object (direct or indirect) of the verb. There is a natural interblending between object and causal sentences, as shown by the use of o[ti for both and dio,ti, in late Greek in the sense of 'that,' objective o[ti. Cf. quod and quia in late Latin, and English the "reason that" and colloquial the "reason why." In Greek o[ti even interchanges with eiv (cf. English "wonder if" and "wonder that"). So evqau,masen eiv h;dh te,qnhken (Mk. 15:44). Cf. Ac. 8:22; 26:8. Clauses with the consecutive idea usually have the infinitive in the N. T. Hypotactic sentences cannot be here discussed in detail, but only as illustrating the point of connection between sentences. Winer87 is hardly right in describing as asyndeton Jas. 5:13, kakopaqei/ tij evn u`mi/n\ proseuce,sqw, where eiv is not used, and the structure is para- tactic. He cites also dou/loj evklh,qhj* mh, soi mele,tw (1 Cor. 7:21). The questions in Jas. 2:19 f. are also paratactic. But more certain examples exist than these, where either a conjunction has dropped out or, as is more likely, we have original parataxis. Thus a;fej evkba,lw (Mt. 7:4), a;fej i;dwmen (Mt. 27:49) can be compared with deu/te i;dete (Mt. 28:6), deu/ro avpostei,lw (Ac. 7:34), deu/te avpoktei,nwmen (Mk. 12:7) and the common Greek idiom with a;ge├ fe,re. Jas. 5:1. In Mk. 15:36 note a;fete i;dwmen. One verb really supplements the other much as the infinitive or participle. Cf. English "let us see." In the modern Greek as (abbreviation of a;fej) is used uniformly as the English and almost like a particle. Of a similar nature is the asyndeton with qe,leij sulle,xwmen (Mt. 13:28) and bou,lesqe avpolu,sw (Jo. 18:39). Cf. qe,lete poih,sw (Mk. 10:36). Cf. also evgei,resqe a;gwmen (Mt. 26: 46) above. These are all paratactic in origin, though hypotaetic in logical sequence. But see chapter on Modes for further details. In the case of o[ra├ o`ra/te├ ble,pete, we can find examples of both the conjunctional use of mh, and clear cases of asyndeton with some on the border line. Thus clearly conjunctional mh, is found in blepe,tw mh. pe,sh| (1 Cor. 10:12), ble,pete mh. evpe,lqh| (Ac. 13:40), ble,pete mh. paraith,shsqe (Heb. 12:25). Asyndeton is undoubtedly in o[ra mh─ deni. mhde.n ei;ph|j (Mk. 1:44) with which compare u[page dei/xon in the same verse. Cf. also Mt. 8:4. Thus again o`ra/te mhdei.j ginwske,tw (Mt. 9:30) where note two imperatives as in o`ra/te├ mh. qroei/sqe (Mt. 24:6). But in ble,pete mh, tij u`ma/j planh,sh| (Mt. 24:4) and


o`ra/te mh, tij avpodw|/ (1 Th. 5:15) the asyndeton is more doubtful, since mh, can be regarded as a conjunction. Cf. 2 Cor. 8:20.

3. The Infinitive and Participle as Connectives. A very common connection is made between clauses by means of the infinitive or the participle, sometimes with particles like w[ste and pri,n with the infinitive or w`j├ w[sper├ kai,per, with the participle, but usually without a particle. The infinitive often is used with the article and a preposition, as evn tw|/ eivselqei/n (Lu. 9:34). Usually the infinitive is brought into the closest connection with the verb as subject ( to. ga.r qe,lein para,keitai, moi, Ro. 7:18) or object ( bou,lomai proseu,cesqai a;ndraj, 1 Tim. 2:8), or in a remoter relation, as evxh/lqen o` spei,rwn tou/ spei/rai (Mk. 4:3). The participle sometimes is an essential part of the predicate, as evpau,sato lalw/n (Lu. 5:4), or again it may be a mere addendum or preliminary or even an independent statement. Thus observe eivselqw,n├ dialego,menoj kai. pei,qwn in Ac. 19:8. As further examples of participles somewhat loosely strung together without a connective in more or less close relation to each other and the principal sentence see Ac. 12:25; 16:27; 23:27. The genitive absolute is common in such accessory participles. The only point to consider concerning the infinitive and participle here is the frequency with which they are used in the structure of the Greek sentence. Thus long sentences are easily constructed and sometimes the connection is not clear. Frequent examples of anacoluthon come from the free use of the participle, as will be shown later. See ceirotonhqei,j and stello,menoi as instances in 2 Cor. 8:19 f. By means of the infinitive and participle the Greek enjoyed much elasticity and freedom which the modern Greek has lost. In modern Greek conjunctions and finite verbs have very largely displaced the infinitive and the participle. Even in the N. T. a tendency in that direction is discernible, as is seen in the use of i[na with qe,lw (Mk. 6:25), avfi,hmi (Mk. 11:16). One is inclined to think that Viteaul overstates it when he says that the N. T. writers have a natural and general inability to combine and subordinate the elements of thought and so express them separately and make an abnormal use of asyndeton. I would rather say that there is a great simplicity and directness due partly to the colloquial style and the earnestness of the writers. They are men with a message rather than philosophical ramblers. But part of this absence of subordination may be due to the Hebrew temper as in John, and part to the general spirit of the time as less concerned, save in the


case of the Atticists, with the niceties of style. Clearness and force were the main things with these N. T. writers. They use connectives or not as best suits their purposes. But the infinitive construction and the conjunction construction must not be regarded as identical even in the N. T. Note kalo.n auvtw|/ eiv ouvk evgennh,qh (Mk. 14:21), evn tou,tw| ginw,skomen o[ti (1 Jo. 5:2), boulh. evge,neto i[na (Ac. 27:42).

