I. History of the Interpretation of the Greek Cases.

(a) CONFUSION. Perhaps nowhere has confusion been worse confounded than in the study of the Greek cases. The tendency has been usually to reason backwards and to explain past phenomena by present conditions. The merely logical method of syntax has turned the pyramid on its apex and has brought untold error into grammar.1 The Stoics took interest in grammar for philosophical purposes and gave the logical bent to it in lieu of the historical. Dionysius Thrax and Apollonius Dyscolus went off on the wrong trail in the matter of the Greek cases.

(b) BOPP'S CONTRIBUTION. Bopp brought daylight out of darkness by comparative grammar. Hubschmann2 gives an admirable history of the matter. He illustrates the eight cases copiously from the Sanskrit, Zend and Persian. Thanks now to such workers as Schleicher, Brugmann, Delbruck, the eight IndoGermanic cases are well wrought out and generally acknowledged. Cf. brief discussion of the forms of the Greek cases in chapter VII (Declensions). Greek grammarians still differ, however, in the terminology applied to the cases. In 1911 the Oxford and Cambridge scholars issued a tract "On Terminology in Grammar," but confusion still reigns. See also W. Havers, Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indog. Sprachen. When the Stoic grammarians wrote, the genitive and ablative had the same forms, and the locative, instrumental and dative likewise. There were occasional survivals of distinction like oi;koi and oi;kw|, Cypriotic instrumental avra/ and dative avrai/, etc. But in general the work of syncretism was complete in the respects just mentioned, though


in Arcadian the genitive and the locative took the same form3 (cf. Latin Romae, domi). But the grammarians, ignorant of the history of the language, sought to explain the genitive and ablative ideas from a common source. Thus Winer4 boldly calls the genitive the "whence-case" and undertakes to explain every usage of the genitive from that standpoint, a hopeless exercise in grammatical gymnastics. The same sinuosities have been resorted to in the effort to find the true dative idea in the locative and instrumental uses of the forms called dative by the grammars.

(c) MODERN USAGE. Some modern grammarians5 help matters a good deal by saying true genitive, ablatival genitive, true dative, locatival dative, instrumental dative. This custom recognines the real case-distinctions and the historical outcome. But some confusion still remains because the locative and the dative never mean exactly the same thing and are not the same thing in fact. It partly depends on whether one is to apply the term "case" to the ending or to the relation expressed by the ending. As a matter of fact the term is used both ways. ;Onoma is called indiscriminately nominative, vocative or accusative, according to the facts in the context, not nominatival accusative or accusatival nominative. So with basilei/j or po,leij. We are used to this in the grammars, but it seems a shock to say that po,lewj may be either genitive or ablative, that evmoi, may be either locative, instrumental or dative. But why more of an absurdity than in the case of o;noma and po,leij? The only difference is that in the gen.-abl. the syncretism of form applies to all Greek words. For various examples of syncretism in the forms of the Greek cases with fragments of distinctive endings also see Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 375 f.; Brugmann, Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 420 f.; and chapter VII (Declensions).

(d) GREEN'S CLASSIFICATION. I agree with B. Green,6 whom I shall here quote at some length: "I shall classify the uses of the cases under the heads of the Aryan Cases, as in every instance the true method of explanation of any particular idiom is to trace its connection to the general meaning of the original Aryan case, to which the case in Greek or Latin corresponds, and not arbitrarily to distinguish the uses of any case in Greek or Latin by terms which cannot be properly applied to that case; e. g., the term dative of manner is no explanation. Manner cannot be expressed


by the true dative case. The correct explanation is that the use is instrumental, but the instrumental case in Greek has coalesced in form with the dative. This method of explanation has the advantage of demanding fewer set terms, while at the same time it requires a logical connection to be made between the particular use in question and the fundamental meaning of the case involved. Such an explanation is the better the simpler the words used in it are." This is wonderfully well said and has the advantage of being true, which is not always said of grammatical comments. It is the method of history, of science, of life. It is the method pursued in the etymology and history of a word. It is the only way to get at the truth about the significance of the Greek cases.

(e) SYNCRETISM OF THE CASES. This method of interpretation does not ignore the syncretism of the cases. On the other hand it accents sharply the blending of the forms while insisting on the integrity of the case-ideas. There are indeed some instances where either of the blended cases will make sense, like th|/ dexia|/ tou/ qeou/ u`ywqei,j (Ac. 2:33), which may be locative 'exalted at,' instrumental 'exalted by,' or dative 'exalted to' (a rare idiom and in the older Greek), 'the right hand of God.' Cf. also th|/ evlpi,di evsw,qhmen (Ro. 8:24). So in Heb. 12:11 car/j and lu,phj may be explained either as genitive or ablative. But such occasional ambiguity is not surprising and these instances on the "border-line" made syncretism possible. In general the context makes it perfectly clear which of the syncretistic cases is meant, just as in English and French we have to depend on the order of the words to show the difference between nominative and accusative. Yet no one would say that nominative and accusative are the same in English and French.7

(f) FREEDOM IN USE OF CASE. As a matter of fact it was often immaterial whether a writer or speaker used one of several ways of expressing himself, for the Greek allows liberty and flexibility at many points. Thus to. ge,noj and tw|/ ge,nei would either answer for the specifying idea, proskune,w is used with either accusative or dative, mimnh,skomai with accusative or genitive, etc.8 But this is not to say that one construction is used for another or is identical with the other. The difference may be "subtle, no doubt, but real" (Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 66). Moulton properly (ib.) cites the


well-known distinction between the accusative and genitive with avkou,w in Ac. 9:7 and 22:9 as disproof of apparent self-contradiction and a gentle hint not to be too ready to blur over case-distinctions in Luke or elsewhere in the N. T. He notes also genitive and accusative with geu,esqai in Heb. 6:4 f. and the common use of eivj with accusative after verbs of rest and evn locative even after verbs of motion. But it is hazardous to insist always on a clear distinction between eivj and evn, for they are really originally the same word. The point is that by different routes one may reach practically the same place, but the routes are different. Indeed one may take so many different standpoints that the border-lines of the cases come very close sometimes. So evx avristera/j (abl.), evn avristera|/ (loc.), eivj avristera,n (acc.) are all good Greek for 'on the left' (we have also in English 'at the left,' 'to the left').9

II. The Purpose of the Cases.

(a) ARISTOTLE'S USAGE. He applied the term ptw/sij to verb, noun, adverb, etc., but the later grammarians spoke only10 of the ptw/sij ovno,matoj, though as a matter of fact adverbs and prepositions are in cases, and even conjunctions and other particles are usually in cases. But in ordinary parlance substantives, adjectives, pronouns, the article are in cases and have inflection. The cases originally had to do only with these. The adverbs were merely later modifications or fixed case-forms.

(b) WORD-RELATIONS. The cases were used to express wordrelations, the endings serving to make it plain what the particular case was. The isolating languages, like the Chinese, show such relations by the order of the words and the tone in pronunciation. Modern English and French use prepositions chiefly besides the order of the words. These word-relations concern substantives in their relations with other substantives, with adjectives, with prepositions and with verbs. So adjectives and pronouns have all these relations. It is immaterial whether verb or substantive is the earliest in the use of a case with a substantive. In the old Sanskrit practically all the word-relations are expressed by the eight cases. This was a very simple plan, but as language became more complicated a great strain was bound to be put on each of these cases in order to convey clearly so many resultant ideas.

As a matter of fact the ground-meaning of the case-forms is not known.11 On Origin of Case-Forms see chapter VII, t, 2, (c).


III. The Encroachment of Prepositions on the Cases.

(a) THE REASON. The burden upon the cases was too great. Even in the later Sanskrit a number of set case-forms (adverbs) came to be used with some of the cases to make clearer the exact relations of words, whereas in the older Sanskrit no such helpers were felt to be needed. This was the beginning of prepositions. Prepositions have a wrong name. They do not come before anything essentially, and just as often in Homer came after the noun. Indeed ovmma,twn a;po is not anastrophe, but the original type.12 Nor was the preposition originally used with verbs. The preposition is merely an adverb that is used with nouns or in composition with verbs. But more about that hereafter (Prepositions). The point to note here is that when the burden upon the cases grew too great adverbs were called in to make clearer the meaning of the case in harmony with the analytic tendency of language.13

(b) NO "GOVERNING" OF CASES. These adverbs did not govern cases. They were merely the accidental concomitants, more or less constant, of certain cases. At best "the cases could express relationship only in a very general way. Hence arose the use of adverbs to go with cases in order to make the meaning more specific. These adverbs, which we now call prepositions, in time became the constant concomitants of some cases; and when this has happened there is an ever-increasing tendency to find the important part of the meaning in the preposition and not in the case-ending."14 This quotation from Giles puts the matter in a nutshell. In spite of the average grammarian's notion that prepositions govern cases, it is not true. The utmost is that the preposition in question is in harmony with the case in question.15

(c) NOT USED INDIFFERENTLY. These prepositions were not used indifferently with all the cases. They are, of course, impossible with the vocative. But the nominative may be used with such adverbs, not called prepositions by the grammarians because it seems difficult to explain a preposition "governing" the nominative. But Paul does not hesitate to say u`per evgw, (2 Cor. 11:23) though u[per is not construed with evgw,. Cf. also ei-j kata. ei-j (Mk. 14:19), kaq v ei-j (Ro. 12:5). It is not certain that any prepositions are [see XII, (f)] used with the true dative and few with


the instrumental ( a[ma├ su,n). Giles16 denies that the genitive is ever used with a preposition. Certainly what is called the genitive with prepositions is often the ablative. Probably evpi, and avnti, are used with the real genitive. Naturally the cases that are more local in idea like the locative ('where'), the accusative ('whither') which is partly local, the instrumental ('wherewith') and the ablative ('whence') are those that are most frequently supplemented by prepositions.17

(d) ORIGINAL USE WITH LOCAL CASES. Originally most of the prepositions were used with either of these local cases (loc., instr., abl.). Some few of them continued to be so used even in the N. T. This matter will come up again under the head of Prepositions, but we may note here that evpi, and para, are the only prepositions that use three cases with any frequency18 in the N. T., and in the case of evpi, it is probably the true genitive, not the ablative. Pro,j has accusative 679 times, locative 6, and ablative 1 (Ac. 27:34, a literary example).19 The bulk of those that have two are narrowing down to one case20 while avna,├ avnti,├ eivj├ evn├ pro, have only one, and avmfi, has disappeared save in composition. If this N. T. situation, which is amply supported by the papyri, is compared with the usage of Homer, the contrast will be very great.21 To carry the matter a step further one may note that in late Greek there is a constant tendency for all prepositions to be used with the accusative, so that in modern Greek vernacular all the "proper" prepositions are regularly employed with the accusative.22 The occasional LXX use of su,n + accusative, while a mere error, was in line with this tendency.

(e) INCREASING USE OF PREPOSITIONS. The constantly increasing use of prepositions is one of the main reasons for the blending of the case-forms. This was already partly apparent in the Sanskrit in the assimilation of genitive and ablative singular and in the plural of ablative and dative. So the Latin locative, dative, ablative, instrumental, in most words merged their forms. Moulton23 accents the fact that it was the local cases (loc., abl., instr.) in the Greek that first gave way in their endings. That is true with the exception of the accusative (not a purely local


case), which has shown more persistence than any case save the genitive. The genitive is a non-local case and has held on, though the dative has disappeared in modern Greek vernacular before eivj + accusative, the accusative without eivj, and the genitive. But this break-down of the case-endings seen in Sanskrit, much more apparent in Greek and Latin, has reached its climax in modern English and French. In modern English the six Anglo-Saxon endings, barring pronouns, have disappeared save one, the genitive (s), and even that can be expressed by the prep. of. In French the process is complete except in prons. Modern Greek vernacular shows the influence of this tendency very decidedly. The Greek of the N. T. comes therefore in the middle of the stream of this analytic tendency. In the old Sanskrit it was all case and no preposition. In modern French it is all preposition and no caseending. The case-ideas have not disappeared. They are simply expressed more minutely and exactly by means of prepositions. By and by the case-endings were felt to be useless as the preposition was looked to entirely for the idea. The case without preposition belongs to the early stage of language history.24 When Delbruck25 speaks of a "living" case, he means the case-ending, as does Moulton26 when he asserts that "we can detect a few moribund traces of instrumental, locative and ablative." If he means the case-meaning, the instances are abundant. And even in case-ending it is not all one-sided, for the locative -- i and the instrumental - oij both contributed to the common stock of forms. Henry27 even suggests that in ovno,ma─toj we have the ablative t (d), for the Latin word is nomen (nominis).

(f) DISTINCTION PRESERVED IN THE N. T. But the N. T. has not lost distinctive use of the cases and prepositions. Special causes explain some of the phenomena in the N. T. The excessive use of evn in the N. T. is parallel to that in the LXX (cf. Jer. 21: 5 f., 9 f.) and is doubtless due partly to the Hebrew which it so commonly translates as Moulton28 observes. But the socalled instrumental use of evn like evn r`omfai,a|, (Rev. 6:8; cf. Mt. 12:26 f.) is not due entirely to the Hebrew, for, while very common in the LXX, where it is in "the plenitude of its power,"29 yet the papyri show undoubted examples of the same instrumental


usage.30 See further Locative Case and also Prepositions (b). Indeed in the N. T. evn outnumbers eivj three to two.31 If these two prepositions are left out of consideration, the disappearance of the locative with prepositions is quite marked in the N. T., a decay already begun a good while before,32 only to be consummated in the modern Greek vernacular, where eivj has displaced evn (Thumb, Handb., p. 100). When one recalls that dative and instrumental also have gone from the modern Greek vernacular and that sto, with the accusative ( eivj to,n) replaces all three cases in modern Greek and that originally evn and eivj were the same preposition, he is not surprised to read o` eivj to.n avgro,n (Mk. 13:16) where Mt. 24:18 has o` evn tw|/ avgrw|/. So Mt. 12:41, meteno,hsan eivj to. kh,rugma vIwna/. Moulton33 has a very suggestive study of pisteu,w. He omits those examples where the verb means 'entrust' and finds about forty others with the simple dative. In the majority of these forty the verb means 'believe.' There are some debatable passages like Jo. 5:24, 38; 8:31; Ac. 5:14; 16:34; 18:8. He finds only one passage outside of Eph. 1:13 where evn w|- is assimilated (cf. evsfra─ gi,sqhte), viz. Mk. 1:15 ( pisteu,ete evn tw|/ euvaggeli,w|), and he follows Deissmann34 in taking evn as 'in the sphere of.' Pisteu,w evpi, is found six times with the locative and seven with the accusative in the sense of 'repose one's trust' upon God or Christ. But pi─ ssteu,w eivj occurs 45 times (37 in Jo. and 1 Jo.) in the sense of 'mystical union with Christ,' like Paul's evn Cristw|/.35

IV. The Distinctive Idea of Each of the Cases.

(a) FUNDAMENTAL IDEA. The point is, if possible, to get at the fundamental idea of each of the eight original cases. To do this it is essential that one look at the Greek cases historically and from the Greek point of view. Foreigners may not appreciate all the niceties, but they can understand the respective import of the Greek cases.36 The N. T. writers, as we now know perfectly well, were not strangers to the vernacular koinh,, nor were the LXX translators for that matter, though they indeed were hampered by translating a Semitic tongue into Greek. The N. T. writers were in their element when they wrote vernacular


koinh,. They knew the import of the Greek cases as used at that time by the people at large.

(b) CASES NOT USED FOR ONE ANOTHER. We have no right to assume in the N. T. that one case is used for another. That is to say, that you have a genitive, but it is to be understood as an accusative. Winer37 properly condemns such enallage casuum. Not even in 2 Cor. 6:4 $sunista,nontej e`autou.j w`j qeou/ dia,konoi) do we have an instance of it, for the nominative (lit. plural) means 'as minister of God I commend myself,' while the accusative ( diako,nouj) would be, 'I commend myself as a minister of God.' We are then to look for the distinctive idea of each case just as we find it. In the modern Greek, to be sure, the cases are in such confusion (dative, locative, instrumental gone) that one cannot look for the old distinctions.

(c) VITALITY OF CASE-IDEA. This independence of the caseidea is not out of harmony with the blending of case-forms (abl. and gen., loc. and instr. and dat.). This is a very different matter from the supposed substitution of cases alluded to above. The genitive continued to be a genitive, the ablative an ablative in spite of the fact that both had the same ending. There would be, of course, ambiguous examples, as such ambiguities occur in other parts of speech. The context is always to be appealed to in order to know the case.

(d) THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CASES. This is always to be considered. The accusative is the oldest of the cases, may, in fact, be considered the original and normal case. Other cases are variations from it in course of linguistic development. With verbs in particular which were transitive the accusative was the obvious case to use unless there was some special reason to use some other. The other oblique cases with verbs (gen., abl., loc., instr., dat.) came to be used with one verb or the other rather than the accusative, because the idea of that verb and the case coalesced in a sense. Thus the dative with pei,qw─ mai├ the instrumental with cra,omai, etc. But with many of these verbs the accusative continued to be used in the vernacular (or even in the literary language with a difference of idea, as avkou,w). In the vernacular koinh, the accusative is gradually reasserting itself by the side of the other cases with many verbs. This tendency kept up to the complete disappearance of the dative, locative and instrumental in modern Greek (cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 31), and the


genitive, accusative and eivj compete for the function of the old dative (ib , pp. 38 ff.).38 The accusative was always the most popular case. Krebs39 has made a useful study of the cases in the literary koinh,, and Moulton40 thinks that these tendencies of the literary koinh, are really derived from the vernacular. But not all the verbs fall in with the decay of the dative-locative-instrumental. Thus proskunei/n in the N. T. has the dative twice as often as the accusative, just the opposite of the inscriptions.41 But the papyri show little proof of the decay of the dative save in the illiterate examples.42 The accusative gains from the genitive and ablative in the N. T. also, as Krebs found in the later literary Greek. Moulton43 finds that out of 47 examples kratei/n has the genitive only 8 times, but diafe,rein ('surpass') has the ablative. vEntre,pesqai takes only the accusative, and the accusative appears with verbs of filling (Rev. 17:3).44 Moulton concludes his rÚsumÚ of Krebs by calling attention to the list of verbs that were once intransitive, but are transitive in the koinh,. This is a matter that is always changing and the same verb may be used either way. A verb is transitive, by the way, whether it takes the accusative or not; if it has any oblique case it is transitive. As illustrations of this varied usage Moulton cites from the N. T. evnergei/n├ sunergei/n├ evpe,rcesqai├ katabarei/n├ katalalei/n├ kataponei/n├ katiscu,ein├ pleonektei/n├ prosfwnei/n├ u`potre,cein├ corhgei/n. He concludes his discussion of the matter with a needed caveat (p. 65 f.) against thinking that all distinctions of case are blurred in the N. T. "We should not assume, from the evidence just presented as to variation of case with verbs, that the old distinctions of case-meaning have vanished, or that we may treat as mere equivalents those constructions which are found in common with the same word." Analogy no doubt played its part in case-contamination as well as in the blending of the case-endings.45


(e) THE METHOD OF THIS GRAMMAR. In the study of each case the method of this grammar is to begin with the root-idea of the particular case in hand. Out of that by means of context and grammatical history the resultant meaning in the particular instance can be reached. This is not only more simple, but it is in harmony with the facts of the linguistic development and usage. Even in an instance like evn macai,rh| (Lu. 22:49) the locative case is not out of place. The smiting ( pata,xomen) is conceived as located in the sword. Cf. evn r`a,bdw| (1 Cor. 4:21). The papyri show the same usage, as indeed the older classical Greek did occasionally. In English we translate this resultant idea by 'with,' but we have no right to assume that the Greeks thought of evn as 'with.' The LXX shows that the Hebrew corresponded closely to the Greek evn in this resultant idea. In translation we often give not the real meaning of the word, but the total idea, though here the LXX follows closely the Hebrew. One of the chief difficulties in syntax is to distinguish between the Greek idiom and the English translation of the idiom plus the context. But enough of preliminary survey. Let us now examine each case in turn.

V. The Nominative ( ptw/sij ovrqh,├ euvqei/a├ ovnomastikh,%.

For the older books on the nominative case see Hubner, Grundriss etc., p. 36.

(a) NOT THE OLDEST CASE. The first thing to observe about the nominative is that it is not the oldest case. The accusative is treated first in some grammars and seems to be the oldest. That is the proper historical order, but it seems best on the whole to treat the so-called "oblique" cases together. The term "oblique cases" ( ptw,seij pla,giai) has a history. The nominative was not originally regarded as a case, but merely the noun ( o;noma). So Aristotle.46 The vocative is not a real case, as we shall see directly. Hence a case (casus) was considered w`j avpo. tou/ ovno,matoj peptwkui/a, a real ptw/sij. All the true cases therefore were oblique. Indeclinable words are a;ptwta. When the nominative was considered a case it was still called by the word for noun ( ovnomastikh,, nominativus), the naming or noun case. The Hindu grammarians indeed call the nominative prathamń ('first') as the leading case, not in time, but in service. This is merely the logical arrangement followed by the Western scholars.47 There was once no need felt for a nominative, since the verb itself had its own subject in the personal endings.48 But originally one may suppose a word served


as subject of the verb and may have become an ending. Even the impersonal verbs like kalw/j e;cei have the subject in the same way. The use of a special case for this purpose was an afterthought,

(b) REASON FOR THE CASE. Why then was the nominative used? Why was it ever originated? Its earliest use was in apposition to the verbal subject alluded to above.49 Greater, precision in the subject was desired, and so a substantive or pronoun was put in apposition with the verbal ending.50 Sometimes both substantive and pronoun are employed as in auvto.j de. evgw. Pau/loj parakalw/ (2 Cor. 10:1). Other languages can even use other cases for such apposition in the predicate. Cf. English It's me, French c'est moi and Latin dedecori est. And the Greek itself shows abundant evidence of lack of concord of case in apposition (cf. Rev. in the N. T.).51 But the nominative is a constant resource in appositional phrases, whatever case the other word may be in. The whole subject of apposition was discussed in the chapter on the Sentence. Cf. o` a;nqrwpoj ou-toj, where the same point applies.52 Cf. avnh,r tij vAnani,aj (Ac. 5:1). In the modern Greek this usage partly replaces the explanatory genitive, as spuri. sina,pi, 'mustard seed' (Thumb, Handb., p. 33).

(C) PREDICATE NOMINATIVE. The predicate nominative is in line with the subject nominative. It is really apposition.53 The double nominative belongs to Greek as to all languages which use certain verbs as a copula like ei=nai├ gi,nesqai├ kalei/sqai, etc. Cf. su. ei= Pe,troj (Mt. 16:18). The Latin is fond of the dative in such examples as id mihi honori est, and the Greek can use one dative, as o;noma, evsti, moi.54 Thus in the N. T. evklh,qh to. o;noma auvtou/ vIhsou/j (Lu. 2:21), avnh.r kalou,menoj Zakcai/oj (Lu. 19:2), h=n o;noma tw|/ dou,lw| Ma,lcoj (Jo. 18:10), as well as55 vIwa,nhj evsti.n o;noma auvtou/ (Lu. 1:63). The use of the nominative in the predicate with the infinitive in indirect discourse ( fa,skontej ei=nai sofoi,, Ro. 1:22) is proper when the subject of the principal verb is referred to. See Indirect Discourse (Modes and Infinitive). But the N. T., especially in quotations from the LXX and passages under Semitic influence, often uses


eivj and the accusative rather than the predicate nom. Moulton56 denies that it is a real Hebraism since the papyri show the idiom e;scon par v u`mw/n eivj da,$neion% spe,rmata, K.P. 46 (ii/A.D.), where eivj means 'as' or 'for,' much like the N. T. usage. But the fact that it is so common in the translation passages and that the LXX is so full of it as a translation of l. justifies Blass57 in saying that it is formed on a Hebrew model though it is not un-Greek. Winer58 finds it in the late Greek writers, but the Hebrew is chiefly responsible for the LXX situation. The most frequent examples in the N. T. are with etym. ei=nai ( e;sontai eivj sa,rka mi,an, Mt. 19:5, which can be compared with Lu. 3:5; 2 Cor. 6:18; Ac. 8:23, etc.), gi,nesqai ( evgenh,qh eivj kefalh.n gwni,aj, Mt. 21:42, with which compare Lu. 13:19; Jo. 16:20; Rev. 8:11, etc.), evgei,rein eivj basile,a (Ac. 13:22), evlogi,sqh eivj dikaiosu,nhn (Ro. 4:3 ff.). Cf. also Jo. 16:20. Probably the following examples have rather some idea of purpose and are more in accord with the older Greek idiom. In 1 Cor. 4:3, evmoi. eivj e`la,cisto,n evstin, the point is not very different. Cf. also 1 Cor. 14:22 ( eivj shmei/on). But observe mh. eivj keno.n ge,nhtai (1 Th. 3:5), eivj pa,ntaj avnqrw,pouj eivj kata,krima (Ro. 5:18), evge,neto h` po,lij eivj tri,a me,rh (Rev. 16:19).

(d) SOMETIMES UNALTERED. As the name-case the nominative is sometimes left unaltered in the sentence instead of being put in the case of the word with which it is in apposition. Cf. Rev. 1:5; Mk. 12:38-40; Lu. 20:27; Ac. 10:37. This is in accord with the ancient Greek idiom, though the Book of Rev. has rather more than the usual proportion of such examples. See chapter on the Sentence, pp. 413 ff. In Rev. 9:11 observe o;noma e;cei vApol─ lu,wn (cf. vAbaddw,n also), where the nominative is retained much after the fashion of our quotation-marks. The same thing59 is noticeable in Jo. 13:13 u`mei/j fwnei/te, me `O dida,skaloj kai. `O ku,rioj, for thus W. H. print it. This is a classic idiom. Cf. Xenoph., Oec. 6, 14 e;contaj├ to. semno.n tou/to to. kalo,j te kavgaqo,j. Cf. Lu. 19:29; 21:37, where W. H. print eivj to. o;roj to. kalou,menon evlaiw/n) But we know from Ac. 1:12, ( avpo. o;roj to. kalou,menon evlaiw/n) that evlaiw,n could be in Luke a nominative (abundantly confirmed


by the papyri). The most that can be said about the passages in Luke is that the nominative evlaiw,n is entirely possible, perhaps probable.60 In Rev. 1:4 ( avpo. o` w'n kai. o` h=n kai. o` evrco,menoj) the nominative is kept purposely, as has been shown, to accent the unchangeableness of God, not that John did not know how to use the ablative after avpo,, for in the same sentence he has avpo. tw/n pneuma,twn. Moulton61 aptly describes the nominative as "residuary legatee of case-relations not obviously appropriated by other cases." But as a matter of fact the nominative as a rule is used normally and assimilation is general so that in Mt. 1:21 (cf. 1:25 also) we read kale,seij to. o;noma auvtou/ `Ihsou/n. Cf. Mk. 3:16 o;noma Pe,tron and Ac. 27:1 e`katonta,rch| ovno,mati vIouli,w|. Cf. Ac. 18:2. It is, of course, nothing strange to see the nominative form in apposition with a vocative, as oi` fobou,menoi (Rev. 19:5), pa,ter h`mw/n o` evn toi/j ouvranoi/j (Mt. 6:9). This is only natural as the article and participles have no vocative form. Cf. w= a;nqrwpe o` kri,nwn (Ro. 2:3). Cf. even ouvai. u`mi/n├ oi` evmpeplhsme,noi (Lu. 6:25), where we have really the vocative, not apposition.

(e) THE NOMINATIVE ABSOLUTE. The nominative is sometimes used absolutely, nominatus pendens, just as the genitive (ablative) and accusative are. Cf. ablative absolute in Latin, locative in Anglo-Saxon, and nominative absolute in modern Greek and modern English. In titles the nominative is the natural case and is left suspended. Cf. Pau/loj klhto.j avpo,stoloj (1 Cor. 1:1). The LXX has an abnormal number of suspended nominatives, due to a literal translation of the Hebrew.62 But the N. T. has some also which are due to change of structure, as o` nikw/n poih,sw auvto,n (Rev. 3:12), o` nikw/n dw,sw auvtw|/ (Rev. 3:21), o` ga.r Mwush/j ou-toj- ouvk oi;damen ti, evge,neto auvtw|/ (Ac. 7:40), pa/n r`h/ma avrgo.n- avpodw,sousi peri. auvtou/ lo,gon (Mt. 12:36), tau/ta aa} qewrei/te├ evleu,sontai h`me,rai (Lu. 21:6). In particular is the participle (cf. Jo. 7:38, o` pisteu,wn eivj evme, common in such a nominative, about which see the chapter on the Sentence (anacoluthon). Moulton63 considers this one of "the easiest of anacolutha." Cf. further pa/j o[j evrei/ - avfeqh,setai auvtw|/, (Lu. 12:10; cf. verse 8). Cf. Jo. 18:11. Some of the examples, like to. avdu,naton tou/ no,mou├ evn w|- hvsqe,nei (Ro. 8:3), may be regarded as accusative as easily as nominative. The


Addenda 3rd ed.

papyri64 show plenty of examples of this suspended nominative. For classical instances see Riemann and Goelzer, Syntaxe, p. 41. For elliptical nominative see Euvdi,a (Mt. 16:2). There was a constant tendency in the LXX to drift into the nominative in a long series of words in apposition (Thackeray, p. 23).

(f) THE PARENTHETIC NOMINATIVE is of a piece with what we have been considering. So in Jo. 1:6 we have o;noma auvtw|/ vIwa,nhj all by itself. Cf. 3:1 ( Niko,dhmoj o;noma auvtw|/). Similarly the nominative in expressions of time rather than the accusative may be explained.65 For example in Mk. 8:2 we read o[ti h;dh h`me,rai trei/j prosme,nousi,n moi and = Mt. 15:32. In Lu. 9:28 w`sei. h`me,rai ovktw, the matter is simpler. Blass66 compares with this passage w`j w`rw/n triw/n dia,sthma (Ac. 5:7) and ivdou. de,ka kai. ovktw. e;th (Lu. 13:16). The use of ivdou, with the nominative is very common and may be a case of ellipsis. Cf. ivdou. fwnh. evk tw/n ouvranw/n le,gousa (Mt. 3:17). Cf. Heb. 2:13, etc. In Mk. 6:40 observe avne,pesan prasiai. prasiai,. This leads one to suspect that sumpo,sia sumpo,sia in verse 39 may be nominative also. The repetition is not a mere Hebraism, since the papyri show examples of it, See Eccl. 2: 16 kaqo,ti h;dh ai` h`me,rai evrco,menai ta. pa,nta evpelh,sqh. This use of the nominative is common in the papyri (cf. e;ti h`me,rai ga.r h;dh trei/j kai. nu,ktej trei/j qe,kla ouvk evgh,gertai, Acta Pauli et Theclae in O.P. p. 9) and can be traced in the Attic vernacular back to the fifth century B.C.67 Thumb finds it still in the modern Greek, and Hopkins (A.J.P. xxiv. 1) "cites a rare use from the Sanskrit: 'a year (nom.) almost, I have not gone out from the hermitage"' (Moulton, Prol., p. 235). See other papyri examples in Cl. Rev., April, 1904, p. 152. Of a piece with this is the nominative with adverbs (prepositions) like ei-j kata. ei-j (Mk. 14:19) where the first ei-j is in partitive apposition and the second is kept rather than made accusative. Cf. kaq v ei-j (Ro. 12:5), avna. ei-j (Rev. 21:21). Brugmann68 indeed considers the adverbs prw/ton├ deu,teron, etc., in the nominative neuter rather than the accusative neuter singular. He cites avnami,x as proof. Cf. the use of kai. tou/to (and also kai. tau/ta), as kai. tou/to evpi. avpi,stwn (1 Cor. 6:6). But auvto. tou/to (2 Pet. 1:5) is probably accusative. The prolepsis of the nominative as in 1 Cor. 14:16 ( o` avnaplhrw/n to.n to,pon tou/ ivdiw,tou pw/j evrei/ ) is natural. Cf. examples like cro,noj o` auvto,j in Boeotian inscriptions (Claflin, Syntax, etc., p. 47).


(g) IN EXCLAMATIONS. The nominative is natural in exclamations, a sort of interjectional nominative.69 So Paul in Ro. 7:24, talai,pwroj evgw. a;nqrwpoj, and 11:33, w= ba,qoj (a possible vocative) plou,tou. So. Ro. 7:24; 1 Cor. 15:57. Cf. ca,rij tw|/ qew|/ (Ro. 6 : 17). For parallel in papyri see Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436. Cf. ca,rij toi/j qeoi/j, B.U. 843 (i/A.D.).

(h) USED AS VOCATIVE. It only remains to consider the nominative form which is used as a vocative. Cf. chapter VII, 7, (a), for details as to form. It all depends on what one means by the term "case" when he says that the nominative is used as a vocative. The form is undoubtedly the same as that of the vocative in a multitude of instances (all neuter nouns, for instance, singular and plural, plural of all nouns in truth). It is only in the singular that any distinction was made between the nominative and vocative in form, and by no means always here, as in the case of feminine nouns of the first declension, qeo,j (usually) in the second, liquid oxytones like poimh,n in the third, etc. But if by the vocative one means the case of address, then the nominative form in address is really vocative, not nominative. Thus su, path,r (Jo. 17:21) is just as truly vocative as su├ pa,tergrk grk(17:5). Indeed in Jo. 17:25 we have path.r di,kaie, showing that path,r is here regarded as vocative. The article with the vocative in address was the usual Hebrew and Aramaic idiom, as indeed in Aristophanes70 we have o` pai/j avkolou,qei. It is good Greek and good Aramaic too when we have vAbba, o` path,r (Mk. 14:36) whether Jesus said one or both. In Mt. 11:26 ( nai,├ o` path,r) we have the vocative. When the article is used, of course the nominative form must occur. Thus in Rev. 18:20 we have both together, ouvrane. kai. oi` a[gioi. Indeed the second member of the address is always in the nominative form.71 Thus Ku,rie├ o` qeo,j├ o` pantokra,twr (Rev. 15:3). Cf. Jo. 20:28. I shall treat therefore this as really the vocative, not the nominative, whatever the form may be, and now pass on to the consideration of the Vocative Case.

VI. The Vocative $ptw/sij klhtikh,%)

(a) NATURE OF THE VOCATIVE. Dionysius Thrax called it also prosagoreutikh,, but in reality it is not a case at all. Practically it has to be treated as a case, though technically it is not (Farrar, Greek Syntax, p. 69). It is wholly outside of syntax in that the word is isolated and has no word-relations.72 The isolation of the


vocative may be compared to the absolute use of the nominative, genitive and accusative. The native Sanskrit grammarians do not name it in their list of cases, and Whitney73 merely treats it in the singular after the other cases. Indeed the vocative is sometimes as much a sentence as a case, since the word stands to itself and forms a complete idea. Thus Maria,m and `Rabbounei, (Jo. 20:16) tell the whole story of recognition between Jesus and Mary. When Thomas said `O ku,rio,j mou kai. o` qeo,j mou (Jo. 20:28), he gave Christ full acceptance of his deity and of the fact of his resurrection.

(b) VARIOUS DEVICES. The vocative has no case-ending, but has to resort to various expedients. In general it is just like the nominative in form. This is true in all pronouns, participles and various special words like qeo,j, besides the plurals, neuters and feminines mentioned under v, (h). Cf. the same practical situation in the Sanskrit.74 Farrar75 indeed conjectures that originally there was no difference in form at all between the nominative and vocative and that the variation which did come was due to rapid pronunciation in address. Thus path,r, but pe,ter. Cf. a;ner (1 Cor. 7:16). In most languages there is no distinction in form at all between nominative and vocative, and in Latin the distinction is rare.76 It need not be surprising, therefore, to find the nominative form of many singular words used as vocative as noted above under the discussion of the nominative. Moulton77 indeed remarks: "The anarthrous nominative should probably be regarded as a mere substitute for the vocative, which begins from the earliest times to be supplanted by the nominative." Even in the singular the distinction was only partial and not very stable at best, especially in the vernacular, and gradually broke down till "in modern Greek the forms in e are practically the only separate vocatives surviving." Thus Blass78 observes: "From the earliest times (the practice is as old as Homer) the nominative has a tendency to usurp the place of the vocative," This nominative form in the singular is just as really vocative as in the plural when used in address. The N. T. therefore is merely in line with the oldest Greek idiom in such examples. So quga,thr (Mk. 5:34; Lu. 8:48; Jo. 12:15, LXX), but see qu,gater in Mt. 9:22. In Jo. 17:21, 24, 25, W. H. read path,r, but pa,ter in Jo. 12:28; 17: 1, 5, 11, etc. Moulton79 rightly refuses to follow Hort in writing pa,thr in voca-


tive. In the margin of Mt. 9:27 W. H. read ui`e. Dauei,d rather than ui`o.j D) Mt. 1:20 has vIwsh.f ui`o.j Dauei,d, and 15:22 ku,rie ui`o.j Dauei,d, all examples of apposition. Cf. Mt. 20:30. But in Lu. 8:28 and 18:38 we have ui`e,) The adjective a;frwn is vocative in Lu. 12:20 and 1 Cor. 15:36. Cf. also genea. a;pistoj in Lu. 9:41. In Acts 13:10 plh,rhj is vocative. Cf. indeclinable use of this word. As is well known qeo,j was usually retained in the vocative in the older Greek, not qee,. In the N. T. qee, only appears in Mt. 27:46 in quotation from the LXX where it is rare.80 Jannaris81 indeed thinks that in the N. T. this idiom is rather frequent. Cf. lao,j mou you in Baruch 4:5. In Ac. 7:42 oi=koj vIsrah,l is vocative (from LXX). Cf. also ba,qoj plou,tou (Ro. 11:33), not address, but exclamation. When the vocative has a separate form in the singular it is usually merely the stem of the word, like poli/ta├ dai/mon├ le,on$t%, etc. But it is more than doubtful if this usage goes back to the original Indo-Germanic stock.82 Cf. basileu/ in Ac. 26:7. In the second declension masculine nouns in the singular show a change in the stem-vowel, changing to e. This usage has persisted in modern Greek vernacular in most words; but note qeo,j above and the variations about ui`o,j) But see a;nqrwpe (Ro. 2:1) as usual. In gu,nai (Mt. 15:28) k has dropped from the stem, as in forms like le,on the t vanishes for euphony. In qu,gater and pa,ter the mere stem suffers recessive accent. In Ps. 51:6 ( glw/ssan doli,an) we actually have the accusative form used as a vocative.83 See further discussion in ch. VII (Declensions).

