I. Origin of Adjectives. This matter was touched upon in the chapter on Declensions, but calls for a further word here. There is no absolute line of cleavage between substantive and adjective either in form or sense.1 The Alexandrian grammarians had no special treatment of the adjective. "The division line between substantive and adjective, always an uncertain one in early Indo-European language, is even more wavering in Sanskrit than elsewhere."2 Indeed it is not difficult to conceive the time when there was no distinct adjective. The substantive would be used in apposition as in English, brother man, church member. Cf. the common use of titles also like doctor, president, governor, etc. This attributive use of the substantive is not a peculiarity of any language, but belongs to Hebrew, Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, English, etc. It is out of this use of the substantive that the adjective as a separate part of speech developed.3 The adjective is not therefore a mere variation of the genitive, though, like the genitive, it is descriptive. The term noun ( o;noma) is used to cover both substantive and adjective, but many substantives continue to be used in a descriptive or adjectival sense and many adjectives in a substantival sense.4 The term adjective covers words of one, two or three genders, and indeed includes numerals and some of the pronouns also. But the pronouns require treatment in a separate chapter. Participles are verbal adjectives. See later. The close relation between adjective and substantive is well illustrated by dou/la (Ro. 6:19). Cf. dou/loi.


II. The Adjectival or Appositional Use of the Substantive. Examples have already been given in the chapter on the Sentence. Let one suffice here: evn tw|/ vIorda,nh| potamw|/ (Mt. 3:6).5 Cf. further Lu. 24:19; Ac. 1:16; 3:14. This idiom is common enough in the N. T. I must demur, however, at this point to Winer's idea (Winer-Thayer, p. 236) that "a notion which should naturally be expressed by an adjective as an epithet, is sometimes, by a change of construction, brought out by a substantive." What I object to is the word "should." He is right in saying that "the N. T. is by no means poor6 in adjectives," but wrong in urging that the N. T. ought to use more. As already observed, substantives continued to be used in a descriptive sense not only in apposition, but also in the genitive. This original use of the substantive never ceased. Hence it is useless to talk of "this substitution of a substantive for an adjective" and to explain it as "a Hebraistic mode of expression" due to "the want of adjectives in Hebrew" and to "the peculiar vividness of the Oriental languages" (p. 237). He admits, however, that the matter is not arbitrary, but the principal word stands in the genitive. There is this difference between the adjective as an epithet and the genitive. The two substantives do not merge into one idea quite so completely. Winer's examples illustrate this point well: mhde. hvlpike,nai evpi. plou,tou avdhlo,thti (1 Tim. 6:17), i[na u`mei/j evn kaino,thti zwh/j peripath,swmen (Ro. 6:4), ble,pwn to. stere,wma th/j pi,stewj (Col. 2:5), lo,goij th/j ca,ritoj (Lu. 4:22), oivkono,mon th/j avdiki,aj grk(16:8), krith/j th/j avdiki,ajgrk grk(18:6), pa,qh avtimi,aj (Ro. 1:26), tw|/ r`h,mati th/j duna,mewj (Heb. 1:3), etc. It was just the shade of difference between the substantive in the genitive and the adjective that led to the expressions above. Phrases like ta. pneumatika. th/j ponhri,aj (Eph. 6:12) are analogous to the use of the adjective as substantive to be discussed directly. The use of ui`o,j or te,knon, with the genitive is exactly like the Hebrew idiom with !Be and is extremely common in the LXX and fairly so in the N. T. Thus ui`oi/j avpeiqi,aj (Eph. 2:2), pe,kna fwto,j (Eph. 5:8), etc. But this "Hebraistic circumlocution" turns up in inscriptions and on coins,7 so that it is clearly not un-Greek. Deissmann, however, since the idiom is so common and many of the N. T.


examples are quotations from the LXX or translations from the Aramaic, admits that the majority in the N. T. are clue to "translation Hebraisms" and the rest to analogical formation.

III. The Adjective as Substantive. Simcox8 thinks that the N. T. shows a more frequent use of this idiom than the earlier Greek. But the earlier Greek shows abundant evidence of the use of the adjective without the substantive as a practical substantive, usually with the article, but not always.9

(a) ANY GENDER. Such adjectives may be of any gender, according to the gender of substantive. So o` kalo,j├ h` e[rhmoj├ to. chrsto,n. This is no peculiarity of Greek alone, though it has its own development in the substantival use of the adjective. Indeed the participle was often used as a substantive. Thus o` spei,rwn (Mt. 13:3), h`gou,menoj (Mt. 2:6). In Ph. 3:8 we have the participle used as a substantive with the genitive, to. u`pere,con th/j gnw,sewj. Cf. Lu. 16:1, ta. u`pa,rconta auvtou/. So to. evmautou/ su,mforon (1 Cor. 10:33) where the adjective, like a substantive, has the genitive.

(b) WITH MASCULINE ADJECTIVES. With masculine adjectives the substantives naturally suggest themselves out of the context or the nature of the case.10 Thus in Mt. 11:5, tufloi. avna─ ble,pousin kai. cwloi. peripatou/sin├ ktl) Cf. oi` a[gioi (1 Cor. 6:2), a`martwlou,j (1 Tim. 1:15), dikai,ou and tou/ avgaqou/ (Ro. 5:7), evklektw/n qeou/grk grk(8:33), to.n avlhqino,n (1 Jo. 5:20), o` a[gioj tou/ qeou/ (Jo. 6:69) and probably tou/ ponhrou/ (Mt. 6:13). In Jas. 5:7, pro,i?mon kai, o;yimon, supply u`eto,n. Sometimes only the context can determine the gender, as in Eph. 6:16; 1 Jo. 3:12).

(c) WITH FEMININE ADJECTIVES. These are usually examples of the ellipsis of o`do,j├ cei,r├ gh/├ gunh,├ h`me,ra├ glw/ssa. I follow Blass11 mainly in these examples. Thus gh/ is responsible for the feminine gender in th.n xhra,n (Mt. 23:15; Heb. 11:29), h` peri,─ cwroj (Mt. 3:5), th.n ovreinh,n (Lu. 1:39), th|/ evrh,mw| (Mt. 3:2), th/j oivkoume,nhj (Ro. 10:18), etc. In evk th/j u`po. to.n ouvrano,n (Lu. 17:24) Blass prefers meri,doj to gh/j and urges that we do not refine too sharply over evx evnanti,aj (Mk. 15:39; Tit. 2:8). As examples of the influence of o`do,j note euvqei,aj (Lu. 3:5), poi,ajgrk grk(5:19), evkei,nhjgrk grk grk(19:4). For cei,r observe h` avristera, and h` dexia, (Mt. 6:3), evn dexia|/ (Ro. 8:34), th|/ dexia|/ $Ac. 2:33). But evk dexiw/ngrk grk(2:34) may be compared with eivj ta. dexia. me,rh (Jo. 21:6). The ellipsis of h`me,ra is noticed by Blass in th|/ evcome,nh| (Lu. 13:33), th|/ evpiou,sh| (Ac. 16:11),


Addenda 3rd ed.

th|/ e`te,ra|grk grk(20:15), th|/ evpau,rion (Mt. 27:62), th|/ tri,th| (Lu. 13:32), th/j e`bdo,mhj (Heb. 4:4), th|/ mia|/ tw/n sabba,twn (Ac. 20:7), me,cri th/j sh,meron (Mt. 11:23), avf v h-j (2 Pet. 3:4), th|/ e`xh/j (Ac. 21:1). But Blass rightly supplies w[ra with avf v h-j in Lu. 7:45, as with ovyi,aj (Mt. 8:16), prwi,aj (Mt. 27:1). To conclude the list of feminine examples with th|/ pneou,sh| (Ac. 27:40) supply au;ra|, with evn th|/ `El─ lhnikh|/ (Rev. 9:11) supply glw,ssh| (but cf. th|/ vEbrai>di diale,ktw|, Ac. 22:2), with polla,j and ovli,gaj (Lu. 12:47 f.) supply plhga,j, with avpo. mia/j (Lu. 14:18) insert fwnh/j. But kat v ivdia,n (Mk. 6:31) and ivdi,a|, (1 Cor. 12:11), though stereotyped, may refer to o`dw|/. Cf. also kata. mo,naj (Mk. 4:10) as an instance of o`do.j. So dhmosi,a| (Ac. 16:37). Words like swth,rioj (Tit. 2:11), aivw,nion (Jo. 6:47), euvpe─ ri,staton (Heb. 12:1) are, of course, feminine, not masculine. See chapter on Declensions.