(c) TWO KINDS OF STYLE. There are indeed two kinds of style in this matter, the running ( eivrome,nh) and the periodic ( evn perio,doij) or compact ( katestramme,nh), to use Aristotle's terminology.88 In the words of Blass89 the running or continuous style is character- istic of the oldest prose as well as unsophisticated, unconventional prose like the vernacular koinh, and hence is the usual form in the N. T. The periodic style, on the other hand, belongs to "artistically developed prose" like that of Demosthenes and Thucydides. As a matter of fact the O. T. narrative is also in the running style, while the prophets sometimes use the periodic. The longer N. T. sentences are usually connected by kai, or use asyndeton as shown above. But occasionally something approaching a real period appears somewhat like that of the great Greek writers, but by no means so frequently. Interesting examples of some length may be found in Lu. 1:1-4; Ac. 15:24-26; 26:10-14, 16-18; Ro. 1:1-7; 1 Pet. 3:18-22; 2 Pet. 1:2-7; Heb. 2:2-4. In Lu. 1:1-4 Blass90 notes that the protasis has three clauses and the apodosis two, while in Heb. 1:1-3 he finds some ten divisions of the sentence which is not so neatly balanced as the passage in Luke. It is noticeable that Luke uses this classic idiom nowhere else in his Gospel, while the Epistle to the Hebrews has a fluent oratorical style of no little beauty. Chapter 11 finds a splendid peroration in 12:1 f., which should belong to chapter 11 as the closing period in the discussion about the promises. Cf. a similar peroration, though not in one sentence, in Ro. 11:33-36. So also Ro. 8:31-39, where verses 38 and 39 form a really eloquent period. Blass91 indeed gives a rather free interpretation to the term period and applies it to sentences of only two parts like a conditional sentence when the condition comes first, sentences with antithesis with me,n - de,, disjunctive clauses with h; or parallelisms with te- kai,. He even finds a period in a case of asyndeton like 1 Cor. 7:27. But this is to make nearly all complex sentences periods. Blass'


opinion on this point is to be borne in mind when he argues for literary rhythm on a considerable scale in the N. T. Paul indeed has some noble periods like Eph. 1:3-14; 2:14-18; 3:14-19. He would show many more than he does but for the fact that he seems to grow impatient with the fetters of a long sentence and breaks away in anacoluthon which mars the fulness and symmetry of the sentence as a period. Cf. 2 Cor. 8:18-21; Ro. 12: 6-8; Col. 1:9-23. In Ro. 3:7 f. the kaqw,j and o[ti clauses make a not very strong culmination. The ground element in Paul's speech is the short sentence. Only occasionally does he combine these into a period.92 But Paul does use antithetic and comparative particles and apposition. One other reason for the absence of rhetorical periods is the avoidance of prolonged passages of indirect discourse. In truth none of that nature occurs at all, so that we do not have in the N. T. passages of much length in indirect discourse such as one meets in Xenophon or Thucydides (cf. Caesar). But the quotations are usually direct either with recitative o[ti (Mt. 9:18) or without (Mt. 9:22). Winer93 well remarks that what the style thus loses in periodic compactness, it gains in animation and vividness. But the use of the participle in giving periodic compactness is to be noticed, as in Ac. 23:27. The attraction of the relative to the case of its antecedent, as already observed, adds another bond of union to the compactness of the relative sentence as in Lu. 5:9.

(d) THE PARENTHESIS ( pare,nqesij). Such a clause, inserted in the midst of the sentence without proper syntactical connection, is quite common in the N. T.94 Once the editors used too many parentheses in the N. T., but the number is still considerable. The term is somewhat loosely applied to clauses that really do not interrupt the flow of the thought. Thus it is not necessary to find a parenthesis in Jo. 7:39. The ga,r clause is merely explanatory. The same thing is true of Jo. 9:30 and Ac. 13:8. Certainly not every explanatory remark is to be regarded as parenthetical. On the other hand even a relative clause may be regarded as parenthetical where it is purely by the way as the interpretation of `Rabbei, (Jo. 1:38 o[ le,getai) and of Messi,an ( o[ evstin, etc., Jo. 1:41). But see Mk. 7:11. Editors indeed will


differ as to what constitutes a parenthesis as in the case of Mk. 3:16 where W. H. use the marks of parenthesis while Nestle does not consider this a parenthesis. In Jo. 1:15 W. H. print a double parenthesis, using the dash inside the parenthetical marks. Here again Nestle has the colon instead of the clash and the full stop in lieu of the parenthetical marks. W. H. are not uniform in the indication of the parenthesis. They do it by the curved lines ( ) as in Mk. 3:16, or the dash as in Jo. 7:22; 10:12, or merely the comma as in the short phrases like fhsi,n (2 Cor. 10:10), or again with no punctuation at all as in the case of dokei/te (Heb. 10:29). The insertion of one or two words in the midst of the sentence is the simplest form of the parenthesis, like polloi,├ le,gw h`mi/n├ zhth,sousin (Lu. 13:24) and o[ti kata. du,namin├ marturw/├ kai, (2 Cor. 8:3). Cf. fhsi,n (Mt. 14:8), e;fh (Ac. 23:35), ouv yeu,domai (Ro. 9:1), evn avfrosu,nh| le,gw (2 Cor. 11:21), etc. But the insertion of fhsi,n and e;fh between words is rare in the N. T. Cf. Simcox, Language of the N. T., p. 200. A very interesting parenthesis is the insertion in the speech of Jesus to the paralytic, of le,gei tw|/ paralutikw|/ (Mk. 2:10). Mt. Mt.(9:6) adds to,te. Lu. Lu.(5:24) has ei=pen tw|/ paralelume,nw|. The Synoptists all had the same source here. These phrases, common also to the ancient Greek, do not need marks of parenthesis, and the comma is sufficient. A little more extended parenthesis is found in a clause like, o;noma auvtw|/ vIwa,nhj (Jo. 1:6), Niko,dhmoj o;noma auvtw|/ (Jo. 3:1), though this again may be considered merely a form of apposition. A more distinct parenthesis still is the insertion of a note of time like h=san de. h`me,rai tw/n avzu,mwn (Ac. 12:3). Thackeray (Gr., p. 149 note) notes a tendency in the LXX to put numeral statements in parenthesis. Note also the explanatory parenthesis in Ac. 1:15 introduced by te. Cf. also w[sei. h`me,rai ovktw, in Lu. 9:28, which can be explained oherwise. In Mt. 24:15 the parenthetical command of Matthew or of Jesus, o` avnaginw,skwn noei,tw, is indicated by W. H. only with the comma. In general the historical books have fewer parentheses than the Epistles, and naturally so. In Paul it is sometimes hard to draw the line between the mere parenthesis and anacoluthon. Cf. 1 Cor. 16:5; Ro. 5:12 (18); 9:11; 15:23-28. Ou=n may look back beyond the parenthesis as in Jo. 4:7 ff. (Abbott, Johannine Grammar, p. 470). See Jo. 10:35 kai. ouv du,natai luqh/nai h` grafh,. Cf. the sharp interruption in Jo. 4:1-3. In Gal. 2:5 f. we have two parentheses right together marked by the dash in W. H.'s text, besides anacoluthon. Cf. Lu. 23:51, Col. 1:21 f. for parenthesis of some length. But see 2 Pet. 2:8 for a still longer