(c) USE OF w= WITH THE VOCATIVE. It is rare in the N. T., only 17 times, all but four of these in Luke and Paul. In BlassDebrunner, p. 90, the rarity of w= is attributed to the Semitic influence. The common absence of it gives a sort of solemnity where it is found.84 Moulton85 observes that it is only in Luke's writings that it appears in the N. T. without emphasis after the classical fashion. Take as an instance of this literary usage qeo,file (Ac. 1:1), but kra,tiste qeo,file in Lu. 1:3. Moulton likewise notes the absence of w= in prayer in the N. T. (though sometimes in the LXX) and considers "the progressive omission of w=" in Greek not easy to explain. It came up from the vernacular and then gradually vanished from the vernacular much as


Addenda 3rd ed.

our O has done.86 Blass87 notes that in most of the N. T. examples it expresses emotion, as w= gu,nai. (Mt. 15:28), w= gena. a;pistoj (Mk. 9:19), w= plh,rhj (Ac. 13:10), etc. The tone may be one of censure as in Ro. 2:3; 9:20. But it is a mistake to think that the ancient Greeks always used w= in formal address. Simcox88 notes that Demosthenes often said a;ndrej vAqhnai/oi just as Paul did in Ac. 17:22. Paul says w= a;ndrej once (Ac. 27:21). But the addresses in the N. T. are usually without w= (cf. Ac. 7:2).

(d) ADJECTIVES USED WITH THE VOCATIVE naturally have the same form. Thus w= a;nqrwpe kene, (Jas. 2:20), dou/le ponhre, (Mt. 18:32), pa,ter a[gie (Jo. 17:11), kra,tiste qeo,file (Lu. 1:3). In Jo. 17:25 we read path.r di,kaie, clearly showing that path,r was regarded as a true vocative form. In Lu. 9:41 w= genea. a;pistoj the substantive has the same form in nominative and vocative and the adjective here follows suit. Cf. also Ac. 13:10; Lu. 12:20 where the adjective alone in the vocative has nominative form.

(e) APPOSITION TO THE VOCATIVE. The nominative forms and distinctive vocative forms are freely used side by side, in apposition, etc., when the case is vocative.89 In Mt. 1:20 we have vIwsh/f ui`o.j Dauei,d, and in 15:22 W. H. read in the text ku,rie ui`o.j Dauei,d. Cf. also Mt. 20:30. So ku,rie├ o` qeo,j├ o` pantokra,twr (Rev. 15:3), and w= a;nqrwpe├ pa/j o` kri,nwn (Ro. 2:1). In the last instance the participle and article naturally are unchanged. See again ouvrane. kai. oi` a[gioi, etc. (Rev. 18:20). Cf. also pa,ter h`mw/n o` evn toi/j ouvranoi/j (Mt. 6:9). So ku,rie, mou path,r├ B.U. 423 (ii/A.D.). But two vocative forms are put together also. So vIhsou/ ui`e. tou/ u`yi,stou (Lu. 8:28), pa,ter ku,rie tou/ ouvranou/grk grk(10:21), vIhsou/ ui`e. Dauei,dgrk grk(18:38). In Ac. 13:10 the nominative form is followed by two vocative forms, w= plh,rhj panto.j do,lou ktl)├ ui`e. diabo,lou├ evcqre. pa,shj dikaiosu,nhj) But plh,rhj may be here indeclinable. There is a distinct tendency among the less educated writers in the papyri to use the nominative as a convenient indeclinable (Moulton, Cl. Rev., April, 1904). So th/j evpith,rhsij, N. P. 38 (iii/A.D.).

(f) VOCATIVE IN PREDICATE. The vocative is rarely found in the predicate, though not grammatical predicate. This was oc-


casionally the case in the older Greek by a sort of attraction to a real vocative in the sentence.90 But in the N. T. we only have a few examples in the nature of quotation or translation. So in Jo. 1:38, `Rabbei,├ oa} le,getai meqermhneuo,menon Dida,skale; 20:16 `Rab─ bounei,├ oa} le,getai Dida,skale.

(g) THE ARTICLE WITH THE VOCATIVE. This idiom is frequent in the N. T., some 60 examples.91 It is a good Greek idiom and not infrequent.92 Delbruck93 finds it in harmony with the Indo-Germanic languages. Moulton94 denies that the coincident Hebrew and Aramaic use of the article in address had any influence on the N. T. But one must admit that the LXX translators would be tempted to use this Greek idiom very frequently, since the Hebrew had the article in address.95 Cf. 3 Ki. 17:20, 21, etc. In Mk 5:41, the Aramaic Taleiqa, is translated to. kora,sion. One is therefore bound to allow some influence to the Hebrew and Aramaic.96 Cf. also vAbba, o` path,r in Mk. 14:36, Gal. 4:6, and Ro. 8:15. It is doubtless true that h` pai/j e;geire (Lu. 8:54) has a touch of tenderness, and that to. mikro.n poi,mnion (Lu. 12:32) means 'you little flock.' But one can hardly see such familiarity in o` path,r (Mt. 11:26). But in Mk. 9:25 there may be a sort of insistence in the article, like 'Thou dumb and deaf spirit' ( to. a;lalon kai. kwfo.n pneu/ma). Even here the Aramaic, if Jesus used it, had the article. Moulton97 considers that basileu/ in Ac. 26:7 admits the royal prerogative in a way that would be inappropriate in the mockery of Jesus in Jo. 19:3 ( caire├ o` basileu.j tw/n vIoudai,wn). But Mk. 15:18 does have basileu/ tw/n vIoudai,wn, due, according to Moulton, to "the writer's imperfect sensibility to the more delicate shades of Greek idiom." Possibly so, but may not the grammarian be guilty of slight overrefinement just here? In Mt. 27:29 the text of W. H. has basileu/ while the margin reads o` basileu,j. In Rev. 15:3 we have o` basileu,j tw/n aivw,nwn. In Heb. 1:8 it is not certain whether ( o` qro,noj sou o` qeo,j) o` qeo,j is vocative or nominative. But o` despo,thj o` a[gioj kai. avlhqino,j (Rev. 6:10) is vocative. As examples of participles in the vocative take o` katalu,wn (Mt. 27:40)


Addenda 3rd ed.

and oi` evmpeplhsme,noi nu/n (Lu. 6:25). In Rev. 4:11 we have also the vocative case in o` ku,rioj kai. o` qeo,j. In Jo. 20:28 Thomas addresses Jesus as o` ku,rio,j mou kai. o` qeo,j mou, the vocative like those above. Yet, strange to say, Winer98 calls this exclamation rather than address, apparently to avoid the conclusion that Thomas was satisfied as to the deity of Jesus by his appearance to him after the resurrection. Dr. E. A. Abbott99 follows suit also in an extended argument to show that ku,rie o` qeo,j is the LXX way of addressing God, not o` ku,rioj kai. o` qeo,j. But after he had written he appends a note to p. 95 to the effect that "this is not quite satisfactory. For xiii. 13, fwnei/te, me o` dida,skaloj kai. o` ku,rioj, and Rev. 4:11 a;xioj ei=├ o` ku,rioj kai. o` qeo.j h`mw/n, ought to have been mentioned above." This is a manly retraction, and he adds: "John may have used it here exceptionally." Leave out "exceptionally" and the conclusion is just. If Thomas used Aramaic he certainly used the article. It is no more exceptional in Jo. 20:28 than in Rev. 4:11.

VII. The Accusative $h` aivtiatikh. ptw/sij).

(a) THE NAME. It signifies little that is pertinent. Varro calls it accusandei casus from aivtia,omai, while Dionysius Thrax explains it as kat v aivti,an ('cause'), a more likely idea. Glycas calls it also to. ai;ton. So Priscian terms it causativus. Gildersleeve ("A Syntactician among the Psychologists," Am. Jour. Philol., Jan., 1910, p. 76) remarks: "The Romans took the bad end of aivti,a, and translated aivtiatikh,, accusativus - hopeless stupidity, from which grammar did not emerge till 1836, when Trendelenburg showed that aivtiatikh. ptw/sij means casus effectivus, or causativus . . . The object affected appears in Greek now as an accusative, now as a dative, now as a genitive. The object effected refuses to give its glory to another, and the object affected can be subsumed under the object effected." With this I agree. Cf. Farrar, Greek Syntax, p. 81. Old English "accuse" could mean 'betray' or 'show,' but the "showing" case does not mark it off from the rest. Originally, however, it was the only case and thus did show the relations of nouns with other words. On the small value of the case-names see Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 379. But at any rate accusativus is a false translation of aivtiatikh,. Steinthal, Geschichte d. Spr., p. 295.

(b) AGE AND HISTORY. A more pertinent point is the age and history of the accusative, the oldest of all the cases. Farrar (Greek Syntax, p. 81) calls attention to the fact that evgw,n (old form of evgw,), Sanskrit aham, tuam, Boeotian tou,n, Latin idem, all have the


accusative ending though in the nominative. If it is true that the accusative is the oldest case, perhaps we are to think of the other oblique cases as variations from it. In other words the accusative was the normal oblique case for a noun, (especially with verbs) unless there was some special reason for it to be in another case. The other oblique cases were developed apparently to express more exactly than the accusative the various word-relations. Indeed in the vernacular Greek the accusative retained its old frequency as the normal case with verbs that in the literary style used other cases.100 In the old Greek poets the same thing is noticeable. Pindar,101 for example, has "a multiplicity of accusatives." In the modern Greek vernacular the accusative has regained its original frequency to the corresponding disuse of the other oblique cases. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 35. "When a find sense for language is failing, it is natural to use the direct accusative to express any object which verbal action affects, and so to efface the difference between 'transitive' and 'intransitive' verbs."102 There was therefore first a decrease in the use of the accusative as the literary language grew, then an increase in the koinh, vernacular,103 the later Greek,104 and especially the modern Greek vernacular.105 This gain or rather persistence of the accusative in the vernacular is manifest in the N. T. in various ways. But the literary koinh, shows it also, as Krebs106 has carefully worked out with many verbs.

(c) THE MEANING OF THE ACCUSATIVE. It is not so easy to determine this in the view of many scholars. Delbruck107 despairs of finding a single unifying idea, but only special types of the accusative. Brugmann108 also admits that the real ground-idea of the case is unknown, though the relation between noun and verb is expressed by it. The categories are not always sharply defined in the soul of the speaker.109 Hilbschmann110 treats the expansion


of the verb as the ground-idea of the accusative. "The relation of the accusative to its governing verb resembles the relation of the genitive to its governing substantive."111 La Roche112 considers it originally a local case and that the inner meaning came later. The usage of the accusative can indeed, for convenience, be divided into the outer $oivki,an, Mt. 7:24) and the inner ( evfobh,qhsan fo,bon me,gan, Mk. 4:41) usage. But the whole case cannot be discussed on this artificial principle, as Monro113 rightly sees. He sees hope only in the direction of the wide adverbial use of the accusative. In the Sanskrit certainly "a host of adverbs are accusative cases in form."114 Green115 calls it "the limitative case," and he is not far out of the way. Farrar116 thinks that "motion towards" explains it all. Giles,117 while recognising all the difficulties, defines the accusative as the answer to the question "How far?" The word extension comes as near as any to expressing the broad general idea of the accusative as applied to its use with verbs, substantives, adjectives, prepositions. It is far more commonly used with verbs, to be sure, but at bottom the other uses have this same general idea. Being the first case it is naturally the most general in idea. If you ask a child (in English) "Who is it?" he will reply "It's me." This is, however, not a German idiom. The accusative measures an idea as to its content, scope, direction. But the accusative was used in so many special applications of this principle that various subdivisions became necessary for intelligent study.

(d) WITH VERBS OF MOTION. It is natural to begin with verbs of motion, whether we know that this was the earliest use or not, a matter impossible to decide. We still in English say "go home," and the Latin used domum in exactly that way. Extension over space is, of course, the idea here. One goes all the way to his home. It is found in Homer and occasionally in Greek writers.118 Modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 37, has a local accusative) pa,me spi,ti, 'we are going home.' Moulton (Prol., p. 61) notes that it is just the local cases that first lost their distinctive forms (ablative, locative, associative-instrumental; and the "terminal accusative" like ire Romam disappeared also. "The surviving Greek


cases thus represent purely grammatical relations, those of subject, object, possession, remoter object and instrument." The placeadverb does supply the place of the terminal accusative, but not entirely of the locative, ablative and instrumental.

Some MSS. in Ac. 27:2 read plei/n tou.j kata. th.n vAsi,an to,pouj├ but the best (W. H.) have eivj after plei/n. In u`pepleu,samen th.n Ku,pron and to. pe,lagoj diapleu,santej (cf. English "sail the sea"), verses 4 f., the prepositions in composition help to explain the case. In Mt. 4:15 o`do.n qala,sshj has no verb of motion and comes in the midst of vocatives in a way quite startling. Green119 refers to the LXX (Is. 9:1) for the explanation and quotes "Christ and Him Crucified." But the LXX gives little relief, for, while B does not have it, several MSS. do and without a verb. B however reads oi` th/n parali,an, which presents the same difficulty as to case. Winer120 suggests oivkou/ntej, with oi`├ possibly correct. But even in Matthew the writer may have had in mind the general accusative notion of extension, 'along the way of the sea.'

(e) EXTENT OF SPACE. The ordinary accusative for extent of space does not differ materially from that of motion above. Here the root-idea of the case is easily perceived apart from the force of the verb. The point is that this is not a special development of the accusative, but is the normal idea of the case, extension. The application to space is natural. The Greek continues all along to have this idiom as the Latin and English. The adverb makra,n (Ac. 22:21) is a good example. Take Jo. 6:19 evlhlako,tej w`j stadi,ouj ei;kosi pe,nte h' tria,konta, Lu. 22:41 avpespa,sqh avp v auvtw/n w`sei. li,qou bolh,n. The accusative tells "how far." Observe in Lu. 2:44 h=lqon h`me,raj o`do,n. Proselqw.n mikro,n (Mt. 26:39) is a good example of this use of the accusative. In Ac. 1:12 sabba,tou e;con o`do,n varies the construction by the insertion of e;con. In Lu. 24:13 similarly we have avpe,cousan stadi,ouj e`xh,konta. Cf. Mt. 14:24. The use of avpo,, as w`j avpo. stadi,wn dekape,nte (Jo. 11:18; cf. 21:8; Rev. 14:20), Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 95) calls a Latinism (cf. a millibus passuum duobus), but Moulton (Prol., p. 101 f.) cites Doric and papyri parallels for pro, and makes a mere Latinism unlikely. So O.P. 492 (ii/A.D.) met v evniauto.n e[na. Diodorus and Plutarch use the same idiom. It is clearly not a direct Latinism. In modern Greek the accusative is common for locality or place affected (Thumb, Handb., p. 35 f.).

(f) EXTENT OF TIME. It answers the question "how far?" in time, or "how long?" In the N. T. the examples of time are far


more frequent than those of mere space. The locative, instrumental and genitive are also used to express time, but they bring out a different idea, as will be shown. The accusative is thus used for duration or extension in the Indo-Germanic languages generally. Cf. ti, w-de e`sth,kate o[lhn th.n h`me,ran avrgoi, (Mt. 20:6); tosau/ta e[th douleu,w soi (Lu. 15:29). A good example is e;meinan th.n h`me,ran evkei,nhn (Jo. 1:39). Cf. Jo. 2:12; 11:6. In Lu. 1:75 W. H. (text) read pa,saij tai/j h`me,raij (instr.). Another good illustration is avpedh,mhsen cro,nouj i`kanou,j (Lu. 20:9). Cf. evk dhnari,ou th.n h`me,ran (Mt. 20:2) where the accusative well brings out the agreement between the landlord and the labourers. In nu,kta kai. h`me,ran (Mk. 4:27) the sleeping and rising go on continually from day to day. Cf. h`me,ran evx h`me,raj (2 Pet. 2:8). The papyri examples are numerous, like to,kouj didra,cmouj th/j mna/j to.n mh/na e[kaston, A.P. 50 (ii/B.C.). Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901. The plural is like, wise so used, as ta.j h`me,raj- ta.j nu,ktaj (Lu. 21: 37).

Perhaps little difficulty is felt in the accusative in Ac. 24:25, to. nu/n e;con poreu,ou. So also as to to. loipo,n (or loipo,n) in Mk. 14:41, to. plei/ston (1 Cor. 14:27), and even evnekopto,mhn ta. polla, (Ro. 15: 22). But there are uses of the accusative in expressions of time that do furnish trouble at first blush. In some of these the accusative seems to be merely adverbial (Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 94) with little stress on duration. Indeed a point of time may be indicated. Cf. to. pro,teron (Jo. 6:62), pro,teron (Heb. 10:32), prw/ton (Mt. 5:24). It is not hard to see how the accusative of general reference came to be used here, although it is a point of time. Note the article ( to. kaq v h`me,ran, Lu. 19:47) in the accusative. We can now go on to to. te,loj (1 Pet. 3:8) and even th.n avrch,n (Jo. 8:25). But a more difficult example is found in Jo. 4:52, evcqe.j w[ran e`bdo,mhn, where a point of time is indicated. See also poi,an w[ran in Rev. 3:3; pa/san w[ran (1 Cor. 15:30). One may conjecture that this use of w[ran was not regarded as essentially different from the idea of extension. Either the action was regarded as going over the hour or the hour was looked at more as an adverbial accusative like to. loipo,n above. Cf. also th.n h`me,─ ran th/j penthkosth/j gene,sqai eivj vIeroso,luma (Ac. 20:16). In BlassDebrunner, p. 98, examples are given from AEschylus, Euripides, Aristotle, Demosthenes, where w[ran╩eivj w[ran. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 63, for to. pe,mpton e;toj (0.P. 477, ii/A.D.) 'in the fifth year.' To. paro,n B.U. 22 (ii/A.D.) means 'at present' (Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 437). In the modern Greek vernacular the accusative is used freely to designate a point of time as well as extent of time


(Thumb, Handb., p. 37). So in the N. T. the accusative is widening its scope again. In Ac. 10:30 avpo. teta,rthj h`me,raj me,cri tau,thj th/j w[raj h;mhn th.n evna,thn proseuco,menoj we can see an interesting example where th.n evna,thn is explanatory of the previous note of time, a point of time, and yet a whole hour is meant. In Ac. 10:3 ( peri. w[ran evna,thn) observe peri,, though some MSS. do not have the preposition. Cf. Mk. 13:35 mesonu,ktion (acc.) h' avlektorofwni,aj (gen.) h' prwi, (loc.) for points of time.121 The papyri have examples of a point of time in the accusative,122 as already seen. But the locative is still more frequent in the N. T. for a point of time, as poi,a| w[ra| (Lu. 12:39). It is not difficult to see the appropriateness of the accusative in tessareskaideka,thn sh,meron h`me,ran prosdokw/ntej a;sitoi diatelei/te (Ac. 27:33). It is good Greek with the ordinal.

(g) WITH TRANSITIVE VERBS. The most common accusative is when it is the object of a transitive verb. One cannot hope to pursue all the uses of the accusative in the order of historical development. For instance, no one knows whether cognate accusative (of inner content or objective result) preceded the ordinary objective use of the case. Does the adverbial accusative (so common in adjectives) precede the accusative with verbs? These points have to be left unsettled. In actual usage the accusative with transitive verbs calls for most attention. But the term "transitive" needs a word. It means a verb whose action passes over to a noun. This idea may be intransitive in another language, as, for instance, mh. ovmnu,ete mh,te to.n ouvrano.n mh,te th.n gh/n (Jas. 5:12). In English ovmnu,w is rendered by 'swear by.' Cf. evrga,zesqe mh. th.n brw/sin (Jo. 6:27), English 'work for.' Not all Greek verbs are transitive, as eivmi,, for example. The same verb may be used now transitively, now intransitively, as e;menon h`ma/j (Ac. 20:5) and e;menen par v auvtoi/j (Ac. 18:3). So o` ble,pwn evn tw|/ kruptw|/ (Mt. 6:4) and ti, de. ble,peij to. ka,rfoj (Mt. 7:3). Cf. English word "see." As further illustration of the freedom of the Greek verb note ble,pete ti, avkou,ete (Mk. 4:24), ble,pete tou.j ku,naj (Ph. 3:2), ble,pete avpo. th/j zu,mhj (Mk. 8:15).123 There is indeed a difference between the accusative and the use of a preposition as in feu,gete th.n pornei,an (1 Cor. 6 : 18) and feu,gete avpo. th/j eivdwlolatrei,aj. (1 Cor. 10:14).


Addenda 2nd ed.

But for practical purposes many Greek verbs were used with liberty. In the case of fobe,omai with accus. (Mt. 10:26, 28) or with avpo, and ablative (Mt. 10:28) we have a Hebraism. Moulton (Prol., p. 102) admits that this use of avpo, is a "translation-Hebraism" ( !mi). It occurs in both Mt. Mt.(10:28) and Lu. Lu.(12:4) and represents probably the Aramaic original. Cf. o`ra/te kai. fula,ssesqe avpo, (Lu. 12:15) and o`ra/te kai. prose,cete avpo, (Mt. 16:6). Xen. (Cyr., 11. 3, 9) uses avpo, with fula,ssw. This matter will call for further discussion directly.

But we have (pp. 330 f.) observed that transitive verbs in Greek do not always have the accusative. The transitiveness may be as clearly expressed by a dative as with avkolouqe,w, the genitive with evpiqume,w, the ablative with avpostere,w, etc. The accusative is indeed the normal case with transitive verbs, but not the only one. Some verbs continued to use the accusative parallel with the other cases. Thus evpilanqa,nomai has ta. me.n ovpi,sw in Ph. 3:13, but filoxeni,aj in Heb. 13:2. Sometimes the point lies in the difference of case, as avkou,ontej me.n th/j fwnh/j (Ac. 9:7), but th.n de. fwnh.n ouvk h;kousan (Ac. 22:9). Then again verbs otherwise intransitive may be rendered transitive by the preposition in composition. Cf. dih,rceto th.n vIereicw, (Lu. 19:1), but evkei,nhj in 19:4. So parapleu/sai th.n ;Efeson (Ac. 20:16), etc. Another introductory remark about transitive verbs is that it is not a question of the voice of the verb. Many active verbs are intransitive like eivmi,; middle verbs may be either transitive or intransitive; even passive verbs may be transitive. Thus h;kouon tau/ta (Lu. 16:14), evkth,sato cwri,on (Ac. 1:18), and mh. ou=n fobhqh/te auvtou,j (Mt. 10:26) are all transitive constructions. Cf. Mk. 8:38; Ro. 1:16; 2 Tim. 1:8 for evpaiscu,nomai (passive) with accusative.

One cannot, of course, mention all the N. T. transitive verbs that have the accusative. Here is a list of the most frequent verbs that are not always transitive, but sometimes have the accusative.124 vAdike,w indeed may be either transitive (Mt. 20:13) or intransitive (Ac. 25:11), in the one case meaning 'do wrong to,' in the other 'be guilty.' Bla,ptw (only twice in the N. T., Mk. 16:18; Lu. 4:35) is transitive both times. Bohqe,w has only dative (Mk. 9:22) and wvfele,w only accusative (Mk. 8:36). In Lu. 17:2 we have lusitelei/ auvtw|/) vApore,omai is always intransitive in the N. T. (like diap.) except in Ac, 25:20 (so ancient Greek sometimes). vApostre,fomai as in Attic, is found with the accusative in Tit. 1:14 and Heb. 12:25. In 2 Tim. 1:15 the aorist passive


( avpestra,fhsa,n me% is so used. For like use of the aorist or future passive with accusative see evntraph,sontai to.n ui`o,n mou (Mt. 21:37), where the earlier writers generally had dative ( evntre,pomai); evpai─ scunqh|/ me (Mk. 8:38) from evpaiscu,nomai, whereas aivscu,nomai is intransitive ( avpo, and abl. in 1 Jo. 2:28). So also ouvde.n avpekri,qh (Mk. 15:5) as ouvde.n avperi,nato (Mt. 27:12), but note avperi,qh pro.j ouvde. ea}n r`h/ma (Mt. 27:14). Cf. ti, avpokriqh|/ (Mk. 9:6). For fobhqh/te auvtou,j see Mt. 10:26 and note fobhqh/te avpo. tw/n avpokteino,ntwngrk grk(10:28) which happens to be in imitation of the Hebrew idiom ( !mi) as of the English "be afraid of." (Cf. above.) See Jer. 1:8. In Mt. 10:31 fobei/sqe is intransitive.

Baskai,nw in Attic Greek was used with the dative in the sense of 'envy,' but in Gal. 3:1 the accusative in the sense of 'bewitch.' Blasfhme,w in the Attic had eivj as in Lu. 12:10, but it also occurs as transitive with accusative (Mt. 27:39). In 2 Pet. 2:12 we find evn├ not eivj (cf. Jude 1:100). vEphrea,zw has the accusative, not dative as Attic, in Lu. 6:28; 1 Pet. 3:16. So katara,omai has u`ma/j (some MSS. u`mi/n like Attic) in Lu. 6:28. Cf. Mk. 11:21; Jas. 3:9. For loidore,w with accusative see Jo. 9:28; Ac. 23:4, and for lumai,nomai see Ac. 8:3. The MSS. vary in Heb. 8:8 between auvtou,j and auvtoi/j (as in Attic) with memfomai, but W. H. read auv─ tou,j. In Mt. 5:11 and 27:44 ovneidi,zw has the accusative, though Attic used the dative. The accusative alone occurs with u`bri,zw (Lu. 11:45). So also both euvloge,w (Lu. 2:28) and kakologe,w (Ac. 19:9) have the accusative. In Ac. 23:5 ouvk evrei/j kakw/j is found with the accusative. In the margin of Jo. 1:15 W. H. give o]n ei=pon. In Jo. 8:27 we have to.n pate,ra auvtoui/j e;legen, with which compare as ou]j e;legon (Ph. 3:18), a construction common in the older Greek. A similar construction is found in Attic Greek with eu= $kalw/j% poie,w├ kakw/j poie,w, etc. In the N. T., however, note auv─ toi/j eu= poiei/n (Mk. 14:7) and kalw/j poiei/te toi/j misou/sin (Lu. 6:27).

The remaining verbs125 that call for discussion in this connection cannot be grouped very well. They will be treated simply in alphabetical order. In the LXX geu,omai, is fairly common with the accusative, and some examples occur in other later writers instead of the usual genitive.126 In the N. T. the genitive is still the usual case ( qana,tou, Lu. 9:27; Jo. 8:52; Heb. 2:9; dei,pnou, Lu. 14:24; dwrea/j, Heb. 6:4; mhdeno,j, Ac. 23:14), but the accusative


is found in Jo. 2:9 ( to. u[dwr) and Heb. 6:5 ( kalo.n qeou/ r`h/ma). In Rev. 17:3 we even have ge,monta ovno,mata instead of ovnoma,twn) The accusative appears with gonupete,w (Mk. 10:17), but absolutely in Mk. 1:40, and with e;mprosqen in Mt. 27:29. In Rev. 2:14 dida,skw has the dative ( tw|/ bala,k), a construction which might a priori seem natural with this verb, but not so used in Greek (cf. Latin and English).127 Diya,w and peina,w are intransitive in the N. T. save in Mt. 5:6 where the accusative is used, not the class. genitive. Dra,ssomai appears only once (1 Cor. 3:19) in a quotation from the LXX and has the accusative. vElee,w is transitive (Mt. 9:27, etc.) as is oivkte,rw (Ro. 9:15, quotation from LXX). vEmporeu,o─ mai occurs only twice, once intransitive (Jas. 4:13), once with accusative (2 Pet. 2:3). vEnedreu,w likewise occurs only twice (Lu. 11:54; Ac. 23:21) and with accusative both times. Cf. O.P. 484 (ii/A.D.) in sense of 'defraud' with accusative. (Moulton, Cl. Rev., Apr., 1904). vEpiqume,w is found with the genitive (Ac. 20: 33) or with the accusative (Mt. 5:28) according to W. H. (BD, etc.). vErag,zomai is often transitive, but th.n qa,lassan evrga,zontai, (Rev. 18:17) is somewhat unusual, to say the least. Euvaggeli,zo─ mai (active in Rev. 10:7; 14:6; passive Gal. 1:11; Heb. 4:6, etc.) has the Attic idiom of accusative of the thing and dative of the person (Lu. 4:43; Eph. 3:8, etc.), but examples occur of the accusative of the person addressed (Lu. 3:18; Ac. 8:25). In Ac. 13:32 Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 90 note) denies two accusatives to euvagg., construing th.n - evpaggeli,an with o[ti tau,thn o` qeo.j evkpeplh,rwken. This is rather forced, but even so the o[ti clause would be in the accus. Euvdoke,w is trans. in the LXX and so appears in the N. T. twice (Mt. 12:18, quotation from the LXX; Heb. 10: 6, 8, LXX also). Euvcariste,w in 2 Cor. 1:11 occurs in the passive $to. ca,risma euvcaristhqh|/) in a construction that shows that the active would have had an accusative of the thing and a dative of the person. Cf., for instance, pleonekthqw/men in 2 Cor. 2:11 with evpleone,kthsa u`ma/j (2 Cor. 12:17 f.), only euvc. did not go so far as to have the accusative. On the other hand in the N. T. qarre,w is not transitive (2 Cor. 10:2 instr.), though in the older Greek it was sometimes. It occurs absolutely (2 Cor. 5:6), with evn (2 Cor. 7:16), with eivj (2 Cor. 10:1). qauma,zw has the accusative in Lu. 7:9, Ac. 7:31 and Ju. 16. qriambeu,w has the accusative in 2 Cor 2:14 and Col. 2:15, though the verb has a different sense in each passage. `Ierourge,w occurs only once (Ro. 15:16) and with the accusative. In Heb. 2:17 i`la,skomai has accusative of the


Addenda 3rd ed.

thing as in LXX, Philo and inscriptions (Blass, Gr. of N. T., p. 88). Kauca,omai has accusative in 2 Cor. 9:2 and 11:30. Klai,w has accusative in Mt. 2:18 (0. T. quotation unlike LXX), but evpi, in Lu. 23:28. However, D omits evpi,. Klhronome,w has only the accusative. Ko,ptomai has accusative in Lu. 8:52 ( evpi, Rev. 1:7). Krate,w out of forty-seven instances in the N. T. has the genitive in eight, accusative in 37, one absolute, one tou/ and inf.128 Ma qhteu,w is a late word and has the accusative in Mt. 28:19 and Ac. 14:21. The other examples (Mt. 13:52; 27:57) are passive, but in Mt. 27:57 the active (intr.) is the marginal reading of W. H. Cf. old English verb "disciple." Me,mfomai has the accusative, not dative, in Heb. 8:8, but the text is doubtful. Me,nw is usually intransitive, but in Ac. 20:5, 23, the accusative occurs (sense of 'wait for'). Cf. also accusative with avname,nw (1 Th. 1:10), perime,nw (Ac. 1:4), u`pome,nw (Heb. 10:32) in sense of 'endure.' Nika,w is transitive with accusative usually, but in Rev. 15:2 it uses evk with ablative. So xeni,zomai is transitive with accusative in Heb. 13:2. ;Omnumi usually has evn (Mt. 23:16, etc., cf. Hebrew B. sometimes kata, (Heb. 6:13), or occurs absolutely (Mt. 5:34), but the accusative (sense of 'swear by,' common in ancient Greek, cf. Hos. 4:15 for LXX) appears only in Jas. 5: 12, except o[rkon oa}n w;mosen (Lu. 1:73), a cognate accusative. The papyri show it with the accusative, B.U. 543 (i/B.c.). Moulton, Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901. vOneidi,zw has the accusative, not the dative, in the N. T. `Orik,zw has the accusative in both instances that occur in the N. T. (Mk. 5:7; Ac. 19:13), while evxorki,zw (Mt. 26:63) has the accusative and kata, also ( se kata. tou/ qeou/). `Omo─ loge,w is common with the accusative or absolutely, but in Mt. 10:32 (two examples) and Lu. 12:8 (two examples) evn is used as the translation of the Aramaic B.. Moulton129 is unable to find any justification for this idiom in Greek and calls attention to the fact that both Matthew and Luke have it in a parallel passage as proof of the Aramaic original as the language of Jesus. One may note peribalei/tai evn i`mati,oij (Rev. 3:5). The use of evn h`mi/n evxele,xato (Ac. 15:7) is not parallel as Winer130 observes. Here evn h`mi/n means 'among us.' In Ac. 27:22 paraine,w (like parakale,w, Blass, Gr. of N. T., p. 90) has the accusative instead of the dative of the person. In 2 Cor. 12:21 penqe,w has the accusative, but evpi, in Rev. 18:11. Moulton (Prol., p. 67 f.) has a very helpful discussion of pisteu,w


Addenda 3rd ed.

when not absolute and not meaning 'entrust.' Under the dative his remarks will be pertinent. Pisteu,w is often absolute (Jo. 1:50) and often means 'entrust' when it has the accusative (Jo. 2:24), Proskune,w) in the ancient Greek uses the accusative regularly. In the Ptolemaic inscriptions the accusative is still the more usual case,131 but the N. T. uses the dative twice as often as the accusative.132 In Jo. 4:23 the accusative and the dative occur with little difference in result.133 Cf. also Rev. 13:4, 8. Abbott134 observes that the dative is the regular usage in the LXX. As to u`stere,w we find it used absolutely (Mt. 19:20), with the ablative (Ro. 3:23) and once with the accusative ( e[n se u`sterei/, Mk. 10:21) as in Ps. 22:1. Some of the MSS. in Mark have soi, as the LXX usually.135 Feu,gw occurs absolutely (Mt. 2:13), with aro (Mt. 23:33), with evk (Ac. 27:30) or with the accusative (Heb. 11:34; 1 Tim. 6:11). So evkfeu,gw is transitive (Lu. 21:36) with accusative while avpofeu,gw has accusative in 2 Pet. 2:20. Fula,ssw has, of course, the accusative, but in Ac. 21:25 two accusatives occur with the sense of 'shun.' In Lu. 12:15 the middle is used with avpo, and in 1 Jo. 5:21 fula,xate e`auta. avpo,) Cra,omai still uses the instrumental (cf. utor in Latin), as Ac. 27:3, 17, etc., but in 1 Cor. 7:31 the accusative is found ( crw,menoi to.n ko,smon) in response to the general accusative tendency. Cf. katacrw,menoi, in the same verse. The accusative with cra,omai appears in later writers.136

It remains in this connection to call special attention to the intransitive verbs which have the accus. by reason of a preposition in composition. This applies to intrans. verbs and trans. verbs also which in simplex used some other case. vAna, furnishes one example in avna─qa,llw (Ph. 4:10) if to. fronei/n there is the object of the verb after the transitive use in the LXX (Ezek. 17:24). But most probably this is the accusative of general reference. vApelpi,zw (Lu. 6:35) is indeed transitive with accusative, but so is evlpi,zw (1 Cor. 13:7; 2 Cor, 1:13, etc.) sometimes. Here are some examples of dia,: to. pe,lagoj diapleu,santej (Ac. 27:5), dieporeu,─ onto ta.j po,leij (Ac. 16:4), dielqw.n th.n Makedoni,an (Ac. 19:21; cf. acc. in Lu. 19:1 and gen. evkei,nhj in 19:4). In Heb. 11:29 ( die,bh─ san th.n qa,lassan w`j dia. xhra/j gh/j) Blass137 notes both accusative and genitive (with dia,). Even evnerege,w has the accusative in 1 Cor. 12:6, 11. As examples of kata, observe kateba,rhsa u`ma/j (2 Cor. 12:


Addenda 3rd ed.