(d) WITH THE NEUTER. The neuter furnishes a number of interesting examples. Thus poth,rion yucrou/ (Mt. 10:42), where u[datoj is referred to. So u[dwr is meant by to. gluku. kai. to. pikro,n (Jas. 3:11). With evn leukoi/j (Jo. 20:12), one must insert i`mati,oij as with evn malakoi/j (Mt. 11:8). Cf. porfurou/n in Rev. 18:16. With tou/ diopoetou/j (Ac. 19:35) Blass12 suggests avga,lmatoj, and with to. tri,ton th/j gh/j (Rev. 8:7) we must supply me,roj ("not classical," Blass). Cf. eivj to. i`ero,n (Mt. 21:23). In Mt. 6:13, avpo. tou/ ponhrou/├ most likely dia,boloj is meant,13 not mere evil. In Mt. 19:17 we have peri. tou/ avgaqou/, explained by o` avgaqo,j, though the American Standard Version gives it 'that which is good.' But cf. Ro. 5:7. The number of these neuter adjectives used substantively in the N. T. is large and varied, but the older Greek shows abundant illustrations14 of the same thing, especially in philosophical discussions. With prepositions in particular we meet with this use of the neuter. Thus eivj to. me,son (Jo. 20:19) evn tw|/ kruptw|/ (Mt. 6:4), eivj fanero,n (Mk. 4:22), meta. mikron,n (Mt. 26:73), evn me,sw| (Mt. 10:16), evn ovli,gw| (Ac. 26:28), evn mega,lw| grk(26:29), meta. bracu, (Lu. 22:58), etc. Cf. eivj avgaqa, (Jer. 24:6). Very common is the adverbial usage of this neuter like bracu, (Ac. 5:34), mikro,n (Mt. 26:39), mo,non (Mt. 8:8), to. prw/ton (Jo. 12:16), but the adjective's relation to the adverb will receive special treatment. See XI. Cf. tw|/ o;nti. Sometimes the neuter singular was used in a collective sense for the sum total (cf. English "the all"). Thus, in Jo. 6:37, 39, pa/n o[ (5, 17:24 o[, where persons are meant. The neuter plural is


common in this sense like ta. pa,nta (Col. 1:16) where the universe is thus described. Cf. ta. o;nta and ta. mh. o;nta (1 Cor. 1:28). B in the LXX (Helbing, p. 51) frequently has pa/n - pa,nta (acc. sing. masc.). (Cf. also Ps. of Sol. 3:10; 8:23 V; Test. xii, Pat. Reub. 1:10 pa/n a;rton, Gad 3:1 pa/n no,mon.) See also the common collective neuter in the LXX (Thackeray, Grammar, p. 174 f.). Usually the neuter plural is concrete, however, as in ta. o`rata. kai. avo,rata (Col. 1:16), where pa,nta is thus explained. Cf. ta. baqe,a (Rev. 2:24), avrcai/a (2 Cor. 5:17). In Ro. 1:20, as Winer15 points out, ta. avo,rata makes more concrete h[ te avi>dioj du,namij kai. qeio,thj) But one must confess that in Eph. 3:10, evn toi/j evpourani,oij, it is not clear what the idea is, whether places, things or relations. In Jo. 3:12 evpi,geia and evpoura,nia seem to refer to truths. In 1 Cor. 2:13, pneumatikoi/j pneumatika. sunkri,nontej, a like ambiguity exists, but the presence of lo,goij inclines one to the notion that Paul is here combining spiritual ideas with spiritual words. The neuter singular with the article is very common for the expression of an abstract idea. One does not have to say that the adjective is here used instead of the abstract substantive, but merely as an abstract substantive. Cf. English "the beautiful and the good" with "beauty and goodness." This is good ancient Greek. Cf. also in the papyri to. di,kaion Tb.P. 40 (B.C. 117) and (ib.) kaqh,konta. Winer16 was troubled over to. doki,mion th/j pi,stewj (1 Pet. 1:7) and said that no such adjective existed and therefore this was a mere substantive. There was none in the lexica, but Deissmann17 has found a number of instances of the adjective in the papyri. So crusou/ dokimi,ou P.E.R. xii. 6 f. (93 A.D.), 'good gold.' One need not be troubled over to. gnwsto,n (Ro. 1:19) any more than over the other neuter adjectives. Cf. to. crhsto.n tou/ qeou/ (Ro. 2:4), to. mwro.n tou/ qeou/ and to. avsqene.j tou/ qeou/ (1 Cor. 1: 25), to. avmeta,qeton th/j boulh/j (Heb. 6:17), to. evlafro.n th/j qeli,yewj (2 Cor. 4:17), to. avdu,naton tou/ no,mou (Ro. 8:3), to. dunato.n auvtou/ (9: 22). It is thus frequent with the genitive. Cf. also to. kat v evme. pro,─ qumon (Ro. 1:15). See Heb. 7:7. In Lu. 12:23, h` yuch. plei/o,n evstin th/j trofh/j, we have plei/on because the abstract idea of thing is expressed. This also is a frequent Greek idiom. Cf. ouvde,n, (1 Cor. 7:19), o[ (1 Cor. 15:10), tau/ta (1 Cor. 6:11).

IV. Agreement of Adjectives with Substantives.

(a) IN NUMBER. It is not necessary to repeat what has been


said on this subject in chapter X, vii, (b), on concord between adjective and substantive in number. The normal thing is for adjective and substantive to agree in number. But one must not get the idea that "construction according to sense" of the grammarians is an anomaly. "The term is unobjectionable, provided we remember that constructions according to the meaning are generally older than those 'in which meaning is overridden by idiom or grammatical analogy."18 Thus there is no cause for astonishment in seeing e;kqamboi with o` lao,j in Ac. 3:11, nor plh/qoj kra,zontej in Ac. 21:36.

(b) IN GENDER. For concord in gender see chapter X, viii. Here again the construction according to sense is normal like stra─ tia/j ouvrani,ou aivnou,ntwn (Lu. 2:13), but ouvrani,ou in the same phrase is the feminine (cf. aivw,nioj, etc.). The N. T. does not have the Attic idiom with h[misuj of agreement with the gender of the genitive substantive, though it is still in the LXX. Cf. ta.j h`mi,seij tw/n a`martiw/n (Ezek. 16:51). Instead see e[wj h`mi,souj th/j basilei,aj mou (Mk. 6:23). But au[th and qaumasth, in Mt. 21:42 (Mk. 12:11) are probably clue to the Hebrew tazo, the Hebrew using the feminine for abstract ideas, since it had no neuter. But even here in Ps. 117:23 the context has kefalh.n gwni,aj.19 One other remark is to be made which is that when an adjective occurs with more than one substantive it may agree with the gender of the nearest, as in pa/san po,lin kai. to,pon (Lu. 10:1), be repeated with each, as in pa/sa do,sij avgaqh. kai. pa/n dw,rhma te,leion (Jas. 1:17) and evn poi,a| duna,mei h' evn poi,w| ovno,mati (Ac. 4:7), or agree with the masculine rather than the feminine or neuter, as in gumnoi, (Jas. 2:15). With the same gender there may be repetition (Mt. 4:23; 9:35) or not (Mt. 12:31).

(c) IN CASE. For concord in case see chapter X, ix. The main instances of variation here belong to the participle as in Ac. 15: 22 f.), and in particular the Book of Revelation furnishes illustrations (Rev. 3:12, etc.), as already shown.

(d) Two on MORE ADJECTIVES. When two or more adjectives occur together the conjunction may be used as in polla. kai. bare,a aivtiw,mata (Ac. 25:7) and even polla. kai. a;lla shmei/a (Jo. 20:30), as in Latin.20 But see e`te,rwn pollw/n (Ac.15 : 35) and the repetition of the adjective with the article (Rev. 2:12).

V. The Attributive Adjective. The adjective (from adjaceo) is a word joined on to another ( evpi,qeton). The adjective is by no


means the only attribute used with substantives. Thus the attribute may be substantive in apposition with another substantive, like avnqrwpw| oivkodespo,th| (Mt. 13:52), or a genitive, like h` tou/ qeou/ makroqumi,a (1 Pet. 3:20), or an adverb, like th/j a;nw klh,sewj (Ph. 3:14), or an adjunct, like h` kat v evklogh.n pro,qesij (Ro. 9:11), or a pronoun, like to. evmo.n o;noma (Mt. 18:20).21 When the article is used before the adjective or participle it is, of course, attributive, as in o` kalo,j (Jo. 10:11), evn th|/ parou,sh| avlhqei,a| (2 Pet. 1:12). But adjectives and participles may be attributive when no article is used. Thus with stratia/j ouvrani,ou (Lu. 2:13), u[dwr zw/n (Jo. 4:10. Cf. to. u[dwr to. zw/n, in verse 11), monogenh.j qeo,j (Jo. 1:18). The unusual position of the attributive adjective, like o` o;cloj polu,j (Jo. 12:9), where the substantive and adjective form "a composite idea" (Jebb, Soph. 0. T., pp. 1199 ff.), may be illustrated from the papyri, 0.P.99, th/j u`parcou,shj auvtw|/ mhtrikh/j oivki,aj triste,gou (Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 154). Cf. also evk th/j matai,aj u`mw/n avnastrofh/j patroparado,tou (1 Pet. 1:18), where, however, patro─ parado,tou may very well be predicate (see vi). Cf. French La Republique Froncaise.

VI. The Predicate Adjective. The adjective (like the participle) is common as a predicate, as is the substantive. Monro22 considers the substantive in the predicate adjectival. Cf. pronoun, adverb, etc. As examples note polloi, (Mk. 5:9), o`moi,a (Mt. 13:31), swth,rioj (Tit. 2:11), e[toima (Lu. 14:17), baqu, (Jo. 4:11), out of many. But adjectives are predicate without a copula, as in Ti, me le,geij avgaqo,n (Mk. 10:18), o` poih,saj me u`gih/ (Jo. 5:11; cf. 7:23), avda,panon qh,sw to. euvagge,lion (1 Cor. 9:18), mega,lh| th|/ fwnh|/ (Ac. 26:24), avpara,baton e;cei th.n i`erwsu,nhn (Heb. 7:24). Cf. Mk. 8:17; Jo. 5:35; 1 Cor. 11:5. As examples of the verbal in - toj take paqhto,j (Ac. 26:23) and gnwsto,n (Ac. 4:10) with which last compare the attributive use in Ac. 4:16 gnwsto.n shmei/on. Cf. Mk. 3:1. As further interesting examples of the predicate adjective, note o[loj (Jo. 9:34), do,kimoi. fanw/men (2 Cor. 13:7), u`gih,j (Mt. 12:13), prw/toj (Jo. 20:4), e`drai/oj (1 Cor. 7:37), ovrqo,j (Ac. 14:10), mo,noj (Lu. 24:18; cf. Mt. 14: 23), etc. Cf. o[lon in Lu. 13:21. The distinction between the attributive adjective and the predicate adjective lies in just this, that the predicate presents an additional statement, is indeed the main point, while the attributive is an incidental description of the substantive about which the statement is made. Cf. Ac. 4:10 and 16 above for both uses of gnwsto,n. Cf. tau,taj in Ac. 1:5.