one, not to mention 2 Cor. 9:12; Heb. 7:20 f.; Lu. 6:4. See Viteau, Etude, 1896, p. 11. As illustrating once more the wide difference of opinion concerning the parenthesis, Blass95 comments on the harshness of the parenthesis in Ac. 5:14, while W. H. do not consider that there is a parenthesis in the sentence at all. At bottom the parenthesis in the text is a matter of exegesis. Thus if in Jo. 13:1 ff. eivj te,loj hvga,phsen auvtou,j be regarded as a parenthesis and verses 1-5 be considered one sentence (note repetition of eivdw,j) a much simpler construction is the result.96 Instead of a parenthesis a writer switches off to one aspect of a subject and then comes back in another sentence as Paul does in 1 Cor. 8:1-4. He resumes by the repetition of peri.──eivdwloqu,twn oi;damen. Cf. also a similar resumption in Eph. 3:14 tou,tou ca,rin after the long digression in verses 1-13. This construction is not, however, a technical parenthesis.

(e) ANACOLUTHON. But a more violent break in the connection of sentences than the parenthesis is anacoluthon. This is merely the failure to complete a sentence as intended when it was begun ( avnako,louqon). The completion does not follow grammatically from the beginning. The N. T. writers are not peculiar in this matter, since even in an artistic orator like Isocrates such grammatical blemishes, if they be so considered, are found.97 And a careful historian like Thucydides will have e;doxen auvtoi/j- evpikalou/ntej (iii. 36. 2). It is just in writers of the greatest mental activity and vehemence of spirit that we meet most instances of anacoluthon. Hence a man with the passion of Paul naturally breaks away from formal rules in the structure of the sentence when he is greatly stirred, as in Gal. and 2 Cor. Such violent changes in the sentence are common in conversation and public addresses. The dialogues of Plato have many examples. The anacoluthon may be therefore either intentional or unintentional. The writer may be led off by a fresh idea or by a parenthesis, or he may think of a better way of finishing his sentence, one that will be more effective. The very jolt that is given by the anacoluthon is often successful in making more emphasis. The attention is drawn anew to the sentence to see what is the matter. Some of the anacolutha belong to other languages with equal pertinence, others are peculiar to the Greek genius. The participle in particular is a very common occasion


for anacoluthon. The Apocalypse, as already shown, has many examples of anacoluthon. The more important N. T. illustrations of anacoluthon will now be given. It is difficult to make a clear grouping of the examples of anacoluthon in the N. T. on any scientific principle. But the following will answer.

1. The Suspended Subject. What Abbott98 calls the suspended subject finds illustration elsewhere than in John, though he does have his share. It may be looked at indeed as suspended object as well sometimes. The point is that the substantive, pronoun or participle is left by the wayside and the sentence is completed some other way. Thus in pa/n r`h/ma avrgo.n oa} lalh,sousin oi` a;nqrwpoi avpodw,sousin peri. auvtou/, (Mt. 12:36) observe how pa/n r`h/ma is dropped in the construction and peri. auvtou/ used. In pa/j ou=n o[stij o`mologh,─ sei- o`mologh,sw kavgw. evn auvtw|/ (Mt. 10:32) the same principle holds in regard to pa/j and evn auvtw|/. But in the same verse the regular construction obtains in o[stij avrnh,shtai- avrnh,somai kavgw. auvto,n. In Lu. 6:47 pa/j o` erco,menoj ktl)├ u`podei,xw u`mi/n ti,ni evsti.n o[moioj we see a similar anacoluthon unless pa/j o` evrc) be regarded as a rather violent prolepsis of the subject, which is not so likely in this instance. In Lu. 11:11 the anacoluthon is not quite so simple, though ti,na is after all left to itself ( ti,na de. evx u`mw/n to.n pate,ra aivth,sei o` ui`o.j ivcqu,n├ mh avnti. ivcqu,oj o;fin auvtw|/ evpidw,sei;). If instead of ti,na the sentence read eiv or eva,n, all would go smoothly except that evx u``mw/n would be slightly awkward. Observe that aivth,sei has two accusatives without ti,na. The apodosis is introduced by and as an interrogative clause expects the answer "no." But in spite of the grammatical hopelessness of the sentence it has great power. In Lu. 12:48 the matter is simpler ( panti. de. w|- evdo,qh polu,├ polu. zhthqh,─ setai par v au`tou/). Here two things are true. We not only have the stranded subject (cf. par v autou/), but it has been attracted into the case of the relative (inverse attraction), panti,, not pa/j. With this compare pa/j oa}j evrei/- avfeqh,setai auvtw|/ (Lu. 12:10). In 2 Cor. 12:17 we merely have the anacoluthon without any attraction, tina expecting a verb governing the accusative $mh, tina w-n avpe,stalka pro.j u`ma/j├ di v auvtou/ evpleone,kthsa u`ma/j*%) Here indeed w-n is attracted into the case of tou/wn unexpressed. A simpler instance is o` Mwu─ sh/j ou-toj- oi;damen ti, evge,neto auvtw|/ (Ac. 7:40; Ex. 32:1). Blass99 finds anacoluthon in Mk. 9:20 ( ivdw.n auvto.n to. pneu/ma sunespa,─ raxen auvto,n), but surely this is merely treating pneu/ma as masculine (natural gender). But in Ac. 19:34 ( evpigno,ntej de. o[ti vIoudai/i,oj evstin fwnh. evge,neto mi,a evk pa,ntwn) there is a clear case of anacoluthon in