16), u`ma/j katabrabeue,tw (Col. 2:18), kathgwni,santo basilei,aj (Heb. 11:33). Note also katasofisa,menoj to. ge,noj (Ac. 7:19). Cf. kata─ crw,menoi in 1 Cor. 7:31, but instrumental in 1 Cor. 9:18. For para, note parabai,nete th.n evntolh,n (Mt. 15:3) and pare,rcesqe th.n kri,sin (Lu. 11:42; cf. 15:29 and Mk. Peri, furnishes several examples like avdelfh.n gunai/ka peria,gein (1 Cor. 9:5; cf. Mt. 9:35, etc.), but intransitive in Mt. 4:23. This verb, a;gw, however, is both transitive (Mt. 21:7) and intransitive (Mk. 1: 38) in the simple form. Perierco,menai has the accusative in 1 Tim. 5:13, but elsewhere intransitive. So perie,sthsan auvto,n in Ac. 25:7, but intransitive ( periestw/ta) in Jo. 11:42. In Mk 6:55 we find perie,dramon o[lhn th.n cw,ran. With pro, one notes proa,gw (Mt. 14:22, proa,gein auvto,n%, proh,rceto auvtou,j (Lu. 22:47), with which compare proeleu,setai evnw,pion auvtou/ (Lu. 1:17). In Ac. 12: 10 both die,rcomai and proe,cromai are used with the accusative. Prosfwne,w, like proskune,w, has either the accusative (Lu. 6:13) or the dative (Mt. 11:16). If o` qeo,j be accepted in Ro. 8:28 ( pa,nta sunergei/ o` qeo,j), which is more than doubtful, then sunergei/ would be transitive (cf. instr. in Jas. 2:22). For u`pe,r observe u`perektei,nomen e`autou,j (2 Cor. 10:14) and h` u`pere,cousa pa,nta nou/n (Ph. 4:7). With u`po, we can mention u`pome,nw (1 Cor. 13:7, but see me,nw) u`pepleu,samen th.n Krh,thn (Ac. 27:7) and nhsi,on de, ti u`podramo,ntej (Ac. 27:16). Thus it will be seen that in the N. T. the accusative with transitive verbs, both simple and compound, follows the increase in the use of the accusative in line with the current vernacular.

Sometimes indeed the object of the verb is not expressed, but really implied, and the verb is transitive. Thus prose,cete e`autoi/j (Lu. 17:3) implies to.n nou/n. Cf. also prose,cete avpo. tw/n yeudoprofh─ tw/n (Mt. 7:15) and evpe,cwn pw/j (Lu. 14:7); kata. kefalh/j e;cwn (1 Cor. 11:4). In evpiqh,setai, soi (Ac. 18:10) cei/raj must be supplied, and with die,tribon (Ac. 15:35) cron,on is needed.

(h) THE COGNATE ACCUSATIVE. It may be either that of inner content, evca,rhsan cara,n (Mt. 2:10), objective result a`marta,─ nonta a`marti,an (1 Jo. 5:16), fula,ssontej fulaka,j (Lu. 2:8), or even a kindred word in idea but a different root, as darh,setai ovli,gaj ( plhga,j, Lu. 12:48). Considerable freedom must thus be given the term "cognate" as to both form and idea. The real cognate accusative is a form of the Figura Etymologica as applied to either internal or external object. The quasi-cognate is due to analogy where the idea, not the form, is cognate.138 The cognate is not very


common in the papyri,139 but in the Hebrew the idiom is very frequent.140 It is perfectly good Greek to have141 this "playing with paronymous terms," as a passage from Plato's Protagoras 326 D illustrates, u`pogra,yantej gramma.j th|/ grafi,di ou[tw to. grammatei/on. Cf. ti,j poimai,nei poi,mnhn (1 Cor. 9:7). So also in Lu. 8:5, evxh/lqen o` spei,rwn tou/ spei/rai to.n spo,ron. Gildersleeve (Am. Jour. of Philol., xxxiii, 4, p. 488) objects properly to Cauer's crediting, in his Grammatica Militans, "the division of the accusative into the object affected and the object effected" to Kern, since Gildersleeve himself was using it as far back as 1867. In modern English this repetition of the same root condemned, but it was not so in Greek. Conybeare and Stock142 observe that the Hebrew and the Greek coincide on this point, and hence the excess of such accusatives in the LXX in various applications. And the N. T., here unlike the papyri, shows an abundance of the cognate accusatives.

The accusative of the inner content may be illustrated by th.n dikai,an kri,sin kri,nete (Jo. 7:24), to.n fo,bon auvtw/n mh. fobhqh/te (1 Pet. 3:14), au;xei th.n au;xhsin tou/ qeou/ (Col. 2:19), i[na stratu,h| th.n kalh.n stratei,an (1 Tim. 1:18), avgwni,zou to.n kalo.n avgw/na (1 Tim. 6:12), w`molo,ghsaj th.n kalh.n o`mologi,an (ib.), evqau,masa ivdw.n auvth.n qau/ma me,ga (Rev. 17:6). Cf. Rev. 16:9. In Mk. 10:38, to. ba,ptisma oa} evgw. bapti,zomai, and Jo. 17:26, h` avga,ph ha}n hvga,phsa,j me (cf. Eph. 2:4), the relative shows this use of the accusative. In Jo. 17:26 and Eph. 2:4 ( ha}n hvga,pshen h`ma/j) the cognate accusative of the inner content is used along with the accusative of the person also.143 Indeed in Eph. 4:1, th/j klh,sewj h-j evklh,qehte the relative has been attracted from the cognate accusative. The modern Greek keeps this use of the accusative.

Some neuter adjectives are used to express this accusative, but far less frequently than in the ancient Greek.144 Thus, pepoiqw.j auvto. tou/to (Ph. 1:6), pa,nta ivscu,w (Ph. 4:13), nhsteu,ousin pukna, (Lu. 5:33), pa,nta evgkrateu,etai (1 Cor. 9:25), perhaps even tri,ton tou/to e;rcomai (2 Cor. 13:1), mhde.n diakrino,menoj (Jas. 1:6), ouvde.n u`ste,─ rhsa (2 Cor. 12:11). Cf. the interrogative ti, u`sterw/ (Mt. 19:20),


the relative oa} ga.r avpe,qanen and oa} de. zh|/ (Ro. 6:10). Cf. also oa} nu/n zw/ evn sarki, (Gal. 2:20) which may be equal to 'in that,' adverbial accusative.145 In 2 Cor. 12:13 the accusative relative follows the nominative interrogative ti, evstin oa} h`ssw,qhte. This neuter accusative of the adjective easily glides into the purely adverbial accunative, like pa,nta pa/sin avre,skw (1 Cor. 10:33), pa,nta mou me,mnhsqe (1 Cor. 11:2).

As a further example of the more objective result one may note h|vcmalw,teusen aivcmalwsi,an (Eph. 4:8, LXX), but Winer146 rightly shows that this type is chiefly represented in the N. T. by the relative. So marturi,a ha}n marturei/ (Jo. 5:32), diaqh,kh ha}n diaqh,somai (Heb. 8:10), blasfhmi,ai o[sa eva.n blasfhmh,swsin (Mk. 3:28), evpaggeli,a ha}n evphggei,lato (1 Jo. 2:25).

The cognate accusative of the outward object (result also) calls for little discussion. Besides fula,ssontej fulaka,j (Lu. 2:8) observe w|vkodo,mhsen th.n oivki,an (Mt. 7:24), dh,sate desma,j (Mt. 13:30, but aBC have eivj).

The analogous cognate accusative is seen in such constructions as mh. fobou,menai mhdemi,an pto,hsin (1 Pet. 3:6), biw/sai cro,non (1 Pet. 4:2), darh,setai polla,j $ovli,gaj) in Lu. 12:47 (48), h=lqon h`me,raj o`do,n (Lu. 2:44), evporeu,eto th.n o`do.n auvtou/ (Ac. 8:39), and the relative also as in o[rkon oa}n w;mosen (Lu. 1:73). Cf. the instrumental o[rkw| w;mosen (Ac. 2:30), etc.

(i) DOUBLE ACCUSATIVE. Some verbs may have two accusatives. Indeed, if one count space and time, three accusatives are possible.147 In Mk. 10:18 ( ti, me le,geij avgaqo,n) we have three accusatives, one being predicate. In the Sanskrit it is very common to have two accusatives with one verb.148 When one recalls that the accusative is the old and normal case with transitive verbs, it is not surprising that some verbs use two accusatives, just as many transitive verbs have an accusative and a dative, an accusative and an ablative, an accusative and an intrumental, an accusative and a genitive. This double accusative is common in Homer149 and a "multiplicity of accusatives is a characteristic of Pindar's style."150 It is a common idiom in the papyri also.151 It


Addenda 3rd ed.

is not unknown in Latin (cf. doceo) and English (teach). It is very common in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 36), going beyond the ancient idiom. Middleton152 holds that the double accusative is due to analogy, since, in a number of examples, alternative constructions occur like accusative and ablative with aivte,w (Ac. 3:2) and avfaire,omai (Lu. 16:3). Cf. two accusatives with wvnei,dizon in Mt, 27:44.

Perhaps the simplest kind of a double accusative is what is called the predicate accusative, really a sort of apposition. Thus ouvke,ti u`ma/j le,gw dou,louj (Jo. 15:15). This appositional feature is seen also in the passive of those verbs where a double nominative occurs. For other examples with verbs of saying see le,gw (Mk. 10: 18) and ei=pon in Jo. 10:35 ( evkei,nouj ei=pe qeou,j), etc. Similar to this is kale,w $kale,seij to. o;noma auvtou/ vIwa,nhn Lu. 1:13; cf. vIhsou/n verse 31; evka,loun auvto.──Zacari,an, 1:50). We happen to have the passive of this very construction in Lu. 2:21 ( evklh,qh to. o;noma auvtou/ vIhsou/j). Cf. further Mt. 22:43. Observe also oa}n kai. wvno,masen Pe,tron (Lu. 6:14). `Omologe,w appears with the double accusative in Jo. 9:22; 1 Jo. 4:2; 2 Jo. 1:7 and curiously nowhere else outside of John's writings. `Hge,omai likewise has two accusatives as in tau/ta h[ghmai zhmi,an (Ph. 3:7). See 2 Pet. 3:15; Heb. 11:26. Blass153 observes that nomi,zw and u`polamba,nw do not have the double accusative in the N. T. Poiou/mai in the same sense does occur, as poiou/mai th.n yuch.n timi,an (Ac. 20:24), and very frequently in the active, as poiei/j seauto.n qeo,n (Jo. 10:33). Cf. further for poie,w Mt. 4:19; Lu. 19:46; Jo. 5:11; 6:15; 19:7; Eph. 2:14; Rev. 21:5. Closely allied to this use of poie,w is e;cw $ei=con vIwa,nhn u`phre,thn, Ac. 13:5) and note Heb. 12:9; Ph. 2:29. ;Ece me parh|─ thme,non (Lu. 14:18) is to be observed. also. Cf. also seauto.n pareco,─ menoj tu,pon (Tit. 2:7). Lamba,nw is so used in Jas. 5:10, u`po,deigma la,bete- tou.j profh,taj) Ti,qhmi may be exemplified by u`ma/j to. pneu/ma to. a[gion e;qeto evpisko,pouj (A, 20:28). Cf. Heb. 1:2 ( e;qh─ ken% and Ro. 3:25, oa}n proe,qeto o` qeo.j i`lasth,rion) Kaqi,sthmi shows several examples like ti,j me kate,sthsen krith,n (Lu. 12:14). Cf. also Ac. 7:10; Heb. 7:28. In Gal. 2:18 we have paraba,thn evmau─ to.n sunista,nw) vApodi,knumi shows an example in 1 Cor. 4:9 and proori,zw in Ro. 8:29. For further verbs with two accusatives, not to weary one, see peria,gw (1 Cor. 9:5), i`kano,w (2 Cor. 3:6), evkle,go─ mai (Jas. 2:5), u`yo,w (Ac. 5:31).

This second accusative may be either substantive, adjective or participle. As specimens of the adjective take o` poih,saj me u`gih/


(Jo. 5:11), tou.j toiou,touj evnti,mouj e;cete (Ph. 2:29). In 1 Cor. 4:9 indeed the adjective makes three accusatives and with w`j four, o` qeo.j h`ma/j tou.j avposto,louj evsca,touj avpedeixen w`j evpiqanati,ouj (so W. H.). As an example of the participle see kate,sthsen auvto.n h`gou,menon (Ac. 7:10). Cf. 2 Tim. 2:8. Sometimes w`j occurs with the second accusative, as in w`j profh,thn auvto.n ei=con (Mt. 14:5). Cf. 21:26. In 2 Th. 3:15 note mh. w`j evcqro.n h`gei/sqe├ avlla. nouqetei/te w`j avdel─ fo,n. In 1 Cor. 4:1 observe also h`ma/j logize,sqw a;nqrwpoj w`j u`phre,taj Cristou/. In 2 Cor. 10:2 we have w`j with the participle, tou.j logizome,nouj h`ma/j w`j kata. sa,rka peripatou/ntaj. In 2 Cor. 6:4 w`j qeou/ dia,konoi is not exactly what w`j diako,nouj would be. Cf. w`j with the predicate nominative in Ro. 8:36 (LXX).

Sometimes ei=nai is used as the copula before such a predicate accusative where the sense is not greatly altered by its absence or presence. As a matter of fact with ei=nai we have indirect discourse with the accusative and infinitive. So u`pokrinome,nouj e`autou.j dikai,ouj ei=nai (Lu. 20:20); Mk. 1:17 = Mt. 4:19. Cf. sunesth,sate e`autou.j a`gnou.j ei=nai (2 Cor. 7:11), logi,zesqe e`autou.j ei=nai nekrou,j (Ro. 6:11), but ADEFG do not have ei=nai. In Ph. 3:7 we do not have ei=nai, while in verse 8 we do after h`gou/mai.

The predicate accusative with eivj used to be explained as an undoubted Hebraism.154 But Moulton155 is only willing to admit it is a secondary Hebraism since the papyri show a few examples like e;scon par v h`mw/n eivj da,$neion% spe,rmata, K.P. 46 (ii/A.D.), "a recurrent formula," a probable vernacular "extension of eivj expressing destination." Moulton pertinently remarks that "as a loan" ( w`j or just the accusative in apposition) and "for a loan" ( eivj) "do not differ except in grammar." But certainly the great frequency of eivj in the LXX as compared with even the vernacular koinh, is due to the Hebrew l which it so often translates.156 Cf. dw,sete, moi th.n pai/da tau,thn eivj gunai/ka (Gen. 34:12). Cf. the similar use of eivj and the accusative instead of the predicate nominative ( logi,zomai eivj Ro. 2:26, etc.). Winer157 shows parallels for this predicate accusative from the late Greek writers. The N. T. exhibits this accusative in eivj profh,thn auvto.n ei=con (Mt. 21:46), avneqre,yato auvto,n


e`auth|/ eivj ui`o,n (Ac. 7:21), evla,bete to.n no,mon eivj diataga.j avgge,lwn (AC. 7:53), h;geiren to.n Dauei.d auvtoi/j eivj basile,a (Ac. 13:22), Te,qeika, se eivj fw/j evqnw/n (Ac. 13:47, LXX). When all is said, one must admit some Hebrew influence here because of its frequency. Ph. 4:16 is not a case in point. See further under eivj.

But there is another kind of double accusative besides the predicate accusative. It is usually described as the accusative of the person and of the thing. This in a general way is true of this group of double accusatives. Some of these were also cognate accusatives, as in katakli,nate auvtou.j klisi,aj (Lu. 9:14) and, according to some MSS., dh,sate auvta. desma,j (Mt. 13:30), ha}n avga,phsa,j me Jo. 17:26; cf. also Eph. 2:4), both of the outer and the inner object. Cf. the passive oa} evgw. baptizomai (Mk. 10:38) which really implies two accusatives in the active. Further examples of this cognate accusative of the inner object with the negative pronoun may be seen in ouvde,n me hvdikh,sate (Gal. 4:12; cf. 5:2), mhde.n bla,─ yan (Lu. 4:35). See also Ac. 25:10. In Mt. 27:44 the second accusative is likewise a pronoun, to. auvto. wvnei,dizon auvto,n, while in Mk. 6:34 it is an adjective, dida,skein auvtou.j polla,.

Indeed dida,skw is just one of the verbs that can easily have two accusatives (asking and teaching). Cf. also u`ma/j dida,xei pa,nta (Jo. 14:26. In Ac. 21:21 we have a normal example, avpostasi,an di─ da,skeij avpo. Mwuse,wj tou.j── vIoudai,ouj. In Heb. 5:12 we note three accusatives, but one is the accusative of general reference with the infinitive, tou/ dida,skein u`ma/j tina. ta. stoicei/a. Cf. Mt. 15:9 where one accusative is predicate. In Rev. 2:14 evdi,dasken tw|/ Ba─ la,k we have the dative, a construction entirely possible in the abstract,158 but elsewhere absent in the concrete. The number of verbs like dida,skw which may have two accusatives is not considerable. They include verbs like aivte,w in Mt. 7:9, oa}n aivth,sei o` ui`o.j auvtou/ a;rton, but not Mt. 6:8 where u`ma/j is merely accusative of general reference with the infinitive, though we do meet it with aivte,w in Mk. 6:22 f.; Jo. 16:23; 1 Pet. 3:15. But instead of an accusative of the person we may have the ablative with avpo, as in Mt. 20:20 BD (against para,), aivtou/sa, ti avp v auvtou/, and in 1 Jo. 5: 15, or the ablative with para, as in Jo. 4:9, par v evmou/ pei/n aivtei/j, and the middle h|`th,sato in Ac. 9:2. vErwta,w likewise has two accusatives in Mt. 21:24 ( evrwth,sw u`ma/j kavgw. lo,gon e[na); Mk. 4:10; Jo. 16:23. vAnamimnh,skw in both active and middle is used only with the accusative in the N. T. ( mimnh,skomai only with the genitive save adverbial accusative in 1 Cor. 11:2), and two accusa-


tives occur in 1 Cor. 4:17, oa}j u`ma/j avnamnh,sei ta.j o`dou,j mou, and in 2 Tim. 1:6 ( se avnazwpuri/n, both in the accusative). With u`pomimnh,─ skw the genitive occurs once in the passive (Lu. 22:61), the accusative elsewhere, and two accusatives in Jo. 14:26, u`pomnh,sei u`ma/j pa,nta, and in Tit. 3:1 ( auvtou.j u`pota,ssesqai). In 1 Cor. 14:6 observe ti, u`ma/j wvfelh,sw. In 2 Pet. 1:12 peri. tou,twn occurs rather than a second accusative. Euvaggeli,zomai usually has accusative of the thing and dative of the person, as in Eph. 2:17; 3:8, etc. But in Ac. 13:32 the accusative of person159 and thing is found, and the same thing is true in Ac. 14:15 ( u`ma/j- evpistre,fein), taking object-sentence as "thing." Indeed in Gal. 1: 9 ( ei; tij u`ma/j euvag─ geli,zetai par v oa} parela,bete) the same thing exists, for while the antecedent of o[ would be para. tou/to├ ti is really implied also, ti para. tou/to o[.

Another group of verbs in the ancient Greek with two accusatives is that of depriving, etc. Here indeed the ablative may take the place of one accusative, as in 1 Tim. 6:5 with the passive of avpostrere,w the ablative is retained ( th/j avlhqei,aj). But in the N. T. neither avpostere,w, nor avfaire,w, nor kru,ptw has two accusatives. Either the ablative alone occurs or with avpo, (Lu. 16:3; Lu. 19: 42; Rev. 6:16). With fula,ssesqai (Ac. 21:25) auvtou,j is the accusative of general reference (so-called "subject") of the infinitive.

But verbs of clothing or unclothing, anointing, etc., do have two accusatives, though not always. Thus evxe,dusan auvto.n th.n clamu,da (Mt. 27:31; cf. Mk. 15:20; Lu. 15:22), evne,dusan auv─ to.n ta. i`ma,tia auvtou/ (Mt. 27:31; cf. Mk. 15:20). But avmfie,nnumi does not have two accusatives nor periti,qhmi (Mt. 27:28). In Lu. 23:11 some MSS. give two accusatives with peribalw,n, but aBLT omit auvto,n. In Jo. 19:2 the text is beyond dispute i`ma,tion porfurou/n perie,balon auvto,n. Cf. peribalei/tai evn (Rev. 3:5). Moreover cri,w has two accusatives in Heb. 1:9 ( e;crisen se o` qeo.j e;laion), a quotation from the LXX. In Rev. 3:18 kollou,rion is not the object of evgcri/sai, but of avgora,sai) vAlei,fw is not used with two accusatives, but has the thing in the instrumental case (Mk. 6:13). Plhro,w does not indeed have two accusatives in the N. T., but the passive with accusative in Ph. 1:11 and Col. 1:9 really involves the idiom.

The following causative verbs have two accusatives. `Orki,zw se to.n qeo,n (Mk. 5:7) is a case in point (cf. evxorke,w in Herod.). See


also Ac. 19:13 and one example of evnori,zw in 1 Th. 5:27. The idea is really to "cause to swear by." In Jas. 5:12 ( ovmnu,ete mh,te to.n ouvrano.n mh,te th.n gh/n mh,te a;llon tina. o[rkon) we have two constructions, one "swear by," the other the cognate accusative. So diamartu,romai in 2 Tim. 4:1 f. Cf. P.O. 79 (ii/A.D.) ovmnu,w Auvtokra,tora Kai,sara Ma/r[ ko] n Auvrh,lion- avlhqh/ ei=n[ ai] ta. pro──) Potizw is a good example of the causative sense. Thus oa}j a'n poti,sh| u`ma/j poth,rion u[datoj (Mk. 9:41). Cf. Mt. 10:42; 1 Cor. 3:2. In Ro. 12:20 ywmi,zw has the accusative of the person, in 1 Cor. 13:3 the accusative of the thing (cf. Jer. 23:15 for double accusative with both these verbs). In Lu. 11:46 we have forti,zete tou.j avnqrw,─ pouj forti,a dusba,stakta. Cf. hvla,ttwsaj auvto.n bracu, ti, in Heb. 2:7 (LXX).

Finally some words of doing good or ill have two accusatives. Thus mhde.n bla,yan auvto,n (Lu. 4:35) where the pronoun is really a cognate accusative, as is the case with u`ma/j ouvde.n wvfelh,sei (Gal. 5: 2). Cf. Ac. 25:10 vIoudai,ouj ouvde.n hvdi,khka. In Mt. 27:22 we read ti, ou=n poih,sw vIshou/n. Cf. also Mk. 15:12, though D has tw|/ basilei/, (Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 91). Elsewhere in the N. T. we meet the dative of the person as in Mt. 21:40; Ac. 9:13. See peri. w-n auvth.n pepoih,kasin, P. Grenf. ii, 73 (late iii/A.D.), where w-n is attracted from a[╩ 'of what they have done to her.' Cf. mhde.n pra,xh|j seautw|/ kako,n (Ac. 16:28). In Mk. 7:12 the dative of the person is in keeping with ancient Greek usage. In Mt. 17:12 evn auvtw|/ may be more exactly 'in his case' ( aD do not have evn), but note its u`ma/j in Jo. 15:21 and the likeness of this to the modern Greek use of eivj with accusative as the usual dative. Blass (ib., p. 92) compares also the use of evn evmoi, (Mk. 14:6) and eivj evme, (Mt. 26: 10) with evrga,zomai and observes that evrga,zomai in Attic had sometimes two accusatives. One may compare again the expression ti, a;ra o` Pe,troj evge,neto (Ac. 12:18). Le,gw and ei=pon indeed have two accusatives in the N. T., but in Jo. 1:15 the margin (W. H., R. V.) really has this idiom. Cf. also Ac. 23:5.

(j) WITH PASSIVE VERBS. Indeed the accusative may be found with verbs in the passive voice. Draeger160 calls the accusative with passive verbs in Latin "ein Gracismus." This accusative may be of several kinds. See cognate accusative in Mt. 2: 10, evca,rhsan cara,n. It occurs with the so-called passive deponents like avpekri,qhn ( ouvde.n avpekri,qh, Mk. 15:5). Cf. ouvde.n avpekri,nato (Mt. 27:12), ouvk avpekri,qh lo,gon (Mt. 15:23). As further instances note avpestra,fhsa,n me (2 Tim. 1:15), evntraph,sontai to.n ui`o,n mou (Mt. 21:37),


evpaiscunqh|/ me (Mk. 8:38), fobhqh/te auvtou,j (Mt. 10:26). Cf. Mt. 14:5; 2 Tim 1:16. To all intents and purposes these "deponent" forms are not regarded as passives. This use of the passive is common in the koinh,. Cf. Volker, Synt. Spec., p. 15.

But the true passive of many verbs retains the accusative of the thing. This is true of verbs that have two accusatives in the active. So h=n kathchme,noj th.n o`do.n tou/ Kuri,ou (Ac. 18:25), aa}j evdida,c─ qhte (2 Th. 2:15), ouvk evndedume,non e;nduma ga,mou (Mt. 22:11 and cf. Mk. 1:6; Rev. 1:13; 15:6; 19:14), evnedidu,sketo porfu,ran (Lu. 16:19), evkaumati,sqhsan kau/ma me,ga (Rev. 16:9), darh,setai pol─ la,j ( plhga,j, Lu. 12:47, ovli,gaj├ 48), to. ba,ptisma oa} baptizomai bap─ tisqh/nai (Mk. 10:38, two examples), ea}n pneu/ma evpoti,sqhmen (1 Cor. 12:13), pepei,smeqa ta. krei,ssona (Heb. 6:9), peplhrwme,noi karpo.n dikaiosu,nhj (Ph. 1:11; Col. 1:9 i[na plhrwqh/te th.n evpi,gnwsin and cf. Ex. 31:3, evneplhsa auvto.n pneu/ma sofi,aj) and compare 2 Tim. 1:5 for genitive ( i[na cara/j plhrwqw/), zhmiwqh/nai th.n yuch.n auvtou/ (Mk. 8: 36= Mt. 16:26). Cf. also Ph. 3:8; Heb. 10:22. See oa} eva.n evx evmou/ wvfelhqh|/j (Mt. 15:5); ti, wvfelhqh,setai (Mt. 16:26); bracu, ti par v avgge,louj hvlattwme,non (Heb. 2:9) with active (two accs.) in Heb. 2 : 7. Once more observe avdikou,menoi misqo.n avdikia,j (2 Pet. 2:13). The predicate accusative, it should be said, becomes the nominative in the passive, as in auvtoi. ui`oi. qeou/ klhqh,sontai (Mt. 5:9). Cf. Heb. 5:10; 2 Tim. 1:11.

Some verbs which have only one accusative in the active or middle yet retain the accusative of the thing in the passive with the person in the nominative. This is a freedom not possessed by the Latin. The person in the active was generally in the dative. Thus Paul a number of times uses pisteu,omai ( pisteuqh/nai to. euvag─ ge,lion 1 Th. 2:4; evpisteu,qh to. martu,rion 2 Th. 1:10; cf. also 1 Cor. 9:17; Gal. 2:7; Ro. 3:2; 1 Tim. 1:11). Then again peri─ ba,llomai is frequently so employed, as peribeblhme,noj sindo,na (Mk. 14:51; cf. 16:5; and especially in Rev., as 7:9, 13; 10:1; 11:3; 12:1; 17:4; 18:16; 19:13). This is not the middle as Blass161 has it, though the future middle does occur in Rev. 3:5 with evn, and the aorist middle with the accusative in Rev. 19:8. In Rev. 4:4 we have peribeblhme,nouj i`mati,oij (loc.), and margin (W. H.) evn i`m) Once more peri,keimai is used as the passive of periti,qhmi with the accusative of the thing, though the verb itself means to 'lie around' instead of 'be encompassed with.' So th.n a[lusin peri,─ keimai (Ac. 28:20). Cf. also Heb. 5:2, but in Lu. 17:2 we have peri, repeated.


There are once more still looser accusatives with passive verbs, partly by analogy and partly merely an extension of the principle illustrated already. Thus kathcou,menoj to.n lo,gon (Gal. 6:6) does not really differ from as aa}j evdida,cqhte above. In dedeme,noj tou.j po,─ daj kai. ta.j cei/raj (Jo. 11:44) we see a close parallel to peribeblh─ me,noj above. Note active in Mt. 22:13. In diefqarme,nwn to.n nou/n (1 Tim. 6:5), r`erantisme,noi ta.j kardi,aj (Heb. 10:22), lelousme,noi to. sw/magrk grk(10:22) the accusative seems to be rather remote and to come close to the accusative of general reference, but not quite, for the force of the verb is still felt. This is still true of th.n auvth.n eivko,na metamorfou,meqa (2 Cor. 3:18) and perhaps even of th.n auvth.n avntimisqi,an platu,nqhte (2 Cor. 6:13). In Ac. 21:3 avn─ afa,nantej, not avnafane,ntej, is the correct text, as Blass162 observes.

The impersonal verbal in - te,on occurs only once in the N. T. (Lu. 5:38) and as in the ancient Greek it is used with the accusative, oi=non ne,on eivj avskou.j kainou.j blhte,on) This verbal is more usually transitive than the personal form in - te,oj├ which is not found in the N. T.

(k) THE ADVERBIAL ACCUSATIVE. It is not very common in the N. T. except in the case of pure adverbs. The adverbial accusative is really nothing more than a loose use of the accusative with intransitive verbs, with substantives or adjectives. It is rare in Homer163 and increases steadily till it becomes very common, though perhaps never quite so abundant as in the Sanskrit, where a veritable host of such accusatives occur.164 It is a perfectly normal development of the case, for extension is its root-idea. This accusative is sometimes called the accusative of general reference. As an example of such an accusative with an intransitive verb note kaqi,statai ta. pro.j to.n qeo,n (Heb. 5:1). See also avne,pesan oi` a;ndrej to.n avriqmo.n w`j pentakisci,lioi (Jo. 6:10),165 to.n tro,pon evkpor─ neu,sasai (Jude 1:7), oa}n tro,pon o;rnij evpisuna,gei (Mt. 23:37) and 2 Tim. 3:8 ( oa}n tro,pon). Cf. avnei,cesqe, mou mikro,n ti (2 Cor. 11:1). In Ro. 15:17 the whole verbal phrase is concerned with ta. pro.j qeo,n├ but see Ro. 12:18, to. evx u`mw/n meta. pa,ntwn avnqrw,pwn eivrhneu,ontej├ where to. evx u`mw/n is acc. In Ro. 1:15 to. katv evme, may be nom. In Heb. 2:17 this adv. acc. occurs with the adj. as in pisto,j avrciereu.j ta. pro.j to.n qeo,n. So also with a subst. as in o` Cristo.j to. kata. sa,rka (Ro. 9:5). The Text. Recept. in Ac. 18:3 had skhno─ poio.j th.n te,cnhn, but W. H. read skhnopoioi. th|/ te,cnh|. Indeed the


Addenda 3rd ed.

instrumental is usual in the N. T. in such instances,166 as the following examples: Surofoini,kissa tw|/ ge,nei (Mk. 7: 26), Ku,prioj tw|/ ge,nei, (Ac. 4:36), panti. tro,pw| (Ph. 1:18), tw|/ prosw,pw| (Gal. 1:22). But, on the other hand, observe tou;noma vIwsh,f (Mt. 27:57), but elsewhere in the N. T. we have ovno,mati (Ac. 18:2). In Ro. 16:19 some MSS. have to. evf v u`mi/n. The phrase to. kaq v ei-j (Ro. 12:5) is accusative, even though ei-j itself is nominative in form. In 1 Cor. 11:18 see also me,roj ti pisteu,w. Perhaps thus is to be explained the accusative with the interjection in Rev. 8:13 ouvai. tou.j katoikou/ntaj. Cf. ouvai, and nominative (or vocative) in. Is. 1:4. There is only one instance of an accusative with an adverb of swearing in the N. T. and that is in 1 Cor. 15:31, nh. th.n u`me─ te,ran kau,chsin. In Mk. 6:39 sumo,sia sumpo,sia may be looked at as nominative (cf. prasiai, in verse 40) or accusative (cf. Lu. 9: 14). Brugmann167 considers kai. tou/to (1 Cor. 6:6, 8) nominative rather than accusative, but that seems hardly possible with auvto. tou/to (2 Pet. 1:5), and kai. tou/to may be accusative also (Ph. 1: 29, etc.). Cf. tou/to me,n- tou/to de, (Heb. 10:33). In Ac. 15: 11; 27:25 we have kaq v oa}n tro,pon. In Ph. 4:10 ( avneqa,lete to. u`pe.r evmou/ fronei/n) the infinitive is probably the accusative of general reference. Cf. to.n po,dan ponei/j avpo. skola,pou, B.U. 380 (iii/A.D.).

There are indeed other expressions that come more closely to the pure adverb. Such, for instance, are to. kaq v h`me,ran (Lu. 11:3; 19:47; Ac. 17:11), th.n avrch,n (Jo. 8:25), to. loipo,n (Mk. 14:41; Ph. 3:1; Heb. 10:13, etc.), to. pro,teron (Jo. 6:62, etc.), to. prw/ton (Jo. 10:40; 12:16); to. plei/ston (1 Cor. 14:27), ta. polla,, (Ro. 15:22, MSS. polla,kij), ta. nu/n (Ac. 17:30), to. nu/n e;con (Ac. 24:25), to. te,loj (1 Pet. 3:8). In the case of to. loipo,n (1 Cor. 7:29) it may be either accusative or nominative. In 2 Cor. 6:13 th.n avntimisqi,an is considered adverbial accusative by some, as is pa,nta with avre,skw (1 Cor. 10:33) and with me,mnhsqe grk(11:2). Observe also to. auvto, (Ph. 2:18; Mt. 27:44). Cf. ouvde.n crei,an e;cw (Rev. 3:17), and the common use of ti, in the sense of 'why' as in Mt. 17:10 ( dia. ti, in verse 19). This phase of the adverbial accusative is common in the papyri.168

But the most numerous group of adverbial accusatives is found in the adverbs themselves. The accusative is not the only case used for adverbs, but it is a very common one. In Homer169 in-


deed adverbial accusatives of substantives are almost absent. But the N. T. shows a few in harmony with the development of the language. Thus avkh,n (Mt. 15:16), dwrea,n (Mt. 10:8), ca,rin as a preposition (Eph. 3:1, etc.). But adjectives in the accusative were numerous in Homer170 both in the singular and the plural. They occur in the positive, comparative and occasionally the superlative. As examples of the positive singular may be taken polu, (2 Cor. 8:22), oivli,gon (Mk. 6:31), me,son (Ph. 2:15), tacu, (Mt. 5:25), loipo,n (1 Cor. 1:16, etc. Cf. B.U., iv, 1079, 6). Indeed the participle tuco,n (1 Cor. 16:6) is used as an adv. acc. (see Acc. Absolute). As an example of the plural positive note polla, in Ro. 16:6, though this may be construed as cognate acc. with evkopi,asen. Cf. Jas. 3:2; 1 Cor. 16:12, 19. For the comparative singular note ma/llon krei/sson (Ph. 1:23), spoudaio,teron (2 Cor. 8: 22), deu,teron (1 Cor. 12:28), perisso,teron (Mk. 7:36), be,ltion (2 Tim. 1:18), e;latton (1 Tim. 5:9) u[steron (Mt. 22:27), ta,ceion (Jo. 13:27), etc. Cf. polu. spoudaio,teron (2 Cor. 8:22) with pollw|/ ma/l─ lon (Ph. 1:23), the instrumental and usual idiom in the N. T. In the superlative it is usually the plural form like h[dista (2 Cor. 12:9), ma,lista (Ac. 20:38), ta,cista (Ac. 17:15), etc. But note prw/ton (1 Cor. 12:28), tri,ton (ib.). The later Greek continued to exhibit a wealth of adverbs in the accusative.171

(1) THE ACCUSATIVE BY ANTIPTOSIS.172 It is not in reality a special use of the accusative, but merely a shifting of the noun or pronoun out of its usual order and into the government of the other preceding clause, and thus it becomes accusative whereas it would otherwise be nominative. So in Mk. 1:24, oi=da se ti,j ei= (cf. Lu. 4:34), Lu. 19:3, ivdei/n vIhsou/n ti,j evstin. But in Mt. 15:14 we have a kind of prolepsis (not the technical sort) without any change of case, tuflo.j tuflo.n eva.n o`dhgh|/. In the case of mh, tina w-n avpe,stalka pro.j u`ma/j├ di v auvtou/ evpleone,kthsa u`ma/j (2 Cor. 12:17) the tina is left to one side and anacoluthon takes place and the sentence is concluded by di v auvtou/.