Addenda 2nd ed.

This distinct predication23 with the adjective in an oblique case is seen in tou/to avlhqe.j ei;rhkaj (Jo. 4:18) and is a classical idiom.24 Note the use of pa,nta as predicate for o` qeo,j in 1 Cor. 15:28 as with Cristo,j in Col. 3:11 for the totality of things.

VII. Adjective Rather than Adverb. See ch. XII, ix, for discussion of this subject. A few items are added here. Cf. prw/toj Mwush/j le,gei (Ro. 10:19), 'Moses is the first who says,' with prw/ton dialla,ghqi tw|/ avdelfw|/ sou (Mt. 5:24), 'Be reconciled with thy brother as the first thing that you do.' In Mt. 10:2 prw/toj Si,mwn means that first in the list is Simon, whereas prw/ton, in Jo. 1:41, means that Andrew finds his brother Simon as the first thing which he does. Prw/ton ivcqu,n (Mt. 17:27) means the first fish that came up. Cf. evn evmoi. prw,tw| (1 Tim. 1:16), 'me as chief.' The exact idea of prw,th in Lu. 2:2 is not certain, but most probably Luke's idea is that there were two enrolments under Cyrenius. Cf. Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? With mo,noj and mo,non a like distinction is to be observed. Take avnecw,rhsen pa,lin eivj to. o;roj auvto.j mo,noj (Jo. 6:15) and su. mo,noj paroikei/j vIerousalh,m (Lu. 24:18). The difference is much like that between the English "alone" and "only." So in Lu. 9:36, eu`re,qh vIhsou/j mo,noj├ 'Jesus was found alone,' and in Mt. 17:8 (cf. Mk. 9:8), ouvde,na ei=don eiv mh. auvto.n vIhsou/n mo,non, it is adjective, not adverb. Cf. ouvk eivmi. mo,noj (Jo. 16:32) with ouv mo,non in Ac. 21:13. Cf. 2 Jo. 1:1. Contrast mo,non in Mt. 8:8 with mo,noj in Mt. 14:23. There are some examples where either adverb or adjective would make good sense,25 as in Mk. 6:8, mhde.n eiv mh. r`a,bdon mo,non, where D reads mo,,nhn* Ac. 11:19, mhdeni. eiv mh. mo,non vIoudai,oij, where D has mo,noij; and 1 Jo. 5:6, ouvk evn tw|/ u[dati mo,non, where B reads mo,nw|. But this is not all. The Greek often uses an adjective where other languages prefer adverbs or prepositional phrases. Latin and English have similar expressions for other ideas.26 Naturally this idiom is common in Homer.27 For time note deuterai/oi h;lqomen (Ac. 28:13), 'we came second-day men' ('on the second day'). Cf. tetartai/oj Jo. 11: 39. D has likewise pemptai/oi in Ac. 20:6. So geno,menai ovrqrinai. evpi. to. mnhmei/on (Lu. 24:22), evpisth|/ evfni,dioj (Lu. 21:34), auvqi,retoj (2 Cor. 8:17), ovktah,meroj (Ph. 3:5).

VIII. The Personal Construction. This matter belongs more properly to indirect discourse and the participle, but it calls for


just a word here. The Greeks were more fond of the personal construction than we English are. Farrar28 indeed doubts if Greek has a true impersonal verb. But evge,neto in a passage like Lu. 1:8 comes close to it. Cf. Lu. 1:23. We have fewer examples in the N. T. of the personal construction, none in truth with either dh/loj (1 Cor. 15:27 is impersonal construction) or with fanero,j. But we do have fanerou,menoi o[ti evste. evpistolh. Cristou/ (2 Cor. 3:3). Cf. Cristo.j khru,ssetai o[ti, in 1 Cor. 15:12. Note also a;xioj i[na lu,sw (Jo. 1:27), but the impersonal construction is found with di,kaion in Ph. 1:7. See also i`kano.j i[na in Mt. 8:8. Dunato,j occurs with the infinitive (2 Tim. 1:12). This personal construction is probably due to assimilation of gender by analogy.29 Cf. dokei/ sofo.j ei=nai (1 Cor. 3:18), perfectly regular predicate nominative. See good example in 1 Cor. 15:9.

IX. Adjectives Used with Cases. Examples were given under the various oblique cases of adjectives that were construed with the several cases. A mere mention of the matter is all that is required here. Thus the genitive appears with e;nocoj qana,tou (Mt. 26:66), the ablative with xe,noi tw/n diaqhkw/n (Eph. 2:12), the dative (Mt. 20:1) and accusative with o[moioj ui`o.n avnqrw,pou (Rev. 14:14), the ace. with pisto.j ta. pro.j to.n qeo,n (Heb. 2:17), the dative with e;nocoj th|/ kri,sei (Mt. 5:21) and kalo,n soi, evstin (Mt. 18: 8), the instrumental with i;souj h`mi/n (Mt. 20:12), the locative with bradei/j th|/ kardi,a| (Lu. 24:25). Cf. locative in Col. 2:13 f. The adjective is, of course, used with various prepositions, as to. avgaqo.n pro.j pa,ntaj (Gal. 6:10), pisto,j evn evlaci,stw| (Lu. 16:10), bradu.j eivj ovrgh,n (Jas. 1:19).

X. Adjectives with the Infinitive and Clauses. If cases can occur with adjectives, it is natural that the verbal substantive known as the infinitive should come within that idiom anti be in a case. The case of the infinitive will vary with the adjective. Thus in a;xioj klhqh/nai, (Lu. 15:19) the infinitive is probably in the genitive case. Cf. also a;xioj i[na lu,sw (Jo. 1:27). With dunato.j kwlu/sai (Ac. 11:17) we have the accusative of general reference. In the case of i`kano.j basta,sai (Mt. 3:11) we may see either the accusative of general reference, as above, or the dative, according to the original idea of the form and the common case with i`kano,j. Cf. also i`kano.j i[na eivse,lqh|j (Mt. 8:8). The instances of both infinitive and i[na are numerous in the N. T. As specimens of the infinitive anti preposition after the adjective, take tacu.j eivj to. avkou/sai├ bradu.j eivj to. lalh/sai (Jas. 1:19). Indeed the genitive


article tou/ with the infinitive occurs with adjectives where it would not naturally be looked for, as in e[toimoi, evsmen tou/ avnelei/n (Ac. 23:15). Cf. e[toimo,j eivmi poreu,esqai (Lu. 22:33). But see further ( bradei/j tou/ pisteu,ein (Lu. 24:25).

XI. The Adjective as Adverb. This subject has been treated in the chapter on the Cases as well as in the one on Adverbs. Hence a few words will suffice here. The border line between adjective in the nominative and adverb gets very dim sometimes. Thus in English we say "I am well," "He spoke well." Farrar30 even says that it is "more correct" to use an adverb than an adjective in a phrase like a;smenoj u`ma/j ei=don. But that is going too far even if we call it antimeria. He quotes Milton (Par. Lost, vii, 161), "Meanwhile inhabit lax," and Shakespeare (Taming of Shrew; I, i, 89), "Thou didst it excellent." We can see the difference between avna,sthqi ovrqo,j (Ac. 14:10) and ovrqw/j e;krinaj (Lu. 7:43). But, as already observed, the difference between mo,non and mo,nw| grows faint in 1 Jo. 5:6 and similar examples. Hence it becomes very easy for the adjective form in the accusative to be used indiscriminately as adverb where the adjective idea disappears. Thus only the context can tell whether mo,non is adjective (Jo. 8:29) or adverb (Gal. 1:23). So as to mikro,n (Jo. 7:33 and 16: 19), polu, (Lu. 12:48 and Ro. 3:2), ovli,gon (Mk. 1:19), etc. Prw/ton, for instance, is very common as an adverb (cf. Mt. 7:5, and even to. prw/ton is found, Jo. 10:40), but prw,twj occurs only once (Ac. 11:26). It is needless to multiply here examples like these. Other cases are used besides the accusative to make adverbs from adjectives, as the ablative in prw,twj above, the genitive as o`mou/ (Jo. 4:36), the associative-instrumental as dhmosi,a| (Ac. 16:37). Cf. pollw|/ (Ro. 5:9). All degrees of comparison furnish adverbs, thus polu, (Ro. 3:2; 2 Cor. 8:22), ple,on (Jo. 21: 15), ma,lista (Ac. 20:38). The accusative singular of the comparative is the common adverb of that degree as perisso,teron (Heb. 7:15), but see perissote,rwj (2 Cor. 1:12). In the superlative both the singular as prw/ton (Lu. 6:42) and the plural as ma,lista (above). These examples sufficiently illustrate the principles involved.