the change to evk pa,ntwn. The writings of John show similar illustrations. There is no anacoluthon in Jo. 6:22 in the text of W. H., which reads ei=don o[ti instead of ivdw.n o[ti- o[te (margin of W. H.). But in 6:39 there is real anacoluthon ( pa/n oa} de,dwke,n moi mh. avpole,sw evx auvtou/) in the change from pa/n to evx auvtou/. It is possible to regard pa/n mh, here100 as equivalent to ouvdei,j and not like pa/j- mh, in Jo. 3:16. In 7:38 another suspended subject is found in o` pi─ steu,wn eivj evme, (cf. auvtou/ further on). But 10:36 is hardly anacoluthon,101 since one has merely to supply the demonstrative evkei,nw| or the personal pronoun auvtw|/ with le,gete to make the sentence run smoothly. In 15:2 pa/n klh/ma- auvto, we have very slight anacoluthon, if any, since both may be in the same case (cf. resumptive use of ou-toj%. But in 15:5 the matter is complicated by the insertion of kavgw. evn auvtw|/ $o` me,nwn evn evmoi. kavgw. evn auvtw|/ ou-toj fe,rei%) In 17:2 ( pa/n oa} de,dwkaj auvtw|/ dw,sei auvtoi/j) we have the more usual anacoluthon. In 1 Jo. 2:24 ( u`mei/j o[ hvkou,sate avp v avrch/j evn u`mi/n mene,tw) u`mei/j may be merely prolepsis, but this seems less likely in verse 27 ( u`mei/j to. cri,sma o[ evla,bete avp v auvtou/ me,nei evn u`mi/n), where note the position of u`mei/j and evn u`mi/n. In Rev. 2:26 the anacoluthon ( o` nikw/n─dw,sw auvtw|/) does not differ from some of those above.102 So also as to Rev. 3:12, 21, but in 2:7, 17 ( tw|/ nikw/nti dw,sw auvtw|/) the case is the same and may be compared with Jo. 15:2, 5. Cf. the probable reading (W. H. bracket auvtw|/) in Rev. 6:4 as well as Mt. 4:16 (LXX); 5: 40 ( tw|/ qe,lonti- auvtw|/), where there is no real anacoluthon, but a resumptive use of auvtw|/. Cf. also u`ma/j repeated after parenthesis in Col. 1:22. The LXX has other similar examples like Josh. 9:12; Ps. 103:15. A similar resumptive use of 4) occurs in the text (not marg. in W. H.) of Ro. 16:27. In a similar way a relative clause may be left as a suspended subject or object, as in Lu. 9:5, o[soi a'n mh. de,cwntai u`ma/j- avpotina,ssete evp v auvtou,j. Cf. Mt. 10:14; Lu. 10:8, 10. Cf. this with the very common use of resumptive oirros after the article and the participle, like o` u`pomei,naj eivj te,loj ou-toj swqh,setai, (Mt. 10:22).

2. Digression. A somewhat more complicated kind of anacoluthon is where a digression is caused by an intervening sentence or explanatory clause. Those naturally occur mainly in the Epistles of Paul where his energy of thought and passion of soul overleap all trammels. In Jo. 5:44 the participle is dropped for the indicative zhtei/te. In Jo. 21:12 ( ouvdei.j evto,lma tw/n maqhtw/n evxeta,sai auvto,n Su. ti,j ei=* eivdo,tej) the question breaks the smooth flow and eivdo,tej


agrees in case with ouvdei,j and number with maqhtw/n. With this compare the change from i[na mh. ai;rwsin in Mk. 6:8 to the infinitive mh. evndu,sasqai in verse 9. Nestle has, however, evndu,shsqe. In Mk. 7:19 ( kaqari,zwn pa,nta ta. brw,mata) the participle can be connected in thought, as Mark probably did, with le,gei in verse 18, but the intervening quotation makes Mark's explanatory addendum a real anacoluthon. The example in Jo. 1:15 Abbott103 calls "impressionism" due to the writer's desire to make his impression first and then to add the explanatory correction. He compares 4:1 with 3:22. In 1:15 ou-toj h=n oa}n ei=pon is taken by Abbott as a part of the Baptist's statement, but W. H. read ou-toj h=n o` eivpw,n as a parenthetical remark of the writer. So in Jo. 20:18 kai. tau/ta ei=pen auvth|/ does not fit in exactly after o[ti `Ew,raka to.n ku,rion. The added clause is the comment of John, not of Mary. The margin of Ac. 10:36 (W. H.) with oa}n is a case of anacoluthon, but the text itself is without o[n. In Ac. 24:6 the repetition of oa}n kai, leaves eu`ro,n─ tej cut off from evkrath,samen. In Ac. 27:10 ( qewrw/ o[ti- me,llein) the o[ti clause is changed to the infinitive, a phenomenon noted by Winer104 in Plato, Gorg. 453 b. The anacoluthon in Gal. 2:6 ( avpo. de. tw/n dokou,ntwn ei=nai ti- o`poi/oi, pote h=san ouvde,n moi diafe,rei pro,swpon o` qeo.j avnqrw,pou ouv lamba,nei- evmoi. ga.r oi` dokou/ntej ouvde.n prosane,qento) is noteworthy for the complete change of construction as shown by the repetition of the oi` dokou/ntej in the nominative and followed by the middle instead of the passive voice. Observe the two parentheses that led to the variation. It is easier in such a case to make a new start, as Paul does here. In Gal. 2:5 Blass105 follows D in omitting oi-j in order to get rid of the anacoluthon, as he does also in Ro. 16:27 ( w|-%, but it is more than likely that the difficulty of the anacoluthon with oi-j led to the omission in D. One of the most striking anacolutha in Paul's Epistles is found at the end of Ro. 5:12 where the apodosis to the w[sper clause is wanting. The next sentence ( a;cri ga,r) takes up the subordinate clause evf v w|- h[marton and the comparison is never completed. In verse 18 a new comparison is drawn in complete form. The sentence in Ro. 9:22-24 is without the apodosis and verse 25 goes on with the comparative w`j. 2 Pet. 1:17 shows a clear anacoluthon, for the participle labw,n is left stranded utterly in the change to kai. tau,thn th.n fwnh.n h`mei/j hvkou,samen) Winer106 seems to be wrong in finding an anacoluthon in the long sentence in 2 Pet. 2:4-10. The apodosis is really oi=den in verse 9 (verse 8 being a long parenthesis as W. H. rightly punc-


tuate). However, Winer107 is justified in refusing to see anacoluthon in many passages formerly so regarded and that call for no discussion now. See further Mt. 7: 9; 12:36; Mk. 2:28; 7:3 f.; Lu. 11:11 f.; 12:8, 10; 21:6; Jo. 6:39; 17:18; Ac. 15:22 ff.; 19:34; 24:20; 26:3; Ro. 16:25-27; 1 Cor. 9:15; Col. 2:2; 4:6; Eph. 3: 8; 2 Cor. 7: 5; 1 Th. 4:1; Heb. 3:15; 10:15 f.; 1 Tim. 1:3-5; Ju. 16. It is very common in the Apocalypse as in 2 Corinthians and Galatians.