(m) THE ACCUSATIVE BY INVERSE ATTRACTION. Thus o[r─ kon oa}n w'mosen (Lu. 1:73), to.n a;rton oa}n klw/men (1 Cor. 10:16). Cf. to. poth,rion (1 Cor. 10:15). In Mk. 3:16 but for the parenthesis ( kai. evpe,qhken o;noma Si,mwni) Pe,tron we should seem to have the dative and the accusative in apposition.


(n) THE ACCUSATIVE WITH THE INFINITIVE. The grammars generally speak of the accusative as the subject of the infinitive. I confess that to me this seems a grammatical misnomer. The infinitive clause in indirect discourse does correspond to a finite clause in English, and a clause with o[ti and the indicative may often be used as well as the infinitive clause. But it is not technically scientific to read back into the Greek infinitive clause the syntax of English nor even of the o[ti clause in Greek. Besides, not only is the infinitive a verbal substantive173 and in a case like the verbal adjective (the participle), but being non-finite (in-finitive) like the participle (partaking of both verb and noun), it can have no subject in the grammatical sense. No one thinks of calling the accusative the "subject" of the participle. Take e[wj a'n i;dwsin to.n ui`o.n tou/ avnqrw/ou evrco,menon (Mt. 16:28). Here the accusative is the object of i;dwsin and the participle is descriptive of ui`o,n) Now with the infinitive in indirect discourse it is as a rule the infinitive, not the substantive, that is the object of the verb. No further case is needed with the infinitive, if the pronoun or substantive be the same as the subject of the principal verb. Thus ei; tij avschmonei/n- nomi,zei (1 Cor. 7:36). If such a word is used, it may be in the pred. nom. in apposition with the subject of the verb, as fa,skontej ei=nai sofoi, (Ro. 1:22), or the accusative may be used. This accusative may be with a verb that can have two accusatives, as in evgw. evmauto.n ouv logi,zomai kateilhfe,nai (Ph. 3:13) or the accusative of general reference as in pe,poiqa,j te seau─ to.n o`dhgo.n ei=nai tuflw/n (Ro. 2:19). This latter usage is the explanation of the accusative with the infinitive in the instances where the word used with the infinitive is other than the subject of the principal verb. Typical examples are seen in oia} le,gousin auvto.n zh/n (Lu. 24:23), nomi,zontej auvto.n teqnhke,nai (Ac. 14:19), bou,─ lomai proseu,cesqai tou.j a;ndraj (1 Tim. 2:8). In these examples the infinitive is the object of the verb and the affirmation is made as far forth as the word in the accusative. They affirm living as to him; considering having died or death as to him; and wish praying as to the men. This is the psychology of this accusative with the infinitive. The fact that later grammarians call it the "subject" of the infinitive cuts no figure in the matter of the origin of the usage. Clyde174 has interpreted the matter correctly. He sees that "grammarians framed this rule in ignorance of the etymology


Addenda 2nd ed.

of infinitives," and that "since the infinitive was originally a case, the accusative could not originally have been its subject.". This descriptive accusative or accusative of definition (general reference) has a very wide range in Greek, as seen above, and is the true historical explanation of the accusative with the infinitive (other than the accusative which may be the object of the infinitive itself). When the infinitive is used with the accusative, it indicates the agent who has to do with the action by the accusative, since the infinitive can have no subject in the technical sense. This use of the accusative with the infinitive is common also when the infinitive is in a prepositional clause like evn tw|/ eivsagagei/n tou.j gonei/j to. paidi,on vIhsou/n (Lu. 2:27). Here the matter becomes clearer for the reason that the article tw|/ cannot be slurred over and it becomes imperative to explain one of the accusatives as that of general reference. The context makes it clear that to. pai─ di,on, is the object of eivsagagei/n, while tou.j gonei/j is the accusative of general reference. Many examples of this sort occur. Cf. Mt. 13:4. In Mt. 26:32, meta. to. evgerqh/nai, me, note the accusative me rather than nothing or auvto,j or evmauto,n. Cf. also Ac. 23:15. The article may be so used without a preposition, and either the nominative appear, as de,omai to. mh. parw.n qarrh/sai (2 Cor. 10:2), or the accusative, as tw|/ mh. eu`rei/n me Ti,ton (2 Cor. 2:13). Then again the accusative may be used with the infinitive in such constructions as kalo,n evstin h`ma/j w-de ei=nai, (Mt. 17:4). Note here the infinitive as subject, as the infinitive as object occurs in 2 Cor. 10:2. There is one example of three accusatives with the infinitive in Heb. 5:12 ( pa,lin crei,an e;cete tou/ dida,skein u`ma/j tina. ta. stoicei/a). Here we have a verb that is used with two accusatives, and tina. is the accusative of general reference. Cf. the three accusatives in Lu. 11:11. This subject will call for further discussion in the chapters on Indirect Discourse and Verbal Nouns. There was a constant tendency in the later Greek to exchange this use of the infinitive and accusative for the o[ti clause.175

(o) THE ACCUSATIVE ABSOLUTE. The absolute use of the accusative is rare in the N. T. as compared with the earlier Greek.176 Usually the genitive occurs with the participle and substantive when used absolutely. In 1 Cor. 16:6 tuco,n is really the accusative absolute though used as an adverb. The most certain example in the N. T. is in Ac. 26:3 gnw,sthn o;nta se. In 1 Tim. 2:6 to. martu,rion kairoi/j ivdi,oij is in the accusative without any


immediate connection unless it is in apposition with the preceding clause177 (Ellicott in loco) or is loosely united with dou,j. As to to, avdu,naton tou/ no,mou (Ro. 8:3) we have either the nominativus pendens, the accusative in apposition with the object of the sentence, the accusative of general reference or an instance of anacoluthon.178 In Lu. 24:47 the Text. Recept. reads avrxa,menon, which would be anacoluthon, but W. H. rightly have -- noi. Twice evxo,n, occurs in the N. T., once with h=n (Mt. 12:4) and once alone, aa} ouvk evxo,n (2 Cor. 12:4), but in both instances in the nominative. In Ph. 1: 7 u`ma/j o;ntaj the u`ma/j is repeated and is not accusative absolute. A subordinate sentence may also be in the accusative of general reference. Thus to. eiv du,nh| (Mk. 9:23), to. ti,j a'n ei;h mei,zwon auvtw/n (Lu. 9:46). See further chapter on Verbal Nouns.

(p) THE ACCUSATIVE WITH PREPOSITIONS. Only a general remark is needed here, since each preposition will be discussed later in detail. In general one may note that the accusative is the most frequent case with prepositions.179 Indeed in modern Greek these all have the accusative. Pro,j in the N. T. has ablative 1, locative 6, accusative 679 times.180 Here the preposition, like all prepositions, is merely an adverb that is used to express more exactly the idea of the case. The preposition does not technically govern a case. The accusative with the preposition has, of course, its usual force, extension. The following prepositions occur in the N. T. with the accusative, one example being given in each instance) vAna. me,son (Mk. 7:31), dia. to.n fo,bon (Jo. 7:13), eivj th.n po,lin (Mtl 26:18), evpi. th.n gh/n (Mt. 15:35), kata. to.n no,mon (Lu. 2:22), meta. h`me,raj trei/j (Lu. 2:46), para. th.n o`do,n (Mt. 20:30), peri. auvto,n, (Mt. 26:18), evpi. th.n gh/n (Mt. 3:5), u`pe.r dou/lon (Phil. 1:16), u`po. to.n mo,dion (Mt. 5:15). Of these eivj is, of course, by far the most frequent and has only the accusative. Dia,├ meta, peri,├ u`pe,r├ u`po, have the genitive-ablative more than the accusative, while evpi,├ kata,├ pro,j have the accusative more often. For exact figures see Moulten, Prol., pp. 105-107. In the chapter on Prepositions there will be further discussion of the matter.

VIII. The Genitive (True) Case ( h` genikh. prw/sij).

(a) TWO CASES WITH ONE FORM. It is now generally accepted by the comparative grammars that in Greek two cases appear under the form of the genitive: the genitive proper and the


ablative.181 It is a syncretistic form. The matter has already had some discussion in this grammar under Declensions and calls for little remark here. Moulton is not too hard on Winer when he calls it "an utterly obsolete procedure" to speak of the genitive as "unquestionably the whence-case."182 Winer is followed by Green.183 Now the ablative is the whence-case, but the genitive is a different case. Delbruck184 gives an interesting sketch of the fate of the ablative case in the Indo-Germanic languages. In the Sanskrit singular the two cases (gen. and abl.) have the same form, except I.-G. -o (Sans. -a) stems (Sans. gen. -asya, abl. -ad). In the Balto-Slavic tongues ablative and genitive have the same endings. In the Italic languages, ablative, locative, instrumental (and partly dative) have the same form. Indeed in the Thessalian dialect as in the Latin some forms of the genitive and locative coincide (like domi). Dionysius Thrax185 had the idea that both cases flourished under one form in Greek, for he describes this case as h` genikh. kthtikh. kai. patrikh,) Thompson186 indeed recognises the two cases, but thinks it is not possible to group the uses of the form under these two divisions because some suit either case. There is a "debatable land" as Giles187 observes, but this applies to only a very small part of the examples and is very natural indeed. As a matter of fact it is not possible to give a really scientific explanation of the usage in Greek from any other standpoint. The ablative will therefore be treated as a separate case and the true genitive discussed now.

(b) NAME INCORRECT. The genitive case has the wrong name. The Latin genitivus is a translation of gennhtikh, (more like the ablative in idea). It is h` genikh. ptw/sij. The name genikh, comes from ge,noj (genus), 'kind,' and corresponds to the Latin generalis.188 Priscian189 so calls it (generalis casus). It is a pity that one still has to call it "genitive."


(C) THE SPECIFYING CASE. It is this and no other. The idea of the genitive case is at bottom simple. The genitive shows diai,resin and something eivdiko,n. It is the case of genus ( ge,noj) or kind. For a very full discussion of the genitive see Delbruck, Veryl. Synt., III, pp. 307-360. The genitive does indeed resemble the adjective, but it is not adjectival in origin,190 though the source of the genitive ending is unknown. The adjectival possessive pronoun (like evmo,j) is a mere variation of the genitive case ( evmou/) and the two may be in apposition with one another, as th|/ evmh|/ ceiri. Pau,lou (2 Th. 3:17). But the function of the case is largely adjectival as in h`me,ra paraskeuh/j (Lu. 23: 54), though the adjective and the genitive are not exactly parallel, for with two substantives each idea stands out with more sharpness, as in evn kaino,thti zwh/j (Ro. 6:4) and evpi. plou,tou avdhlo,thti (1 Tim. 6:17).191 It is the specifying case, then, the case of appurtenance.192 In the Sanskrit Whitney193 finds the genitive adjectival in idea and defining the noun more nearly. So also Kuhner-Gerth194 who find it qualitative with nouns or verbs. But Delbruck,195 followed by Brugmann,196 makes the verb the starting-point for explaining the genitive. One hesitates to part company with Delbruck and Brugmann, but the older view that it was first used with nouns seems here to have the best of it.197 It may be remarked that the genitive is the most persistent of all the cases in retaining its forms, as is seen in the English s. Indeed in the modern Greek the form shares with the accusative the result of the loss of the dative, so that we often meet a construction like auvtou/ to. ei=pa ('I told him so').198 One other remark is called for concerning the meaning of the genitive in Greek. It is that the case does not of itself mean all that one finds in translation. The case adheres to its technical root-idea. The resultant idea will naturally vary greatly according as the root-conception of the case is applied to different words and different contexts. But the varying element is not the case, but the words and the context. The error must not be made of mistaking the translation of the resultant whole


for the case itself. Thus in Mt. 1:12 we have metoikesi,an Babulw/─ noj. It is translated 'removal to Babylon.' Now the genitive does not mean 'to,' but that is the correct translation of the total idea obtained by knowledge of the O. T. What the genitive says is that it is a 'Babylon-removal.' That is all. So in Mt. 12:31, h` tou/ pneu,matoj blasfhmi,a, it is the 'Spirit-blasphemy.' From the context we know that it is blasphemy against the Spirit, though the genitive does not mean 'against.' When a case has so many possible combinations in detail it is difficult to make a satisfactory grouping of the various resultant usages. A very simple and obvious one is here followed. But one must always bear in mind that these divisions are merely our modern conveniences and were not needed by the Greeks themselves. At every stage one needs to recall the root-idea of the case (genus or kind) and find in that and the environment and history the explanation.

(d) THE LOCAL USE. This is normally the first to begin with. In Greek literature it appears mainly in poetry199 and in adverbs of place like auvtou/├ ou-├ pou/├ o[pou├ o[mou├ pantacou/. But it is possible that these are locatives like a;lloqi in a shortened form.200 But on the other hand in Homer the genitive undoubtedly201 appears in local relations with the archaic genitive in - oio, though even in Homer the examples are chiefly stereotyped ones. There are in the N. T. only these examples in Luke and Acts. In Lu. 5:19 mh. eu`ro,ntej poi,aj eivsene,gkwsin auvto,n and 19:4 evkei,nhj h;mellen die,rcesqai we have two undoubted examples. Blass202 indeed calls these "incorrect" on the ground that "classical Greek" would not have used the genitive thus. But it is sufficient reply to say that Luke was not writing classical Greek. Certainly Xenophon might have used poi,a| evkei,nh| (as D has in Lu. 19:4). Moulton203 finds often in the papyri no,tou├ libo,j, though in Rev. 21:13 we have the ablative204 avpo. no,tou. In Ac. 19:26 we have a very striking example that the commentaries have failed to notice as Moulton205 observes. It is ouv mo,non vEfe,sou avlla. scedo.n pa,shj th/j vAsi,aj o` Pau/loj pei,saj mete,sthsen i`kano.n o;clon. Moulton on the whole agrees with Hackett that the genitive here is dependent on o;clon. In Homer one has a parallel like ouvk ;Argeoj h=en but Moulton finds none in the vernacular koinh,. Still, since Luke did use evkei,nhj and poi,aj, it does


not seem difficult to believe that he was ready to employ the genitive of place in Acts.

There is another passage in Luke also (Lu. 16:24) where the genitive of place occurs, i[na ba,yh| to. a;kron tou/ daktu,lou auvtou/ u[datoj. Here u[datoj emphasizes the kind of material which the speaker clearly has in mind. a has u[dati. One may note in this connection the Homeric idiom lou,esqai potamoi/o to bathe in the river.' Cf. also the classic pou/ gh/j) Somewhat similar also is h` diaspora. tw/n `Ellh,nwn (Jo. 7:35) and o`do.j evqnw/n (Mt. 10:5), which are objective genitives but of place also. Cf. evn Tarsw|/ th/j Kiliki,aj (Acts 22:3) which is described by Blass-Debrunner, p. 101, as partitive genitive.

(e) THE TEMPORAL USE. It is common enough. This is a very old use of the genitive.206 This is the true genitive.207 The accusative when used of time expresses duration over the period, the locative regards the period as a point even if it is of some length (cf. kairoi/j ivdi,oij, 1 Tim. 6:15), while the genitive implies nothing208 as to duration. In Mt. 24:20 this distinction can be seen in ceimw/noj kai. sabba,tw|, one the case of genus, the other a point of time. Brugmann209 indeed regards the genitive of time as a development of the partitive genitive, but this seems hardly necessary. Moulton,210 on the other hand, connects it with the genitive of possession and finds it very frequently in the papyri, like e;touj, 'in the second year.' So tou/ o;ntoj mhno,j, F.P. 124 (ii/A.D.). On the difference between the genitive and the accusative of time see h`me,raj kai. nukto,j (Lu. 18:7) and nu,kta kai. h`me,ran (Lu. 2:37), the genitive the time within which (kind of time), the accusative the time during which (all through). Cf. also nukto.j to. prw/ton (Jo. 19:39). See also tou/ loipou/ (Gal. 6:17) and to. loipo,n (Heb. 10:13). Once more observe mesonu,ktion h' avlektorofwni,aj (Mk. 13: 35) where some MSS. have mesonukti,ou. The accusative here is more like the adverb ovye, just preceding. Further examples of the genitive may be seen in me,shj nukto,j (Mt. 25:6), o;rqrou baqe,oj (Lu. 24:1). For adverbs in expressions of time, see viii, (h).

(f) WITH SUBSTANTIVES. This is the chief use of the case. The accusative indeed is chiefly connected with the verb, while the genitive is mainly related to substantives.211

1. The Possessive212 Genitive. In simple point of fact it is not


necessary to see any particular inner connection between the many uses of the genitive with substantives other than the common root-idea of the case. For convenience it suits us to group these usages, but one must think that the Greeks themselves looked at the whole matter much more simply. After all it is the context that varies rather than the genitive.213 The resultant idea is therefore a matter of exegesis rather than due to any particular label to be attached.214 The most obvious illustrations like pata,xaj to.n dou/lon tou/ avrciere,wj avfei/len auvtou/ to. wvti,on (Mt. 26:51) call for little remark. It is the high-priest's servant, not another's, and it is the servant's ear, not another's. The possessive pronouns, especially evmo,j in John's Gospel, were used to some extent in the N. T., but usually the genitive of the personal pronoun is found. In Jo. 7:16 they occur side by side. Cf. th|/ evmh|/ ceiri. Pau,lou (1 Cor. 16 : 21).

2. Attributive Genitive. Like an adjective the genitive may be either attributive or predicate. This is sometimes called the genitive of quality. But the name helps little, as all genitives have this idea. The sense of attribute is indeed the usual one with the genitive, as Pau/loj dou/loj vIhsou/ Cristou/ (Ro. 1:1). Thus observe the descriptive genitive in Mt. 18:9 eivj th.n ge,enan tou/ puro,j, Ro. 6:6 to. sw/ma th/j a`marti,aj├ to. sw/ma th/j tapeinw,sewj (and th/j do,xhj, Ph. 3:21), to. sw/ma th/j sarko,j (Col. 1: 22), ba,ptisma metanoi,aj (Mk. 1:4), h`me,raj o`do,n (Lu. 2:44), o` oivkono,─ moj th/j avdiki,aj (Lu. 16:8). And even expressions like ui`oi. fwto,j (1 Th. 5:5) are shown by the inscriptions and coins (Deissmann, Bib. Stud., p. 165) to be not mere Hebraisms, though far more frequent in the LXX than in the N. T. because of the Hebrew. Other examples are lo,goij th/j ca,ritoj (Lu. 4:22), skeu/oj evklogh/j (Ac. 9:15), skeu,h ovrgh/j (Ro. 9:22), krith/j th/j avdiki,aj (Lu. 18:6), pa,qh avtimi,aj (Ro. 1:26), ui`o.j th/j avga,phj (Col. 1:13), no,mon th/j evleuqeri,aj and avkroath.j evpilhsmonh/j (Jas. 1:25), avpau,gasma th/j do,xhj (Heb. 1:3), kardi,a avpisti,aj (Heb. 3:12), r`i,za pikri,aj (Heb. 12:15), h` plhgh. tou/ qana,tou (Rev. 13:3), where the descriptive attributive genitive expresses quality like an adjective indeed, but with more sharpness and distinctness. Cf. again evn kaino,thti zwh/j (Ro. 6:4) and evpi. plou,tou avdhlo,thti (1 Tim. 6:17). In Heb. 1:3, tw|/ r`h,mati th/j duna,mewj auvtou/, the second genitive is technically de


pendent on duna,mewj. Cf. 2 Th. 1:7. One may note Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 237) who says that in ta. r`h,mata th/j zwh/j tau,thj (Ac. 5:20) the demonstrative goes in sense with r`h,mata. This point (cf. p. 706) applies to o` lo,goj th/j swthri,aj tau,thj (Ac. 13:26) and evk tou/ sw,matoj tou/ qana,tou tou,tou (Ro. 7:24). Besides ui`oi. fwto,j above observe a similar idiom in te,kna fwto,j (Eph. 5:8), te,kna ovrgh/j (Eph. 2:3), te,kna u`pakoh/j (1 Pet. 1:14), te,kna kata,raj (2 Pet. 2:14), ui`oi. avpeiqi,aj (Eph. 2:2), o` ui`o.j th/j avpwlei,aj (2 Th. 2:3). Cf. also oi` ui`oi. tou/ numfw/noj (Mt. 9:15); o` ui`o.j th/j avga,phj auvtou/ (Col. 1:3), o` a;nqrwpoj th/j avnomi,aj (2 Th. 2:3).

One may instance further the use of h`me,ra ovrgh/j (Ro. 2:5), h`me,ra stwhri,aj 2 Cor. 6:2 quot. from 0. T.), h`me,ra evpiskoph/j (1 Pet. 2:12), h`me,ra avnadei,xewj (Lu. 1:80) where the LXX may be appealed to for abundant illustration.

The genitive of place or country is descriptive also. Thus Na─ zare.t th/j Galilai,aj (Mk. 1:9), Tarsw|/ th/j Kiliki,aj (Ac. 22:3), h[tij evsti.n prw,th meri,doj th/j Makedoni,aj po,lij (Ac. 16:12), etc. This genitive of quality or descriptive genitive is largely extended in the LXX by reason of translation (Thackeray, p. 23).

3. The Predicate Genitive. While having the copula ei=nai├ gi,─ nesqai, etc., in reality215 it is to be explained as a genitive with substantives. It is not the copula that affects the case of the genitive at all. It is just the possessive genitive in the predicate instead of being an attribute. Often the substantive or pronoun is repeated in sense before the predicate genitive. Thus ouvk e;stin avka─ tastasi,aj o` qeo,j (1 Cor. 14:33). Cf. h`mei/j ouvk evsme.n u`postolh/j- avlla. pi,stewj (Heb. 10:39), pa/sa paidei,a ouv dokei/ cara/j ei=nai (Heb. 12:11). So h=n ga.r evtw/n dw,deka (Mk. 5:42). So Lu. 2:42. Cf. also eva,n tinaj eu[rh| th/j o`dou/ o;ntaj (Ac. 9:2), and indeed evge,neto gnw,─ mhj (Ac. 20:3 is to be explained the same way. There is as much latitude in the predicate genitive as in the attributive possessive genitive. We have ui`oi. fwto,j evste kai. ui`oi. h`me,raj (1 Th. 5:5) and ouvk evsme.n nukto.j ouvde. sko,touj (1 Th. 5:6) and h`me,raj o;ntej (verse 8).216 We may continue the illustrations like evgw, eivmi Pau,lou (1 Cor. 1:12), ouvk evste. e`autw/n (1 Cor. 6:19), tou/ qeou/ ou- eivmi, (Ac. 27:23), pa,nta u`mw/n evsti,n (1 Cor. 3:21), ouvc u`mw/n evsti,n gnw/nai, (Ac. 1:7), i[na h`mw/n ge,nhtai h` klhronomi,a (Lu. 20:14), ti,noj auvtw/n e;stai gunh, (Mk. 12:23), telei,wn evsti.n h` sterea. trofh, (Heb. 5:14), Cristou/ ei=nai (2 Cor. 10:7), w-n evsti.n Fu,geloj kai. `Ermoge,nhj (2 Tim. 1:15), i[na h` u`perbolh. th/j duna,mewj h|- tou/ (2 Cor. 4:7), and finally,


though by no means all that can be adduced, w-n e;stw ouvc o`─ ko,smoj (1 Pet. 3:3). These passages not only illustrate the variety of the predicate genitive, but show that this is essentially a substantival genitive (cf. predicate nominative) and not a verbal genitive. As an example of the objective genitive in the predicate take sla,dalon ei= evmou/ (Mt. 16:23). In the modern Greek the predicate genitive has been still further extended (Thumb, Handb., p. 35).

4. Apposition or Definition. This is a very simple use of the case, but is not an extremely common idiom in the N. T., since the two substantives can easily be put in the same case. In the modern Greek mere apposition rules (Thumb, Handb., p. 33). But some interesting examples occur.217 It is a well-known idiom in Homer and certainly needs no appeal to the Hebrew for justification.218 Kuhner-Gerth219 may also be consulted for other poetical examples. In the N. T. we note po,leij Sodo,mwn kai. Gomo,rraj (2 Pet. 2:6) which Blass compares with vIli,ou po,lin of Homer and observes220 that po,lewj quatei,rwn (Ac. 16:14) is merely the genitive of po,lij qua,teira (cf. po,lei vIo,pph| in Ac. 11:5). In 2 Cor. 11:32 the adjective is used as th.n po,lin Damaskhnw/n, while in Rev. 18:10 we have true apposition. One may note further tou/ naou/ tou/ sw,matoj auvtou/ (Jo. 2:21), to.n avrrabw/na tou/ pneu,matoj (2 Cor. 5:5), shmei/on peritomh/j (Ro. 4:11, AC peritomh,n) , to. shmei/on th/j iva,sewj (Ac. 4:22), h` koi,mhsij tou/ u[pnou (Jo. 11:13), qw,raka pi,stewj kai. avga,phj (1 Th. 5:8), to. e;rgon th/j pi,stewj (1 Th. 1:3), evn tw|/ lo,gw| th/j avlhqei,aj tou/ euvaggeli,ou (Col. 1:5), h` avntapo,dosij th/j klhronomi,aj (Col. 3:24), evn zu,mh| kaki,aj (1 Cor. 5:8), h` ovsmh. th/j gnw,sewj auvtou/ (2 Cor. 2:14), h` prosfora. tw/n evqnw/n (Ro. 15:16), to. meso,toicon tou/ fragmou/ (Eph. 2:14), o` qeme,lioj tw/n avposto,lwn (Eph. 2:20), qeme,lioj metanoi,aj (Heb. 6:1), to. avpo,krima tou/ qana,tou (2 Cor. 1:9), o` evmplokh/j tricw/n - ko,smoj (1 Pet. 3:3), o` ste,fanoj th/j zwh/j (Rev. 2:10), o` ste,faonj th/j do,xhj (1 Pet. 5:4), o` th/j dikaiosu,nhj ste,fanoj (2 Tim. 4:8), h` e`orth. tw/n avzu,mwn (Lu. 22:1), h` e`orth. tou/ pa,sca (Jo. 13:1), h` oivki,a tou/ skh,nouj (2 Cor. 5: 1), h` avparch. tou/ pneu,─ matoj (Ro. 8:23), th.n evpaggeli,an tou/ pneu,matoj (Ac. 2:33), no,moj pi,─ stewj (Ro. 3:27). These are by no means all, but they illustrate at least the freedom of the N. T. in the use of the genitive of definition or of apposition. It is, of course, possible, as Moulton (Prol., 74) suggests, that the vernacular has preserved the poetical


idiom in this as in so many other matters. Poetry often expresses better than prose the language of the people. In Eph. 4:9 eivj ta. katw,tera me,rh th/j gh/j we probably have not this usage, but the ablative after the comparative. Cf. Ellicott in loco. In Jo. 21: 8 to. di,ktuon tw/n ivcqu,wn the genitive merely gives the content (cf. material and quantity as opposed to quality). Cf. also avla,bastron mu,rou (Mk. 14:3) and kera,mion u[datoj (Mk. 14:13), avge,lh coi,rwn (Mt. 8:30) and e`kato.n ba,touj evlai,ou (Lu. 16:6).

5. The Subjective Genitive. It can be distinguished from the objective use only by the context. Sometimes the matter is not clear. This genitive is the common possessive genitive looked at from another, angle. In itself the genitive is neither subjective nor objective, but lends itself readily to either point of view. The subjective genitive can indeed be applied to the merely possessive genitive noted above.221 Take Ro. 1:17 where dikaiosu,nh qeou/ means the righteousness which God has and wishes to bestow on us. A typical example is found in 2 Cor. 5:14, h` ga.r avga,ph tou/ Cristou/ sune,cei h`ma/j. Mere it is unquestionably the love that Christ has for sinners and so for Paul that is the constraining influence in his life. In Ro. 8:39 the matter is explained indeed by the phrase avpo. th/j avga,phj tou/ qeou/ th/j evn Cristw|/ vIhsou/) Abbott222 is apparently right in finding only a couple of passages in the N. T. where avga,ph is used with the objective genitive (2 Th. 2:10, h` avg) th/j avlhqei,aj; Lu. 11:42, pare,rcesqe th.n kri,sin kai. th.n avga,phn tou/ qeou/. Jo. 5:42 th.n avga,phn tou/ qeou/ ouvk e;cete evn e`autoi/j might be either subjective or objective, but see Ro. 5:5. In Ph. 4:7 h` evrh,nh tou/ qeou/ is probably subjective and, so 'the peace that God has and gives,' but the meaning is richer than any phrase, as Simcox223 well observes. Cf. Col. 3:15. In Ro. 15:8, u`pe.r avlhqei,aj qeou/, we seem to have the subjective genitive. Note also dikaiosu,nh pi,stewj (Ro. 4:13), which is explained as subjective by Paul in the phrase h` dikaiosu,nh evk pi,stewj (Ro. 10:6). In 1 Tim. 4:1, didaskali,aij daimoni,wn, we have again the subjective genitive. Some passages are open to doubt, as euvagge,lion th/j ca,ritoj tou/ qeou/ (Ac. 20:24), euvagge,lion th/j basilei,aj (Mt. 4:23).

6. The Objective Genitive. It is. quite frequent in the N. T.,224 especially when it is vanishing in the later Greek.225 The adnominal genitive preserves a remnant of the old objective genitive in mod-


ern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 34). Here again we must appeal to the root-idea of the genitive as the case of genus or kind. The resultant idea is due to the context and one must not suppose that the Greek genitive means all the different English prepositions used to translate the resultant idea. Thus in Mk. 11:22 e;cete pi,stin qeou/ we rightly translate 'have faith in God,' though the genitive does not mean 'in,' but only the God kind of faith. Cf. Ro. 3:22. Take Mt. 12:31, h` de. tou/ pneu,matoj blasfhmi,a, where the context makes it clear that it is blasphemy 'against' the Holy Spirit. Another striking example is Ac. 4:9, evpi. euver─ gesi,a| avnqrw,pou avsqenou/j, where the good deed is done 'to' a sick man. In Jo. 7:13, dia. to.n fo,bon tw/n vIoudai,wn, it is fear 'towards' or 'in reference to' the Jews, while Jo. 17:2, evxousi,a pa,shj sarko,j, means authority 'over' all flesh (cf. evxousi,an pneuma,twn avkaqa,rtwn, Mt. 10:1, and th/j u`mw/n evxousi,aj, 1 Cor. 9:12). In 1 Cor. 10:6, tu,poi h`mw/n, we have types 'for' us. In Jo. 18:29 we have accusation 'against' this man, kathgori,an tou/ avnqrw,pou, etc. Each example calls for separate treatment. So to. shmei/on vIwna/ (Lu. 11: 29) may be the sign shown in Jonah, while no,moj tou/ avndro,j (Ro. 7:2) is the law 'about' the husband (cf. o` no,moj tou/ leprou/, Lev. 14:2). In 1 Pet. 2:19, dia. sunei,dhsin qeou/, it is a good conscience 'toward' God, while eivj th.n u`pakouh.n tou/ Cristou/ (Lu. 6:12) we have prayer 'to' God. `O zh/loj tou/ oi;kou sou (Jo. 2:17) is zeal 'concerning' thy house. See Ro. 10:2; cf. also Heb. 11:26, to.n ovnei─ dismo.n tou/ Cristou/. In Col. 2:18, qrhskei,a| tw/n avgge,lwn, it is worship 'paid to' angels, while eivj th.n u`pakouh.n tou/ Cristou/ (2 Cor. 10:5) is obedience 'to' Christ. But see per contra u`pakoh. pi,stewj (Ro. 1:5) which is subjective genitive. In 1 Cor. 1:6, martu,rion tou/ Cristou/ we have again witness 'concerning' Christ. Cf. also ov lo,goj o` tou/ staurou/ (1 Cor. 1:18) and avkoai. pole,mwn (Mt. 24:6). So in 1 Cor. 8:7 h` sunei,dhsij tou/ eivdw,lou is consciousness 'about' the idol, not the idol's consciousness. See also the two objective uses of avga,ph in 2 Th. 2:10 and Lu. 11:42 and possibly also Jo. 5:42; 2 Th. 3:5; 1 Jo. 2:5. In Ro. 5:5 either will make good sense. The phrase fo,boj qeou/ (Ro. 3:18) is objective, and note also 2 Cor. 5:11 ( to.n fo,bon tou/ kuri,ou). Eph. 5:21 is objective. See also kaq v u`pomonh.n e;rgou avgaqou/ (Ro. 2:7), 'in' a good work, and eivj dikai,wsin zwh/j (Ro. 5:18), 'to' life. Cf. avna,sta─ sin zwh/j- kri,sewj (Jo. 5:29). Indeed one may go on and include those genitives of "looser relation" usually set off to themselves. They are really just the objective genitive. So as to o`do.j evqnw/n (Mt. 10:5), way 'to' the Gentiles; o`do.n qala,sshj (Mt. 4:15), way


'by' the sea; th.n diaspora.n tw/n `Ellh,nwn (Jo. 7:35), dispersion 'among' the Greeks; pro,bata sfagh/j (Ro. 8:36), 'doomed to' slaughter; qe,ra tw/n proba,twn (Jo. 10:7), door 'to' the sheep; me─ toikesi,a Babulw/noj (Mt. 1:11 f.), and even avpolu,trwsij tw/n paraba,─ sewn (Heb. 9:15), though this last may be regarded as an ablative. But baptismw/n didach,n (Heb. 6:2) is objective genitive. Note also troph/j avposki,asma (Jas. 1:17), a shadow 'cast by' turning, and pi,stei avlhqei,aj (2 Th. 2:13), faith in the truth. In Heb. 10:24, paroxusmo.n avga,phj kai. kalw/n e;rgwn there is little cause for comment. The same remark applies to ki,ndunoi potamw/n├ lh|stw/n (2 Cor. 11:26). In Jo. 19:14 h` parskeuh. tou/ pa,sca probably already means the day 'before' the Sabbath (Friday).226 Cf. h` para─ bolh. tou/ spei,rontoj (Mt. 13:18). Cf. also the genitive of price, coi/nix si,tou dhnari,ou (Rev. 6:6), 'for' a penny; avnta,llagma th/j yuch/j auvtou/ (Mt. 16:26), exchange 'for' his soul. Cf. Lu. 10: 36. Enough has been said to show how carefully the genitive must be interpreted and what great latitude was used in connection with it. Deissmann (St. Paul, pp. 140 f.) thinks that Paul's use of the genitive is "very peculiar" and transcends all rules about subjective and objective. He even suggests "mystic genitive" for Paul.

7. Genitive of Relationship. For lack of a better name this use of the genitives is called "genitive of membership"227 or "of relationship."228 In reality it is merely the possessive genitive of a special applications The substantive is not used because the context makes it clear. Thus Mari,a h` vIakw,bou (Lu. 24:10) is James' Mary; whether mother, wife, daughter or sister, the context must decide. In this instance it is James' mother. Cf. Mk. 16:1. Mk. 15:47 gives us Mari,a h` vIwsh/toj, while in 15:40 we have both James and Joses. In Mt. 27:56 as in Mk. 15:40 we have the full construction mh,thr. But in Jo. 19:25 Mari,a h` tou/ Klwpa/ it is the wife ( gunh,) that is meant. So in Mt. 1:6 evk th/j tou/ Ouvri,ou. In Lu. 6:16 and Ac. 1:13 we have vIou,daj vIakw,bou, which probably means the brother ( avdelfo,j) of Jude in view of Jude 1:1 ( avdelfo.j vIakw,bou) rather than son. But ui`o,j is the word usually to be supplied, as in `Ia,kwbon to.n tou/ Zebedai,ou (Mt. 4:21), to.n vIou,─ dan Si,mwnoj (Jo. 6:71), Si,mwn vIwa,nou (Jo. 21:15 ff.), Dauei.d to.n tou/ vIessai, (Ac. 13:22). See also Ac. 20:4, Sw,patroj Pu,rrou. Cf. Lu. 3:2 where ui`o,j is used, as ui`oi, generally is for 'sons of Zebedee' (Mk. 10:35). In Jo. 21:2 we have oi` tou/ Zebedai,ou so used.


But sometimes the article refers to the family in general as in u`po. tw/n Clo,hj (1 Cor. 1:11). Cf. oi` peri. auvto,n (Lu. 22:49). In Mk. 5:35, avpo. tou/ avrcisunagw,gou, it is possible that oi=koj is to be supplied, since the man himself (verse 22) has already come.229 In Ac. 2:27, 31, W. H. read eivj a|[dhn, while some MSS. have eivj a|[dou (cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 395) and the MSS. vary also in Ps. 16:10 (LXX). Cf. evn tw|/ a|[dh| in Lu. 16:23. It is more likely that in Lu. 2:49, evn toi/j tou/ patro,j, we have the idea of 'house' rather than that of 'business.' Cf. eivj ta. i;dia (Jo. 19:27) and eivj ta. i;dia and oi` i;dioi in Jo. 1:11. See evn toi/j Klaud$i,ou%, P.O. 523 (ii/A.D.), for 'house' of. It is a classic idiom. Cf. Lysias eivj ta. tou/ avdelfou/. These constructions are all in harmony with the ancient Greek idiom.230 In an example like to. th/j avlhqou/j paroimi,aj (2 Pet. 2:22) it is not the genitive that calls for remark so much as the article without any substantive. The discussion belongs to the chapter on the Article.