XII. The Positive Adjective.

(a) RELATIVE CONTRAST. In discussing the positive adjective first one must not get the idea that the positive was originally the absolute idea of the adjective as distinct from the comparative or superlative. This notion of absolute goodness or great-


ness, etc., is itself later than the notion of comparison.31 Indeed the adjective itself has a relative sense and suggests the opposite, as light implies darkness. And then many of the oldest comparative forms have no positive at all and never did have, like avmfoteroj├ avristero,j├ be,lteroj├ deu,teroj, etc. More of this under the comparative. The point to get hold of just here is that the adjective per se (like many other words) implies contrast, and that originally this is hat the comparative form meant. Thus in Homer some comparatives in - teroj have no notion of greater or less degree, the idea of duality, but merely contrast, like qhlute,ra as opposed to male, ovre,steroj as opposed to valley, avreistero,j opposed to right, dexi,teroj opposed to left, h`me,teroj opposed to u`me,teroj and vice versa.32 Cf. the comparative idea (and ablative case after) in to. perisso.n tou,twn (Mt. 5:37).

(b) USED AS COMPARATIVE OR SUPERLATIVE. With this notion of the relative contrast in the adjective and the first use of the comparative one is not surprised to find the positive still used alongside of the comparative. In Lu. 1:42, euvloghme,nh su. evn gu─ naixi,n, we do not have a mere Hebraism, though a very natural one in this translation from the Aramaic talk of Elizabeth. The Hebrew has no degrees of comparison at all and has to resort to circumlocutions.33 But Homer and other early Greek writers show a similar idiom, like di/a qea,wn├ di/a gunaikw/n (Eurip., Alc, 471).34 Other examples occur in the N. T., like a[gia a`gi,wn (Heb. 9:2 f., frequent in the LXX), poi,a evntolh. mega,lh evn tw|/ no,mw| (Mt. 22:36). Cf. basileu.j basile,wn, (Rev. 19:16), ku,rioj tw/n kurieuo,ntwn (1 Tim. 6:15), tou/ aivw/noj tw/n aivw,nwn (Eph. 3:21). The vernacular koinh, uses repetition of the adjective, as in mega,loi mega,loi, B.U. I, 229, mega,lwn kai. mega,lwn avgaqw/n, Inscription of Thera (Herm. 1901, p. 445), qerma. qerma,, Herondas IV, 61. Cf. Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 57. The positive suggests contrast clearly in tw/n pollw/n (Mt. 24:12). Cf. of oi` polloi, in Ro. 5:15, 19; 1 Cor. 10:33. Here the majority is the idea, a comparative notion. Cf. Paul's use of tou.j plei,onaj (1 Cor. 9:19) and Matthew's o` plei/stoj o;clojgrk grk(21:8). See also Mk. 12:37 o` polu.j o;cloj and Lu. 7:11 o;cloj polu,j, and in 2 Cor. 8:15 to. polu, and to. ovli,gon. Hence it is not surprising in Lu. 16:10 to see evn evlaci,stw| and evn pollw|/ side by side (cf. evn ovli,gw|, kai. evn mega,lw| in Ac. 26:29), as in Mt. 5:19 also evla,cistoj and


Addenda 3rd ed.

me,gaj are set over against each other. Cf. also Mt. 22:38. In Ac. 26:24, ta. polla. gra,mmata, we have an implied comparison.35

(c) WITH PREPOSITIONS. The positive may be used with prepositions also where comparison is implied. Thus a`martwloi. para. pa,ntaj tou.j Galilai,ouj (Lu. 13:2). Winer36 properly compares this idiom with the use of w`j in Heb. 3:2, for in the next verse the author uses plei,onoj do,xhj as the sense of verse 2. But in the LXX this is a very common idiom37 and it is found in the classical Greek. The correct text in Lu. 18:14 ( aBL) has also dedikaiwme,noj par v evkei/non. Cf. a;xia pro,j in Ro. 8:18.

(d) COMPARISON IMPLIED BY h;) Once more the positive may occur with It is not necessary, in view of the preceding discussion, to suggest the "omission" of ma/llon.38 It is true that we have only one such example in the N. T. kalo,n soi, evstin eivselqei/n h' blhqh/nai (Mt. 18:8). Cf. Mk. 9:43, 45. But the LXX again furnishes many illustrations39 like leukoi. h; (Gen. 49:12). The ancient Greek also is not without parallels. And there are N. T. examples, as in LXX, of verbs so employed like qe,lw h; (1 Cor. 14:19) and lusitelei/ h' (Lu. 17:2) and substantives as cara. e;stai h; (Lu. 15: 7). Older Greek writers show this idiom with substantives and verbs.40 In Mt. 18:8 we have the positive adjective both before and after h; as kullo,n h' cwlo.n. But cf. 2 Tim. 3:4 for comparative before and positive after.

(e) IN ABSOLUTE SENSE. After the three grades of comparison were once established, analogy worked to form and use positive, comparative and superlative. And sometimes the positive occurs in the absolute sense. So we find Christ discussing the absolute meaning of the positive avgaqo,j in Mt. 19:17 (Mk. 10:18). Thus it comes to pass that sometimes the positive is more absolute than comparative or superlative which are relative of necessity. God is alone avgaqo,j in this sense, while others are belti,onej and be,ltistoi. Our God, o` avgaqo.j qeo,j, is higher in ideal and fact than Jupiter Maximus or Zeu.j a;ristoj hvde. me,gistoj.41 Of kalo,j the opposite is ouv kalo,j and this is not the positive attribute aivscro,j. In Mt. 17:4 we find Peter saying fervently kalo,n evstin h`ma/j w-de ei=nai. "The positive represents the highest absolute idea of a quality and cannot therefore be increased."42


XIII. The Comparative Adjective ( sugkritiko.n o;noma).

(a) CONTRAST OR DUALITY. On the forms see chapter VII, 3. As already observed, the first use of the comparative form was to express contrast or duality.43 This is clear in h` avristera, (Mt. 6:3), though h` dexia, occurs in the same verse. But Homer uses dexi,teroj as comparative. Cf. also avmfo,teroj├ h`me,teroj├ u`me,te─ roj├ e[teroj├ e`ka,teroj├ o`po,teroj├ po,teroj, where the notion of two is accentuated. Contrast between two or duality, therefore, is clear in these pronouns. They will receive separate treatment later. Here they are merely used to illustrate the origin of the comparative form. ;Alloj (Latin alius) is also comparative,44 * a;l─ioj. So is dex─i,oj45 which explains the disappearance of dexi,teroj) One of the comparative endings is - ioj. This leads one to remark that the oldest comparative forms are not formed from positives as such, but from their own roots. Thus deu,teroj, which is obviously comparative and expresses duality, has no positive form. Cf. avmfo,teroj and the examples just mentioned.46 This original comparative need not be formed from an adjective at all, but from a substantive like, basileu,teroj├ ku,nteroj, etc., in Homer where the comparative expresses the possession of the quality "in contradistinction to objects which are without it" (Monro, Homeric Gr., p. 82). So pro,teroj (from the adverb pro,% is not 'more forward,' but 'forward' in opposition to u[steroj, 'backward.' Cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 415. Cf. evleu,qeroj, 'free to come.' So evxw,teroj is 'outside,' not 'more outside.' These oldest forms represent the original meaning which was not the comparison of greater or less, not a matter of degree, but a question of contrast or duality.47 So be,lteroj├ avmei,nwn have no positive forms. There is indeed a distinct weakening of this original duality in adjectives as in pronouns.48 Cf. the dropping of the dual endings. Thus in the N. T. pro,teroj an adjective occurs only once, kata. th.n prote,ran avnastrofh,n (Eph. 4:22). It is rare in the papyri (Moulton, Prol., p. 79). Elsewhere prw/toj holds the field when only two objects or persons are in view, like prw/to,j mou (Jo. 1:15), prw/toj and a;llojgrk grk(20:4), etc. Cf. our 'first story' when only two stories are contemplated, 'first volume,' etc. And as an adverb pro,teron survives only ten times (cf. 2 Cor. 1:15), while prw/ton is very com-


mon. Luke does not use pro,teroj (adjective or adverb) so that prw/toj in Ac. 1:1 with lo,goj does not imply tri,toj. Moulton49 finds pro,teroj only once in the Grenfell-Hunt volumes of papyri so that this dual form vanishes before the superlative prw/toj. Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 244) sees this matter rightly and calls it a Latin point of view to insist on "former" and "latter" in Greek, a thing that the ancients did not do.

(b) DEGREE. The next step was for the notion of degree to come into the comparative. The notion of "two-ness" remained, but it had the added idea of more in degree. They run along then parallel with each other. The comparative form, therefore, has two ideas, that of contrast or duality (Gegensatz) and of the relative comparative (Steigerung), though the first was the original.50 Relative comparison is, of course, the dominant idea in most of the N. T. examples, though, as already remarked, the notion of duality always lies in the background. Thus avnekto,teron e;stai (Mt. 10:15), bebaio,teron (2 Pet. 1:19), eivj to. krei/sson (1 Cor. 11:17), sofw,teron and ivscuro,teron (1 Cor. 1:25).

(c) WITHOUT SUFFIXES. But the comparative did not always use the comparative suffixes, though this was usual. Sometimes ma/llon was employed with the positive, though this idiom is not very frequent in the N. T. Thus we find ma/llon with kalo,j (Mk. 9:42), with maka,rion (Ac. 20:35), with avnagkai/a (1 Cor. 12:22), with polla, (Gal. 4:27). Once indeed (2 Tim. 3:4) ma/llon occurs with one adjective before h; and not with the other after h;) The Greeks preferred to put both qualities in the comparative degree when two adjectives were compared.51 But here we have filh,donoi ma/llon h' filo,qeoi. "In Jo. 3:19 ma/llon - h; is used with two substantives" (H. Scott). In Phil. 1:16 we have a distinction drawn between ma,lista and ma/llon with avdelfo.n avgaphto,n) No example occurs in the N. T. of two comparatives with but in Ro. 9:12 we have o` mei,zwn douleu,sei tw|/ evla,ssoni and in Heb. 1:4, tosou,tw| krei,ttwn geno,menoj o[sw| diaforw,teron.

