Space will not be taken for the inflection of the nouns and pronouns, for the student of this grammar may be assumed to know the normal Attic inflections. Aristotle1 used the term "inflection" ( prw/sij) of noun and verb and even adverb, but practically inflection is applied to nouns and conjugation ( kli,sij r`hma,twn╩suzugi,a) to verbs. Noun ( o;noma) does, of course, include both substantive and adjective without entering the psychological realm and affirming the connection between name and thing (cf. Plato's Cratylus).


The Substantive ( to. o;noma) is either concrete ( sw/ma) or abstract ( pra/gma), ordinary appellative ( o;noma proshgoriko,n) or proper ( o;noma ku,rion).

1. History of the Declensions. It is only since the seventeenth century A.D. that modern grammarians distinguish for convenience three declensions in Greek. The older grammars had ten or more.2 In the modern Greek vernacular the first and third declensions have been largely fused into one, using the singular of the first and the plural of the third.3 Thumb (Handbook, pp. 43 ff.) divides the declension of substantives in modern Greek vernacular according to gender simply (masculine, feminine, neuter). This is the simplest way out of the confusion. In Sanskrit five declensions are usually given as in Latin, but Whitney4 says: "There is nothing absolute in this arrangement; it is merely believed to be open to as few objections as any other." Evidently


therefore the ancient Greeks did not have the benefit of our modem theories and rules, but inflected the substantives according to principles not now known to us. The various dialects exercised great freedom also and exhibited independent development at many points, not to mention the changes in time in each dialect. The threefold division is purely a convenience, but with this justification: the first has a stems, the second o stems, the third consonant and close vowel ( i, u) stems. There are some differences in the suffixes also, the third declension having always the genitive ending in - oj. In the third declension especially it is not possible to give a type to which all the words in all the cases and numbers conform. Besides, the same word may experience variations. Much freedom is to be recognized in the whole matter of the declensions within certain wide limits. See metaplasm or the fluctuation between the several declensions.

2. The Number of the Cases ( ptw,seij). The meaning and use of the cases will have a special chapter in Syntax (ch. XI).

(a) THE HISTORY OF THE FORMS OF THE CASES. This is called for before the declensions are discussed. The term "case" ( ptw/sij, cases) is considered a "falling," because the nominative is regarded as the upright case ( ptw/sij ovrqh,├ euvqei/a), though as a matter of fact the accusative is probably older than the nominative ( ptw/sij ovnomastikh, or ovrqh,). The other cases are called oblique ( pla,giai) as deviations from the nominative. In simple truth the vocative ( klhtikh, or prosagoreu,tikh) has no inflection and is not properly a case in its logical relations. It is usually the noun-stem or like the nominative in form. There are only three other case-endings preserved in the Greek, and the grammars usually term them accusative ( ptw/sij aivtiatikh,), genitive ( ptw/sij genikh,% and dative ( ptw/sij dotikh,).5 There is no dispute as to the integrity of the accusative case, the earliest, most common of all the oblique cases and the most persistent. In the breakdown of the other cases the accusative and the prepositions reap the benefit. In truth the other oblique cases are variations from the normal accusative. But this subject is complicated with the genitive and the dative. It is now a commonplace in comparative philology that the Greek genitive has taken over the function of the ablative ( avfai─ retikh,) also. In the singular the Sanskrit had already the same


ending (- aj) for genitive and ablative, while in the plural the Sanskrit ablative had the same form as the dative (bhyas; cf. Latin ibus). Thus in the Sanskrit the ablative has no distinctive endings save in the singular of a stems like kamat ('love') where the ablative ending -t (d) is preserved. In Latin, as we know, the ablative, dative, locative and instrumental have the same endings in the plural. The Latin ablative singular is partly ablative, partly locative, partly instrumental. Some old Latin inscriptions show the d, as bened, in altod marid, etc. In Greek the ablative forms merged with the genitive as in the Sanskrit singular, but not because of any inherent "internal connection between them, as from accidents affecting the outward forms of inflection."6 The Greek did not allow t or d to stand at the end of a word. So the Greek has pro,j (not pro,t for proti,). Kalw/j may be (but see Brugmann7) the ablative kalw/t and so all adverbs in - wj. The meaning of the two cases remained distinct in the Greek as in the Sanskrit. It is not possible to derive the ablative (source or separation) idea from the genitive (or ge,noj) idea nor vice versa. The Greek dative ( dotikh,) is even more complicated. "The Greek dative, it is well known, both in singular and plural, has the form of a locative case, denoting the place where or in which; but, as actually used, it combines, with the meaning of a locative, those of the dative and instrumental."8 This is only true of some datives. There are true datives like o`dw|/├ cw,ra|. The Indo-Germanic stock, as shown by the Sanskrit, had originally three separate sets of endings for these cases.