8. Partitive Genitive. Here a part of the whole is given. See ea}n tou,twn (Mt. 6:29), to. de,katon th/j po,lewj (Rev. 11:13), e[wj h`mi,souj th/j basilei,aj (Mk. 6:23), h[misu kairou/ (Rev. 12:14), ta. h`mi,sia, mou tw/n u`parco,ntwn (Lu. 19:8), to. perisseu/on tw/n klasma,twn (Mt. 15:37), to. tri,ton th/j gh/j (Rev. 8:7). See further ea}n tw/n melw/n sou (Mt. 5:29), ti,na tw/n profhtw/n (Acts 7:52), tou.j ptwcou.j tw/n a`gi,wn (Rom. 15:26), oi` loipoi. tw/n avnqrw,pwn (Lu. 18:11), muria,dej muria,dwn kai. cilia,dej cilia,dwn (Rev. 5:11), ta. h`mi,sia, mou tw/n u`parco,ntwn (Lu. 19:8) and the curious ta. auvta. tw/n paqhma,twn (1 Pet. 5: 9). For the blending of the partitive genitive with the ablative and evk and for further discussion see ix, (c). In the N. T. the partitive relation is usually more sharply defined by prepositions (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 102). Cf. Ac. 21:16, sunh/lqon tw/n maqhtw/n, where the partitive genitive is alone.

9. The Position of the Genitive. In general one may note that the genitive usually comes after the limiting substantive, as th.n ge,ennan tou/ puro,j (Mt. 5:22), but the genitive comes first if it is emphatic like `Ellh,nwn polu. plh/qoj (Ac. 14:1) or if there is sharp contrast like to.n sustratiw,thn mou├ u`mw/n de. avpo,stolon (Ph.. 2:25). In Eph. 6:9 both genitives precede, kai. auvtw/n kai. u`mw/n o` ku,rioj. If the article is used with both words we may have the usual order, as th.n panopli,an tou/ qeou/, (Eph. 6:11), or less often the classic idiom, as to.n th/j pi,stewj avrchgo,n (Heb. 12:2). Sometimes indeed the article may be repeated, as o` lo,goj o` tou/ staurou/ (1 Cor.


1:18).231 Auvtou/ usually comes after the noun in the Synoptics, as th.n a[lwna auvtou/ (Lu. 3:17), but John sometimes puts auvtou/ first232sup sup sup(1:27; 9:6; cf. sou in 9:10, sou oi` ovfqalmoi,). Sometimes a word intervenes between; the substantive and the genitive as in h;meqa te,kna fu,sei ovrgh/j (Eph. 2:3). Cf. also Ph. 2:10; Ro. 9:21, etc. But note eivj avleu,rou sa,ta tri,a (Mt. 13:33).

10. Concatenation of Genitives. Two or more genitives may be used together. This is, of course, common in the earlier Greek. Paul in particular is fond of piling up genitives. Take 1 Th. 1:3 as a typical example, mnhmoneu,ontej u`mw/n tou/ e;rgou th/j pi,stewj kai. tou/ ko,pou th/j avga,phj kai. th/j u`pomonh/j th/j evlpi,doj tou/ kuri,ou h`mw/n vIhsou/ Cristou/. Here we have practically all the points, viz., two simple genitives, two in apposition, three together, one of the person and the other of the thing. A very simple case is found in Ro. 8:21, th.n evleuqeri,an th/j do,xhj tw/n te,knwn tou/ qeou/, and in verse 23 th.n avpolu,trwsin tou/ sw,matoj h`mw/n. Cf. also Jo. 6:1; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 1: 6; 4:13; Col. 1:13, etc. In Rev. 16:19 we have four genitives, to. poth,rion tou/ oi;nou tou/ qumou/ th/j ovrgh/j auvtou/├ and five occur in Rev. 19:15, counting the appositives, th.n lhno.n tou/ oi;nou tou/ qumou/ th/j ovrgh/j tou/ qeou/ tou/ pantokra,toroj. Blass233 calls this "a really burdensome accumulation of words," but surely the sense is clear enough. The governing genitive comes before the dependent genitive in Ilregular order here. But in 2 Pet. 3:2 this smooth order is not observed, yet all five can be readily understood: u`po. tw/n a`gi,wn profhtw/n kai. th/j tw/n avposto,lwn u`mw/n evntolh/j tou/ kuri,ou. Cf. Ph. 2:30 also. In 2 Cor. 3:18, avpo. kuri,ou pneu,matoj, it is not clear whether kuri,ou is genitive or is the ablative in apposition with pneu,matoj. In Jas. 2:1 it is difficult to put into brief compass the Greek idiom, th.n pi,stin tou/ kuri,ou h`mw/n vIhsou/ Cristou/ th/j do,xhj. Here vIh. Cr. is in apposition with kuri,ou. Krui,ou has h`mw/n and is itself the objective genitive with pi,stin, while th/j do,xhj is probably in apposition with vIh) Cr) (see Mayor in loco).

(g) THE GENITIVE WITH ADJECTIVES. Giles234 observes how natural it is for adjectives to take the genitive, since many of them are developed from substantives in apposition. Adjectives of fulness can logically take either the genitive or the instrumental. Giles235 explains how with they Latin plenus, by analogy to vacuus, the ablative is used and also because the ablative and instrumental forms


Addenda 3rd ed.

we have the genitive when the participle is regarded no longer as are the same in Latin. Indeed even in the case of the participle an adjective, but as a substantive, as ta. u`pa,rconta, mou (1 Cor. 13: 3). Cf. Lu. 12:33; Lu. 2:27, to. eivqisme,non tou/ no,mou; and Ph. 3:8, to. u`pere,con th/j gnw,sewj. The adjective itself is so used in 1 Cor. 10:33, to. evmautou/ su,mforon. Cf. 1 Cor. 7:35. But different is sum─ mo,rfouj th/j eivko,noj tou/ ui`ou/ auvtou/ (Ro. 8:29). Here we have the true adjective, but the genitive is due to the principle just stated. In sunergo,j, Ro. 16:21, we have the substantive also. The case with verbals in - toj may be considered genitive, but see the ablative also. Thus of oi` avgaphtoi. qeou/ (Ro. 1:7), gennhtoi. gunaikw/n (Lu. 7:28), evklektoi/ qeou/ (Ro. 8:33), klhtoi. vIhsou/ (Ro. 1:6). In didak─ toi. qeou/ (Jo. 6:45), ouvk evn didaktoi/j avnqrwpi,nhj sofi,aj lo,goij (1 Cor. 2:13) one may question if we do not have the ablative. But in euvloghme,noi tou/ patro,j (Mt. 25:34) the genitive is likely the case. There is only one adjective in - iko,j in the N. T. which has the genitive, kritiko.j evnqumh,sewn (Heb. 4:12). ;Axioj is very common with the genitive in the N. T., as a;xion th/j metanoi,aj (Mt. 3:8). But avna,xioj probably has abl. because of a- privative, as avna,xioi, evste krithri,wn evlaci,stwn (1 Cor. 6:2). Delbruck236 confesses his inability to explain this genitive, though Blass237 considers it genitive of price. The figure of weighing or scales seems to be involved in the word. In 1 Cor. 9:21 ( e;nnomoj Cristou/) we have a very "bold use" of the genitive238 due to the substantive idea involved ( no,moj). But probably in Heb. 3:12, kardi,a ponhra. avpisti,aj, the genitive is dependent on kardi,a, not ponhra,. ;Enocoj brings up an unusual genitive in Mt. 26:66 e;nocoj qana,tou, and Mk. 3:29 (correct text) e;noco,j evstin aivw─ ni,ou a`marth,matoj. Moulton239 considers this genitive "aberrant" and still more e;nocoj kri,sewj in Syrian class of MSS. in Mk. 3:29. In 1 Cor. 11:27, e;nocoj e;stai tou/ sw,matoj, we have the usage of the pre-Syrian classes in Mk. 3:29 and not the idiom in Mt. 26:66. The usual construction appears also as in e;nocoj e;stai th|/ kri,sei (Mt. 5:21 f.) and even e;nocoj eivj th.n ge,ennan (ib.). In the instance of koinwno,j the construction is also interesting. In 2 Cor. 1:7 we have koinwnoi, evste tw/n paqhma,twn├ but it is debatable if the adjective has not here become a substantive as with koinwno.j evmo,j (2 Cor. 8:23; cf. sunergo,j in same verse). Koinwno,j has also the dative, as koinwnoi. tw|/ Si,mwni (Lu. 5:10). See sunkoinwno.j auvtou/ (1 Cor. 9:23) and in Ph. 1:7 two genitives, sunkoinwnou,j mou th/j ca,ritoj. But in Rev. 1:9 we have evn with locative. Note also mestoi. u`pokri,sewj


(Mt. 23:28) and plh,rhj ca,ritoj (Jo. 1:14).240 The case of me,tocoj in Heb. 3:1 ( klh,sewj evpourani,ou me,tocoi) is similar to that of koinw─ no,j above, though more decidedly adjectival. Cf. me,soj u`mw/n (Jo. 1:26). In Jo.18:55 W. H. read o[moioj u`mi/n, though aCLX have u`mw/n, a construction sometimes found in ancient Greek.241 One may note also in 1 Pet. 5: 9, ta. auvta. tw/n paqhma,twn, which is perhaps to be understood as the same "kinds" of sufferings, rather than the same sufferings.

(h) THE GENITIVE WITH ADVERBS AND PREPOSITIONS. At bottom there is little difference between the adverb and the genitive and the preposition and the genitive. The preposition is an adverb that is used with a case for clearer expression. The adverb is still an adverb when used with a case and called a preposition. Some adverbs indeed are only used as prepositions, but this is in the later stages of the language. vAxi,wj, like the adjective a;xioj, occurs with the genitive, as avxi,wj tou/ euvaggeli,ou (Ph. 1:27; cf. Ro. 16:2). The genitive is not persistent with some of the adverbs and prepositions in late Greek.242 It is more especially with adverbs of time that the genitive is found.243 Thus a[pax tou/ evniau─ tou/ (Heb. 9:7) di.j tou/ sabba,tou (Lu. 18:12), e`pta,kij th/j h`me,raj (Lu. 17:4). Gies244 indeed observes that it is only the genitive of place that uses prepositions. Here only specimens without discussion can be given. Thus a;ntikruj Ci,ou (Ac. 20:15), avpe,nanti tou/ ta,fou (Mt. 7:61), avnti. ca,ritoj (Jo. 1:16), a;cri kairou/ (Lu. 4:13), dia. parabolh/j (Lu. 8:4), evggu,j sou (Ro. 10:8), e;nati tou/ qeou/ (Lu. 1:8), evnanti,on tou/ qeou/ (Lu. 1:6), e[neken evmou/ (Mt. 5:11), evnto.j u`mw/n (Lu. 17:21), evnw,pion kuri,ou (Lu. 1:15), evpa,nw o;rouj (Mt. 5:14), evpi. th/j gh/j (Rev. 6:10), e;sw th/j auvlh/j (Mk. 15:16), e[wj h`mw/n (Ac. 9:38), kata. tou/ vIhsou/ (Mt. 26:59), kate,nanti u`mw/n (Mk. 11:2), katenw,pion th/j do,xhj (Ju. 24), <), ku,klw| tou/ qro,nou (Rev. 4:6), me,son genea/j skolia/j (Ph. 2:15), meq v h`mw/n (Mt. 1:23), metaxu. sou/ (Mt. 18:15), me,cri th/j sh,meron (Mt. 11:23), paraplh,sion qana,tou (Ph. 2:27), plhsi,on tou/ cwri,ou (Jo. 4:5), peri. tou/ fwto,j (Jo. 1:8), tou,tou ca,rin (Eph. 3:1). ;Emprosqen├ o;pisqen pro,├ pro,j├ u`pe,r├ etc., all have the ablative. Cf. to. e;swqen u`mw/n (Lu. 11:39) where e;swqen may be looked at more as a noun. vEn me,sw| has almost the force of a preposition with the genitive ( u`mw/n, for instance, 1 Th. 2:7).

(1) THE GENITIVE WITH VERBS. As already remarked, Del-


bruck245 begins his discussion of the genitive with the verb. In Lu. 5:19, poi,aj eivsene,gkwsin, the genitive is not due to the verb and is a rather loose almost adverbial phrase.

1. Very Common. In Greek the genitive with verbs cuts a larger figure than in Latin.246 Broadus used to say that the genitive with verbs means 'this and no other,' while the accusative with verbs means 'this and no more.' Probably therefore the genitive with verbs is a variation from the accusative with verbs, the original and normal case with verbs. This point may be illustrated by avkou,ete auvtou/ (Mk. 9:7) and h;kousen to.n avspasmo,n (Lu. 1 41). Some verbs yield themselves naturally to the idea of the genitive, while others use the accusative. Others again use now one, now the other. The predicate genitive is passed by here, having been discussed under Substantives.

2. Fading Distinction from Accusative. But it must not be assumed that it is wholly a matter of indifference whether the accusative or the genitive is used with a verb, though the accusative in the later Greek constantly made inroads on the genitive. Even in the old Greek much freedom existed. In the modern Greek the genitive with verbs occurs only in some dialects (Thumb, Handb., p. 35). Cf. mnhmoneu,ete th/j gunaiko.j Lw,t (Lu. 17:32), but mnhmo─ neu,ete tou.j pe,nte a;rtouj (Mt. 16:9). In pa,nta mou me,mnhsqe (1 Cor. 11:2) both cases occur. This is all in accord with classical usage. So also evpilaqe,sqai tou/ e;rgou h`mw/n (Heb. 6:10), but ta. me,n ovpi,sw evpilanqano,menoj. (Ph. 3:13); geu,setai, mou tou/ dei,pnou (Lu. 14:24), but evgeu,sato to. u`dwr (Jo. 2:9); ge,mousin ovste,wn (Mt. 23:27), but even ge,monta ovno,mata blasfhmi,aj (Rev. 17:3). But it is perfectly proper to appeal to the distinction in the cases in the apparent contradiction between avkou,ontej me.n th/j fwnh/j (Ac. 9:7) and th.n de. fwnh.n ouvk h;kousangrk grk(22:9). The accusative (case of extent) accents the intellectual apprehension of the sound, while the genitive (specifying case) calls attention to the sound of the voice without accenting the sense. The word avkou,w itself has two senses which fall in well with this case-distinction, one 'to hear,' the other 'to understand.' Cf. ou- ouvk h;kousan (Ro. 10:14) and mh. ouvk h;kousan (Ro. 10:18). And yet the genitive can be used where the sense is meant, though not stressed, as h;kousa fwnh/j (Ac. 22:7), but h;kousen fwnh,n (Ac. 9:4; and 26:14).247 But see further under 3.


3. Verbs of Sensation. One of the chief classes of verbs that may be used with the genitive is verbs of sensation. One seems compelled to make some division in the verbs used with the genitive for the sake of intelligible discussion. Yet as a matter of fact each class and each verb indeed relates itself to the root-idea of the genitive. That is the thing to keep in mind and not a mere artificial grouping of the verbs. Analogy was at work, of course, but the verbs after all were separate units and had independent development. These groupings of the grammarians are mere matters of convenience. And it is a delicate matter that varies somewhat with the writer, this use of the genitive. By sensation we refer to verbs that mean to hear, smell, taste, touch, though verbs of seeing have the accusative. The most common verb of hearing is avkou,w, about which some remarks have already been made. It is not necessary to give an exhaustive list of the instances of avkou,w. A typical one is h;kousen sumfwni,aj kai. corw/n, (Lu. 15:25). The genitive is used either with things, as in this illustration, or with persons, as in auvtou/ avkou,ete (Lu. 9:35). For accusative with persons see Eph. 4:21. Besides the use of the accusative with this verb, both with the classic distinction as above and without, there may also be the accusative and the ablative as in Ac. 1:4 ha}n avkou,sate, mou. Then again the verb itself is used in the sense of hear, to understand, and even to obey (hearken). The sense of hearken is often in John's Gospel with the genitive, as ouvk h;kousan auvtw/n ta. pro,bata (Jo. 10:8). Cf. Rev. 3:20, etc. The apparent double genitive in the last passage th/j fwnh/j mou is not to be attributed to the verb, for mou is merely possessive. Cf. Ac. 22:1. Blass248 makes careful distinction between the usages in the various N. T. writers, but that is not to be pushed too far. In 2 Cor. 6:2 (LXX, Is. 49: 8) we have evph,kousa, sou, but u`pakou,w uses the dative (Mt. 8:27). But we have evphkorw/nto auvtw/n oi` de,omioi (Ac. 16:25) in the sense of hearken. No verb of smelling is used with the genitive in the N. T., but evmpne,wn avpeilh/j kai. fo,nou (Ac. 9:1) is certainly analogous. as Blass249 observes, who refers to the LXX for parallels (Josh. 10:40, pa/n evmpne,on zwh/j), for both genitive and accusative. Cf. Johannessohn, Der Gebr., p. 36. Thus ouv mh. geu,shtai qana,tou (Jo. 8:52), but in Heb. 6:4 f. we have the genitive and accusative right together, a matter hardly accidental,250 geusame,nouj th/j dwrea/j├ geusame,nouj qeou/ r`h/ma. But Blass251 considers the accusative here, as in Jo. 2:9, merely a colloquialism in harmony with the general


tendency to retain the accusative (see 2 above). Other verbs of tasting are koresqe,ntej trofh/j (Ac. 27:38) and tou,touj corta,sai a;rtwn (Mk. 8:4). Cf. also metela,mbanon trofh/j (Ac. 2:46) and prosela,bonto trofh/j (Ac. 27:36). Diya,w and peina,w use only the accusative (Matt. 5:6). The verbs of touching can be briefly disposed of. Thus h[yato tw/n i`mati,wn (Mk. 5:30) and often in the Gospels. So ka'n qhri,on qi,gh| tou/ o;rouj (Heb. 12:20), but yhlafa,w has only the accusative (Ac. 17:27). Perhaps the other verbs of taking hold of and seizing may as well be mentioned, for it is less than a step from the idea of touch. Thus e`no.j avnqe,xetai (Lu. 16:13); ta. evco,mena th/j swthri,aj (Heb. 6:9); avntela,beto vIsrah.l paido.j auvtou/ (Lu. 1:54) and oi` th/j euvergesi,aj avntilambano,menoi (1 Tim. 6:2); evpela,beto auvtou/ (Mt. 14:31), and evpilabo,menoj th/j ceiro.j tou/ tuflou/ (Mk. 8:23), where the part taken hold of is indicated; evkra,thsen th/j ceiro,j auvth/j (Mt. 9:25), where the part is again in genitive, but the whole is in the accusative in krath,saj to.n vIwa,nhn (Mt. 14:3); pia,saj auv─ to.n th/j ceiro,j (Ac. 3:7), where the whole is in the accusative and the part in the genitive. Blass252 notes that this last ( pia,zw% is a "vulgar" word. But here, as usual, the N. T. is in harmony with the vernacular. The papyri253 show e;comai with the genitive as well as avntilamba,nomai. So evco,meno,j mou, P. Par. 51 (B.C. 160). Besides Mk. 8:23 (above) the double genitive (whole and part) may be seen in Lu. 20:20, i[na evpila,bwntai auvtou/ lo,gou (cf. also verse 26), though here auvtou/ is probably dependent on lo,gou.

4. Verbs of Emotion. These naturally have the genitive, such as to desire, care for, neglect, have compassion, spare, bear with, aim after, obtain, remember, forget, enjoy, etc. vEpiqume,w has the genitive in Ac. 20:33, avrguri,ou h' crusi,ou h' i`matismou/ ouvdeno,j but the accusative probably in Mt. 5:28 (text uncertain, but LXX has accusative, Ex. 20:17). vOre,gomai also has the genitive, as in Heb. 11:16, krei,ttonoj ovre,gontai. Cf. 1 Tim. 3:1, where both ovre,getai and evpiqumei/ are used with the genitive. Cf. also ovmeiro,─ menoi u`mw/n (1 Th. 2:8). The verbs of concern are fairly numerous ands uniform. Thus avneco,menoi avllh,lwn (Col. 3:13) in the N. T. as in the older Greek. So mh. avme,lei tou/ evn soi. cari,smaotj (1 Tim. 4:14), mh. ovligw,rei paidei,aj kuri,ou (Heb. 12:5). But these three verbs may have the ablative. vAne,comai here is 'hold oneself back from.' Like the earlier Greek also is evpemelh,qh auvtou/ (Lu. 10:34) and mh. tw/n bow/n me,lei tw|/ qew|/ (1 Cor. 9:9). Blass254 considers ouvde.n tou,twn tw|/ Galli,wni e;melen (Ac. 18:17) the personal construction,


as often in the classical Greek. But already in the Attic inscriptions (Meisterhans, p. 211) we have evpimele,omai with the dative. So, too, peri, appears with the genitive in Jo. 10:13, etc. Consider further tw/n ivdi,wn kai. ma,lista oivkei,wn ouv pronoei/ (1 Tim. 5:8) and i[na fronti,zwsin kalw/n e;rgwn (Tit. 3:8). In Mt. 6:34 we have meri─ mnh,sei au`th/j├ though some MSS. read ta. e`auth/j. Once again take tou/ ivdi,ou ouvk evfei,sato (Ro. 8:32). These all are in regular order. In Mt. 18:27 tou/ dou,lou is more likely dependent on o` ku,rioj rather than on splagcnisqei,j. Verbs of obtaining are illustrated by e;lace tou/ qumia/sai (Lu. 1:9), not mere "appearance,"255 though the accusative is elsewhere found in the N. T. as in Ac. 1:17 (cf. classic frequency of the accusative). On the other hand tugca,nw always has the genitive in the N. T., as tou/ aivw/noj evkei,nou tucei/n (Lu. 20:35). But with evpitugca,nw we have evpe,tucon evpaggeliw/n (Heb. 11:33) and tou/to ouvk evpe,tucen (Ro. 11:7). Moulton (Cl. Rev., p. 437, Dec., 1901) notes genitive and accusative with evpituco,ntej- th/j `Rwmai,wn politei,aj kai. evpigami,an, B.U. 113 (ii/A.D.). In general the papyri confirm the N. T. use of these verbs. Verbs of remembering and forgetting call for little remark. Thus mnhsqh/nai diaqh,khj (Lu. 1:72), mnhmoneu,ete tou/ lo,gou (Jo. 15:20). Mimnh,skomai always has the genitive and mnhmoneu,w usually. But avnamimnh,skw (act., mid. and pass.) always has the accusative in the N. T. Cf. avnemnh,sqh to. r`h/ma (Mk. 14:72), whereas ancient Greek usually had the genitive. With u`pomimnh,skw the usage is divided again, as the accusative is alone used in the active (Jo. 14:26), but the genitive in the passive deponent), as u`pemnh,sqh tou/ r`h,matoj (Lu. 22:61; cf. Mk. 14:72 above). vEpilanqa,nomai again has usually the genitive, as filoxeni,aj mh. evpilanqa,nesqe (Heb. 13:2), but the accusative once (Ph. 3:13) and a in Heb. 13:2 according to classic idiom. Cf. Oxy. P. IV, 744, 11 and 12 (i/A.9.). We once also have evkle,lhsqe th/j paraklh,sewj Heb. 12:5). Of verbs of enjoying we have only evgw, sou ovnai,mhn (Phil. 1:20). vApolau,w does not occur in the N. T., and neither avgallia,w, nor cai,rw is used with the genitive, but only absolutely, with the instrumental, or with prepositions. Aivsqa,nomai appears only once (Lu. 9:45) and with accusative.

5. Verbs of Sharing, Partaking and Filling. Indeed, verbs of sharing can be looked at as taking the partitive genitive. Thus with mete,cein we have trape,zhj. (1 Cor. 10:21), evk tou/ e`no.j a;rtou (verse 17; clear1y ablative) and ca,riti (verse 30, associative instrumental by analogy of sunkoinwne,w. Cf. kekoinw,nhken ai[matoj kai. sarko,j (Heb. 2:14), though elsewhere in the N. T. the associative


instrumental occurs with persons. Metadi,dwmi has only the accusative and instrumental. As to metalamba,nw and proslamba,nw it is more doubtful if it is not ablative rather than genitive. Cf. ix, (f), 7, for discussion. The partitive idea is divided between the genitive and the ablative.256 In the N. T. prepositions are chiefly used and with the ablative. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 102) finds in the partitive idea the explanation of the local and temporal use of the genitive, but not rightly. The true genitive is found with verbs of filling like evplh,sqh h` po,lij th/j sugcu,sewj (Ac. 19: 29), peplhrw,kate th.n vIerousalh.n th/j didach/j u`mw/n (Ac. 5 : 28), gemi,sate ta.j u`dri,aj u[datoj (Jo. 2:7), perisseu,ontai a;rtwn (Lu. 15:17), evne,plhsen avgaqw/n (Lu. 1:53). In Latin words of filling (plenus, etc.) use the ablative or instrumental, as the Greek has the ablative with words of lacking ( u`sterou/ntai th/j do,xhj (Ro. 3:23). By analogy therefore we find evk and the ablative with plhro,w, as evplhrw,qh evk th/j ovsmh/j (Jo. 12:3) and gemi,zw, as evge,misen auvto.n evk tou/ puro,j (Rev. 8:5). For the instrumental with the passive see Ro. 1:29, etc. Indeed the accusative is seen in Ph. 1:11 and Rev. 17:3 and some MSS. in Ac. 2:28.

6. Verbs of Ruling. These probably have the true genitive, though verbs of excelling use the ablative. Thus in Mk. 10:42 we have three such verbs in one sentence, oi` dokou/ntej a;rcein tw/n evqnw/n katakurieu,ousin auvtw/n kai. oi` mega,loi auvtw/n katexousia,zousin auvtw/n) Other examples are avnqupateu,ontoj according to some MSS. in Ac. 18:12, auvqentei/n avndro,j (1 Tim. 2:12), basileu,ei th/j vIoudai,aj (Mt. 2:22 aB; elsewhere evpi,%├ h`gemoneu,ontoj th/j Suri,aj (Lu. 2:2), ku─ rieu,omen u`mw/n th/j pi,stewj (2 Cor. 1:24), katadunasteu,ousin u`mw/n (Jas. 2:6), tetraarcou/ntoj th/j vItourai,aj (Lu. 3:1). These verbs all have a distinct substantive-affinity like 'be ruler of,' etc. See further Lu. 22:25 for kurieu,w) and evxousia,zw, Mt. 16:18 for katiscu,w.

7. Verbs of Buying, Selling, Being Worthy of. It is not perfectly clear what the origin of this usage is. The use of evk dhnari,ou with sumfwnh,saj (Mt. 20:2) may be noted, but in verse 13 dhnari,ou sunefw,nhsaj. Cf. also hvgo,rasan evx auvtw/n (Mt. 27:7 with praqh/nai pollou/ (Mt. 26:9). vAgora,zw is used also with evn (Rev. 5:9). So again one may note evkth,sato cwri,on evk misqou/ th/j avdiki,aj (Ac. 1:18. Cf. Lu. 16:9, evk tou/ mamwna/) with misqou/ evxecu,qhsan(Ju. 11). Cf. dia, with peripoie,omai (Ac. 20:28). These, examples show that it was easy to go from the genitive to and the ablative. Consider also wvnh,sato timh/j avrguri,ou (Ac. 7: 16), avssari,ou pwlei/tai (Mt. 10:29), tosou,tou avpe,dosqe (Ac. 5:8), hvgo─


ra,sqhte timh/j (1 Cor. 6:20). In Mk. 14:5, praqh/nai evpa,nw dhnari,wn triakosi,wn, the a verb evpa,nw has no effect on the case as is shown by w;fqh evpa,nw pentakosi,oij avdelfoi/j (1 Cor. 15:6). Blass257 compares the use of evk in the Attic inscriptions with praqh/nai. And Monro (Homeric Grammar, p. 109) considers this the ablative, which is certainly possible. But on the other hand the undoubted genitive with avxio,w suggests the idea of exchange or barter as the true origin and thus a real genitive. vAlla,ssw is not so used itself, but buying and selling easily fall in with the notion of worth. Thus i[na u`ma/j avxiw,sh| th/j klh,sewj (2 Th. 1:11), kataxiwqh/nai th/j basilei,aj (2 Th. 1:5). Cf. also 1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 3:3; 10:29. On the whole one is inclined to this explanation of the usage and to treat it as a true genitive. Cf. Rev. 6 : 6 for the genitive of price without a verb. But the use of avpo, with verbs of buying and selling goes back in single instances to the Attic time (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 91). So ste,fanon dido,ntej avpo. penth,konta crusw/n, Inscr. of Magn., 16, 29.

8. Verbs of Accusing and Condemning. Blass258 observes that the old Greek usage of the genitive of the thing has well-nigh vanished in the N. T. We do have evgkalei/sqai sta,esewj (Ac. 19:40), but peri,, with the genitive is the usual construction in the N. T. both with evgkale,w (Ac. 23:29), kri,nw (Ac. 23:6), and even kathgo─ re,w (Ac. 24:13). However, in the case of kathgo,rew we do find w-n in Lu. 23:14 and Ac. 25:11, but in each instance the genitive seems to be due to attraction to the case of the suppressed antecedent tou,twn) Ac. 24:13 for peri,. Still the point is not absolutely certain and w-n, could be due to kathgore,w. At any rate kathgore,w is also used with the genitive of the person as in i[na kath─ gorh,swsin auvtou/ (Mt. 12:10). Cf. also Mk. 15:3 where we have genitive and accusative, kathgo,roun auvtou/ polla,. Moulton (Prol., p. 235) notes that D often has accusative with kathgore,w as with avkou,w├ krate,w.

9. Genitive Due to Prepositions in Composition. Some verbs have the genitive because of the preposition in composition which gives a distinct change in idea to the verb. The preposition is often repeated with the noun. As a matter of fact the only259 preposition that seems to figure thus in the N. T. is kata, which is used with a number of verbs with the genitive.260 Not all the kata, com-


pounds use the genitive. Cf. the accusative case and note as illustrations of the accusative in the N. T. katagwni,zomai├ katabrabeu,w├ katadika,zw├ katakri,nw├ katasofi,zomai. It may be that some of the verbs already instanced as using the genitive may owe it to kata, in composition, like kathgore,w (Mt. 12:10). But the point seems to be reasonably plain as to katege,lwn auvtou/ (Mt. 9 : 24), eva.n kata─ ginw,skh| h`mw/n h` kardi,a (1 Jo. 3 : 20, and note verse 21), though h`mw/n might go with kardi,a), katakauca/tai e;leoj kri,sewj (Jas. 2:13), katalalei/te avllh,lwn (Jas. 4:11), sou katamartuou/sin (Mt. 27:13), katena,rkhsa h`mw/n (2 Cor. 12:13), katasthnia,swsin tou/ Cristou/ (1 Tim. 5:11), aivscu,nhj katafronh,saj (Heb. 12:2), kate,ceen auvtou/ th/j kefalh/j (Mk. 14:3); but in Mt. 26:7 the text of W. H. has evpi, with genitive as some MSS. in Mk.

10. Attraction of the Relative. A word only is needed about the attraction of the relative, a matter treated properly in the chapter on Pronouns, which see. Here it may only be noted that the genitive (as of other oblique cases) of the relative sometimes appears with a verb when the case is due, not to the verb, but to the antecedent. Thus we note peri. pa,ntwn w-n evpoi,sen (Lu. 3:19), an idiom common in Luke, but rare elsewhere, as avste,rwn ou'j ei=dej (Rev. 1:20).

(j) THE GENITIVE OF THE INFINITIVE. This is more properly an instance of the genitive of substantives as it is the substantival aspect of the infinitive that is in the case. The full discussion of the matter belongs to the chapter on Verbal Nouns. Here it may simply be remarked that the infinitive with tou/ is not unknown to ancient Greek, though nothing like so common as in the LXX as the translation of the Hebrew infinitive construct. But the Hebrew infinitive is not an exact analogy as it does not have the article.261 But Thucydides had already shown a fondness for this idiom which is thoroughly Greek. As an example from the LXX take tou/ evxele,sqai (Dan. 6:14). For the N. T. note evxh/lqen o` spei,rwn tou/ spei,rein (Mt. 13:3). The substantival nature of this infinitive with tou/ is well shown in kairo.j tou/ a;rxasqai (1 Pet. 4:17). But in general tou/ with the infinitive has as wide an extension of meaning in the vernacular koinh, as the genitive absolute.262 The details come later.

(k) THE GENITIVE ABSOLUTE. It may indeed be ablative absolute as Farrar263 holds, following the analogy of the Latin. But, as Giles264 observes, the Latin absolute is very likely instru-


mental or locative. The various languages differ greatly, however, in the use of the absolute cases, nearly all having a turn in one language or another. Cf. dative in Anglo-Saxon. Since the Sanskrit uses genitive as well as instrumental and locative (usual construction), Giles considers the Greek genitive absolute a true genitive. In this he is perhaps correct. But Brugmann (Griech. Gr., p. 523) discusses the genitive absolute separately from both genitive and ablative. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p.437. Mullach265 observes that the genitive absolute is a mark of the higher style and was not much used in the vernacular. Jebb266 remarks that in the modern Greek the genitive absolute is more commonly paraphrased in harmony with the general disuse of the participle. However, in th vernacular koinh, "the rapid extension of the genitive absolute is very obvious feature,"267 and the N. T. is in line with the papyri on this point also as in most other matters of grammar. Moulton observes further that "in the papyri it may often be seen forming a string of statements, without a finite verb for several lines," which is rather more than can be said of the N. T. It naturally occurs in the N. T. chiefly in the historical books. Abbott268 has felt that Mark uses the genitive absolute "somewhat monotonously to introduce the circumstances of a new narrative," and he finds it common in Matthew in temporal clauses. John, he observes, has the construction nowhere in recording Christ's words, though he elsewhere269 "employs it with more elasticity of meaning than is found in the Triple Tradition." The LXX show many examples of the genitive absolute and with abundant freedom also.270 The normal usage in the older Greek is to have a genitive absolute when a participle occurs with a noun that is disconnected from the rest of the sentence as in avnacwrhsa,n─ twn auvtw/n (Mt. 2:13). Cf. 2 Cor. 2:12. But the older Greek did not always conform to this norm, and variations appear also in the N. T. Thus sometimes the participle is found alone as in evlqo,ntwn (Mt. 17:14) and eivpo,ntojgrk grk(17:26), a very frequent idiom in the papyri.271 Cf. avnagnwsqe,ntwn B.U. 925 (iii/A.D.?), dhlwqe,ntoj B.U. 970 (ii/A.D.). The papyri also show evxo,ntoj instead of the old evxo,n)272 Cf. ouvk evxo,ntoj P.O. 275 (A.D. 66). Then again the genitive absolute occurs when as a matter of fact the noun or pronoun is not absolute and the participle might have merely


Addenda 3rd ed.

agreed in case with the word in question. The simplest example is the repetition of the pronoun in the same case as eivselqo,ntoj auvtou/ eivj oi=kon oi` maqhtai. auvtou/ (Mk. 9:28). But more noticeable is an example like mh. e;contoj de. auvtou/ avpodou/nai evke,leusen auvto,n (Mt. 18:25), or tau/ta de. auvtou/ evnqumhqe,ntoj- evfa,nh auvtw|/ (Mt. 1:20), a usage more common apparently in the N. T. than in the papyri. But note mou kinduneu,santoj eivj qa,lassan e;swse, B.U. 423 (ii/A.D.), where me is implied with e;swse. One even notes the genitive absolute when the nominative is present as in mhnsteuqei,shj th/j mhtro.j auvtou/ Mari,aj- eu`re,qh (Mt. 1:18). Moulton273 notes "a violent use" of the genitive absolute in Heb. 8: 9 from the LXX, where we have evn h`mera| evpilabome,nou mou. Here the participle is treated almost like the infinitive (as a substantive). Moulton regards it as due to the original Hebrew, and Westcott (in loco) cites evn h`me,ra| evnteilame,nou sou auvtw|/ (Baruch 2:28). See further under Participles.

IX. The Ablative ("Ablatival Genitive") Case ( h` avfairetikh. ptw/sij). The treatment of this case will be briefer, for it never had the, manifold development of the Greek genitive. In the original speech the genitive and ablative had no distinctive endings save in the o stems in the singular.274 See chapter VII, (a), for discussion of form.

(a) THE NAME. But the name ablativus is credited to Julius Caesar.275 Besides avfairetikh, it is also called patrikh,. The name is quite appropriate.

(b) THE MEANING. The ablative is then the 'whence' case, the ease of origin, source, separation or departure. Some of the grammars use the expression " ablatival genitive." That implies that the case is after all a kind of genitive. That is only true as to form, not as to sense, and causes some confusion. In Greek the ablative is not a live case in form, but in sense it is.