(d) DOUBLE COMPARISON. Sometimes indeed ma/llon, occurs with the comparative form itself. This applies to adjectives and adverbs. Thus ma/llon perisso,teron (Mk. 7:36), perissote,rwj ma/llon (2 Cor. 7:13). Cf. e;ti ma/llon kai. ma/llon (Ph. 1:9), perisso,teron e;ti kata,dhlon (Heb. 7:15). Recall also the double comparative form like vernacular English "lesser," meizote,ran (3 Jo. 1:4), and the comparative on the superlative evlacisto,teroj (Eph. 3:8. It oc-


curs in Test. xii, Pat. Jos. 17:8). All this is due to the fading of the force of the comparatives suffix and the desire for emphasis. Homer has ceiro,teroj, AEschylus meizonw,teroj and u`perte─ rw,teroj, Xenophon evscatw,teroj, Aristophanes proterai,teroj. Cf. Schwab, Hist. Syntax etc., Heft iii, p. 60. Modern Greek vernacular has pleio,teroj and ceiro,teroj) The papyri give illustrations like presbuterwte,ra (Moulton, Prol., p. 236). Cf. Latin double comparative dex-ter-ior, sinis-ter-ior. See list in Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 147. This double comparative is due to analogy and weakened sense of the form (Middleton, Analogy in Syntax, p. 38). Other means of strengthening the comparative were the accusative adverb polu,, as in Heb. 12:9, 25 (cf. 2 Cor. 8:22), and in particular the instrumental pollw|/, as in Lu. 18:39. In 1 Cor. 12:22 we have pollw|/ ma/llon over against avsqene,stera. But in Ph. 1:23 note pollw|/ ma/llon krei/sson where all this emphasis is due to Paul's struggling emotion. The ancient Greek used all these devices very often. Cf. Schwab, Hist. Syntax, etc., Heft iii, pp. 59 ff. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 143) rightly observes that in 2 Cor. 12:9 h[dista ma/llon are not to be taken together. The older Greek used also me,ga and makrw|/ to strengthen the comparison. Cf. Mayer, Verstarkung, Umschreibung and Entwertung der Comparationsgrade in der alteren Gracitait, 1891, p. 16 f.

(e) WITHOUT OBJECT OF COMPARISON. Sometimes the comparative form is used absolutely. It is beside the mark to say with Clyde52 that this idiom occurs "through politeness for the positive." It is not used for the positive. It is true that no object of comparison is expressed, but that is because the context makes the point perfectly clear. In rapid familiar conversation this would often be true. Blass53 also thinks that sometimes the comparative is no more than a positive. Winer54 more justly holds that the point of comparison may "ordinarily be gathered from the context." The point is always in the context. Thus oa} poiei/j poi,hson ta,ceion (Jo. 13:27) may mean more quickly than Judas would have done but for the exposure. Note that this is a conversation and Judas would understand. In Heb. 13:19 perissote,─ rwj and ta,ceion correspond easily, and in verse 23, eva.n ta,ceion e;rchtai, perhaps it means 'if he come before I leave.' None of the examples of Blass are convincing, for presbu,teroj, though used of an official, is one who is older (elder) as compared with new,teroj, and the bishop. is not to be a neophyte (1 Tim. 3:6). The point, of course, lies


more in length of experience than of age. Deissmann (B. S., p. 154 f.) finds in the papyri o` presbu,teroj o` kw,mhj, an official title. Pap. Lugd. A, 35 f. (Ptol. Per.). In Ac. 17:21 kaino,teron means, of course, something newer than what they had recently heard. Socrates said to Hippocrates when he came in (Plato, Protagoras 309 C): mh, ti new,teron avgge,lleij; Then again, in Ac. 17:22, deisi─ daimoneste,rouj is more religious (or superstitious, as the case may be, a matter for exegesis. I prefer religious) than ordinary or than I had supposed. One does not need to deny the "elative" comparative sense of "very"55 here and elsewhere. The elative comparative is still comparative. But Blass56 denies even the elative comparative in a number of these examples. This is to a certain extent to surrender to translation the true interpretation of the Greek idiom. In Ac. 18:26 avkribe,steron evxe,qento teaches that Apollos received more accurate information than he had previously had. Cf. evxetasqh,setai peri. tou,tou avkribe,steron, B.U. 388 (ii/A.D.). Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 439. So in Ac. 24:22 avkribe,steron eivdw,j means that Felix more accurately than one would suppose, and in verse 26 pukno,teron shows that he sent for Paul more frequently than he had been doing before. Ac. 25:10 ka,llion evpigi─ ginw,skeij is an interesting example. Paul hints that Festus knows his innocence better than he is willing to admit. Cf. be,ltion su. ginw,skeij (2 Tim. 1:18), 'better- than I.' Belti,wn occurs in the papyri as adjective, though not in the N. T. Thus one could go through all the rather numerous examples of elative comparative adjectives and adverbs in the N. T. and show that with proper attention to the context the point of (comparison appears plainly enough. The comparative even without the expressed object of comparison is not just the positive. So in Ac. 27:13 a=sson parele,gonto clearly means 'nearer than they could do before' (cf. paralego,menoi in verse 8). Again in Jo. 4:52 komyo,teron e;scen (note the construction) is 'better than before the word of Christ was spoken.' As further illustrations, not to overdo the point, note ma/llon in 2 Cor. 7:7 (cf. Ph. 1:12), spoudaio,teroj in 2 Cor. 8:17 (cf. 2 Tim. 1:17) and spoudaiote,rwj in Ph. 2:28 (cf. 1 Th. 2:17), tolmhrote,rwj (Ro. 15: 15), mei,zonej (2 Pet. 2:11), katw,tera in Eph. 4:9. The common expression oi` plei,ouj (Ac. 19:32), and tou.j plei,onaj (1 Cor. 9:19) for 'the majority' should occasion no difficulty. In free translation one may sometimes use 'very' or 'rather,' but this is


merely the resultant idea. Cf. e`te,roij lo,goij plei,osin (Ac. 2:40). The older Greek shows this idiom.57

(f) FOLLOWED BY h;. This h; is merely the disjunctive conjunction. But h; is not common in the N. T. in this connection. Indeed Blass58 considers that it does not occur where any other construction would be perfectly clear. As is well known in the ancient Greek, h; is not common after plei,wn and evla,ttwn with numerals. This use of the comparative as a mere parenthesis is in the papyri. Cf. Moulton. C1. Rev., 1901, p. 438. O.P. 274 (i/A.D.) plei,w ph,ceij evnne,a. Cf. Schwab, Hist. Syntax, Heft ii, pp. 84 ff. Cf. also evpa,nw in Mk. 14:5 and 1 Cor. 15:6, where it has no effect on the construction. In Mt. 5:20 there is an ellipsis ( plei/on tw/n Far)), 'than that of the Pharisees.' So in Mt. 26:53 plei,w dw,deka legiw/─ naj occurs with no change in the case of legiw/naj. In Ac. 4:22; 23:13; 24:11 likewise h; is absent without change of case. So in Ac. 25:6 ouv plei,ouj ovktw. h' de,ka, for h; here does not go with plei,ouj. But in Lu. 9:13 we do find ouvk eivsi.n h`mi/n plei/on h' a;rtoi pe,nte) And in 1 Tim. 5:9 the ablative construction occurs. In justification of Blass' point59 above, he points out that with two adjectives we have h; (2 Tim. 3:4); with a conjunction, as evggu,teron h' o[te (Ro. 13:11); with an infinitive, euvkopw,teron eivselqei/n h; ( eivselqei/n to be repeated, Mt. 19:24. Cf. Ac. 20:35); with a genitive (same form as the ablative would be if h; were absent), like u`mw/n avkou,ein ma/llon h' tou/ qeou/ (Ac. 4:19); with a dative, like avnekto,teron gh|/ Sodo,mwn h' th|/ po,lei evkei,nh| (Mt. 10 : 15). These are all pertinent and striking examples. There remain others (against Blass' view) which are not so justified, like plei,onaj maqhta.j poiei/ h' vIwa,nhj (Jo. 4:1), hvga,phsan ma/llon to. sko,toj h' to. fw/j (Jo. 3:19), etc. But it remains true that h; is becoming rare in this usage in the N. T.

(g) FOLLOWED BY THE ABLATIVE. The ablative is the most common means of expressing the standard of the comparison: so we must take the case, and not as genitive. As remarked in the chapter on the cases, this ablative construction seems rather more common in the N. T. than in the papyri. It is found in Homer.60 In the old Sanskrit the ablative was found with comparatives,61 though occasionally the locative or the instrumental appeared.


Indeed the various constructions after the comparative (particle like h;├ case, preposition) occur in the other Indo-Germanic languages.62 Schwab63 estimates that in Attic prose the ablative after the comparative stands in relation to h; as 5.5 to 1 and in poetry 18 to 1. Blass64 thinks that in the koinh, the ablative is three times as common in this idiom as in Attic prose. So in the N. T. this is the usual construction after the comparative. As further examples observe mei,zwn tou,twn (Mk. 12:31), mei,zwn tou/ patro.j h`mw/n (Jo. 4:12), ple,on tou,twn (Jo. 21:15), sofw,teron tw/n avnqrw,pwn (1 Cor. 1:25), etc. Cf. 1 Jo. 3:20; Heb. 7:26. Sometimes the comparison is a little complicated, as in Mt. 5:20, u`mw/n h` dikaio─ su,nh plei/on tw/n grammate,wn, where 'righteousness' is dropped in the second member. Note plei/on as a fixed or stereotyped form.65 Cf. also Jo. 5:36. In Mt. 21:36, a;llouj dou,louj plei,onaj tw/n prw,twn, note the use of comparative and superlative side by side.