The Greek plural uses for all three cases either "the locative in - si or the instrumental forms in - oij."9 "The forms in - aij, Latin -is, from -a stems, are a new formation on the analogy of forms from -o stems."10 vAqh,nhsi is locative plural. In the singular of consonant, i and u stems, the locative ending - i is used for all three cases in Greek, as nukti,. In the a declension the dative ending - ai is the same as locative a+ i. The form - ai contracts with the stem-vowel a into a| or h|. A few examples of the locative here survive, as in pa,lai├ vOlumpi,ai├ qhbai─genh,j.11 Camai, may be either dative or locative. In the o declension also the dative ending - ai is the usual form, contracting with the o into w|. But a few distinct locative endings survive, like vIsqmoi/├ oi;koi (cf. oi;kw|), poi/, etc. The Homeric infinitive do,men and the infinitive like fe,rein are probably locatives also without the i, while the infinitives in - ai ( do,menai├ dou/nai├ leluke,nai├ lu,esqai├ lu/sai├ etc.) are datives.12 The instrumental has left little of its original form on the Greek singular. The usual Sanskrit is a. Cf. in Greek such words as a[ma├ e[neka├ i[na├ meta,├ para,├ peda,, possibly the Doric krufa/, Lesbian a;lla. Brugmann13 thinks the Laconic ph,─poka= Attic pw,─pote is instrumental like the Gothic he (English why). Cf. the in "the more the better," etc. Another Greek suffix - fi (Indo-Germanic, bhi) is found in Homer, as bi,hfi├ qeo,fin (plural). But this - fi was used also for ablative or locative, and even genitive or dative. It is clear therefore that in Greek the usual seven (eight with the vocative) Indo-Germanic cases are present, though in a badly mutilated condition as to form. The ideas, of course, expressed by the cases continued to be expressed by the blended forms. In actual intelligent treatment it is simpler to preserve the seven case-names as will be seen later.

(b) THE BLENDING OF CASE-ENDINGS. This is a marked peculiarity of the Indo-Germanic tongues. Neuter nouns illustrate


the same tendency, not to mention the dual. The analytic process has largely triumphed over the synthetic case-endings. Originally no prepositions were used and all the word-relations were expressed by cases. In modern French, for instance, there are no case-endings at all, but prepositions and the order of the words have to do all that was originally done by the caseforms. In English, outside of the old dative form in pronouns like him, them, etc., the genitive form alone remains. Finnish indeed has fifteen cases and several other of the ruder tongues have many.14 On the other hand the Coptic had no case-endings, but used particles and prepositions like NTE for genitive, etc. It is indeed possible that all inflectional languages passed once through the isolating and agglutinative stages. English may some day like the Chinese depend entirely on position and tone for the relation of words to each other.

(C) ORIGIN OF CASE, SUFFIXES. Giles15 frankly confesses that comparative philology has nothing to say as to the origin of the case-suffixes. They do not exist apart from the noun-stems. Some of them may be pronominal, others may be positional (postpositions), but it adds nothing to our knowledge to call some of the cases local and others grammatical. They are all grammatical. The ablative and the locative clearly had a local origin. Some cases were used less often than others. Some of the caseforms became identical. Analogy carried on the process. The desire to be more specific than the case-endings led to the use of prepositional adverbs. As these adverbs were used more and more there was "an ever-increasing tendency to find the important part of the meaning in the preposition and not in the case-ending."16 In the modern Greek vernacular, as already stated, only three case-forms survive (nominative, genitive, accusative), the dative vanishing like the ablative.17