(C) RARE WITH SUBSTANTIVES. It is possible (though not probably correct) to regard dikaiosu,nh qeou/ (Ro. 1:17) as ablative, qeou/ being the source of the righteousness. More likely are the following examples: th.n e;kbasin th/j avnastrofh/j (Heb. 13:7), diastolh. vIoudai,ou te kai. [Ellhnoj (Ro. 10:12), dia,krisij kalou/ kai. kakou/ (Heb. 5:14). See Monro, Homeric Grammar, p. 146. In 2 Pet. 1: 20 we have a clear case of the ablative in the predicate after the copula gi,netai. Here evpilu,sewj ('disclosure') is in the ablative. Cf. also tou/ qeou/ in 2 Cor. 4:7. One may note also evge,neto gnw,mhj (Ac. 20:


3) as probably parallel. In Heb. 12:11 cara/j and lu,phj may be considered either true genitives or ablatives. Doubtful also are u`postolh/j and pi,stewj in Heb. 10:39. But we have a clear ablative in Ac. 20:37 i`kao.j de. klauqmo.j evge,neto pa,ntwn. Moulton276 notes the obvious fact that avpo, and evk (with abl.) are freely used for the old "partitive enitive." Delbruck277 thinks the genitive of material originally abl. Cf. viii, (f), 8, for the true genitives in the partitive sense. This partitive gen. may be illustrated by ea}n tou,twn (Mt. 6:29) which is to be compared with ea}n evx auvtw/n (Mt. 10:29). In Jo. 3:25 the use of evk makes clear the ablative, evge,neto zh,thsij evk tw/n maqhtw/n. Blass278 rather needlessly explains this usage by appeal to the Hebrew !mi. Note also pa/j evx h`mw/n (Lu. 14:33). The matter mar be further illustrated by ti,j auvtw/n (Lu. 7:42) and ti,j evx u`mw/n (Mtl 6:27). Indeed with ti,j, as Blass279 observes, the N. T. nearly always uses evx in such examples. He finds the opposite true of ti.j save in John. Thus tine.j tw/n grammate,wn (Mt. 12: 38), but tine.j evx auvtw/n (Lu. 11:15. Cf. Jo. 6:64). But avpo, is also found with ti,j Mt. 27:21). One may note also ti.j evn u`mi/n (Jas. 5:13). A classical but curious use of this idiom, like the partitive genitive (already noted), is as the subject or object. The explanation lies, of course, in the ellipsis. Thus sunh/lqon kai. tw/n maqhtw/n, (Ac. 21:16) may be compared with ei=pan evk tw/n maqhtw/n (Jo. 16:17), evk tou/ o;clou sunebi,basan (Ac. 19:33). Cf. Rev. 11: 9. Take Mt. 23:34 as an example of the use as object, evx auvtw/n avpoktenei/te├ evx autvw/n mastigw,sete) Cf. especially evk tw/n te,knwn sou peripatou/ntaj (2 Jo. 1:4). In Ac. 15:2 we have the full expression tinaj a;llouj evx autvw/n. Brugmann (Griech. Gr., p. 397) notes the syncretism between the ablative and the genitive with the superlative. See a like confusion in the predicate (Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 148). W. Havers (Indog. Forsch., XXXI, Bd. 1, Heft 3, 1912) "on the splitting of the genitive in Greek" suggests that the partitive genitive was originally independent and adverbial.

(d) THE ABLATIVE WITH ADJECTIVES. The number is not large (cf. the Genitive with Adjectives). In Plato we have, for instance, evpisth,mhj keno,j├ evleu,qeroj aivdou/j, but see Kuhner-Gerth280 for a full list in the ancient writers. Thus in the N. T. we find with proposition kaqaro.j avpo. tou/ ai[matoj (Ac. 20:26), a clear ablative. Cf. also evleuqe,ra avpo. tou/ no,mou (Ro. 7:3) and evleu,qeroj evk pa,ntwn (1


Addenda 3rd ed.

Cor. 9:19). But the ablative occurs without prepositions. So xe,noi tw/n diaqh,kwn, (Eph. 2:12). It is probably best to regard the verbal adjectives as having the ablative in these examples: avgaphtoi. qeou/ (Ro. 1:7), gennhtoi/j gunaikw/n (Mt. 11:11), didaktoi. qeou/ (Jo. 16:45), didaktoi/j pneu,matoj (1 Cor. 2:13), klhtoi. vIhsou/ Cristou/ (Ro. 1:6). One may also suggest here euvloghme,noi tou/ patro,j (Mt. 25:34), but on the whole it is to be regarded as a true genitive. The ablative with adjectives with a- privative have "plentiful Illustrations from papyri."281 For instance; avki,ndunoj panto.j kindu,nou Tb. P. 105 (iii/B.C.), th/j eivj a[pantaj eu`ergesi,aj- avboh,qhtoj B.U. 970 (ii/A.D.). In Mt. 27:24 we find avqw|/o,j eivmi avpo. tou/ ai[matoj with avpo,. Cf. also a;spilon avpo. tou/ ko,smou (Jas. 1:27). Thus we easily See the ablative in avkatapa,stouj a`marti,aj (2 Pet. 2:14), avna,xioj kri─thri,wn (1 Cor. 6:2), a;nomaj qeou/ (1 Cor. 9:21), a;peiroj lo,gou (Heb. 5:13), avpei,rastoj kakw/n (Jas. 1: 13).

Moreover, the ablative after the comparative is very common the N. T., apparently more so than in the papyri. Let a few examples suffice: ivscuro,tero,j mou (Mt. 3:11), mikro,teron o'n pa,twn tw/n sperma,twn (Mk. 4 : 31), plei,onaj tw/n prw,twn (Mt. 21:36), plei/on th/j trofh/j (Lu. 12:23), ponhro,tera e`autou/ (Mt. 12:45), mei,zwn tou/ kuri,ou (Jo. 13:16). Cf. Jo. 21:15; 1 Cor. 10:22; 1 Tim. 5:8. Here the ablative idea of difference or distinction isll very plain. The Latin also uses the ablative in this sense. Cf. ch,ra mh. e;latton evtw/n e`xh,konta (1 Tim. 5:9). In Jo. 5:36, marturi,an mei,zw tou/ vIwa,nou, it is not clear whether it is the witness borne by John or to him. In Ac. 4:19 qeou/ after h' is genitive, not ablative, due to avkou,ein. The superlative may likewise have tie ablative as in prw/to,j mou (Jo. 1:15), a usage found in the papyri.282 Abbott283 rather needlessly endeavours to explain prw/toj as a substantive meaning 'chief,' like tw|/ prw,tw| th/j nh,sou (Ac. 28: 7). Note also poi,a evsti.n evntolh. prw,th pa,ntwn (Mk. 12:28) where pa,ntwn is neuter plural (a possible partitive genitive). Cf. e;scaton pa,ntwn (1 Cor. 15:8). The positive perisso,j may even have the ablative, as to. perisso.n tou,twn, (Mt. 5:37). Cf. plei/on with the verb perisseu,w and the ablative plei/on tw/n - Farisai,wn (Mt. 5: 20). In Eph. 3:8, evmoi. tw|/ evlacistote,rw| pa,ntwn a`gi,wn the comparative and the superlative are combined.

(e) THE ABLATIVE WITH PREPOSITIONS. It 1S very common in 'the N. T. Thus a;neu lo,gu (1 Pet. 3:1), avpe,nanti pa,ntwn (Ac.


3:16), avpo. th/j w;raj (Mt. 9:22), a;ter o;clou (Lu. 22:6), evk tou/ u[datoj (Mk. 11:10), evkto.j auvtou/ (Mt. 23:26; cf. evnto,j in same verse), e;mprosqen pa,ntwn (Mt. 26:70), evpe,keina Babulw/noj (Ac. 7:43), e;xw th/j oivki,aj (Mt. 10:14); e;xwqen th/j po,lewj (Rev. 14:20), o;pisqen tou/ vIhsou/ (Lu. 23:26), ovpi,sw mou (Mt. 4:19), possibly ovye. sabba,twn (Mt. 28: 1), par v auvtw/n (Mt. 2:4), parekto.j lo,gou pornei,aj (Mt. 5:32), pe,ran tou/ vIorda,nou (Mt. 19:1), plh.n tou/ ploi,ou (Ac. 27:22), pro. tou/ pa,sca (Jo. 11:55), pro.j th/j u`mete,raj swthri,aj (Ac. 27:34), u`pe.r pa,ntwn, (2 Cor. 5:15, true genitive according to some), u`pera,nw auvth/j (Heb. 9:5), u`pere,keina u`mw/n (2 Cor. 10:16) u`perekperissou/ w-n (Eph. 3:20), u`po. kuri,ou (Mt. 1:22), u`poka,tw tw/n podw/n (Mk. 6:11), cwri.j parabolh/j (Mt. 13:34). In the case of ovye. sabba,twn (Mt. 28:1) ovye, means 'late from' (Moulton, Prol., p. 72). Cf. ovye. th/j w[raj, Par. P. 35, 37 (ii/B.C.), ovyi,teron th/j w[raj Tb. P. 230 (ii/B.C.) and ovye. tou,twn in Philostratus (Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 312). Cf. Blass-Debrunner, p. 101, for still other examples in late Greek. See also met v ovli,gon tou,twn in Xen., Hellen., I, 1, 2. The list of such adverbs was growing constantly. This is a considerable list, but the ablative idea is patent in all with the notion of separation. An interesting example of the ablative is th.n avpo. sou/ evpaggeli,an (Ac. 23:21). In u`pe,r├ pro,├ pro,j it is the comparative idea that is involved and that implies separation. Hence it seems likely that u`po, is to be construed also with the ablative rather than the genitive, though this point is debatable. "In both Greek and Latin the ablative expresses the agent as the source of Ithe action, almost invariably with prepositions" (Buckland Green, Notes on Greek and Latin Syntax, p. 32). There is some truth here. For the ablative with prepositions in Cypriotic see Meister, Bd. II, p. 295. See chapter on Prepositions. A number of adverbs are themselves in the ablative case, like kalw/j├ ou[twj (all adverbs in -- wj), a;nw, etc.

(f) THE ABLATIVE WITH VERBS. The ablative is not used so frequently with verbs as the accusative, genitive or dative, and yet it is by no means uncommon. Of course, wherever avpo, (cf. Ac. 5:2), evk (cf1. Mk. 1:10) and para, (Mt. 2:4) are used with the ablative after a verb, these examples284 are not considered, but they throw light on the use of the same case without the preposition. vApo, and evk have only the ablative. The ablative is so common with compound verbs like avfi,sthmi├ avpostere,w, etc., that no effort is made to separate the simple from the compound verbs. There


Addenda 3rd ed.

are examples where the ablative seems to be due purely to the preposition, as tjk ca.ritoj evxepe,sate (Gal. 5:4); cf. same word in 2 Pet. 3:17). But in many other instances the ablative idea in the verb is clue to the effect of the preposition.

1. Verbs of Departure and Removal. This is the simplest ablative with verbs. Take, for instance, ouvk avfi,stato tou/ i`erou/ (Lu. 2:37) where the ablative idea is perfectly plain. So also avposth,sontai tinej th/j pi,stewj (1 Tim. 4:1). The predicate ablative of source in 2 Pet. 1:20 ( evpilu,sewj) was noticed under the discussion of substantives. As a rule avpo,├ evk or para, will be found with the mere idea of departure. So cwri,zw avpo, (1 Cor. 7:10). In Lu. 7:6 avpe,cw has avpo,, but aD have merely the ablative.

Naturally verbs meaning to free from, to separate, to deprive of, to hinder from, etc., use the ablative. vEleuqero,w always has avpo, (Ro. 6:18), as kaqari,zw avpo, (1 Jo. 1:7), ku,w avpo, (Lu. 13:16), lou,w avpo, (Ac. 16:33), lutro,w avpo, (Tit. 2:14), r`u,omai avpo, (Mt. 6:13), sw,zw avpo, (Ro. 5:9) and evk (Ro. 7:24). Cf. also meqi,sthmi evk in Lu. 6:4. But we have the ablative alone in avphllotriwme,noi th/j zwh/j (Eph. 4:18), avpesterhme,nwn th/j avlhqei,aj (1 Tim. 6:5), avpole,lusai th/j avsqenei,aj sou (Lu. 13:12), kaqirei/sqai th/j megaleio,thtoj auvth/j (Ac. 19:27),285 evkratou/nto tou/ mh. evpignw/nai (Lu. 24:16), evkw,lusen auvtou.j tou/ boulh,matoj (Ac. 27:43). Cf. Lu. 10:42, auvth/j. This use of the mere ablative was not unknown to good prose in the ancient Greek. Moulton286 finds it also in the papyri. Thus tou,twn a;fele L.Pb. (ii/B.C.), avfele,sqai w-n e;dwkan O.P. 237 (ii /A.D.). One may note here again evkpi,ptw with the ablative in Gal. 5:4 and 2 Pet. 3:17. Cf. kwlu,w avpo, (Lu. 6:29).

2. Verbs of Ceasing, Abstaining. So one may interpret ouv bradu,nei ku,rioj th/j evpaggeli,aj (2 Pet. 3:9), the marginal reading in W. H. (1 Pet. 4:1) pe,pautai a`marti,aj, and avpe,cesqai eivdwloqu,twn (Ac. 15: 28 cf. also 15:20; 1 Tim. 4:3; 1 Pet. 2:11), though avpo, also is used with avpe,comai (1 Th. 4:3; 5:22). One can only repeat that these divisions are purely arbitrary and merely for convenience. For evk with avnapau,omai├ avpo, with katapau,w see Rev. 14:13; Heb. 4:4, 10.

3. Verbs of Missing, Lacking, Despairing. Thus we note w-n tinej avstoch,santej (1 Tim. 1:6), lei,petai sofi,aj (Jas. 1:5), u`sterou/n─ tai th/j do,xhj (Ro. 3:23), o[swn ch|,zei (Lu. 11:8), prosdeo,meno,j tinoj (Ac. 17:25), evxaporhqh/nai h`ma/j kai. tou/ zh/n (2 Cor. 1:8). Cf. tw/n avnagkai,wn u`sterei/n L.Pb. (ii/B.C.), tw/n deo,ntwn evglipei/n (ib.). Moulton Cl. Rev., p. 437, Dec., 1901.


4. Verbs of Differing, Excelling. Here the comparative idea is dominant. We (observe pollw/n strouqi,wn diafe,rete u`mei/j (Mt. 10:31), th.n u`perba,llousan th/j gnw,sewj avga,phn (Eph. 3:19), u`pere,contaj e`autw/n (Ph. 2:3), u`sterhke,nai tw/n u`perli,an avposto,lwn (2 Cor. 11:5; cf. use of u`stere,w in sense of lack above. Here the comparative idea of u[steroj is uppermost.

5. Verbs of Asking and Hearing. These may also use the ablative. This is the usual construction with de,omai, especially in Luke, as de,omai, sou (Lu. 8:28). The person is in the ablative, but the thing will be in the accusative, as de,omai de. to. mh. parw.n qarrh/sai (2 Cor. 10:2). So also note ha}n hvkou,sate, mou (Ac. 1:4), but both avpo, (Lu. 22:71) and para, (Jo. 1:40), and evk (2 Cor. 12:6) occur.

6. Verbs with the Partitive Idea. Here a sharp difference exists between the accusative which presents the whole and the genitive or the ablative which accents a part. Thus in Rev. 2:17 we have dw,sw auvtw|/ tou/ ma,nna where the point lies in the idea of "some" of the manna, but B reads to. and a evk tou/. In the same verse note the accusative dw,sw auvtw|/ yh/fon leukh,n. When the whole is expressed in the N. T. the accusative is used. Thus fagei/n eivdwlo,quta (Rev. 2:14), but evsqi,ei avpo. tw/n yici,wn (Mt. 15:27) and evk tou/ a;r─ tou evsqie,tw (1 Co 11:28). Thus also pi,nwn oi=non (Lu. 7:33), but pi,ete evx auvtou/ (Mt. 26:27), oa}j a'n pi,h| evk tou/ u[datoj (Jo. 4:14). Cf. also evne,gkate avpo. tw/n ovyari,wn (Jo. 21:10). Phrynichus says: e;pion oi;nou vAttikoi,├ oi=non [Ellhnej- e;fagon kre,wj vAttikoi,├ kre,aj [Ellhnej) Cf. avpo. tou/ karpou/ dw,sousin (Lu. 20:10), i[na la,bh| avpo. tw/n karpw/n (Mk. 12:2). Cf. also 1 Jo. 4:13. Cf. Mt. 28:1; Ac. 21:16. See Moulton, Introduction to the Study of N. T. Gk., p. 72, where the "partitive gen." is shown to be often ablative in idea. In modern Greek avpo, is the regular construction for the partitive sense, as dw/se mou avpo. tou/to, 'give me some of that' (Moulton, Prol., p. 245). Prepositions avpo, and evk are thus uniformly used in the N. T. with (this construction of the part (clearly ablative therefore) save in Rev. 2:17 above and in prosela,bonto trofh/j (Ac. 27:36). In this last example the MSS. vary a good deal. Metalamba,nw (see (i), 3) may be abl. or gen. in metalambanon trofh/j (Ac. 2:46). Blass287 notes that only Luke, Paul and the author of Hebrews, the more literary writers in the N. T., use the ablative (gen.) with metalamba,nw and proslamba,nw. Examples like Ro. 9:16; Heb. 12:11 may be regarded as either ablative or genitive.

7. Attraction cif the Relative. Thus evk tou/ u[datoj ou- evgw, dw,sw


autw|/ (Jo. 4:14), ouvde.n evkto.j le,gwn w-n te oi` profh/tai evla,lhsan (Ac. 26:22). Cf. Pronouns.

X. The Locative (" Locatival Dative ") Case ( h` topikh. ptw/sij).

(a) THE NAME LOCATIVE. It is derived from the Latin locus288 land is a "grammatical neologism," but is modelled after vocative. Still Delbruck289 prefers "local" to locative and uses it. It is indeed a local case. It is worth noticing that in the Thessalian dialect the old genitive had this locative ending290 as did the Arkadian291 also, though this - oi may have come from - oio. The Latin grammarians took this i for the dative.292 We have remnants of the ending in English here, there, where. The modern grammars generally recognise the distinction in the three cases (locative, instrumental and dative), which have usually identical endings, though Blass293 is correct in saying that it is not always possible to decide the case. However that uncertainty exists but seldom. Jannaris294 makes four cases, counting the associative as a separate case. Compare the blending in the Latin.

(b) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LOCATIVE. It is indeed the silmplest of cases in its etymological idea. It is the in case as Whitney295 finds it in the Sanskrit. It is location, a point within limits, the limits determined by the context, not by the case itself. The word itself is the main determining factor in the resultant sense, and each example has its own atmosphere. There is indeed variation in the resultant idea. Hence, besides in, we come to the ideas of on, at, amid, among, by, with. This development was not only in the early Greek296 but in the still earlier Sanskrit. The use of the locative without evn is much more common in Homer than in the later Greek. In the modern Greek vernacular indeed the locative disappears along with the instrumental and dative before eivj and the accusative. As to evn it adds so little to the locative case that it is not surprising to find it so frequently used, especially as 'the locative, instrumental and dative all used the same endings. Thus we may compare tw|/ ploiari,w| h=lqon (Jo. 21:8) with evn ploi,w| (Mt. 14:13), u[dati bapti,zw (Lu. 3:16) with bapti,zw evn u[dati (Mt. 3:11), th|/ evsca,th| h`me,ra| (Jo. 6:40) with evn th|/ evsca,th| h`me,ra| (Jo. 6:44). The tendency in the older Greek was constantly towards the use of evn├ though the mere locative survived, es-


pecially in some constructions. In Mt. 13:52 MSS. vary between the mere locative th|/ basilei,a|, and evn with locative and eivj with accusative.

(c) PLACE. his was probably the original locative. Place of rest was put in the locative without a preposition. As already indicated, this usage abounds in Homer.297 Some of these distinctively locative forms persisted in the Greek as in the Latin. Thus oi;koi├ vIsqmoi├ Maraqw/ni├ vAqh,nh|si├ qu,rasi├ humi, Corinthi, Romae (ai). Brugmann (Griech. Gr., p. 226) thinks that camai, is dative. Indeed the locative forms and the dative forms used as locative, after the blending of the three case-forms into one, still occur in Pindar side by side.298 The orators up to the time of Demosthenes use the mere locative frequently.299 The AEolic300 has me,soi╩ evn me,sw| (cf. oi;koi and oi;kw|%. But the rule in Attic literary prose is to use a preposition with the locative of place. Thus evn vAqh,naij (1 Th. 3:1), evn oi;kw| (1 Cor. 11:34)= 'at home' and usually evn tw|/ oi;kw| (Jo. 11:20). But observe lh|stai/j peri,epesen (Lu. 10:30), where the resultant idea is "among" and peri, is used with the verb in composition, but none the less it is the locative. Blass301 indeed remarks that the "local dative" does not occur in the N. T. He means the pure locative of place without a preposition, not considering the adverb ku,klw| (Mk. 3:34), and possibly camai, (Jo. 18:6). We have indeed e`te,ra| o`dw|/ evkbalou/sa (Jas. 2:25), possibly instrumental.Cf. the figurative usage in 2 Pet. 2:15, etc. It is indeed a very short step to the figurative usage, poreu,esqai tai/j o`doi/j auvtw/n (Ac. 14:16), mhde. toi/j e;qesin peripatei/n (Ac. 21:21), stoicou/sin toi/j i;cnesin (Ro. 4:12). I think that we have the pure locative also in tw|/ ploiari,w| h=lqon (Jo. 21:8); u[dati bapti,zw (Lu. 3:16), kaqari,saj tw|/ loutrw|/ tou/ u[datoj (Eph. 5:26), tw|/ qusiasthri,w| paredreu,ontej (1 Cor. 9:13). Cf. also evpe,qhkan auvtou/ th|/ kefalh|/ (Jo. 19:2), avdu,natoj toi/j posi,n (Ac. 14:8). Hence it is overstating it to assert that the locative of place without prepositions has entirely disappeared from the N. T. The scarcity of this usage in comparison with Homer is in perfect harmony with the linguistic development. Moulton302 indeed finds the locative of place


Addenda 3rd ed.

in inscriptions as late as the sixth century A.D., B.C.H., 1903, p. 335, tw|/ tu,bw|.

(d) TIME. It is expressed much more persistently with the mere locative. It has outlived the usage as to place and is "fairly frequent"303 in the N. T. Cf. Sanskrit, Latin, older Greek, AngloSaxon. Here, of course, time is regarded from the point of view of a point, not of duration (accusative). But the accusative is making inroads on the locative and is already used occasionally for a point of time. See Accusative. For papyri examples take toi/j palaioi/j cro,noij B.U. 903 (ii/A.D.) and genesi,oij├ ga,moij B.U. 1 (iii/A.D.), Moulton, Cl. Rev., April, 1904, and Dec., 1901. See also th|/ avnaba,sei, O.P. 742 (ii/B.C.). Observe the difference between the accusative ( to. sa,bbaton h`su,casan) and the locative ( th|/ de. mia|/ tw/n sabba,twn h=lqan) and the genitive ( o;rqrou baqe,wj) all in the same sentence (Lu. 24:1). The accusative is easily differentiated from both the locative and the genitive. As between the locative and the genitive the matter is not quite so clear. Brugmann304 indeed thinks that originally there was little difference. The difference lies in the essential meaning of the two cases. The locative is a point and the genitive is the case of genus. Thus in Mt. 24:20 we have i[na mh. ge,nhtai h` fugh. u`mw/n ceimw/noj mhde. sabba,tw|. It is not mere hair-splitting to note that winter is here set over against summer (time within which) and that Sabbath is the point of time. In practical result the difference is very slight, but it is hardly just to regard the two usages as without difference. Cf. nukto,j (Mt. 25: 6), nukti, (Mk. 14:30), nu,kta (Ac. 26:7). Kairw|/ (Lu. 20:10) for 'in due time' may be illustrated by, tw|/ de,onti kairw|/ O.P. IV, 729, 5, and tw|/ th/j ovpw,raj kairw|/ ib., 11. As further examples of the mere locative we may note the various instances of h`me,ra) So th|/ tri,th| h`me,ra| (Mt. 20:19), th|/ mia|/ sabba,twn (Jo. 20:1), th|/ ptw,th| h`me,ra| tw/n avzu,mwn (Mk. 14:12), th|/ h`me,ra| th|/ ovgdo,h| (Ac. 7:8), th|/ evsca,th| h`me,ra| (Jo. 6:40), poi,a| h`me,ra| (Mt. 24:42), h|- h`me,ra| (Lu. 17:29 f.), tath|/ h`me,ra| (Ac. 12:21), th|/ evcome,nh| h`me,ra| (Jo. 20:19), th|/ evpiou,sh| h`me,ra|(Ac. 7:26), th|/ evcome,nh| h`me,ra| (Ac. 21:26), and even h`me,ra| kai. h`me,ra| (2 Cor. 4:16). The substantive is not expressed in th|/ evpifwskou,sh| (Mt. 28:1) and th|/ e`xh/j (Ac. 21:1).305 Cf. also sh,meron tau,th| th|/ nukti, (Mk. 14:30), where the adverb is accusative, but the substantive locative. With some of these phrases evn is also


found as with tau,th| (Lu. 19:42), evkei,nh|; (Lu. 6:23), ovgdo,h| (Lu. 1: 59), mia|/ (Lu. 20:1), evsca,th| (Jo. 6:44), with h`me,ra| and sabba,twn (Lu. 4:16), h`me,ra|, and genitive (Lu. 4:25), with e`xh/j (Lu. 7:11), where W. H. read in text evn tw|/) rather than evn th|/) The MSS., especially D, vary a good deal. Nukti,, occurs without evn (Lu. 12:20) and with evn (Mt. 26:31). So also we find sabba,tw| (Mt. 24:20), sa.bbasin (Mk. 2:24), but also evn with each (Mt. 12:2; Mk. 2:23). With w[ra we have both w[ra| (Lu. 2:38) and evn (Lu. 12:1). Once more fulakh|/ occurs without evn (Mt. 14:25) and with (Lu. 12:38). With e;toj we have evn once (as Lu. 3:1) and without evn twice (Jo. 2:20; Ac. 13:20), but these two examples $e;tesin tessera,konta├ w`j e;tesin tetrakosi,oij kai. penth,─ konta are probably associative-instrumental.306 Cf. probebhko,taj h;dh toi/j e;tesin, Tb.P. i (ii/A.D.) with Lu. 1:7 evn) Moulton observes that it is hard sometimes to draw the line between the locative and the instrumental (Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901). With e`orth, again we note the mere locative (Lu. 2:41) or usually evn (Jo. 2:23). See also kairoi/j ivdi,oij (1 Tim. 6:15), but usually evn kairw|/ (Mt. 11:25, etc.). Cro,noj has only evn (as Ac. 1:6) save the associative-instrumental usage like i`kanw|/ cro,nw| (Ac. 8:11). Observe also toi/j genesi,oij auvtou/, (Mk. 6:21). So again e`te,raij geneai/j (Eph. 3:5), but evn in Mk. 8:38. Nuni, (chiefly in Paul, as Ro. 3:21) is a locative form (cf. ouvci,). Other locative adverbs to note are avei, (2 Cor. 6:10), evkei/ (Mt. 6:21) pe,rusi (2 Cor. 8:10), prwi, (Mk. 16:2).

(e) LOCATIVE WITH ADJECTIVES. Thus we note oi` ptwcoi. tw|/ pneu,mati 5:3), kaqaroi. th|/ kardi,a|grk grk(5:8), avdu,natoj toi/j posi,n (Ac. 14:8), stereoi. th|/ pi,stei (1 Pet. 5:9), nwqroi. tai/j avkoai/j (Heb. 5:11), peritomh|/ ovktah,meroj (Ph. 3:5), evleu,qeroi th|/ dikaiosu,nh| (Ro. 6:20), tapeino.j th|/ kardi,a| (Mt. 11:29), avperi,tmhtoi kardi,aij (Ac. 7:51), a`gi,a kai. sw,mati kai. pneu,mati (1 Cor. 7:34). Cf. Ro. 12:10-13. In Blass-Debrunner, p. 118, these examples are treated as instrumental.

(f) LOCATIVE WITH VERBS. Cf. dedeme,moj tw|/ pneu,mati (Ac. 20: 22), peribeblhme,nouj i`mati,oij leukoi/j (Rev. 4:4, marg. evn). In Ro. 12: 10-13 note the various examples of the locative with participles, though tai/j crei,aij koinwnou/ntej is probably instrumental. Cf. also evskotwme,noi th|/ dianoi,a| (Eph. 4:18), zwopoihqei.j pneu,mati (1 Pet. 3:18), sch,mati euvreqei,j (Ph. 2:8). We seem to have the locative in kateirga,sato u`mi/n (2 Cor. 7:11), but usually evn appears in such examples as evn evmoi, (Gal. 1:24). Further examples with verbs are


toi/j e;qesin peripatei/n (Ac. 21:21), poreuomenh tw|/ fo,bw| (Ac. 9:31), o[tan peirasmoi/j peripe,shte poiki,loij (Jas. 1:2), lh|stai/j perie,pesen (Lu. 10:30), evstereou/nto th|/ pi,stei kai. evperi,sseuon tw|/ avriqmw|/ (Ac. 16:5), ka,mhte tai/j yucai/j (Heb. 12:3), evmme,nein th|/ pi,stei (Ac. 14:22), evpime,nwsin th|/ avpisti,a| (Ro. 11:23; cf. 22), evnkentrisqh,sontai th|/ ivdi,a| evlai,a| (Ro. 11:24), tw|/ sw|/ ovno,mati evprofhteu,samen (Mt. 7:22; cf. evxeba,lomen also), ze,wn tw|/ pneu,mati (Ac. 18:25; cf. Lu. 10:21 and Mk. 5:29), th/ qli,yei u`pome,nontej (Ro. 12:12), and perhaps even bapti,sei u`ma/j pneu,mati a`gi,w| (Mk. 1:8). See Ac. 16:5. For the so-called instrumental use of evn (like evn macai,rh|, Mt. 26:52) see the chapter on Prepositions (cf. also Instrumental Case). As a matter of fact evn always has the locative, and this use of evn has he locative also. The activity of the verb is conceived as finding expression in the object mentioned. It is not a mere Hebraism, for the papyri have it as indeed the earlier Greek occasionally. But as a practical matter this use of evn with the locative was nearly equivalent to the instrumental case. The use o`mologe,w (Mt. 10:32 = Lu. 12:8) Moulton (Prol., p. 104) considers a Semiticism due to the common Aramaic original. Cf. the usual dative (Heb. 13: 15).

(g) THE LOCATIVE WITH SUBSTANTIVES. Cf. Heb. 11:12, kaqw.j ta. a;stra tou/ ouvranou/ tw|/ plh,qei. So in Col. 2:14, to. kaq v h`mw/n ceiro,grafon toi/j do,gmasin, the adjective is used as a substantive. In 1 Cor. 14:20 we have the locative with substantive, verb and adjective, mh. paidi,a gi,nesqe tai/j fresi,n├ avlla. th|/ kaki,a| nhpia,zete├ tai/j de. fresi.n te,leioi gi,nesqe.

(h) THE LOCATIVE WITH PREPOSITIONS. Just because the prepositions that were used with the locative were only "adverbial elements strengthening and directing its meaning"307 they were very numerous. Originally nearly all the prepositions occurred with the locative. Thus in Homer and epic and lyric poetry generalk, we meet with the locative with avmfi,├ avna,├ meta,. (Buck, Class. Phil. II, 264), and when the so-called dative is found in Greek with evn├ evpi,├ para,├ peri,├ pro,j├ u`po,, it is really the locative case.308 But with a compound verb the case may not always be locative, as instance prokei,menon h`mi/n (Heb. 12:1). A number of the prepositions like avmfi,├ avnti, evn $evni,%├ evpi,├ peri,├ pro,j $proti,% are themselves in the locative case. Cf. the locative adverbs of time already mentioned and vEbrai?sti, (Jo. 5:2), `Ellhnisti, (Jo. 19:20), ku,klw| (Mk. 3:34), the conjunction kai,, etc. There are only four prepositions in the N. T. that use the locative. As examples note evn tw|/


vIorda,nh| (Mt. 3:6), evpi. qu,raij (Mt. 24:33), para. tw|/ staurw|/ tou/ vIhsou/ (Jo. 19:25), pro.j tw|/ mnhmei,w| (Jo. 20:11). But of these pro,j has the locative only 6 times, para,, 50, while evpi, has it 176 times.309 vEn, of course, having only the locative, is very common. One may note, here evn prw,toij (1 Cor. 15:3) almost like an adverb.

(1) THE PREGNANT CONSTRUCTION OF THE LOCATIVE. It is common in the N. T. with evn, as the accusative with eivj after verbs of motion or rest. This matter comes up for discussion again under the head of Prepositions, but a few words are perhaps needed here. The identity of evn and eivj in origin and early usage must be borne in mind when one approaches these two prepositions. Cf. o` eivj to.n avgro,n in Mk. 13:16. On the other hand note o` evmba,yaj met v evmou/ th.n cei/ra evn tw|/ trubli,w| (Mt. 26:23). Here Mark Mark(14:20) has eivj to. trubli,on. This interchange of evn and eivj is a feature of the LXX (Moulton, Prol., p. 245). Originally there was no difference, and finally evn vanishes before eivj in modern Greek. Each writer looks at the matter in his own way. Cf. English vernacular, "come in the house," "jump in the river," etc. So also Mt. Mt.(3:6) has evbapti,zonto evn tw|/ vIorda,nh| potamw|/, while Mk. Mk.(1:9) reads evbapti,sqh eivj to.n vIorda,nhn. Cf. evn oi;kw| evsti,n, text of Mk. 2:1 and marg. eivj oi=ko,n evstin. This same pregnant idiom appears with para, as sta/sa ovpi,sw para. tou.j po,daj auvtou/ (Lu. 7:38). See also Mk. 4:1. Cf. again evmba,nti eivj to. ploi/on (Mt. 8:23). But observe the locative with evn in composition (Ro. 11:24). With o;noma we have the mere locative (Mt. 7:22), evn and the locative (Mt. 21:9), evpi, and locative (Mt. 18:5), eivj and accusative (Mt. 10:41; 28:19).310 Cf. also Mt. 12:41.

XI. The Instrumental (" Instrumental Dative ") Case $h` crhstikh. ptw/sij).

(a) THE TERM INSTRUMENTAL. As applied to case it is modern and the adjective itself appears first in the fourteenth century.311 The Hindu grammarians, however, recognised this case.312 There are not wanting signs indeed that it survived in the Greek as a separate case-form. Meister313 concludes that in the Cyprian dialect the instrumental was still a separate case-form (a "living" case). He cites avra/├ euvcwla/, besides su.n tu,ca, and in Kuhner-Gerth314 we find oi;koi locative, oi;kw instrumental, and oi;kw| dative. Other examples are a[ma├ di,ca├ ta,ca in later Greek, not to mention the many ad-


verbs315 in - a and - h $──a|├ ──h|) like krufh|/├ la,qra|├ sigh|/ bi,a|, etc. This corresponds with the Sanskrit singular ending, and the plural bhis may be compared with the Homeric fi ( fin), as qeo,fi├ qeo,fin. But in Homer one must note that these endings for singular and plural are used for the locative, ablative, and possibly for the dative also.316 It is not always easy to draw the line of distinction between the locative and instrumental in Greek after the forms blended.317 Sometimes indeed a word will make good sense, though not the same sense, either as locative, dative or instrumental, as ta|/ dexia|/ tou/ qeou/ u`ywqei,j (Ac. 2:33; cf. also 5:31). The grammars have no Greek term for the instrumental case, but I have ventured to call it crhstikh. ptw/sij. The increasing use of prepositions ( evn├ dia,├ meta,) makes the mere instrumental a disappearing case in the N. T. as compared with the earlier Greek,318 but still it is far from dead.

(b) SYNCRETISTIC? It is a matter of dispute as to whether this instrumental case is not itself a mixed case combining an old associative or comitative case with the later instrumental. Both of these ideas are present in the Sanskrit case (Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar, p. 93). On the whole, however, one is constrained to doubt the existence of this so-called comitative case. Most of the difference is due to the distinction between persons (association, accompaniment) and things (means, implement, instrument). Cf. Delbruck, Vergl. Syntax, I, p. 231. Hence neither term covers exactly the whole situation. We have a similar combination in our English "with" which is used in both senses. So also the Greek su,n (cf. Latin cum) and even meta, $evxh,lqate meta. macairw/n kai. xu,lwn, Mk. 14:48). In Mk. 14:43, met v autou/- meta. macairw/n, both senses occur together. But we may agree that the associative was the original usage out of which the instrumental idea was easily and logically developed.319 The comitative usage, for instance, is very common in Homer320 and Herodotus.321

(c) PLACE. There is no example of this usage in the N. T. except pantach|/ (W. H. text, Ac. 21:28). In Jas. 2:25, e`te,ra| o`dw|/


Addenda 3rd ed.

evkbalou/sa, we probably have the locative, though the instr. is possible.