(h) FOLLOWED BY PREPOSITIONS. Prepositions occur not infrequently after the comparative. We have already seen the positive so used with para,, and pro,j. Wellhausen66 considers this positive use like the Aramaic. In the classical Greek we see beginnings of this usage.67 In the modern Greek, the normal68 way of expressing comparison is to use afro with the accusative and occasionally para, with the nominative. The examples of the use of para. chiefly in Luke and Hebrews. Thus Lu. 3:13, mhde.n ple,on para. to. diatetagme,non u`mi/n; Heb. 1:4, diaforw,teron par v auvtou,j 3:3, plei,onoj do,xhj para. Mwush/n; 9:23, krei,ttosi qusi,aij para. tau,taj. So Heb. 11:4; 12:24. Examples of u`pe,r in this sense occur likewise in Lu. 16:8, fronimw,teroi u`pe.r tou. ui`ou,j; Heb. 4:12, tomw,teroj u`pe.r pa/san ma,cairan. In the LXX69 comparison was usually completed by means of para, or u`pe,r.

(i) THE COMPARATIVE DISPLACING THE SUPERLATIVE. This increase of the comparative in contrast to the corresponding decrease of the superlative is one of the most striking peculiarities of the adjective in the koinh,. Indeed one may broadly say with Blass,70 that in the koinh, vernacular the comparative with the article takes


over the peculiar functions of the superlative. In the modern Greek vernacular the comparative with the definite article is the only idiom employed for the true superlative.71 The form in - tatoj in modern Greek is rare and always elative. Moulton72 finds the papyri supporting this disappearance of the superlative form before the comparative to a certain extent. "It seems fair to conclude that (1) the superlative, apart from its elative use, was dying, though not dead; (2) the comparative had only sporadically begun to be used in its place."73 He reminds us that the literary use had as much weight as the vulgar idiom. As a matter of fact the superlative form is not essentially necessary. The Armenian has no superlative and is like the vernacular modern Greek. The root-difference between the comparative and the superlative is that between "twoness" and "moreness." As the notion of duality vanished or was no longer stressed, the need for a distinction between the comparative and superlative vanished also. Both are in reality comparative in relation to the positive.74 In the N. T. therefore we see this blurring of distinction between comparative and superlative. Cf. 1 Cor. 13:13 mei,zwn de. tou,twn h` avga,ph where three things are compared. In English we say "greatest of these." Sir W. M. Ramsay gives pa,ntwn mei/zon in a Christian inscription.75 In Mt. 18:1 we have ti,j a;ra mei/zwn, etc. Cf. Mk. 9:34. So in Mt. 11:11 (cf. Lu. 9:48) note o` de. mikro,teroj (but note also mei,zwn auvtou/). In Lu. 7:42 f., plei/on and to. plei/on do indeed refer to the two debtors (verse 41), though it is questionable if that fine point is here insisted on. But in 1 Cor. 12:23 the comparatives have their usual force. Moulton76 cites from O.P. 716 (ii/A.D.) th.n avmei,─ nona ai[resin dido,nti, 'to the highest bidder.' Winer77 indeed finds similar examples in Demosthenes and Athenagoras. Note the adverb u[steron pa,ntwn (Mt. 22:27), obviously as superlative. So in 1 Tim. 4:1, evn u`ste,roij kairoi/j. In Eph. 4:9, ta. katwtera me,rh is likewise in the superlative sense. The Epistle of Barnabas shows similar examples. Blass78 reminds us that the Italian does not distinguish between the comparative and the superlative. The modern Greek- to-day says o` sofw,teroj avpo. o[louj 'the wisest of all.'79


Addenda 2nd ed.

Moulton80 notes the fact that, while krei,ttwn and cei,rwn in the N. T. are strictly comparative, they have no superlative, but he notes (p. 236) that the papyri show cei,ristoj, as Tb.P. 72 (ii/B.c).

XIV. The Superlative Adjective ( u`perqetiko.n o;noma). For the forms see chapter VII, II, 3, (c). As already set forth, the superlative is moreness rather than twoness.

(a) THE SUPERLATIVE VANISHING. As already remarked, the superlative forms are vanishing in the N. T. as in the koinh, generally. Blass81 observes that e;scatoj and prw/toj are the only exceptions to this disappearing tendency. Under the weakening of dualism pro,teroj goes down. Usually e;scatoj refers to more than two, the last of a series or last of all, like evn evsca,th| h`me,ra|, (Jo. 11: 24), e;scaton82 pa,ntwn (1 Cor. 15:8). Sometimes first and last are contrasted, like h` evsca,th pla,nh cei,rwn th/j prw,thj (Mt. 27:64). Note comparative also. Cf. Mt. 19:30. So o` prw/toj kai. o` e;sxatoj about Jesus (Rev. 1:17). In the LXX e;scatoj occurs as comparative (cf. in Deut. 24:3), and even as an adverb meaning 'after' in Deut. 31:29. Cf. Thackeray, p. 184. Even more common than e;scatoj is prw/toj. It is used in the usual sense often (Mk. 12:20), but is also common where only two are concerned (1 Cor. 15:45; Jo. 20:4) as already shown. Sometimes prw/toj expresses mere rank as in Ac. 17:4. In Mt. 22:38 note h` mega,lh kai. prw,th evntolh, . Cf. prw,th pa,ntwn in Mk. 12:28 (note gender also).83 These are true superlatives. Sir W. M. Ramsay (Expositor, Nov., 1912) shows that prw,th in Lu. 2:2 is not in sense of pro,teroj. It is first of a series of enrolments as we now know. But this proves nothing as to Ac. 1:1. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 60) quotes I Gr. XII, 5, 590, e;fqasaj avla,cou prw/toj, where two are compared.

(b) A FEW TRUE SUPERLATIVES IN THE N. T. But a few other true superlatives survive in the N. T. Thus o` evla,cistoj in 1 Cor. 15:9 is a true superlative, 'the least.' But it is dative in Lu. 12:26. Cf. Mt. 2:6; 5:19. Moulton84 finds evla,cistoj as a true superlative in a papyrus of second century B.C. Tb.P. 24. But there are very few true superlatives in the papyri.85 In Ac. 17:15 w`j ta,cista is a true superlative. [Uyistoj is a true super-


lative both when applied to God, tou/ u`yi,stou (Mk. 5:7), and the abode of God, evn toi/j u`yi,stoij (Mt. 21:9). Some MSS. (D, etc., W. H. marg.) have e;ggista in Mk. 6:36, which is a true superlative. In Ac. 20:38 ma,lista, 'most of all,' is probably a true superlative. In 1 Cor. 14:27 to. plei/ston, 'at the most,' is a true superlative. In Mt. 11:20 ai` plei/ston duna,meij we probably have the true superlative. Cf. th|/ a`giwta,th| u`mw/n pi,stei (Ju. 20) and th.n avkribesta,thn ai;resin (Ac. 26:5), true superlatives in -- tatoj. In Rev. 18:12; 21:11 timiw,tatoj is probably elative. Cf. monw,tatoj, 1 Ki. 8:39. The list is indeed very small.

(c) THE ELATIVE SUPERLATIVE. In the sense of 'very' or 'exceedingly' it comprises the great majority of the superlative forms that survive in the N. T.86 In the papyri the immense majority of superlative forms are dative. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 439. Kra,tistoj is dative always in the N. T. and is indeed merely a sort of title.87 So kra,tiste in Lu. 1:3. So h[dista is only elative (2 Cor. 12:9, 15). Me,gistoj occurs only once (2 Pet. 1:4) and is dative, ta. ti,mia kai. me,gista h`mi/n evpagge,lmata (permagnus, Blass). In Lu. 12:26 evla,ciston is elative as also in 1 Cor. 4:3; 6:2, while in Eph. 3:8 the comparative superlative evlacisto,─ teroj is doubtful.88 Plei/stoj, generally dative in the papyri,89 is so in Mk. 4:1, o;cloj plei/stoj) Ma,lista occurs some 12 times and is usually elative, as in Ph. 4:22.

(d) NO DOUBLE SUPERLATIVES. The scarcity of the superlative in the N. T. removes any ground for surprise that no double superlatives occur. In Eph. 3:8 evlacistote,rw| is indeed a superlative strengthened by the comparative. In Gal. 6:10 the elative superlative ma,lista occurs by way of repetition with to. avgaqo,n, as in Phil. 1:16 it does with avgaphto,n. Schwab90 gives a considerable list of double or strengthened superlatives from classic writers, like plei/ston h[distoj (Eurip., Alc.), me,giston e;cqistoj (Eurip., Med.), ma,lista fi,ltatoj (Eurip., Hippol.), ma,lista deino,tatoj (Thuc.), etc. Cf. Latin minimissimus and English "most straitest sect," "most unkindest cut of all," etc.

(e) FOLLOWED BY ABLATIVE. The superlative, like the comparative, may be followed by the ablative.91 Thus with prw/ton (Jo. 15:18), prw/to,j mou (Jo. 1:15), and possibly in evp v evsca,tou


Addenda 3rd ed.

tw/n h`merw/n tou,twn (Heb. 1:2), though this passage may be merely the genitive.