3. The Participle in Anacolutha. It calls for a word of its own in the matter of anacoluthon, although, as a matter of fact, it occurs in both the kinds of anacoluthon already noticed. The reason is, the free use of the participle in long sentences (cf. Paul) renders it peculiarly subject to anacoluthon. The point with the participle is not that it is a special kind of anacoluthon in any other sense. Gal. 6 1, katarti,zete├ skopw/n seauto,n├ mh. kai. su. peirasqh|/j may be regarded as anacoluthon in the change of number, but it is a natural singling-out of the individual in the application. In 2 Cor. 5:12 the ellipsis of gra,fomen tau/ta with dido,ntej is so harsh as to amount to anacoluthon. Cf. also qlibo,menoi in 2 Cor. 7:5. It is less certain about stello,menoi in 2 Cor. 8:20, for, skipping the long parenthesis,in verse 19, we have sunepe,myamen. But in the parenthesis itself ceirotonhqei,j is an example of anacoluthon, for regularly evceirotonh,qh would be the form. In 2 Cor. 9:11, 13, the participles ploutizo,menoi and doxa,zontej have no formal connection with a principal verb and are separated by a long parenthesis in verse 12. But these participles may be after all tantamount to the indicative and not mere anacoluthon. Just as sequimini (sec. pl. mid. ind.) = e`po,menoi, so other Greek participles may correspond to the indicative or imperative.108 Moulton109 cites numerous examples from the papyri which make this possible for the koinh,. But Moulton110 sees a sharp difference between the "hanging nominative" like e;cwn o` no,moj in Heb. 10:1 (if du,natai be accepted, W. H. du,natai marg.) and e;contej in Ph. 1:30, where, however, W. H. make a long parenthesis and seek to connect e;contej with sth,kete (verse 27). These are indeed mere anacolutha, but one wonders if the connection between these and Ro. 12:6 ( e;contej) is so very distant after all. Participles are scattered along in this chapter in an "unending series"111 mingled with infinitives and imperatives. Thus in 12:9-13 we have participles, verse 14 the


imperative, verse 15 infinitive, verse 16 a participles, 16b imperative, 17 participles. Here the participle does seem to be practically equivalent to the imperative (cf. inf. also). See Participle (Verbal Nouns) for discussion of this point. In 2 Cor. 6:3 the participles skip over verse 2 and carry on the construction of verse 1, and it is resumed in verse 9. For a group of participles with the imperative see Eph. 5:15-22. Cf. also Col. 3:16. The point is that these various gradations in the use of the participle are not always clearly defined. As regards the nominative participle rather than the genitive absolute, Winer112 remarks that thus the participle gains greater prominence in the sentence. In Eph. 4:2 avneco,menoi may not be anacoluthon, but may be in accord with h-j evklh,qhte. Col. 1:26 is the case of the indicative rather than a participle ( evfnerw,qh, not pefanerwme,non). See 1 Cor. 7:37 where e;cwn is succeeded by e;cei├ but (W. H.) evgei,raj kai. kaqi,saj (Eph. 1:20). Cf. Rev. 2:2, 9. As to Heb. 8:10 (10:16) didou,j is explained by Winer113 as referring to diaqh,somai without anacoluthon, while Moulton114 considers it equal to an indicative and parallel to evpigra,yw. I am inclined to agree with Winer on this point. In 2 Cor. 5:6 Paul, after using qarrou/ntej, repeats it in the form of qarrou/men because of the intermediate clauses before he expresses euvdokou/men the main verb.115 Finally compare evf v oa}n a'n i;dh|j to. pneu/ma katabai/non kai. me,non evp v auvto,n (Jo. 1:33) with to. pneu/ma katabai/non w`j peristera.n evx ouvranou/├ kai. e;meinen evp v auvto,n (verse 32), where the last clause is the comment of the Baptist to give special emphasis to that point, more than the participle would.

4. Asyndeton Due to Absence of de, and avlla,. Winer116 considers the absence of de, or avlla, to correspond with me,n as a species of anacoluthon, and Blass117 shares the same idea. As a matter of fact (see chapter on Particles) me,n does not require de, either by etymology or usage. It is rather gratuitous to call such absence an instance of anacoluthon. The examples will be discussed later, such as Ac. 1:1; 13:4; Ro. 11:13, etc.


1. Distinction from Anacoluthon. Sometimes indeed the line between anacoluthon and oratio variata is not very clearly drawn. Thus in Lu. 17:31 ( o[j e;stai evpi. tou/ dw,matoj kai. ta. skeu,h auvtou/ evn th|/ oivki,a|) the second clause cannot repeat the relative o[j, but has to use auvtou/. Cf. 1 Cor. 8:6 ( evx ou-──kai. eivj auvto,n), 2 Pet. 2:3 ( oi-j kai. auvtw/n). So also in 1 Cor. 7:13 auvth/j repeats h[tij) Cf. Rev. 17:2.


In Ro. 2:6 ff. after the relative clause o[j avpodw,sei there is a subdivision of the object, on the one hand ( toi/j me.n - zhtou/sin zwh.n aivw,nion), on the other ( toi/j de. ──avdiki,a| ovrgh. kai. qumo,j) where the nominative changes the construction and o[j cannot here be repeated. In Ro. 11:22 indeed both of the phrases that extend the accusatives crhsto,thta kai, avpotomi,an qeou/ are put in the nominative ( avpotomi,a├ crhsto,thj). In Gal. 4:6 f. Paul changes from evste, to ei=. This is all oratio variata in reality and is in accord with the ancient Greek idiom. Blass118 considers Tit. 1:2 f. an instance of oratio variata, but to.n lo,gon in all probability is to be regarded as in apposition with which is the object both of evphggei,lato and evfane,rwsen. Thus W. H., but Nestle agrees with Blass.