(d) TIME. But we do find examples of the associative-instrumental used with expressions of time. This is indeed a very old use of the instrumental, as Brugmann322 and Delbruck323 show. The Sanskrit had it also as the time "by the lapse of which anything is brought about."324 The singular, like cro,nw| i`kanw|/ (Lu. 8:27; Ac. 8:11), finds parallel in the papyri,325 as is seen also in Pindar, Euripides, Aristophanes, Thucydides.326 For the papyri note polloi/j cro,noij N.P. 50 (iii/A.D.), cro,nw| A.P. 77 (ii/A.D.). Cf. Polybius xxxii, 12, polloi/j cro,noij (Moulton, Prol., p. 76). There is no doubt about the plural instrumental in Ro. 16:25, cro,noij aivwni,oij, a parallel to which Moulton327 finds in the epistolary formula in the papyri, evrrw/sqai se eu;comai polloi/j cro,noij. He rightly doubts the necessity of appealing to the Latin as W. Schulze328 does for the explanation of the use of the plural, since the classical tw|/ cro,nw| could easily give the impulse.

In Jo. 2:20, tessera,konta kai. e[x e;tesin oivkodomh,qh, we have the instrumental also, though, of course, this might be looked at as a locative, the whole period regarded as a point of time. In an example like polloi/j cro,noij sunhrpa,kei auvto,n (Lu. 8:29) we probably have the instrumental also, though here the locative would give a good idea, 'on many occasions' ('oftentimes' Rev. V.), whereas the marg. ('of a long time') gives the instrumental idea. For the instrumental idea Moulton329 cites from Letronne (p. 220, fourth century A.D.) polloi/j u[steron cro,noij. See also w`j e;tesei tetrakosi,oij kai. penth,konta (Ac. 13:20). Cf. also pa,saij tai/j h`me,raij (Lu. 1:75), but marg. of W. H. has accusative. As Moulton330 observes, only the context can decide which is locative and which instrumental in such examples and he suggests that this uncertainty had something to do with the increasing use of evn to make the locative clear and distinct from instrumental or dative. "Speakers of Greek were certainly beginning to feel that they could not trust the dative out alone, and we an understand the occasional employment of nursemaid evn in places where she would have been better left at


home, or replaced by su,n." Blass331 comments on the frequency of the instrumental with expressions of time in Josephus with no perceptible difference between it and the accusative. One can hardly agree to. Blass332 explanation of the instrumental of time Ithat it is due to the disinclination of the writer to put another accusative beside the direct object of the verb. Certainly the accusative is the most frequent idiom in the N. T. for the idea of extension of time, as can be seen in Mk. 2:19; Lu. 13:8; Ac. 13:18; Rev. 20:3, etc. In Jo. 14:9 W. H. have tosou/ton cro,non in the text and put tosou,tw| cro,nw| in the marg. In Lu. 8:27 some MSS. have instead of the instrumental cro,nw| i`kanw|/ the ablative evk ( avpo.) cro,nwn i`kanw/n.

(e) THE ASSOCIATIVE IDEA. The idea of association alone is responsible for a good many examples, chiefly with verbs, though adjectives are not wanting. Substantives cut no figure at all according to Blass,333 for ti,j koinwni,a fwti. pro.j sko,toj (2 Cor. 6:14) is an example of the pure dative (cf. also Lu. 5:10; 2 Cor. 6:16), and in Ro. 15:26 we have eivj tou.j ptwcou,j and in 1 Jo. 1:3, 6, 7 meq v h`mw/n. But another example in 2 Cor. 6:14, ti,j metoch. dikaiosu,nh| kai, avnomi,a|, comes much closer to the substantive use of the associative-instrumental. But an undoubted example of a substantive followed by the associative-instrumental appears in eivj u`pa,nthsin tw|/ vIhsou/ (Mt. 8:34). So eivj avpa,nthsin h`mi/n (Ac. 28:15). Cf. also Jo. 12:13 ( auvtw|/) and 1 Macc. 3:11 eivj suna,nthsin auvtw|/. There is nothing in this construction out of harmony with the Greek idiom. The verb has the associative-instrumental. The genitive with this substantive occurs in Mt. 27:32 ( d text) and 1 Th. 4:17 (but 5 text has associative-instrumental). Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 14. There is no doubt as to the adjectives su,mmorfoj and su,mfutoj . Thus to. sw/ma su,mmorfon tw|/ sw,mati (Ph. 3:21) and su,mfutoi tw|/ ovmoiw,mati (Ro. 6:5), but su,mmorfoj has the genitive th/j eivko,noj in Ro. 8:29 like a substantive. The other compounds in su,n are treated as substantives334 with the genitive, like sunaicma,─ lwtoj├ suggenh,j├ sunergo,j├ su,ntrofoj├ me,tocoj (Heb. 1:9). But note evnanti,oj auvtoi/j (Mk. 6:48), u`penanti,on h`mi/n (Col. 2:14). With verbs the associative-instrumental is very common in the N. T. as in the older Gk. The most important examples will be given in illustration. vAkolouqe,w is a common instance, as hvkolou,qhsan auvtw|/ (Mk. 1:18). Cf. also sunak) (Mk. 5:37). Rather oddly e[pomai is not so used, but once we find sunei,peto auvtw|/ (Ac. 20:4). So


diele,geto auvtoi/j (Ac. 20:7), though pro,j (Mk. 9:34) also is used. Other compounds of dia, with this case are dialla,ghqi tw|/ avdelfw|/ (Mt. 5:24), dieblh,qh auvtw|/ (Lu. 16:1), tw|/ diabo,lw| diakrino,menoj (Ju. 9), <), toi/j `Ioudai,oij diakathle,gceto (Ac. 18:28). But closely allied to these words are kathlla,ghmen tw|/ qew|/ (Ro. 5:10), soi kriqh/nai (Mt. 5:40), w`mi,lei auvtw| (Ac. 24:26), which last may have pro,j and accusative (Lu. 24:14). Then again note e`terozugou/ntej (2 Cor. 6:14), toi/j pneumatikoi/j evkoinw,nhsan (Ro. 15:27), kolla/sqai auvtoi/j (Ac. 5:13), evntugca,nei tw|/ qew|/ (Ro. 11:2). Cf. further avndri. de,detai (Ro. 7:2) and memigme,nhn puri,. (Rev. 15:2). In Rev. 8:4 we may (R. V. dative) have the associative-instrumental335 tai/j proseucai/j with avne,bh. Moulton cites avpodw,sw soi tw|/ e;ngista doqhsome,nw| ovywni,w|, B.U. 69 (ii/A.D.) 'with your next wages' (Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901). Cf. the old Greek auvtoi/j avndra,sin and the "military dative" (Moulton, Prol., p. 61). The compounds with su,n that use this case are numerous. Thus sullabe,sqai (Lu. 5:7), sumbouleu,saj toi/j vIoudai,oij (Jo. 18:14), though this might be a dative (cf. sumbai,nw and sumfe,rei), sunefwnh,qh u`mi/n (Ac. 5:9; cf. 15:15),336 mia|/ yuch|/ sunaqlou/ntej th|/ pi,stei (Ph. 1:27, two examples probably of the instrumental, the first of manner), sunhkolou,qei auvtw|/ (Mk. 14:51), ai` sunanaba/sai auvtw|/ (Mk. 15:41), sunane,keinto tw|/ vIhsou/ (Mt. 9:10), mh. sunanami,gnusqai auvtw|/ (2 Th. 3:14), sun─ anapau,swmai u`mi/n (Ro. 15:32), sunh,thsen auvtw|/ (Lu. 9:37), moi sun─ antila,bhtai (Lu. 10:40; cf. Ro. 8:26), sunapoqanei/n soi (Mk. 14: 31), ouv sunapw,leto toi/j avpeiqh,sasin (Heb. 11:31), sune,ballon auvtw|/ (Ac. 17:18), u`mi/n sunbasileu,swmen (1 Cor. 4:8), sunhge,rqhte tw|/ Cristw|/ (Col. 3:1), suneish/lqen tw|/ vIhsou/ (Jo. 18:15), sunei,peto auvtw|/ (Ac. 20:4), sunh,rgei toi/ e;rgoij (Jas. 2:22), sunh/lqen auvtoi/j (Ac. 9: 39), sunesqi,ei auvtoi/j (Lu. 15:2), suneudokei/te toi/j e;rgoij (Lu. 11:48), suneuwcou,menoi u`mi/n (2 Pet. 2:13), suneiceto tw|/ lo,gw| (Ac. 18:5), sunzh,somen auvtw|/ (Ro. 6:8), sunzhtei/n auvtw|/ (Mk. 8:11), sunezwo─ poi,hsen tw|/ Cristw|/ (Eph. 2:5), sunh,domai tw|/ no,mw| (Ro. 7:22), sun─ tafe,ntej auvtw|/ (Col. 2:12), sunestw/taj auvtw|/ (Lu. 9:32), sugkaqh,menoi auvtoi/j (Ac. 26:30), sunkakopa,qhson tw|/ euvaggeli,w| (2 Tim. 1:8), sunkakoucei/sqai tw|/ law|/ (Heb. 11:25), sunkatateqeime,noj th|/ boulh|/ (Lu. 23:51), mh. sunkekerasme,nouj th|/ pi,stei toi/j avkou,sasin (Heb. 4:2, two examples of the instrumental), sunkoinwnei/te toi/j e;rgoij (Eph. 5: 11), sunkri,nontej e`autou.j e`autoi/j (2 Cor. 10:12), sunlalou/ntej tw|/ vIhsou/ (Mk. 9:4), sunmarturei/ tw|/ pneu,mati (Ro. 8:16), sunodeu,ontej auvtw|/ (Ac. 9:7), sunomorou/sa th|/ sunagwgh|/ (Ac. 18:7), sunpaqh/sai


Addenda 3rd ed.

tai/j avsqenei,aij (Heb. 4:15), sunparo,ntej h`mi/n (Ac. 25:24), sun─ evpe,myamen auvtoi/j (2 Cor. 8:22), suneporeu,onto auvtw|/ (Lu. 7:11), sunstaurwqe,ntoj auvtw|/ (Jo. 19:32), sunstoicei/ th|/ nu/n vIerousalh,n (Gal. 4:25), mh. sunschmati,zesqe tw|/ aivw/ni tou,tw| (Ro. 12:2), suntucei/n auvtw|/ (Lu. 8:19), sunupekri,qhsan auvtw|/ (Gal. 2:13), sune,cairon auvth|/ (Lu. 1:58), suncrw/ntai Samarei,taij (Jo. 4:9), though cra,omai uses the strict instrumental usually; a rather long list surely, but one not in vain, if one gets a just idea of the N. T. usage. Some of these verbs occur frequently and some have pro,j or meta,.

(f) WITH WORDS OF LIKENESS AND IDENTITY. We find this usage with several adjectives. Thus o[moioj avnqrw,pw| (Lu. 6:48) and always, save the accusative in Rev. 14:14 and in 1:13 (true text). In Jo. 8:55 some MSS. actually have o[moioj u`mw/n instead of u`mi/n. Cf. our vulgar "the likes of you." So also i;souj h`mi/n (Mt. 20:12) and ivso,timon h`mi/n pi,stin (2 Pet. 1:1). `O auvto,j with the instrumental is found once only, e[n kai. to. auvto. th|/ evxurhme,nh| (1 Cor. 11:5). In 1 Th. 2:14 we find ta. auvta. kaqw,j, and in Ph. 1:30 to.n auvto.n avgw/n oi-on. Several verbs are used the same way. So e;oiken avndri, (Jas. 1:23), toi/j avdelfoi/j o`moiwqh/nai, (Heb. 2:17), paromoia,zete ta,foij (Mt. 23:27), e;prepen auvtw|/ (Heb. 2:10). Some MSS, have o`moi,wj auvth|/ in Mt. 22:39. In Rev. 4:3 o[moioj o`ra,sei li,qw| live have two instrumental examples.

(g) MANNER. It is expressed by the instrumental case. This, like the other uses of the case in the N. T., is in harmony with ancient usage,337 not to say that of the koinh,. Some N. T. adverbs illustrate this usage well, like dhmosi,h| (Ac. 16:37), eivkh|/ (1 Cor. 15:2), ivdi,a| (1 Cor. 12:11), krufh|/ (Eph. 5:12), la,qra| (Mt. 2:7), panoikei, (Ac. 16:34), panplhqei, (Lu. 23:18), pa,nth| (Ac. 24:3), pezh|/ (Mk. 6:33), ta,ca (Ro. 5:7). But the usage is abundant outside of adverbs, chiefly with verbs, but also with adjectives and even with substantives. Thus we find te,kna fu,sei ovrgh/j (Eph. 2:3) and Ku,prioj tw|/ ge,nei (Ac. 4:36; cf. also 18:2, ovno,mati vAku,lan├ Pontiko.n tw|/ ge,nei). See also the participle tw|/ o;nti (Ro. 7:23). Cf. also fu,sei in Gal. 2:15 and tw|/ prosw,tw| in Gal. 1:22. Here are some of the chief examples with verbs: ca,riti mete,cw (1 Cor. 10:30), proseucome,n avkatakalu,ptw| th|/ kefalh|/ (1 Cor. 11:5), peritmhqh/te tw|/ e;qei (Ac. 15:1), th|/ proqe,sei prosme,nein (Ac. 11:23), o[ti panti. tro,pw|, ei;te profa,sei ei;te avlhqei,a|├ Cristo.j katagge,lletai (Ph. 1:18, all three examples), avnakekalumme,nw| prosw,pw| katoptrizo,menoi (2 Cor. 3:18). Blass notes also r`apti,smasin auvto.n e;labon (Mk. 14:65) as a vulgarism which finds a parallel in a papyrus338 of the first century


A.D., kondu,loij e;laben. Cf. th|/ bi,a| B.U. 45 (iii/A.D.). But often meta, and the genitive ( meta. bi,aj, Ac. 5:26), evn and the locative ( evn de,ka cilia,sin, Lu. 14:31), kata, and the accusative (Ac. 15:11) or the mere accusative (Mt. 23:37) occur rather than the instrumental. There is one usage in the N. T. that has caused some trouble. It is called339 "Hebraic" by some of the grammarians. The instances are rather numerous in the N. T., though nothing like so common as in the LXX.340 Conybeare and Stock quote Plato to show that it is, however, an idiom in accordance with the genius of the Greek language. Thus lo,gw| le,gein├ feu,gwn fugh|/├ fu,sei pefukui/an, etc. They call it the "cognate dative." That will do if instrumental is inserted in the place of dative. Moulton341 admits that this idiom, like ble,pontej ble,yete (Mt. 13:14), is an example of "translation Greek," but thinks that a phrase like evxoleqreu/sai ouvk evxwle,qreusan (Josh. 17:13) is much more like the Hebrew infinitive absolute which is reproduced by this Greek instrumental or participle. Blass342 insists that the classical parallels ga,mw| gamei/n├ fugh|/ feu,gein are not true illustrations, but merely accidentally similar, an overrefinement in the great grammarian, I conceive. The Latin has the idiom also, like curro curriculo. Here are some of the important N. T. instances: avkoh|/ avkou,sete (Mt. 13:14), avnaqe,mati avneqemati,samen (Ac. 23:14), evnupni,oij evnupniasqh,─ sontai (Ac. 2:17), evpiqumi,a| evpequ,mhsa (Lu. 22:15), qana,tw| teleuta,tw (Mt. 15:4); o[rkw| w;mosen (Ac. 2:30), evxe,sthsan evksta,sei mega,lh| (Mk. 5:42), paraggeli,a| parhggei,lamen, (Ac. 5:28), proseuch|/ proshu,xato (Jas. 5:17), cara|. cai,rei (Jo. 3:29; cf. 1 Pet. 1:8). Cf. also sh─ mai,nwn poi,w| qana,tw| h;mellen avpoqnh,skein (Jo. 18:32) and shmei,nwn poi,w| qana,tw| doxa,sei to.n qeo,n (Jo. 21:19), where the idiom seems more normal. Blass343 observes that this usage "intensifies the verb in so far as it indicates that the action is to be understood as taking place in the fullest sense." In Ro. 8:24 we more likely


have the means than the manner. Cf. avrkei/sqe toi/j ovywni,oij in Lu.13:14.

(h) DEGREE OF DIFFERENCE (Measure kin to idea of manner). The accusative is sometimes used here also with the comparative, as polu. ma/llon (Heb. 12:9). But in Lu. 18:39 we have pollw|/ ma/llon (cf. Mt. 6:30). Cf. pollw|/ ma/llon, P. Par. 26 (ii/B.C.). In Ph. 1:23 we find the instrumental with the double comparative pollw|/ ma/llon krei/sson. In particular observe tosou,tw| ma/llon o[sw| ble,pete (Heb. 10:25) which corresponds to the English idiom "the more, the less" in "the more one learns, the humbler he grows." As a matter of fact the English "the" here is instrumental also, as is seen in the Anglo-Saxon dy. Cf. also tosou,tw| krei,ttwn (Heb. 1:4).

(i) CAUSE. The instrumental may be used also to express the idea of cause, motive or occasion. This notion of ground wavers between the idea of association and means. Here are some illustrations: evgw. de. limw|/ w-de avpo,llumai (Lu. 15:17), i[na staurw|/ tou/ Cristou/ mh. diw,kwntai. (Gal. 6:12), lu,ph| katapoqh|/ (2 Cor. 2:7), tine.j de. th|/ sunhqei,a| evsqi,ousin (1 Cor. 8:7), ouv diekri,qh th|/ avpistia| avlla. evnedunamw,qh th|/ pi,stei (Ro. 4:20), th|/ avpisti,a| evxekla,sqhsan (Ro. 11:20), hvleh,qhte th|/ tou,twn avpeiqi,a| (Rom. 11:30), tw|/ u`mete,rw| evle,ei i[na kai. auvtoi. nu/n evlehqw/singrk grk(11:31), mh. xeni,zesqe th|/ evn u`mi/n purw,sei (1 Pet. 4: 12), toiau,taij ga.r qusi,aij euvarestei/tai (Heb. 13:16), tw|/ mh. eu`rei/n me Ti,ton (2 Cor. 2:13), euvdokh,santej th|/ avdiki,a| (2 Th. 2:12). In 1 Cor. 9: 7 we have ti,j strateu,etai ivdi,oij ovywni,oij pote,* cf. th|/ u`perbolh|/ (2 Cor. 12:7). But some verbs in the N. T. prefer a preposition for this idea, but not with the instrumental case. Thus hvgalli,asen evpi. tw|/ qew|/ (Lu. 1:47), evxeplh,ssonto evpi. th|/ didach|/ (Mt. 7:28), evn soi. euvdo,khsa (Mk. 1:11), euvfrai,nonto evn toi/j e;rgoij (Ac. 7:41). With qauma,zw we find evn (Lu. 1:21), evpi,, (Lu. 4:22), peri, (Lu. 2:18), dia, (Rev. 17:7), not to mention eiv (1 Jo. 3:13), o[ti (Lu. 11:38).344

(j) MEANS. But no usage of this case is more common than that of means. With things sometimes we call it means, with personk agent, though more often the agent is expressed by u`po, with genitive-ablative (cf. ab with the ablative in Latin). There is no essential difference in the root-idea. Donaldson (New Cratylus, p. 439) calls it the "implementive case." This is, of course, an idiom found with verbs. Note especially cra,omai (cf. Latin autor with instrumental, not ablative), tw|/ Pau,lw| crhsa,menoj (Ac. 27:3), pollh|/ parrhsi,a| crw,meqa (2 Cor. 3:12), eva,n tij auvtw|/


nomi,mwj crh/tai (1 Tim. 1:8), in which examples we have both thing and person.345 Cf. 1 Cor. 9:12, 15, etc. But see accusative in 1 Cor. 7:31. Among the many examples we can only select the most striking. Thus mh, pote i;dwsin toi/j ovfqalmoi/j (Mt. 13:15), evxe,balen ta. pneu,mata lo,gw| (Mt. 8:16), pe,daij kai. a`lu,sesi dede,sqai (Mk. 5:4), yw,contej tai/j cersi,n (Lu. 6:1), tai/j qrixi.n evxe,masen (Lu. 7:38), h;leifen tw|/ mu,rw| (ib.), (Lu. 9:32), filh,mati pa─ radi,dwj (Lu. 22:48), tai/j magi,aij evxestake,nai auvtou,j (Ac. 8:11), e;crisen auvto.n pneumati kai. duna,mei (Ac. 10:38), avnei/len vIa,kwbon macai,rh| (Ac. 12:2) deda,mastai th|/ fu,sei (Jas. 3:7), sunaph,cqh auvtw/n th|/ u`pokri,sei (Gal. 2:13), peplhrwme,nouj pa,sh| avdiki,a|├ ponhri,a| ktl) (Ro. 1:29), ca,riti, evste seswsme,noi (Eph. 2:5, 8), mh. mequ,skesqe oi;nw| (Eph. 5:18), rverantisme,non ai[mati (Rev. 19:13), pneu,mati (Ro. 8:14), ouv fqartoi/j├ avrguri,w| h' cursi,w| evlutrw,qhte├ avlla. timi,w| ai[mati (1 Pet. 1:18 f.) w|- tij h[tthtai (2 Pet. 2:19), evsfragi,sqhte tw|/ pneu,mati (Eph. 1:13), phli,loij u`mi/n gra,mmasin e;graya th|/ evmh|/ ceiri, (Gal. 6:11, one dative and two instrumental cases). Cf. kata─ krinou/sin auvto.n qana,tw| (Mk. 10:33, but qana,tou in D, and in Mt. 20:18 a has eivj qa,naton). See the frequent use of pi,stei in Heb. 11, , which is more than mere manner, though in verse 13 we have kata. pi,stin. Moulton (Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901) cites dh,lwson h' ploi,w| evxe,rcei h' o;nw|. O.P. 112 (iii/iv A.D.). Cf. Jo. 19:40, ovqoni,oij meta. tw/n avrwma,twn for proximity of meta, to the instrumental. Moulton (Prol., p. 76) notes "the remarkable instrumental in Ep. Diogn. 7, w|- tou.j ouvranou.j e;ktisen." Besides some examples are open to doubt. Thus katakau,sei puri. avsbe,stw| (Mt. 3:12) may be either locative or instrumental. The same might be true of tw|/ ploiari,w| h=lqon (Jo. 21:8) and evba,ptisen u[dati (Ac. 1:5), though the locative is pretty clearly right here. Then again in Ac. 22: 25, proe,teinan toi/j i`ma/sin, we have either the instrumental or the dative. But in 2 Pet, 1:3 ivdi,a| do,xh| kai. avreth|/ (marg. in W. H.) are clearly instrumental, not dative. In Ro. 8: 24, th|/ evlpi,di evsw,qhmen, we have either the modal instrumental or the instrumental of means. Cf. also 1 Cor. 14:15. Blass346 perhaps overemphasizes the influence of the Heb B.; on the N. T. Greek in what is called the instrumental use of evn (the case with evn is always locative, historically considered). This is a classic idiom347 and the papyri give numerous illustrations348 of it, though the Heb.


B. did make it more frequent in the LXX. Some of the uses of evn and locative, like evn macai,rh| avpolou/ntai (Mt. 26:52), polemh,sw evn th|/ r`omfai,a| (Rev. 2:16), evn fo,nw| macai,rhj avpe,qanon (Heb. 11:37), are fairly equivalent to the pure instrumental case, as avnei/len ma─ cai,rh| (Ac. 12:2), pesou/ntai sto,mati macai,rhj (Lu. 21:24). But others without evn in Blass' list are more debatable and may be construed as merely locatives after all, as seen above. Besides the examples already mentioned, puri/ a`lisqh,setai (Mk. 9:49) may be compared with evn ti,ni auvto. avrtu,setegrk grk(9:50) and evn ti,ni a`lisqh,setai (Mt. 5:13). See further Mt. 7:2 and evn r`a,bdw| e;lqw (1 Cor. 4:21) which stands over against evn avga,ph| pneu,mati, te prau>thtoj.

Some doubt remains as to whether the instrumental case is used for the agent. In the Sanskrit349 the instrumental is a common idiom with a perfect passive verb or participle. But the Latin uses the dative in such an example as is seen by mihi, not me. Most of the grammarians take the Greek passive perfect and verbal as the Latin with the dative.350 But Delbruck351 recognises the doubt in the matter. The one example in the N. T. is in Lu. 23:15, ouvde.n a;xion qana,tou evsti.n pepragme,non auvtw|/) D here reads evn auvtw|/ and Blass352 suggests that the right reading is without pepragme,non as in Ac. 25:5. It is possible also that in 2 Pet. 2:19, w|- tij h[tthtai, we lave person, not thing, of whom (Am. St. V), not of what. Cf. also Jas. 3:7. One may mention here also as a possible instrumental kavgw. eu`reqw u`mi/n (2 Cor. 12:20), w`j evgnw,sqh auvtoi/j (Lu. 24: 35), w;fqh avgge,loij (1 Tim. 3:16), but these are most probably true datives. The usual way of expressing the agent in the N. T. is u`po, for the direct agent and dia,, for the intermediate agent, as in Mt. 1:22. But other prepositions are also used, like avpo, (Ac. 2:22), evk (Jo. 1:13), evn (Col. 1:17), para, (Jo. 1:6), etc. See a real distinction between u`po, and evn in Ro. 12:21.

(k) WITH PREPOSITIONS. The Greek uses the instrumental with only two prepositions a[ma and su,n, both with the comitative idea. In the Cypriotic Greek we have su.n tu,ca, the distinctive instrumental ending. Cf. the Sanskrit sam with the instrumental and the Latin cum. There is only one instance of a[ma in the N. T. with the instrumental, a[ma auvtoi/j (Mt. 13:29), but note a[ma su.n auvtoi/j (1 Th. 4:17; cf. also 5:10). Su,n appears chiefly in Luke's


Addenda 3rd ed.

writings, as su.n auvth|/ (Lu. 1:56). But in composition su,n is verycommon, as has already been shown. So suncai,rete, moi (Ph. 2:18).

XII. The Dative (True) Case ( h` dotikh. ptw/sij).

(a) SYNCRETISM. That of the locative, instrumental and dative cases has not advanced so far in Greek as has that between the genitive and the ablative. Monro353 thinks that "distinct forms for these three cases survived down to a comparatively late period in Greek itself." He rightly conceives that it is not difficult, as a rule, to distinguish the three cases in usage. Brugmann354 gives various examples of how the three cases made contribution to the common endings for the final blending.

(b) THE DECAY OF THE DATIVE. But in modern Greek this syncretistic combination has vanished in the vernacular. Moulton355 can properly speak of the "decay of the dative," a decay that applies for the modern Greek to the locative and instrumental also. In the Sanskrit (Lanman) the dative, after the ablative, was the most infrequent case. The modern Greek simply uses eivj and accusative for the 1 usual dative (and locative) ideas and me, $meta,% with accusative for the instrumental. We see an approach to this use of eivj in the N. T., evlehmosu,naj poih,swn eij to. e;qnoj mou (Ac. 24:17), th.n boulh.n tou/ qeou/ hvqe,thsan eivj e`autou,j (Lu. 7:30). So eivj u`ma/j (1 Pet. 1:4). Winery (Winer-Thayer, p. 213) is correct in refusing to consider eivj with khru,ssw or euvaggeli,zomai (Mk. 13:10; Lu. 24: 47; 1 Pet. 1:25) as at all out of the way. The pregnant idea is in Mk. 8:19 and Ro. 8:18. Eivj is found also with e;nocoj (Mt. 5: 22), eu;qetoj (Lu 14:35), eu;crhstoj (2 Tim. 4:11), but wvfe,limoj with pro,j (1 Tim. 4:8). Only in the most illiterate papyri is the decay of the dative seen, as in ti,ni lo,gou, N.P. 47 (iii/A.D.), and in the late inscrs. like o` bohqw/n u`mw/n, J. H. S., XIX, 14. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., Apr., 1904. Per contra note evpimelh,q[ ht] i tw|/ paidi,w|, P. Oxy. 744 (i/B.C.). Leaving out the locative, instrumental and dative show a contraction in the N. T. as compared with the earlier Greek.356 But even in the N. T. " evn is considerably more than a match for eivj," yet the vernacular revived and intensified the old identity of evn and eivj seen in the early dialects.357 Hatzidakis358 shows how this tendency increased in the later Greek till eivj triumphed over evn in the modern Greek. But even in the N. T. it is often impossible to insist on the idea of motion or extension in


eivj├ as o` w'n eivj to.n ko,lpon (Jo. 1:18), o` eivj to.n avgro,n (Mk. 13:16). Cf. toi/j eivj to.n oi=kon (Lu. 9:61). Moulton359 cites from D evn as equivalent to eivj in Acts 7:12; 8:23. One may compare the disappearance of the locative with u`po, and the use of the accusative for both motion and rest,360 whereas in Appian and Herodian (Atticists) the locative is in the lead.361 Cf. the disappearance of the dative forms in English save in the pronouns him, whom, etc. Even Wyclif had "believe ye to the gospel" (Mk. 1:15).

(c) THE IDEA OF THE DATIVE. It is that of personal interest. It is sometimes used of things, but of things personified.362 Apollonios Dyscolos calls the dative the case of peripoi,hsij. The accusative, genitive and dative are all cases of inner relations,363 but the dative has a distinctive personal touch not true of the others. The dative is not a local case. There was originally no idea of place in it.364 It is thus a purely grammatical ease (rein grammatisch). Even e;rcomai soi (Rev. 2:16) is used of a person, not place. Cf. e;rcetai, soi, (Mt. 21:5, from the LXX) and evlqe, moi, P. Par. 51 (B.C. 160). But in physical relations the dative approaches the accusative in idea.365 Thus we find the dative of place in Heb. 12: 22, proselhlu,qate Siw.n o;rei kai. po,lei qeou/ zw/ntoj (cf. 12:18) and evggi,zonti th|/ Damaskw|/ (Ac. 22:6). Cf. h;ggisen th|/ pu,lh| (Lu. 7:12). It is not used for the notion of time.

(d) THE DATIVE WITH SUBSTANTIVES. I am not here insisting that the dative was used first with substantives rather than with verbs,366 but only that the dative has often a looser relation to the verb than the accusative or the genitive.367 It is more common to have the verb without the dative than without the accusative or genitive (Brug., ib.). This is seen also in the common use of the dative as the indirect object of verbs that have other cases and in the use of the dative with substantives somewhat after the manner of the genitive. Not all substantives admit of this idiom, it is true, but only, those that convey distinctly personal relations. But some of these substantives are allied to verbs that use the dative. So euvcaristiw/n tw|/ qew|/ (2 Cor. 9:12), qli,yin th|/ sarki, (1 Cor. 7:28), a;nesin tw|/ pneu,mati, mou (2 Cor. 2:13), sko,loy th|/ sarki, (2 Cor. 12:7),


Addenda 2nd ed.

Addenda 3rd ed.

avna,pausin taij yucai/j u`mw/n (Mt. 11:29), euvwdi,a tw|/ qew|/ (2 Cor. 2:15), eivj tafh.n toi/ xe,noij (Mt. 27:7), toi/j avpollume,noij mwri,a (1 Cor. 1:18). Cf. Lu. 5:14. With some of these examples verbs occur, but the dative is not here due to the verb. Some of them are in the predicate also, as ca.rij tw|/ qew|/ (Ro. 7: 25), with which compare marg. euvcaristw/. See Lu. 10:5. Cf. toi/j avsqene,sin (1 Cor. 8:9). So in 1 Cor. 9:2, eiv a;lloij ouvk eivmi. avpo,stoloj├ avlla, ge u`mi/n eivmi,, the dative is not due to eivmi,. Cf. in next verse h` evmh. avpologi,a toi/j evme. avnakri,nousin. Cf. also auvtoi/j in Ph. 1:28. So no,moj e`autoi/j (Ro. 2:14), evmoi. qa,natoj (Ro. 7:13), and, not to multiply examples, tou/to, moi karpo.j e;rgou (Ph. 1:22), h` evpi,stasi,j moi (2 Cor. 11:28). Cf. Ro. 1:14; 8:12. In 1 Cor. 4:3 both the dative and eivj and accusative occur, but properly so, evmoi. de. eivj evla,cisto,n evstin. Cf. 1 Cor. 14:22 for the same thing. The dative due to attraction of the relative is seen in oi-j Lu. 9:43.

(e) WITH ADJECTIVES. This dative occurs naturally. These adjective and verbals, like the substantives, have a distinctly personal flavour. Here are the most striking examples: avpeiqh.j th|/ ouvrani,w| ovptasi,a| (Ac. 26:19), avresta. auvtw|/ (Jo. 8:29), avrketo.n tw|/ maqhth|/ (Mt. 10:25), a;spiloi kai. avmw,mhtoi auvtw|/ (2 Pet. 3:14), avstei/oj tw|/ qew|/ (Ac. 7:20), gnwsto.j tw|/ avrcierei/ (Jo. 18:15), dou/la th|/ avkaqarsi,a| (Ro. 6:19), dunata. tw|/ qew|/ (2 Cor. 10:4), swth,rioj pa/sin (Tit. 2:11), evmfanh/- h`mi/n (Ac. 10 : 40), e;nocoj e;stai tw|/ sune─ dri,w| (Mt. 5:22), to. eu;schmon kai. euvpa,redron tw|/ kuri,w| (1 Cor. 7:35), i`klano.n tw|/ toiou,tw| (2 Cor. 2:6), kalo,n soi, evstin (Mt. 18:8), monogenh.j th|/ mhtri, (Lu. 7:12), nekrou.j th|/ a`marti,a| (Ro. 6:11), pisth.n tw|/ kuri,w| (Ac. 16:15), ptwcou.j tw|/ ko,smw| (Jas. 2:5), swth,rioj pa/sin (Tit. 2:11), w|- ) ) ) u`ph,kooi (Ac. 7:39), fanero.n evge,neto tw|/ Faraw, (Ac. 7:13), o;ntej auvtw|/ fi,loi (Ac. 19:31), wvfe,lima toi/j avnqrw,poij (Tit. 3:8). Wellhausen (Einl., p. 33 f.) calls e;nocoj tw|/ "ungriechisch." But note e;nocoj e;stw toi/j i;soij evpite[ i,] moij P. Oxy. 275 (A.D. 66). The participle in Lu. 4:16 (Ac. 17:2) almost deserves to be classed with the adjectives in this connection, to. eivwqo.j auvtw|/.

(f) WITH ADVERBS AND PREPOSITIONS. The dative is found a few times with adverbs. Thus w`j o`si,wj kai. dikai,wj kai. avme,mptwj u`mi/n toi/ pisteu,ousin evgenh,qhmen (1 Th. 2:10), ouvai. tw|/ ko,smw| (Mt. 18:7) and so frequently (but accusative in Rev. 8:13; 12:12). Blass368 compares Latin vae mihi and vae me. Brugmann369 indeed considers katai,├ parai, pa,lai├ camai, all to be dative forms. But, while this is true, the dative is not used with prepositions in the


Sanskrit370 and not certainly in the Greek.371 The locative is very common with prepositions, and the instrumental appears with two, but the dative is doubtful. In reality this statement must be modified a bit, for evggu,j has the dative twice in the N. T. (Ac. 9:38), th|/ vIo,pph|* w|- evggu,j (Ac. 27:8), though the genitive is the usual case employed. Cf. evggi,zw with dative, Ac. 9:3; 10:9; Jas. 4:8. Brugmann372 admits the dative with avnti,on├ evnanti,on├ plhsi,on in the older Greek, though no N. T. examples occur. Delbruck (Grundl., p. 130) finds the dative with evpi,)

(g) WITH VERBS. Here the dative finds its most extensive use.

1. Indirect Object. Perhaps the earliest use. Certainly it remains the one most commonly met. Indeed there are few transitive verbs that may not use this dative of the indirect object. In the passive of these verbs the dative is retained. Some representative illustrations are here given. ;Afej auvtw|/ kai. to. i`ma,tion (Mt. 5: 40), a;fej h`mi/n ta. ovfeilh,mata h`mw/n (Mt. 6:12), avnew|,cqhsan auvtw|/ (marg.) oi` ouvranoi, (Mt. 3:16), dw/te to. a[gion toi/ kusi,n (Mt. 7:6), doqh/nai toi/j ptwcoi/j (Mk. 14:5), u`mi/n prw/ton ) ) avpe,steilen (Ac. 3:26), avpeilhsw,meqa auvtoi/j mhke,ti lalei/n (Ac. 4:17), aa} de. gra,fw u`mi/n (Gal. 1:20), evpe,balon auvtoi/j ta.j cei/raj (Ac. 4:3), le,gei auvtoi/j o[ti (Mk. 14:27), u`mi/n dei,xei avna,gaion (Mk. 14:15), evrre,qh toi/j avrcai,oij (Mt. 5:21), prose,feron auvtw|/ paidi,a (Mk. 10:13), euvaggeli,zomai u`mi/n cara.n mega,lhn (Lu. 2:10), w;feilen auvtw|/ e`kato.n dhna,ria (Mt. 18:28), pa,nta avpodw,sw soi (Mt. 18:26), qli,yin evgei,rein toi/j desmoi/j mou (Ph. 1:17), poih,sw w-de trei/j skhna,j├ soi. mi,an ktl) (Mt. 17:4), ha}n auvto.j evphggei,lato h`mi/n (1 Jo. 2:25). An example like evpei/cen auvtoi/j (Ac. 3:5) is really the indirect object. Cf. Ac. 26:27. In 2 Cor. 12:7, evdo,qh moi sko,loy th|/ sarki,, the moi is indirect object and sarki, may be either dative of advantage or locative.