(f) No "HEBRAISTIC" SUPERLATIVE. It is gratuitous to consider avstei/oj tw|/ qew|/ (Ac. 7:20) and similar passages superlatives.

XV. Numerals. For thel general discussion of the forms see chapter VII, III. The ordinals are indeed adjectives, as are the first four cardinals and all 'after two hundred. The syntactical peculiarities of the numerals are not many.

(a) Ei-j AND Prw/toj. The use of ei-j rather than prw/toj is one of the most striking points to observe. Before we can agree with Blass92 that this is "undoubtedly a Hebrew idiom," who follows Winer,93 we must at least hear what Moulton94 has to say in reply. To begin with, in modern Greek "the cardinals beyond 4 have ousted the ordinals entirely."95 Then we learn from the inscriptions that this usage of cardinals as ordinals is as old as the Byzantine Greek.96 Moulton97 also quotes from papyri of the second and third centuries A.D. th|/ mia|/ kai. eivka,di, B.U. 623 (ii/iii A.D.), a construction like mia|/ kai. eivka,di tou/ mhno,j in Haggai 2:1.98 The Germans, like the English, can say "page forty,"99 In the N. T. we only find this substitution of the cardinal in the case of ei-j, while in the modern Greek the matter has gone much further. In the classic Greek no real analogy exists, though ei-j stands in enumerations when deu,teroj or a;lloj follows, and in compound numerals a closer parallel is found, like ei-j kai. triakosto,j, though even here the case is essentially different.9 Cf. Latin unus et vicesimus, "a case of the formation of the ordinal being imperfectly carried out."100 Certainly then it was possible for this development to have gone on apart from the Hebrew, especially when one considers that prw/toj is not derived from ei-j, though Moulton101 admits that the Hebrew has the same peculiarity. Moulton102 further objects that if Semitic influence had been at work we should have had th|/ pe,nte in the modern Greek, since the Hebrew used the later days of the month in cardinal numbers.103 Still, the striking fact remains that in the LXX (cf. Numb. 1:1) and in the N. T. the first day of the month is expressed by mi,a, not by prw,th. This was obviously in harmony with the koinh, of a later time, but the first evidence of its actual


use so far is in the LXX, and it is in exact imitation of the Hebrew idiom on the point. It is hard to resist the idea that the LXX at least is here influenced by the Hebrew. And, if so, then the N. T. naturally also. Later on we need not attribute the whole matter to the Hebrew influence. In the N.T. indeed we once have prw,th| sabba,tou (Mk. 16 :9), which belongs to the disputed close of the Gospel.104 Cf., on the other hand, eivj mi,an sabba,twn (Mt. 28 :1), prwi< [th|/] mia|/ twn sabba,twn (Mk. 16 : 2), th|/ mia|/ tw/n sabba,twn (Lu. 24:1; Jo. 20 :1; Ac. 20 :7); kata,. mi,an sabba,tou (1 Cor. 16 :2). There is nothing peculiar in the use of evniauto,n kai. mh/naj e[x (Ac. 18 :11). Cf. Rev. 12 :14.

THE SIMPLIFICATION OF THE "TEENS." This began in the classical period as is seen in the Attic inscriptions.105 Hence from the third century B.C. on we usually find "simplified ordinals from 13th to 19th."106 So we have triskaidekatoj, tessareskaide,katoj, etc. So the papyri107 usually have de,ka trei/j, de,ka e[x, and even de,ka du,o rather more108 frequently than dw,deka. Cf. tessareskaideka,th in Ac. 27: 27, 33. Hence kai, is not always inserted when the smaller number precedes and "omitted" when the larger comes first. It was never a uniform custom (Winer-Thayer, p. 250), least of all in the N. T. Cf. Gal. 3 :17, etc. But three numerals may appear without kai,, as in e`kato,n penth,konta triw/n (Jo. 21: 11). Cf. Rev. 7:4; 14: 3; 21:17. See further chapter VII, pi, 2, (b).

THE INCLUSIVE ORDINAL. Cf. auvto,j tri,toj, 'he and two others.' It has one illustration in the N. T., o;gdoon Nw/e (2 Pet. 2:5), 'Noah and seven others' or 'Noah an eighth.' The idiom is classical enough, though the ancient writers usually had auvto,j also.109 Moulton110 finds one parallel in the papyri, tri,toj w;n in P.P. iii. 28, though the literary koinh, writers (Plutarch, Appian) use it. Moulton expresses no surprise at this idiom in 2 Peter where "we rather expect bookish phrases." He comments also on the "translation English" in the Authorized Version's rendering "Noah the eighth person," and uses it as an illustration of the way that the LXX often rendered the Hebrew, though unlike the misprint "strain at a gnat," it did not gain currency in English.


(d) THE DISTRIBUTIVES. There is no trouble over the classic use of avna, (Mt. 20:9) and kata, (Mk. 6:40) in this sense. We have already (chapter XIII, avna, and kata,) discussed avna. ei-j (Rev. 21:21) and kaq v ei-j (Ro. 12:5). The point here that calls for comment is whether du,o du,o in Mk. 6:7 is a Hebraism. Cf. avna. du,o [ du,o] in Lu. 10:1. Winer111 termed it "properly Hebraistic," while Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 145) more guardedly described it as "after the Semitic and more colloquial manner." The repetition of the numeral is a Hebrew way of expressing the distributive idea. Cf. in the N. T. also sumpro,sia sumpo,sia (Mk. 6:39), prasiai. prasiai. (verse 40). Moulton112 cites also desma.j desma,j, as the reading of Epiphanius for Mt. 13:30. But Winer113 had himself cited AEschylus, Persae, 981, muri,a muri,a, and Blass114 compares in Eris, the lost drama of Sophocles, mi,an mi,an. The Atticists had censured this as "colloquial," but at any rate "it was not merely a creation of Jewish Greek." Deissmann115 besides quotes tri,a tri,a from the Oxy. Papyri. W. F. Moulton116 had already called attention to the fact that modern Greek shows the same usage. Hence we must conclude, with Moulton117 and Thumb,118 that the koinh, development was independent of the Hebrew. Moulton119 comments also on the reading of B in Lu. 10:1, avna. du,o du,o, and notes how in the papyri mega,lou mega,lou ╩ the elative superlative megi,stou. See also kata. du,o du,o in P. Oxy. 886 (iii/A.D.).

For the proportionals the N. T. has only - plasi,wn, not the classic - pla,sioj. Cf. e`katontaplasi,wn, Mk. 10:30 and Mt. 19:29 aCDX; pollaplasi,wn, Lu. 18:30 and Mt. 19:29 BL. Cf. Blass-Debrunner, p. 38.

(e) THE CARDINAL `Epta,. With e`bdomhkonta,kij e`pta, (Mt. 18:22) rather than e`pta,kij D the rendering 'until seventy times seven' is certainly possible in itself and follows literally the Greek words. The identical expression ( e`bdomhkonta,kij e`pta,) occurs in Gen. 4:24 (where the Revised Version renders it 'seventy and seven fold') and in Test. xii, Pat. Ben. 7:4. The margin of the Revised Version for Mt. 18:22 gives "seventy times and seven" which


Winer120 interprets as "seventy-seven times." Moulton121 considers rightly that the passage in Genesis settles the usage in Matthew to which an allusion may be made. He cites a possible parallel from the Iliad, xxii, 349, deka,kij [ te] kai. F ei,kosi.

(f) SUBSTANTIVE NOT EXPRESSED. Sometimes with numerals the substantive for money is not expressed. Thus avrguri,ou muria,daj pe,nte (Ac. 19:19), but in Mt. 26:16 note avrgu,ria. The use of tri,ton tou/to (2 Cor. 13:1) is merely an instance of the adjective used absolutely without a substantive. Cf. the neuter to. deu,teron (2 Cor. 13:2).

(g) ADVERBS WITH NUMERALS. They have no effect on the construction. Thus praqh/nai evpa,nw triakosi,wn dhnari,wn (Mk. 14:5), w;fqh evpa,nw pentakosi,oij avdelfoi/j (1 Cor. 15:6), w`j disci,lioi (Mk. 5:13), w`sei. pentkisci,lioi (Mt. 14:21), e`katontaeth,j pou (Ro. 4:19). In the case of w`j and w`sei, we really have conjunctions.122 In e[wj e`pta,kij (Mt. 18:21) we have, of course, the preposition. Cf. Winer-Moulton, p. 313, for classical parallels with e;latton├ ple,on eivj├ evn├ peri,├ u`pe,r├ me,cri.

(h) Ei-j AS INDEFINITE ARTICLE. The Greek, as a rule, had no indefinite article. The older Greek did occasionally use tij with no more apparent force than an indefinite article, but usually nothing was used for that idea in Greek. Still in Aristophanes (Av. 1292) Moulton123 rightly sees ei-j ka,phloj, as an example of the later koinh, idiom. Aristophanes indeed preserves much of the colloquial speech. In the modern Greek e[naj may be used.124 Ei-j became naturally more popular than e[naj since it has all three genders.125 Moulton126 finds numerous papyri illustrations. The modern languages have followed the Greek model here, for the English an (Scottish ane) is really one, like the German ein and the French un. It is therefore hardly necessary to fall back on the Hebrew precedent127 in the use of dx'a,, though it here coincided with the koinh, idiom. Hence N. T. usage on this point is in full accord with the development of the Greek. Cf. ei-j grammateu,j (Mt. 8:19), mi,a paidi,skhgrk grk(26:69), mi,a ch,ra ptwch, (Mk. 12:42), ei-j ovfeile,thj (Mt. 18:24), etc. In Jo. 6:9 some MSS. have e[n with paida,rion, but the sense is not materially altered either way. Cf. h;kousa e`no.j avetou/ (Rev. 8:13), ivdw.n sukh/n mi,an (Mt. 21:19), etc.