2. Heterogeneous Structure. That is what oratio variata really is and it can be illustrated by a number of passages other than the relative and with less element of obscurity about them. In Rev. 2:18 o` e;cwn is followed by kai. auvtou/ just like the relative sentences above. Thus also 2 Jo. 1:2. In Rev. 7:9 after ei=don kai. ivdou, we find a mixed construction, o;cloj e`stw/tej (constr. kata. su,nesin) with ivdou,├ peribeblhme,nouj with ei=don. Winer119 rightly distinguishes the variation in case in Rev. 18:12 f. (gen., acc., gen., acc.) and the similar phenomenon in Rev. 2:17 where there is a real distinction between the use of the genitive and the accusative. The use of u`podede─ me,nouj in Mk. 6:8 is probably due to the ellipse of poreu,esqai, for the correct text has mh. evndu,sasqai just after. For similar ellipse and oratio variata see 2 Cor. 8:23. In Mk. 12:38 after qelo,ntwn peripatei/n it looks like a sudden change to find avspasmou,j, but after all both are in the accusative with qelo,ntwn. The irregularity in Mk. 3:16 is met in the text of W. H. by a parenthesis, but it could have been cleared up also by w|- (referring to Pe,tron, instead of kai, as Winer120 suggests). In Jo. 8:53 the continuity of the interrogative form of sentence is abruptly broken by the short clause kai. oi` pro─ fh/tai avpe,qanon, a very effective interruption, however. The case of 1 Jo. 2:2 is simple where instead of peri. tw/n o[lou tou/ ko,smou (to be parallel with ouv peri. tw/n h`mete,rwn) John has merely peri. o[lou tou/ ko,smou, a somewhat different conception. A similar example is found in Ac. 20:34 as between tai/j crei,aij mou and toi/j ou=si met v evmou/) Heb. 9:7 furnishes the same point in inverse order $u`pe.r e`autou/ kai. tw/n tou/ laou/ avgnohma,twn). A lack of parallel is shown also in Ph. 2:22 between patri. te,knon and su.n evmoi, where Paul purposely puts in su,n to break a too literal carrying out of the figure. In Rev. 1:6 the correct text in the parenthesis has


h`ma/j basilei,an├ i`erei/j tw|/ qew|/, a different conception from basilei/j. See further Ac. 16:16 f.

3. Participles in Oratio Variata. These offer a frequent occasion for oratio variata, since they can so often be used parallel with subordinate clauses of various kinds. Thus in Jo. 5:44 lamba,nontej would naturally be followed by zhtou/ntej, but we have zhtei/te. So, on the other hand, in 1 Cor. 7:13 kai. suneudokei/, does not fit in as smoothly with a;piston as kai. suneudokou/nta would. The same lack of parallel in the use of the participle is seen in Jo. 15:5 ( o` me,nwn kavgw,) and in Lu. 17:31 where the relative and the participle are paired off. So also Ph. 1:23 and 1 Jo. 3:24. Cf. the Participle in Anacolutha. In Ro. 12:6 f. participles and substantives are placed in antithesis, as in 2 Cor. 6:3 f. we have participles, in 4-7a evn, in 7b f. dia,, in 9 f. adjectives and participles. Cf. 2 Cor. 11:23 ff. Where adverbs, adjuncts and verbs are in antithesis.

4. Exchange of Direct and Indirect Discourse. But the most striking instance of oratio variata is that between direct and indirect discourse. It is either from the indirect to the direct or from the direct to the indirect. As Blass121 justly observes, the N. T. writers, like all popular narrators, deal very little in indirect discourse. The accusative and the infinitive is not common in the old sense nor is o[ti always the sign of indirect quotation. Frequently it is merely recitative o[ti and corresponds to our quotationmarks, as in Mk. 14:14, ei;pate tw|/ oivkodespo,th| o[ti `O dida,skaloj le,gei. So also u`mei/j le,gete o[ti blasfhmei/j (Jo. 10:36). This reversion to one form of discourse from another is not unknown to the ancient Greek. But it is peculiarly in harmony with the N. T. vernacular and essentially vivid narrative style. In Lu. 5:14 we have a typical instance of the change from indirect to direct discourse ( parh,ggeilen auvtw|/ mhdeni. eivpei/n├ avll v avpelqw.n dei/xon seauto,n%) Exactly parallel with this is Ac. 1:4 avlla. perime,nein th.n evpaggeli,an tou/ patro.j h[n hvkou,sate, mou where observe mou. Cf. also Ac. 17:3 where after diele,xato o[ti- o` vIhsou/j Luke concludes with the direct words of Paul oa}n evgw. katagge,llw u`mi/n. In Jo. 13:29 we have the reverse process where the writer drops from the direct to the indirect statement ( avgo,rason w-n crei,an e;comen eivj th.n e`orth,n├ h' toi/j ptwcoi/j i[na ti dw|/). So also we see the same thing in Ac. 23:23 f. ( e`toima,sate- th/j nukto,j├ kth,nh te parasth/sai i[na - diasw,swsin). But in Ac. 23:22 the other change occurs, as paraggei,laj mhdeni. evkla─ lh/sai o[ti tau/ta evnefa,nisaj pro.j evme,. In W. H.'s text of Ro. 12:1f.


we have parkalw/ u`ma/j parasth/sai\ kai. mh. sunschmati,zesqe (not ──sqai). In Mk. 11:32 the writer proceeds with his own remarks ( evfobou/nto to.n o;clon) after the question rather' in the nature of anacoluthon, though in Mt. 21:26 fobou,meqa is read as indeed a few MSS. do in Mark. So also Mt. 9:6, where the writer injects into the words of Jesus to,te le,gei tw|/ paralutikw|/, we probably have anacoluthon rather than oratio variata (see (d) , Parenthesis).

(g) CONNECTION BETWEEN SEPARATE SENTENCES. So far we have been considering the matter of connection between the various parts of the same sentence, whether simple or compound, and the various complications that arise. But this is not all. The Greeks, especially in the literary style, felt the propriety of indieating the inner relation of the various independent sentences that composed a paragraph. This was not merely an artistic device, but a logical expression of coherence of thought. Particles like kai,├ de,├ avlla,├ ga,r├ ou=n├ dh,, etc., were very common in this connection. Demonstrative pronouns, adverbs, and even relative pronouns were also used for this purpose. I happen to open at Mt. 24:32-51 a paragraph of some length. The first sentence begins with de,) The sentences in verses 33 and 34 have asyndeton and so are without a connective. In verse 36 de, reappears, while the two sentences in verses 37 and 38 both have ga,r. Verse 40 begins with to,te, a common word in this usage in Matthew, as evn auvth|/ th|/ w[ra|, is in Luke. Verse 42 begins with ou=n as its connective, while 43 drops back to de,) In 44 dia. tou/to answers as a link of union while 45 uses a;ra. Verses 46 f. have asyndeton while 48 has de,) This long sentence completes the paragraph save the short sentence in verse 51 introduced by evkei/. I think this paragraph a fair sample of the didactic portion of the Gospels. Asyndeton occurs, but it is not the rule. In the Gospel of John ou=n is a much more frequent connective between sentences than kai,, as any chapter (11 for instance) will show. The Beatitudes (Mt. 5:3-12) have no connectives at all, and are all the more effective because of the asyndeton. Winer122 finds this didactic asyndeton common also in James, the Gospel of John (cf. 14-17) and 1 John. But asyndeton is sometimes noticeable also in the non-didactic portions of John, as 20:14-18. No formal rules on the subject can be made, as the individual speaker or writer follows his mood of the moment in the matter. The point is to observe that, while asyndeton often occurs, in general Greek writers even in the N. T. use connectives between separate sentences.