2. Dativus Commodi vel Incommodi. The so-called dative of advantage or disadvantage does not differ very greatly from the indirect object. A good example is e;rcomai, soi (Rev. 2:5, 16). Moulton (Prol., p. 245) cites AEschylus (P.V. 358), avllv h=lqen auvtw|/ Zhno.j a;grupnon be,loj. It is indeed rather more loosely connected at times and varies more in the resultant idea. Thus in marturei/te e`autoi/j o[ti (Mt. 23:31) we have to translate 'against yourselves,' though, of course, the dative does not mean 'against' any more than it means 'for' or 'in behalf of.' The personal relation is expressed by the case and it may be favourable or unfavourable.


Addenda 2nd ed.

Indeed, nowhere does the personal aspect of the dative come out more clearly than in this usage. Thus pa,nta ta. gegramme,na- tw|/ ui`w|/ tou/ avnqrw,pou (Lu. 18:31), grammateu.j matqhteuqei.j th|/ basilei,a| (Mt. 13:52), nu,mfhn kekosmhne,nhn tw|/ avndri, (Rev. 21:2), avnaplhrou/tai auvtoi/j (Mt. 13:14), dikai,w| nomoj ouv kei/tai (1 Tim. 1:9; note long list of datives), avnastaurou/ntaj e`autoi/j to.n ui`o,n (Heb. 6:6), w|- su. memar─ tu,rhkaj (Jo. 3:26) e;krina e`mautw|/ tou/to (2 Cor. 2:1), mh. merimna/te tw|/ yuch| (Mt. 6:25) avsebe,sin teqeikw,j (2 Pet. 2:6), ei;te evxe,sthmen├ qew|/\ ei;te swfronou/men├ u`mi/n (2 Cor. 5:13), evnei/cen auvtw|/ $Mk. 6:19). Blass373 notes how frequent this idiom is in Paul's Epistles, especially in the vehement passages. Thus mhke,ti e`autoi/j zw/sin (2 Cor. 5:15), i[na qew|/ zh,sw (Gal. 2:19), avpeqa,nomen th|/ a`marti,a| (Ro. 6:2; cf. 6:10 f.), evqanatw,qhte tw|/ no,mw|──eivj to. gene,sqai u`ma/j e`te,rw| (Ro. 7:4), eu`re,qh moi (Ro. 7:10), tw|/ ivdi,w| kuri,w| sth,kei h' pi,ptei (Ro. 14:4), imply evsqi,ei (Ro. 14:6), e`autw|/ zh|/- e`autw|/ avpoqnh,skei (verse 7). Cf. evmoi, in Ro. 7:21, u`mi/n in 12 Cor. 12:20 and moi with evge,neto in Ac. 22:6. A good example is avpomasso,meqa u`mi/n├ Lu. 10:11. See e`mautw|/ in 2 Cor. 2:1 and tw|/ pneu,mati. grk(2:13). Cf. basta,zwn au`tw|/ to.n stauro.n (Jo. 19:17). In Mk. 10:33 note also the other datives, either the indirect objet or the direct object like evmpai,zousin auvtw|/) Cf. also pa/sin and poi/j vIoudai,oij in 1 Cor. 9:19 f. In this connection one may note also ti, moi to. o;feloj (1 Cor. 15:32), ti, h`mi/n kai. soi, (Lu. 4:34). The intense personal relation is also manifest in the examples in 1 Cor. 1:23 f. Cf. also 1:18, 30. Prof. Burkitt (Jour. of Theol. Stud., July, 1912) interprets ti, e`moi. kai. soi,. (Jo. 2:4) to mean 'What is it to me and thee?' That is, 'What have we to do with that?' In a word, 'Never mind!' like the modern Egyptian ma 'alesh in colloquial language. The so-called ethical dative (cf. soi in Mt. 18:17) belongs here. A very simple example is e;rcomai, soi (Mt. 5:29). Moulton374 cites a papyrus example for e;rcomai soi (Rev. 2:5, 16), though from an illiterate document. For me,lei see Ac. 18:17; 1 Pet. 5:7.

3. Direct Object. Then again the dative is often the direct object of transitive verbs. These verbs may be simple or compound, but they all emphasize the close personal relation like trust, distrust, envy, please, satisfy, serve, etc. Some of them vary in construction, taking now the dative, now the accusative, now.


a preposition. But this is all natural enough. Thus kai) hvpi,stoun auvtai/j (Lu. 24:11), avpeiqw/n tw|/ ui`w|/ (Jo. 3:36), evpei,qonto au`tw|/ (Ac. 5:36), u`pakou,ousin auvtw|/ (Mk. 1:27). Once we find the dative with pe,poiqa (Ph. 1:14), but elsewhere prepositions, as evn (2 Th. 3:4), eivj (Gal. 5:10), evpi, (Lu. 18:9). In particular pisteu,w calls for a word. Deissmann375 has made an exhaustive study of the subject, and Moulton376 has given a clear summary of results. This verb may be used absolutely (Jo. 20:31) or with an object clause (ib.) in the sense of believe. Moreover, it often means entrust (Gal. 2:7). Leaving out these uses Moulton finds that pisteu,w occurs with the dative 39 times and always in the sense of believe or trust (especially in John, as Jo. 5:46, eiv ga.r evpisteu,ete Mwusei/ evpisteu,ete a'n evmoi,. It is rather remarkable that evn occurs only once (Mk. 1:15, pisteu,ete evn tw|/ euvaggeli,w|) explained by Deissmann377 as meaning 'in the sphere of,' to which Moulton agrees. In Eph. 1:13 evn more properly belongs to evsfragi,sqhte. The LXX uses evn rarely with pisteu,w and no other preposition. But in the N. T. eivj occurs 45 times (37 times in John's Gospel and 1 Jo.) while evpi, appears 6 times with the locative and 7 with the accusative. Moulton objects to overrefining here between eivj and e`pi, (at most like believe in and believe on). So also as to accusative and locative with evpi,) What he does properly accent is the use of these two prepositions by the Christian writers to show the difference between mere belief (dative with pisteu,w) and personal trust ( eivj and evpi,). This mystic union received a further development in Paul's frequent evn Cristw|/. The relation between evn tw|/ ovno,mati and evpi. tw|/ ovno,mati is parallel.378

We must note other groups with the dative, like verbs of serving. Thus dihko,noun auvtw|/ (Mt. 4:11), tw|/ noi> douleu,w no,mw| qeou/ (Ro. 7:25, both instrumental and dative here), latreu,ein auvtw|// (Lu. 1: 74), u`phretei/n auvtw|/ (Ac. 24:23). But in Ph. 3:3 we have the instrumental with latreu,w, and proskune,w uses either the dative (Mt. 2:2) or the accusative (Jo. 4:23), not to mention evnw,pion (Lu. 4:7). The dative with doulo,w in 1 Cor. 9:19 is merely the indirect object.

Another convenient group is verbs to please, to suffice, to be envious, angry, etc. Thus qew|/ avre,sai (Ro. 8:8), evnebrimw/nto auvth|/


(Mk. 14:5), metriopaqei/n toi/j avgnoou/sin (Heb. 5:2), o` ovrgizo,menoj tw|/ avdelfw|/ (Mt. 5:22), avrkei/ soi (2 Cor. 12:9), avllh,loij fqonou/ntej (Gal. 5:26, accusative, margin of W. H.).

Once more, we may note verbs meaning to thank, to blame, to enjoin, etc. So euvcaristw/ soi (Jo. 11:41), evgkalei,twsan avllh,loij (Ac. 19:38), evpeti,mhsen auvtoi/j (Mt. 12:16), toi/j avne,moij evpita,ssei (Lu. 8:25). So also prose,taxen auvtw|/ (Mt. 1:24), dieste,lleto auvtoi/j (Mk. 8:15); evmoi. cola/te (Jo. 7:23). But keleu,w has accusative, though the dative occurs in the papyri.

There remain verbs meaning to confess, to lie, to help, to shine, etc. Thus we find o`mologou/ntwn tw|/ ovno,mati (Heb. 13:15)379 and avvnqwmologei/to tw|/ qew|/ (Lu. 2:38), ouvk evyeu,sw avnqrw,poij (Ac. 5:4), boh,qei moi (Mt. 15:25, but wvfele,w has accusative), i[na fainwsin auvth|/ (Rev. 21:23). In the later koinh, we find bohqe,w with accusative or genitive (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 110). Cf. also tw|/ qew|/ proseu,cesqai (1 Cor. 11:13), w|- a`nti,sthte (1 Pet. 5:9). Cf. two datives in Lu. 11:4.

4. The Dative with Intransitive Verbs. However, this is not a point that it is always easy to decide, for in avrkei/ soi (2 Cor. 12: 9) one is not sure where to place it. See above. Cf. Lu. 3:14. We are so prone to read the English into the Greek. The same remark applies in a way to ti, u`mi/n dokei/ (Mt. 18:12), pre,pei a`gi,oij (Eph. 5:3). But there is no doubt about ti, evge,neto auvtw|/ (Ac. 7:40), auvtw|/ sumbai,nein (Mk. 10:32), and the passive constructions like avpolei,petai sabbatismo.j tw|/ law|/ (perhaps dativus commodi, Heb. 4:9), evfa,nh auvtw|/ (Mt. 1:20), evrrh,qh toi/j avrcai,oij (perhaps indirect object; Mt. 5:21). The same thing is true of a number of the examples of "advantage or disadvantage" already given, like. Ro. 6:10; 14:4, etc. Cf. also me,lei tw|/ qew|/ (1 Cor. 9:9). See e[n soi lei,pei (Lu. 18:22), but e[n se u`sterei/ (Mk. 10:21).

5. Possession. The Greek, like the Latin, may use the dative for the idea of possession. Thus ouvk h=n auvtoi/j to,poj (Lu. 2:7), u vk e;stin soi meri,j (Ac. 8:21), u`mi/n evstin h` evpaggeli,a (Ae. 2:39), ti,ni e;stai (Lu. 12:20), eivsi.n h`mi/n te,ssarej a;ndrej (Ac. 21:23), e;stin sunh,qeia u`mi/n (Jo. 18:39), eva.n ge,nhtai, tini avnqrw,pw| e`kato.n pro,bata (Mt. 18:12). The idiom is extended even to examples like ouv mh. e;stai soi tou/to (Mt. 16:22), e;stai cara, soi (Lu. 1:14). Cf. Ac. 2:43; Lu. 9:38. This is a frequent idiom in the ancient Greek and a perfectly natural one. This predicative dative at bottom is just like the usual dative.

6. Infinitive as Final Dative. Giles380 calls attention to the in-


finitive as a final dative. This was the original use of the dative in - ai, the expression of purpose. So h;lqomen proskunh/sai auvtw|/ (Mt. 2:2). Here we have the dative form and the dative of purpose. Cf. the old English "for to worship." This dative form continued, however, when the case of the infinitive was no longer dative.

7. The Dative of the Agent. It was discussed under the instrumental and there is nothing new to be said here. The one clear example is found in Lu. 23:15. But not very different is the idiom in Mt. 6:1 ( pro.j to. qeaqh/nai auvtoi/j) and 23:5. Cf. also 2 Pet. 3:14.

8. The Dative because of the Preposition. We have already had examples of this. Compound verbs often have the dative where the simplex verb does not. The case is due to the total idea of the compound verb. The dative occurs with avnati, qemai in Ac. 25:14; Gal. 2:2. So381 with avnti,, as w|- avnti,sthte (1 Pet. 5:9), avntile,gei tw|/ Kai,sari (Jo. 19:12), avntikei,menoi auvtw|/ (Lu. 13:17), tw|/ a`gi,w| avntipi,ptete (Ac. 7:51). vApo, in avpota,ssomai goes with the dative (Mk. 6:46). The same thing is sometimes true of evn, as evne,paixan auvtw|/ (Mk. 15:20), e`mble,yaj auvtoi/j (Mk. 10:27). Sometimes with avnti- we have pro,j, as with evn we find evn or pro,j after the verb. With evnei/cen auvtw|/ (Mk. 6:19) we must supply qumo,n or some such word. Eivj and evpi, usually have a preposition after the compound verb, except that compounds of evpi, often have the indirect object in the dative (especially e`piti,qhmi). But compare e`pita,ssw and evpitima,w above. Cf. evpe,sth auvtoi/j (Lu. 2:9), but evpi, repeated (Lu. 21:34). With para, we note pare,cw and pari,sthmi with indirect object. In pare,sthsan auvtw|/ (Ac. 9:39) we can see either the dative or the locative. Cf. paredreu,ein (1 Cor. 9:13). In 2 Pet. 1:9 we may have the possessive dative with pa,restin. With peri, again there is doubt as between the locative and dative in peri,keimai (Heb. 12:1), peripei,rein (1 Tim. 6:10), peripi,ptw (Lu. 10:30). Pro,j with prosti,qhmi has the indirect object in the dative (Mt. 6:33), but with prose,r─ comai the dative directly as with o;rei (Heb. 12:18, 22). With prose,cete e`autoi/j (Lu. 17:3) the object nou/n has to be supplied, but this is not the case with proskarterou/ntej th|/ didach|/ (Ac. 2:42), nor with w|- prosekli,qh (Ac. 5:36), nor with prose,pesen auvtw|/ (Mk. 5:33) nor with prosefw,nei auvtoi/j (Ac. 22:2). With proskuli,w (Mt. 27: 60) the dative is merely the indirect object, but note evpi, in Mk. 15:46. Compounds of u`po, likewise generally have the dative, as


u`pakou,w (Mt. 8:27), u`pa,rcw (Lu. 12:15), u`pota,ssw (Lu. 10:17), u`poti,qemai (1 Tim. 4:6).

(h) AMBIGUOUS EXAMPLES. Sometimes it is not easy to decide whether the case is locative, instrumental or dative. The example in Ac. 2:33, u`you/n th|/ dexia|., has already been cited. This may mean 'to lift up to the right hand,' 'at the right hand' or 'by the right hand.' Cf. also Ro. 8:24; Jo. 21:8. But it is not often that there is any serious difficulty in the matter. In 2 Cor. 11:1, avnei,cesqe, mou mikro,n ti avfrosu,nhj, note ablative, accusative, genitive. And, if some cases remain, as with the genitive and ablative, that cannot be finally settled, the matter must simply remain in abeyance. It so happens that in Lu. 8:29f. we have all eight cases used if polloi/j cro,noij be here locative and not instrumental. It may serve as a good exercise to discriminate in this passage each of the cases and explain the distinctive meaning and the result in this special context. The cases have kept us for a good while, but the subject is second to none in importance in Greek syntax. Nowhere has, comparative philology shed more light than in the explanation according to historical science of the growth and meaning of the Greek cases.

1 Hubschmann, Zur Casuslehre, p. v.

2 Ib. Cf. Dewischeit, Zur Theorie der Casus (1857); Rumpel, Die Casuslehre (1875). Hadley (Essays Phil. and Crit., Gk. Gen. as Abl., p. 46) speaks of "the Beckerite tendency, too frequently apparent in Kuhner, to impose a meaning on language rather than educe the meaning out of it."

3 Hoffmann, Griech. Dial., Bd. I, p. 303.

4 W.-Th., p. 184 f.

5 Cf. Babbitt, A Gr. of Attic and Ionic Gk., 1902.

6 Notes on Gk. and Lat. Synt., 1897, p. 11.

7 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 75, illustrates the rapid disappearance of case-endings in the Irish tongue, which as late as i/A.D. had a full set of inflections, whereas by the fifth century only traces of the dat. plur. survive.

8 W.-Th., p. 180.

9 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 67.

10 Cf. Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw., p. 259; Hubschm., Zur Casusl., p. 3.

11 Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 374.

12 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 341.

13 Ib.

14 Ib., p. 272 f.

15 Cf. Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 173. Farrar (Gk. Synt., p. 94 f.) puts the matter succinctly: "It is the case which borrows the aid of the preposition, not the preposition which requires the case."

16 Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 341.

17 Ib. But Monro, Hom Gr., p. 125, correctly admits the gen.

18 Moulton, Prol., p. 106 f.

19 Ib.

20 Ib., p. 105 f.

21 Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 125

22 Thumb, Handb., p. 98; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 366.

23 Prol., p. 60 f.

24 See further Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 376; Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 419.

25 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 193.

26 Prol., p. 60.

27 Comp. Gr. of Gk. and Lat., p. 217.

28 Prol., p. 61.

29 C. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 82.

30 Moulton, Prol., p. 61 f.

31 Ib., p. 62. Helbing, Die Prepos. bei Herodot and andern Histor. (1904), pp. 8 ff., gives a summary of the uses of evn and eivj. Cf. also Moulton's remarks on Helbing's items (Prol., p. 62).

32 Moulton, Prol., p. 62.

33 Prol., p. 67 f.

34 In Christo, p. 46 f.

35 Cf. Heitmiiller, Im Namen Jesu, I, ch. 4

36 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 68.

37 W.-Th., p. 180 f. The ancients developed no adequate theory of the cases since they were concerned little with syntax. Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 37.

38 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 325.

39 Zur Rection der Casus in der spilt. hist. Grac., 1887-90.

40 Prol., p. 64.

41 Ib.; Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436.

42 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 153.

43 Prol., p. 65.

44 Ib. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 102. Cf. Thumb, Theol. Lit., XXVIII, p. 422, for mod. Gk. usage. As a matter of fact the acc. was always more popular in the vernac. Gk., and no wonder that the pap. show it to be so even with verbs usually in the lit. lang. used with other cases. Cf. A,Volker, Pap. Graec. Synt., 1900, p. 5 f.

45 Middleton, Anal. in Synt., pp. 47-55. Farrar, Gk. Synt., overstates it when he says that the acc. alone has preserved its original (force. He means form alone.

46 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 67.

47 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 89.

48 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 113; Giles, Man., p. 301.

49 Ib., p. 302.

50 Cf. Delbruck, Vergl. Synt,, I, p. 188.

51 Cf. Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 203, for exx. of the free use of the noun in app.

52 Monro, Homn. Gr., p. 117.

53 Cf. Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 393 f.; Monro, Hom. Gk., p. 114 f.

54 Cf. K.-G., I, p. 44.

55 Cf. W.-Scli., p. 256.

56 Prol., p. 71 f.

57> Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 85. "Ein starker Hebraismus," W.-Sch., p. 257.

58 W.-Th., p. 184.

59 Moulton, Prol., p. 235, endorses Blast's view (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 85) that in Jo. 13:13 we have the voc. The nom. is hardly "incredible" (Blass). Cf. loose use of the nom. in lists in Boeot. inscr. in the midst of other cases (Claflin, Synt., etc., p. 46).

60 See extended discussion in Moulton, Prol., pp. 69, 235. See also note in this Gr. in ch. on Orthog. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 256 f,

61 Prol., p. 69.

62 C. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 55.

63 Prol., pp. 69, 225.

64 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1964, p. 151 f.

65 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 70.

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

67 Moulton, Prol., p. 70; Meisterh., Gr., etc., p. 203.

68 Griech. Gr., p. 378,

69 Cf. Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 41; Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 115 f.

70 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 86; Moulton, Prol., p. 70.

71 Riem. and Goelzer, p. 42.

72 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 376; Giles, Man., p. 302.

73 Sans. Gr., p. 89.

74 Whitney, p. 105.

75> Gk. Synt., p. 70.

76 Ib., p. 69.

77 Prol., p. 71.

78 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 86.

79 Prol., p. 71. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 158.

80 W.-Sch., p. 258 f.; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 86 f.

81 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 327.

82 Delbruck, Syntakt. Forch., IV, p. 28.

83 C. and S., Sel. from the Sept., p. 56.

84 Jann., Hist. Gk., Gr., p. 327.

85 Prol., p. 71.

86 Cf. J. A. Scott, Am. Jour. of Philol., xxvi, pp. 32-43, cited by Moulton, Prol., p. 71.

87 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 86. Cf. also W.-Sch., p. 257 f.; Johannessohn, Der Gebr. d. Kasus u. d. Prap. in d. LXX, 1910, pp. 8-13.

88 Lang. of the N. T., p. 76. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 378.

89 K.-G., I, p. 50; Giles, Man., p. 302; Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 116. Cf. also C. and S., Sel. from the Sept., p. 55.

90 Giles, Man., p. 302; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 377. Cf. Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., p. 397 f.

91 Moulton, Prol., p. 70.

92 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 70. Cf. K.-G., I, pp. 46 ff.

93 Vergl. Synt., p. 398 f.

94 Prol., p. 70.

95 C. and S., Sel., etc., p. 54.

96> Moulton in a note (p. 235) does concede some Aram. influence. In Hebrews it only occurs, as he notes, in 0. T. citations. Cf. also Dolman, Gr., p. 118.

97 Prol., p. 70. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 327.

98 W.-Th., p. 183.

99 Joh. Gr., pp. 93 ff.

100 Mullach, Gr. der griech. Vulgarspr., pp. 328-333.

101 Giles, Man., p. 306.

102 Jebb, Vincent and Dickson's Handb. to Mod. Gk., p. 307.

103 Volker, Pap. Gr. Synt. Spec., p. 5 f.

104 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 328.

105 Hatz., Einl., p. 221.

106 Zur Rect. der Casus in der spat. hist. Grdc. (1887-90). Cf. also Moulton, Prol., pp. 63 ff.

107 Die Grundl. d. griech. Synt., Bd. IV, p. 29; Vergl. Synt., I, p. 187. Cf. III, pp. 360-393.

108 Kurze vergl. Gr., p. 441.

109 Griech. Gr., p. 379.

110 Zur Casusl., p. 133. For list of books on the ace. see Hubner, Grundr. etc., p. 40 f. Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 44, agree with Hubschm. Cf. also K.-G., I, p. 291.

111 Strong, Logeman and Wheeler, Hist. of Lang., p. 128.

112 Der Accus. in Hom., p. 1.

113 Hom. Gr., p. 92.

114 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 90.

115 Notes on Gk. and Lat. Synt., p. 10.

116 Gk. Synt., p. 81 f.

117 Man., p. 303.

118 See K.-G., I, p. 311 f. for exx.; Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 96. Extremely common in Sanskrit.

119 Handb., etc., p. 234.

120 W.-Th., p. 231.

121 Blass, Or. of N. T. Gk., p. 311.

122 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 152. O.P. 477 (21) e;toj is so used. The acc. is used in the Sans. for a point of time. Cf. Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 92. For exx. in the LXX see C. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 56. Cf. also Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 75.

123 Green, Handb., etc., p. 230.

124 See Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 87-89. Cf. also W.-Th., pp. 221 ff.

125 Volker, Pap. Gr. Synt. Spec., pp. 6-8, gives the following verbs as having the acc. in the pap.: avlla,ssw├ douleu,w├ evpiqume,w├ evpitugca,nw├ evpilanqa,nomai├ evxe,rcomai├ euvdoke,w├ kathgore,w├ krate,w├ kurieu,w├ lupe,w├ pari,stamai├ poreu,omai├ plhro,w├ u`panta,w├ cra,omai

126 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 77.

127 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 80.

128 Moulton (ib., p. 235) comments on Wellhausen's remark that D prefers uniformly ace. with avkou,w├ kathgore,w and krate,w.

129 Prol., p. 104.

130 W.-Th., p. 226.

131 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436.

132 Moulton, Prol., p. 64.

133 Simeox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 80.

134 Joh. Gr., p. 78.

135 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 89.

136 Simeox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 78.

137 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 89.

138 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 304.

139 Moulton, CI. Rev., 1901, p. 436. But note zhmei,an evzhmiwsa,mhn, B.U. 146 (ii/iii) proskunei/n to. prosku,nhma Letr. 70, 79, 92 (i/B.C.).

140 C. and S., Sel. from the Sept., p. 56.

141 Ib., P. 57.

142 Ib., p. 56.

143 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 76, finds no instance of such a construction with avgapw/ in anc. Gk.

144 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 91. Cf. Jana., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 329.

145 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 91.

146 W.-Th., p. 225.

147 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 82.

148 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 90.

149 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 97.

150 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 306.

151 Volker, Pap. Gr. Synt. Spec., p. 13 f.; Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436. He cites me evtei,sato u[brin th.n avnwta,thn, B.U. 242 (ii/A.D.). For the Attic inscr. see Meisterh., p. 204.

152 Anal. in Synt., p. 25.

153 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 92.

154 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 332, 378, who says that it is absent in mod. Gk. But mod. Gk. does use gia, instead of pred. acc., as e;cw tou.j bra,couj gia. kre,bbati (Thumb, Handb., p. 36). Cf. also W.-Th., p. 228; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 93.

155 Prol., p. 72.

156 C. and S., Sel. from the Sept., p. 81 f. Cf. also W.-Th., p. 228.

157 Ib. In the mod. Gk. the ace. of the thing to some extent takes the place of the dat. or abl. (Thumb, Handb., p. 37).

158 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 80.

159 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 78 f., argues unsuccessfully against the idea that euvaggeli,zomai has two accs.

160 Hist. Synt., p. 362.

161 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 93.

162 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 93.

163> Giles, Man., etc., p. 309.

164 Whitney, Sans. Gr., pp. 91, 93.

165 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 75. So 2 Macc. 8:16.

166 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 117. Cf. Landgraf, Der Accus. der Beziehung nach Adj., p. 376, Archiv fur lat. Lex. and Gr., vol. X.

167 Griech. Gr., p. 378.

168 Volker, Pap. Gr. Synt. Spec., pp. 10-13.

169 Giles, Man., etc., p. 309.

170 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 93. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 348 f.; Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., III, p. 625 f.

171 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 331.

172 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 85.

173 For inf. as subject and as object. see ch. on Verbal Nouns.

174 Gk. Synt., p. 139 f. Cf. also Donaldson's Gk. Gr., ž 584, and Green's Handb. to N. T. Gk. Gr., p. 232.

175 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 484 f.

176 It is rare also in the pap. Volker, Pap. Gr. Synt. Spec., p. 18.

177 For acc. in apposition with sentence in pap. see Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 152, to. mh. o;n, T.P. 1 (ii/B.C.).

178 Green, Handb., etc., p. 234.

179 Giles, Man., etc., p. 311,

180 Moulton, Prol., p. 106,

181 Delbruck, Grundl. der griech. Synt., IV, p. 37; Giles, Man., p. 319. Cf. Hadley, Ess. Philol., etc., p. 46 f.

182 W.-Th., p. 184; Moulton, Prol., p. 72. But W.-Sch., p. 259, does not make this error.

183 Handb., etc., p. 207.

184 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 200.

185 Bekker, Anec. Graeca, 1816, Vol. II, p. 636.

186 Gk. Synt., 1883, p. 59.

187 Man., p. 313.

188 Cf. Max Milder, Lect., I, pp. 103-105; Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 70.

189 Lib. V, de Casu. See Meister, Der synt. Gebrauch des Genit. in den kretischen Dial.-Inschr. Indoger. Forsch., XVIII, pp. 133-204. Cf. also Ruttgers, De accus., gen., dat. usu in inscr, archaicis cretensibus. Diss. Bonn, 47 p.

190 Giles, Man., etc., p. 311.

191 Cf. W.-Th., p. 236.

192 Hadley, Ess. Philol. and Crit., p. 48.

193 Sans. Gr., p. 98 f.

194 Tl. I, p. 331. Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 102.

195 Vergl. Synt., I, p6 185 f., 307-380.

196 Griech. Gr., p. 3851.

197 Giles, Man., etc., p. 315. Cf. Donaldson, Gk. Gr., pp. 464 ff.

198 In late Gk. the true gen. survives while the abl. fades further away. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 333.

199 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 73. Cf. K.-G., I, p. 384 f.

200 Delbruck, Vergl. Gr., I, p. 359.

201 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 104.

202 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 109.

203 Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 437.

204 Moulton, Prol., p. 73.

205 Ib.

206 Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 356. Cf. Sans., Whitney's Sans. Gr., p. 100.

207 Delbruck, Grundl., etc., IV, p. 45.

208 Monro, Hom.p. 105.

209 Griech. Gr., p. 389.

210 Prol., p. 73.

211 Giles, Man., etc., p. 311.

212 Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 344.

213 Giles, Man., etc., p. 312.

214 Moulton, Prol., p. 72. Blass, also (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 95) thinks that the exact shade of the gen. idea is often a matter of theological, not grammatical interpretation.

215 W.-Th , p. 195. Is no distinct type, Giles, Man., p. 317.

216 Blass, Tr. of N. T. Gk., p. 96.

217 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 335.

218 Moulton, Prol., p. 73 f.

219 II, p. 264.

220 Gr. of N. T. Gk.., p. 98. Cf. also W.-Sch., p. 266 f.

221 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 333.

222 Joh. Gr., pp. 84 ff. Abbott gives a very just discussion of the matter.

223 Lang. of the N. T., p. 87.

224 Green, Handb.1, etc., p. 219.

225 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 334.

226 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 92.

227 Blass, Gr. of, N. T. Gk., p. 95.

228 W.-Th., p. 190.

229 Green, Handb., etc., p. 213.

230 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 95 f.

231 Cf. Green, Handy., etc., p. 215.

232 Abbott, Joh. Gr.,1p. 90.

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

234 Man., etc., p. 316. Cf. Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 353 f.

235 lb.

236 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 254.

237 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 106.

238 Ib.

239 Cl. Rev., Apr., 1904, p. 152.

240 Jann. (Hist. G1. Gr., p. 338), after the analogy of the Lat. and the Gk. keno,j├ evndeh,j, etc., considers it the abl. that we have with plh,rhj.

241 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 106.

242 Jann., Hist. Gk Gr., p. 337.

243 Giles, Man., p. 318.

244 Ib., p. 319.

245 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 308.

246 Giles, Man., p. 315.

247 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., pp. 87 ff., has an extensive discussion of the gen. and acc. with avkou,w, but seems to miss the point after all. They heard the sound but not the words. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 103, admits this classic distinction sometimes in the N. T.

248 Or. of N. T. Gk., p. 103.

249 Ib.

250 Moulton, Prol., p. 66.

251 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 101.

252 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 101.

253 Moulton, Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, p. 437.

254 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 104.

255 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 102.

256 Cf. Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 340.

257 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 105. He cites Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 173.

258 Ib., p. 104.

259 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 106.

260 Jann. (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 341) comments on the blending of meaning between prep. and verb in the later Gk.

261 C. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 59.

262 Moulton, Prol., p. 216.

263 Gk. Synt., p. 76.

264 Man., etc., p. 339 f.

265 Gr., p. 357.

266 V. and D., Handb., p. 334.

267 Moulton, Prol. p. 74.

268 Joh. Gr., p. 83.

269 Ib., p. 84.

270 C. and S., p. 58; Thack., p. 24.

271 Moulton, Prol., p. 74

272 Ib.

273 Prol., p. 74.

274 Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 193.

275> Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 71.

276 Prol., p. 72. C. also Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 109.

277 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 340.

278> Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 97.

279 Ib.

280 I, p. 401. The adjs. with a- privative are regarded as usually with abl.

281 Moulton, Prol., pp. 74, 235; Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 152 f.

282 Ib., 1901, p. 437, sou/ prw/to,j eivmi, L.P. w (ii/iii A.D.).

283 Joh. Gr., p. 90.

284 Indeed, as Winer (W.-Th., p. 197) remarks, the prep. is most frequently employed.

285 An "impossible". reading to Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 106.

286 Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 437.

287 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 100.

288 Cf. Riem. et Goelzer, Synt., p. 196.

289 Vergl. Synt., I, p.182 f., following Gaedicke.

290 Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., p. 307.

291 Hoffmann, Gr. Dial., Bd. I, p. 303.

292 Riem. et Goelzer, Synt., p. 197.

293 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 109.

294 Hist. of Gk. Gr., p. 342.

295 Sans. Gr., p. 101.

296 Giles, Man., etc., p. 329 f.

297 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 100. Cf. also Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 221; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 403; K.-G., I, p. 441.

298 Giles, Man., ec., p. 330.

299 Main, Loc. Ex r. in the Attic Orators (1892), p. 231.

300> Meister, Dialee., Bd. II, p. 193.

301 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 119.

302 Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 153. Cf. also ib., 1901, p. 438, for vEleusi/ni, Letr. 220 (iv/A.D.).

303 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 119.

304 Griech. Gr., p. 405. Cf. also Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 223.

305 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 120, for careful discussion. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., pp. 77 ff.

306 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 405; Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., p. 225; Moulton, Prol., p. 75.

307 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 103.

308 Monro, Hom, Gr., p. 101.

309 Moulton, Prol., p. 106.

310 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 123 f.

311 Elem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 207.

312 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 89.

313 Gk. Dial., II, p. 295.

314 I, p. 405.

315 Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 99.

316 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 239.

317> Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 438.

318 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 116. The mod. Gk., of course, does not use the instr. case at all, but only me, ( meta,). Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 103.

319 Giles, Man., p. 334. Cf. Draeger, Hist. Synt., p. 428.

320 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 99.

321 Helbing, Uber den Gebrauch des echten and sociativen Dativs bei Herod., p. 58 f.

322 Griech. Gr., p. 410h

323 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 246.

324 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 94.

325 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 438; 1904, p. 153; Prol., p. 75.

326 Delbruck, Vergl. Srnt., I, p. 246.

327 Prol., p. 75.

328 Gr. Lat., p. 14. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 121, calls this "duration of time" "unclassical," but incorrectly as is already shown.

329 Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 438.

330 Ib.

331 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 121. Cf. Schmidt, de Jos. elocut., p. 382 f.

332 Ib

333 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 115.

334 Ib.

335 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 75.

336 Considered peculiar by Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 114.

337 K.-G., I, p. 435.

338 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 118.

339 Moulton, prol., p. 75.

340 C. and S., p. 60 f.

341 Prol., p. 75 f. Cf. qa,non qana,tw| in Homer.

342 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 119.

343 Ib. Thack. (Jour. of Theol. Stu., July, 1908, p. 598 f.) shows that in the Pentateuch the Hebrew infinitive absolute was more frequently rendered by the instr. case, while in the Books of Samuel and Kings the participle is the more usual. In the LXX as a whole the two methods are about equal. On p. 601 he observes that the N. T. has no ex. of the part. so used except in 0. T. quotations, while several instances of the instr. occur apart from quotations, as in 22:15; Jo. 3:29; Ac. 4:17; 5:28; 23:14; Jas. 5:17. See also Thack., Gr., p. 48.

344 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 118. Cf. for the pap. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 438.

345 In Herod. we find a double instr. with crh/sqai. Cf. Helbing, Der Instrumental in Herod., 1900, p. 8.

346 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 117.

347 K.-G., II, p. 464 f.

348 Moulton, Prol., pp. 76, 104; Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 153.

349 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 95.

350 K.-G., I, p. 422; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 400 f.; Meisterh., p. 210, for inscr. (Attic); Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 344; Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 98 f., considers it a true dative.

351 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 300. But cf. pp. 184, 297.

352 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 112.

353 Hom. Gr., p. 97 f.

354 Griech. Gr., pp. 226

355 Prol., p. 62.

356 Ib.

357 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 122.

358 Einl., p. 210 f.

359 Prol., p. 235.

360 Ib., p. 63.

361 Cf. Helbing, Die Prap. bei Herod., p. 22. Cf. Moulton, Prol., pp. 63, 107.

362 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 98.

363 Wundt, Volkerpsych., 1. Bd., Tl. II, p. 126.

364 Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 185. But see E. W. Hopkins, Trans. Am. Hist. Assoc., XXXVII, pp. 87 ff.

365 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 95.

366 Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 277.

367 Brug., Griech Gr., p. 399.

368 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 112. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 153, finds avkolou,qwj with dat. in pap.

369 Griech. Gr., pp. 226, 228.

370 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 96.

371 Giles, Man., etc., p. 329, but see Prepositions (ch. XIII).

372 Griech. Gr., p. 455.

373 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 111.

374 Prol., p. 75. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 113, calls this the ethical dative. The so-called dative of "majesty" Blass considers a Hebraism. He compares avstei/oj tw|/ qew|/ with po,lij mega,lh tw|/ qew|/ (Jonah, 3:3), 'a very great city.' But it is doubtful if the N. T. follows the LXX here.

375 In Christo, p. 46 f. My friend, Prof. Walter Petersen, of Lindsborg, Kan., does not believe that the dative is ever the direct object of a verb, and Dr. W. 0. Carver agrees with him.

376 Prol., p. 67 f.

377 In Christo, p. 46 f.

378 Moulton, Prol., p. 68; Heitmuller, Im Namen Jesu, I, ch. i.

379 But note Mt.10:32 evn, and o`mologw/ evn auvtw|/ in Lu. 12 : 8.

380 Man., p. 327.

381 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 116.