Moulton128 properly criticizs Meyer on Mt. 8:19 for his "exegetical subtleties" in denying this idiom for ei-j in the N. T.

(i) Ei-j= Tij. Sometimes indeed ei-j stands alone with practically the same sense as tij, as in Mt. 19:16; Mk. 10:17, though in the parallel passage (Lu.18:18) tij a;rcwn occurs. The use of ei-j with genitive (or ablative), like e`ni. tw/n politw/n (Lu. 15:15), evn mia|/ tw/n h`merw/n (Lu. 8:22), or the ablative, like ei-j evx u`mw/n (Jo. 13:21), is, of course, merely the same idiom expanded. Cf. ei-j tij Lu. 22:50; Jo. 11:49. In Mk. 14:10, o` ei-j tw/n dw,deka, the article at first looks incongruous, 'the one of the twelve,' but the early papyri give illustrations of this usage also.129 It is as a pronoun that ei-j is to be construed here and in the rather frequent alternative expressions ei-j - ei-j (Mt. 24:40), mi,a- mi,a (verse 41), to.n e[na ──to.n e[teron (Mt. 6:24), e`no.j - tou/ e`te,rou (ib.), ei-j- tou/ e`no,j. (1 Cor. 4:6). Cf. ei-j kai. ei-j (Mt. 27:38) and the reciprocal use in 1 Th. 5:11. Cf. ei-j e[kastoj, Mt. 26:22.

(j) THE DISTRIBUTIVE USE OF Ei-j. So ea}n kaq v e[n in Rev. 4:8 and the "barbaric" (Winer-Schmiedel, p. 247) ei-j kata. ei-j (Mk. 14:19), to. kaq v ei-j (Ro. 12:5), avna, ei-j e[kastoj (Rev. 21:21). This "barbaric" idiom came to be very common in the later Greek. Cf. modern Greek ka,qe├ kaqe,naj╩e[kastoj. The free adverbial use of prepositions like e[wj├ avna,├ para,├ kata, is copiously illustrated in Winer-Schmiedel, p. 247, from the LXX and the late Greek writers. For the use of ouvdei,j├ ouvqei,j├ mhdei,j├ mhqei,j see next chapter on Pronouns. Cf. also there ouv- pa/j and pa/j - ouv.

1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 117.

2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 111.

3 "It is this change from subst. in apposition to adj. which according to Delbruck is the explanation of the numerous Gk. adjectives in o." Giles, Man., etc., p. 239.

4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 117. Cf. Schoemann, Die Lehre von den Redet. nach den Alten, 1862, p. 15, where he makes the quality of the thing essential to the idea of noun.

5 Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 88; K.-G., I, p. 272 f.; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 415. On the later distinction between adj. and subst. see Schroeder, tber die formelle Untersch. der Redet., 1874, pp. 195 ff.

6 But his notion of adjs. "formed by the apostles themselves" vanishes sadly in the light of the papyri.

7 Deiss., B. S., p. 165 f. So ui`o.j th/j gerousi,aj├ ui`o.j th/j po,lewj, etc,

8 Lang. of the N. T., p. 91.

9 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 414; K.-G., I, p. 266 f.

10 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 140,

11 Ib., p. 140 f.

12 Ib., p. 141.

13 So Rev. Vers. uniformly. Cf. Green, Handb. to Gk. N. T., p. 268.

14 W.-Th., p. 235.

15 W.-Th., p. 235. Cf. lateness of the forms in - iko,j (only two in Hom.). Hoffmann, Uber die Entw. des Begr. des Griech. bei den Alten, p. 2. In 1 Tim. 5:17 note diplh/j (from - o,oj).

16 Ib.

17 B. S., p. 259 f.

18 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 118.

19 Cf. W.-Th., p. 238; Moulton, Prol., p. 59.

20 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 87.

21 Cf. K.-G., I, pp. 26S ff.

22 Hom. Gr., p. 117.

23 Monro, ib., p. 119.

24 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 141.

25 Ib.

26 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 89.

27 Seymour, Hom. Lang. and Verse, p. 79. On the relation between adj. and adv. see Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 416 f.; Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 40 f.

28 Gk. Synt., p. 89.

29 Middleton, Anal. in Synt., p. 15.

30 Gk. Synt., p. 90.

31 Cf. Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., Heft i, 1893, p. 7 f.

32 Seymour, Hom. Lang. and Verse, p. 60. Cf. K.-G., II, p. 21.

33 C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 64.

34 Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., Heft i, p. 9.

35 Blass, Gr. of -N. T. Gk., p. 143.

36 W.-Th., p. 240.

37 C. and S., p. 64.

38 Though Blass does, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 143.

39 C. and S., p. 64; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 143; W.-Th., p. 241.

40 W.-Th., p. 240 f.

41 Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc., Heft i, p. 9.

42 Ib., p. 19

43 Moulton, Prol., pp. 77

44 Brug., Grundr. vergl. Gr., II, i, p. 420.

45 Ib. Transl. (Comp. Gr.), vol. TI, p. 132.

46 Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., Heft i, p. 5.

47 Ib., pp. 4 ff.

48 Moulton, Prol., p. 77 f.; Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 439; 1903, p. 154.

49 Prol., p. 79.

50 Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc., Heft i, p. 21 f.

51 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 42.

52 Gk. Synt., p, 41.

53 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 142.

54 W.-Th., p. 242.

55 Moulton, Prol., p. 236. He notes some "elative comparatives" in D, in AC. 4:16 fanero,teron, 10:28 be,ltion.

56 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 142.

57 Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc., Heft ii, p. 178; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 143.

58 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 107 f.

59 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 316, sustains him.

60 Monro, Hom., dr., p. 109.

61 Ziemer, Vergi. der Indoger. Comp., 1884, pp. 29 ff.

62 Ib., p. 1.

63 Hist. Synt. etc., Heft ii, p. 92.

64 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 329. The abl. is sometimes used with personal pronouns after the comp. in mod. Gk. (Thumb, p. 76).

65 Blass, ib., p. 108.

66 Einl. in die drei ersten Evang., p. 28. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 236.

67 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 108.

68 Thumb, Handb., p. 75 f.

69 C. and S., Sel., pp. 84 ff. For various prepositions so used in older Gk. see Schwab., Hist. Synt., Heft i, pp. 45 ff.

70 Hermeneutik and Kritik, p. 199.

71 Thumb, Handb., p. 73.

72 Prol., p. 78; Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 439; 1904, p. 154. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33.

73 Ib., Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 439. Cf. Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc., Heft ii, pp. 172, 177.

74 Ib., Heft i, pp. 17 ff.

75 Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, II, p. 525.

76 Prol., p. 78 f.

77 W.-Th., p. 242.

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

79 Jebb, V. and D.'s Handb., p. 309.

80 Prol., p. 78.

81 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 141 f.

82 On this word cf. Gonnet, Degres de signif. en Grec et en Lat., 1876, p. 131.

83 On prw/toj in older Gk. for not more than two see Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc., Heft ii, p. 175.

84 Prol., p. 79.

85 Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 439; 1904, p. 154. See th.n evsome,nhn plei,sthn timh,n , Tb.P. 105 (ii/B.C.).

86 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33. Blass considers th|/ a`giwta,th| (Ju. 20) elative.

87 Moulton, Prol., p. 78.

88 Ib., p. 236.

89 Ib., p. 79.

90 Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc., Heft iii, pp. 70 ff.

91 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., pp. 11 ff.

92 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 144.

93 W.-Th., p. 248 f.

94 Prol., p. 95 f.

95 Ib. Cf. Thumb, Handb., etc., p. 82.

96 Dieterich, -linters. etc., p. 18711.

97 Prol., p. 96.

98 C. and S., Sel., p. 31.

99 W.-Th., p. 249.

100 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 144.

101 Prol., p. 96.

102 Ib.

103 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 144.

104 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 144, remarks that Eusebius quotes the verse as th|/ mia|/.

105 Meisterh., Att. Inscr., p. 160.

106 Moulton, Prol., p. 96.

107 Ib. De,ka occupies first place from thirteen upwards, but with ordinals the reverse is true.

108 Like the LXX. C. and S., p, 30.

109 W.-Th., p. 249.

110 Prol., pp. 98, 107.

111 W.-M., p. 312.

112 Prol., p. 97.

113 W.-Th., p. 249; W.-M., p. 312.

114 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 330.

115 Theol. Literaturzeit., 1898, p. 631.

116 W.-M., p. 312 note. Cf. Jebb in V. and D.'s Handb., p. 310. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 57) cites sfo,dra sfo,dra from the LXX and euvqu.j euvqu,j from the Byz. Gk.

117 Prol., p. 97.

118 Hellen., p. 128.

119 Prol., p. 97. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 330, cites from Gosp. of Pet. 35, avna. du,o du,o.

120 W.-Th., p. 251.

121 Prol., p. 98. Cf. W.-M., p. 314.

122 Cf. Green, Handb., etc., p. 276.

123 Prol., p. 97.

124 Thumb, Handb., p. 81.

125 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 170.

126 Prol., p. 97. Cf. Wellhausen, Einl., p. 27.

127 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 144.

128 Prol., p. 95.

129 Ib.