(h) CONNECTION BETWEEN PARAGRAPHS. It is only natural to carry the matter one step further and unite paragraph with paragraph. For a discussion of the origin of the paragraph see the chapter on Orthography and Phonetics. The paragraphs in our printed Greek texts are partly the work of the modern editors, yet not wholly so. But even in real or original paragraphs the connection varies greatly. In some there will be none at all, but an entirely new theme will be presented, whereas with others we merely have a new aspect of the same subject. I happen to turn to the sixth chapter of John. The chapter opens with meta. tau/ta├ a real connective that refers to the incidents in chapter 5, which may have been a full year before. The next paragraph in W. H. begins at verse 14 and has ou=n. At verse 22 there is no connective except tw|/ evpau,rion which may be compared with the to,te of Matthew. The paragraph at verse 41 has ou=n again, which is very common in John in this connection, as can be seen illustrated also in verses 52 and 60. At verse 66 the paragraph begins with - evk tou,tou a real connective. If we go into chapter 7 we find kai, in verse 1, de, in verse 10, de, again in verse 14, ou=n in verse 25, no connective in verse 32, de, in verse 37, ou=n in verse 45. Asyndeton on the whole is rather more frequent in the Gospel of John than in the Synoptic Gospels.123 Abbott124 gives a detailed discussion of the kinds of asyndeton in John. In Paul's Epistles one would expect little asyndeton between the paragraphs especially in the argumentative portions. In general this is true, and yet occasionally even in Ro. asyndeton is met as in 9:1; 13:1. But in chapter 8 every paragraph has its connective particle. Note also ou=n in 12:1 at the beginning of the hortatory portion after the long preceding argument. As between sentences, there is freedom in the individual expression on the subject. For Hort's theory of the paragraph see Intr. to N. T. in Gr., p. 319. By means of spaces he has a system of sub-paragraphs, as is plain in, the text of W. H.

XIII. Forecast. There are other things to be considered in the construction of the sentence, but enough has been treated in this chapter. What remains in syntax is the minute examination of the relations of words (cases, prepositions, pronouns, verbs in mood and voice and tense, infinitives and participles), the relations of clause with clause in the use of subordinating conjunctions, the particles, figures of speech (aposiopesis, ellipsis, paronomasia, zeugma, etc.). There is a natural order in the development of these matters which will be followed as far as possible in the dis-


cussion of syntax. The individual words come before the relation of sentences or clauses. In the discussion of words either nouns or verbs could be taken up first, but, as verbs are connected more closely with conjunctions than nouns they are best treated just before conjunctional clauses. Prepositions are properly discussed after cases. The article is a variation of the demonstrative pronoun. But at best no treatment of syntax can handle every aspect and phase of language. The most that can be achieved is a presentation of the essential principles of N. T. syntax so that the student will be able to interpret his Greek N. T. according to correct grammatical principles derived from living language of the time.

1 K.-G., I, p. 1. Cf. Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., III, p. 623; Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., 1. Tl., pp. 73-85.

2 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 235. Opposed to this idea of a sentence as due to synthesis is the modern psychological definition of Wundt who defines a sentence as "die Gliederung einer Gesamtvorstellung."

3 Strong, Logeman and Wheeler, Intr. to the Study of the Hist. of Lang., 1891, p. 93. Cf. Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. iii; Sayce, Prin. of Comp. Philol., p. 136.

4 Thompson, Gk. Synt., 1883, p. xv. Delbruck (Vergl. Synt., 1. Tl., p. 77) quotes Schleicher as saying that nouns either have or had case-forms, verbs either have or had pers. endings, and that all words were originally either nouns or verbs. But it is not quite so easy as that unless pronouns be included in nouns.

5 K.-G., I, p. 2.

6 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 236. On sentence-building see Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., III, pp. 623-774.

7 Ib., p. 624 f. The mod. Gk. shows it (Thumb, Handb., p. 179). Sir W. R. Nicoll in Br. W. instances the Scotch "aweel."

8 See Viteau, Et. sur le Grec du N. T., Sujet, Compl. et Attr., p. 55 f.

9 Prol., p. 17.

10 On the whole matter of subjectless sentences see Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., 3. Tl., pp. 23-37. Cf. Gildersleeve, Gk. Synt., pp. 35-41, for classical illustrations of the absence of the subject. Cf. also Moulton, Rev., 1901, p. 436, for exx. in the pap. of the absence of the subject in standing formulas.

11 W.-Th., p. 587. Cf. also Gildersleeve, Gk. Synt., pp. 41-44, for class. exx. of the omission of the pred. The ellipsis of the pred. is common in the Attic inscr. Cf. Meisterh., p. 196.

12 Cf. Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., 3. Tl., p. 12, for the origin of the copula, and pp. 15-22 for the adj., adv., subst. (oblique cases as well as nom. as pred.). Cf. also Gildersleeve, Gk. Synt., pp. 30-35.

13 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 73. Cf. Gildersleeve, Gk. Synt., pp. 41-43,

14 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 74.

15 W.-Th., p. 586,

16 Ib,

17 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 74.

18 Prol., p. 11.

19 Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 236.

20 Cf. Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., III, p. 631.

21 K.-G., I, p. 7.

22 Gk. Synt., p. 126.

23 As a matter of fact any substantive, whatever its place in the sentence, may be the nucleus of a similar grouping. But this is a further subdivision to be noticed later. On the grouping of words around the subst. see Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., 3. Tl., pp. 200-221. For various ways of grouping words around the subj. in a Gk. sentence see K.-G., I, p. 52.

24 Kurze vergl. Gr., III, p. 634 f. Cf. K.-G., I, pp. 77-82; Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., pp. 154-181.

25 Prol., p. 57.

26 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 78.

27 Ib. On the whole subject of concord in number see K.-G., I, pp. 82-88; Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., 3. Tl., pp. 230-239; Gildersleeve, Gk. Synt., pp. 52-55.

28 Moulton, Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, p. 436.

29 W.-Th., p. 514 f.

30 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 78.

31 Ib., p. 79.

32 Prol., p. 58. Sometimes Shakespeare used a singular verb for the sake of metre (Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 65), at other times more like our mod. Eng.: "It is now a hundred years since," etc. Cf. Gk. e;stin oi[, etc. Cf. also Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 18; Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 263-268.

33 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 80.

34 Ib., p. 166.

35 W.-Th., p. 517.

36 Prol., p. 86.

37 Der schriftstell. Plu. bei Paulus (1900), p. 18.

38 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 166.

39 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 166.

40 Dick, Der schriftstell. Plu. bei Paulus, 1900, p. 53. Milligan, St. Paul's Epist. to the Thess., 1908, p. 131 f. agrees with Dick.

41 Cf. also Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., 1. Tl., pp. 133-172, 3. Tl., pp. 240-248; K.-G., Bd. I, pp. 271 ff.; Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 369-373.

42 But Moulton (Cl. Rev., Apr., 1904, p. 151) cites from the pap. numerous false gender concords like th.n peptwko,ta, etc. Cf. Reinhold, De Graec. etc., p. 57; Krumbacher, Prob. d. neugr. Schriftspr., p. 50.

43 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 8 1 .

44 Prol., p. 59.

45 W.-Sch., p. 255.

46 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 76.

47 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 254.

48 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 77.

49 On the subject of gender see Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., 1. Tl., pp. 89-133; Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 365-369.

50 The exx. of this indecl. use of plh,rhj are abundant in MSS. of the N. T., occurring in most passages of the N. T. See Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 81. The pap. confirm the N. T. MSS. See Moulton, Prol., p. 50. See ch. VII, 2, (f), of this book, for details.

51 Exp., Jan., 1904, p. 71; Cl. Rev., Apr., 1904, p. 151; Prol., pp. 9, 60.

52 Cl. Rev., Apr., 1904, p. 151; Prol., p. 9.

53 Ib. Merch. of Venice, iii, 2. Cf. also Harrison, Prol. to the Study of Gk. Rel., p. 168. In the Attic inscr. the noun is found in apposition with the abl., the loc. and in absolute expressions. Cf. Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 203 f.

54 Prol., p. 9. See also Zahn's Intr., ž 74.

55 Cf. Gildersleeve, Gk. Spit., p. 3; Brag., Griech, Gr., pp. 373-376.

56 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 287.

57 Jann., Hist. Gk, Gr., p. 312.

58 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 287.

59 W,-Th., p. 551,

60 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 289.

61 Porphyrios Logothetes as quoted by Agnes Lewis Smith in Exp. Times, Feb., 1908, p. 237.

62 Boldt, De lib. Ling. Grac. et Lat. Colloc. Verb. Capita Sel., p. 186.

63 Theol. Literaturzeit., 1906, p. 434; Exp., Jan., 1908, p. 74.

64 Die Rhythmen der asian. and rim. Kunstprosa, 1905, pp. 43, 53.

65 Ib., pp. 73 f., 77. Cf. Hadley, On Anc. Gk. Rhythm and Metre in Ess. Phil. and Crit., pp. 81 ff.

66 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 288. Cf. Zarncke, Die Entstehung der griech. Literatursprachen, p. 5 f., for good remarks about rhythm. See also Dewing, The Orig. of the Accentual Prose Rhythm in Gk., Am. Jour, of Philol., 1910, pp. 313-328.

67 The Cities of Paul, 1908, pp. 6, 10, 34. Cf. Hicks, St. Paul and Hellen.

68 J. H. Smith, Short Stud. on the Gk. Text of the Acts of the Apost., Pref.

69 J. H. Moulton, Intr. to the Study of N. T. Gk., p. 7.

70 Die griech. Lit. des Altert., p. 159. Tl. I, Abt. 8, Die Kultur der Gegenw., 1907. W. H. P. Hatch, J.B.L., 1909, p. 149 f., suggests t v avg. in Jas. 1:17.

71 Beitr. zur Gesch. der Gk. Phil. and Rel., 1905, p. 3 f. J. Weiss, Beitr. zur Paulin. Rhet., 1897, p. 167 f.

72 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 297 f.

73 Cf., for instance, Gersdorf, Beitr. zur Sprachcharakt. d. Schriftst. d. N.T., 1816, pp. 90, 502.

74 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 290.

75 Prol., pp. 100 ff. Cf. also LXX, as Amos 1:1; 4:7, etc.

76 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 291.

77 Ib.

78 On the whole subject of the position of words in the sentence see K.-G., Bd. II, pp. 592-604.

79 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 135,

80 On the whole subject of connection in sentences see Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., 3. TI., pp. 406-437; Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 551-566; K.-G., Bd. 11, pp. 224-515. On asyndeton in general see Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., pp. 342-358.

81 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 277.

82 Ib.

83 Gr. of N. T. Gr., p. 276.

84 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 134. On the subject of asyndeton in John see Abbott, pp. 69 ff,

85 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 276.

86 W.-Th., p. 538.

87 W.-Th., p. 541.

88 Le Verbe, Synt. des Prop., p. 9.

89 Arist. Rhet., iii. 9. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 275, who amplifies this point.

90> Ib.

91 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 280.

92 J. Weiss, Beitr. zur Paulin. Rhet., Theol. Stud., 1897, p. 167.

93 W.-Th., p. 545.

94 For the Joh. use of parenthesis see Abbott, Joh. Gr., pp. 470-480. John is fond of the resumptive ay after a parenthesis, as in 2:18; 3:25; 4:28. On the parenthesis in general see K.-G., Bd. II, pp. 353, 602.

95 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 279.

96 S. M. Provence, Rev. and Exp., 1905, p. 96.

97 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 282. On the anacoluthon see K.-G., Bd. II, pp. 588-592.

98 Joh. Gr., p. 32.

99 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 283.

100 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 283.

101 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 33.

102 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 283, calls it a "very awkward instance."

103 Joh. Gr., p. 34.

104 W.-Th., p. 573.

105 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 284.

106 W.-Th., p. 569.

107 Ib., p. 571.

108 Moulton, Prol., p. 223.

109 Ib.

110 Ib., p. 225.

111 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 285.

112 W.-Th., p. 572.

113 Ib., p. 573.

114 Prol., p. 224.

115 W.-Th., p. 573.

116 Ib.

117 Op. cit., p. 286.

118 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 286.

119 W.-Th., p. 579.

120 Ib.

121 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 286.

122> W.-Th., p. 536.

123 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 70 f.

124 Ib. Cf. W.-Th., p. 537.