3. Number ( avriqmo,j) in Substantives. The N. T. Greek has lost the dual ( duiko,j) and uses only the singular ( e`niko,j) and the plural ( plhquntiko,j). The Sanskrit and the Hebrew had the dual, but the Latin had only duo and ambo (and possibly octo and viginti) which had a plural inflection in the oblique cases. Coptic18 had no plural nor dual save as the plural article distinguished words. English has only the dual twain, but we now say twins. The scholars do not agree as to the origin of the dual. Moulton19 inclines to the idea that it arose "in prehistoric days when men could not count beyond two." It is more likely that it is due to the desire to emphasize pairs, as hands, eyes, etc., not to accept "Du Ponceau's jest that it must have been invented for lovers and married people."20 In the oldest Indo-Germanic languages the luxury of the dual is vanishing, but Moulton considers its use in the Attic as a revival.21 It never won a foothold in the AEolic and the New Ionic, and its use in the Attic was limited and not consistent.22 The dual is nearly gone in the late. Attic inscriptions,23 while in the koinh, it is only sporadic and constantly vanishing in the inscriptions and papyri.24 In Pergamum25 and Pisidia26 no dual appears in the inscriptions. The only dual form that occurs in the LXX and the N. T. is du,o (not du,w) for all the cases (as genitive in 1 Tim. 5:19), save dusi,( n) for the dative-locativeinstrumental, a plural form found in Aristotle, Polybius, etc., and called a barbarism by Phrynichus.27 Only in 4 Macc. 1:28 A duoi/n is found, but duei/n in aV, as in Polybius and the Atticists (Thackeray, p. 187). For examples of dusi,( n) see Mt. 6:24 = Lu. 16:13; Ac. 21:33; Heb. 10:28, etc. In the papyri, however, du,w├ duw/├ duei/n occasionally appear28 along with dusi,( n). In the modern Greek the dual is no longer used. ;Amfw has vanished in the N. T. while avmfo,teroi occurs fourteen times (Mt. 9:17, etc.),


once (Ac. 19:16) apparently in the sense of more than two, like the occasional use of the English "both" and the Byzantine use of avmfo,teroi and "two clear examples of it in NP 67 and 69 (iv/A.D.)."29 Once for all then it may be remarked that in the N. T. both for nouns and verbs the dual is ignored. The dual was rare in the later Ionic and the koinh, follows suit (Radermacher, N. T. Gk., p. 184). The syntactical aspects of number are to be discussed later.

4. Gender ( ge,noj) in Substantives. In the long history of the Greek language gender has been wonderfully persistent and has suffered little variation.30 It is probably due to the natural difference of sex that grammatical gender31 arose. The idea of sense gender continued, but was supplemented by the use of endings for the distinction of gender. This personification of inanimate objects was probably due to the poetic imagination of early peoples, but it persists in modern European tongues, though French has dropped the neuter (cf. the Hebrew) and modern English (like the Persian and Chinese) has no grammatical gender save in the third personal pronoun (he, she, it) and the relative.32 Analogy has played a large part in gender.33 The Sanskrit, Latin and Greek all gave close attention to gender and developed rules that are difficult to apply, with many inconsistencies and absurdities. In Greek h[lioj is masculine and selh,nh feminine, while in German we have die Sonne and der Mond. Perhaps we had better be grateful that the Greek did not develop gender in the verb like the Hebrew verb. Moulton34 thinks it "exceedingly strange" that English should be almost alone in shaking off "this outworn excrescence on language." The N. T., like Homer and the modern Greek, preserves the masculine $avrseniko,n%├ feminine ( qhluko,n) and neuter ( ouvde,teron%. Some words indeed have common ( koino,n% sex, like o` h` pai/j├ o;noj├ qeo,j, while others, applied to each sex, are called epicene ( evpi,koinon), like h` avlw,phx├ a;rktoj. In German we actually have das Weib ('wife')!

(a) VARIATIONS IN GENDER. They are not numerous. a;bussoj ( cw,ra) is a substantive in the LXX (Gen. 1:2, etc.) and the N. T. (Lu. 8:31, etc.), elsewhere so only in Diogenes Laertes.


In Mk. 14:3 W. H. and Nestle properly read th.n avla,bastron, though the Western and Syrian classes give to.n avl. after Herodotus, and a few of the late MSS. to. avl. In Rev. 8:11 o` (not h`) a;yinqoj is read, though a and some cursives omit the article, because the word is a proper name. In Mk. 12:26 all editors have o` ba,toj (the Attic form according to Moeris), elsewhere h` ba,toj (Lu. 20:37; Acts 7:35). qeo,j may be either masculine as in Ac. 19:11 or feminine as in Ac. 19:37, but in Ac. 19:27 we have qe,a (Text. Rec. also in 35, 37), an "apparently purposeless variation."35 Thieme (Die Inschr. von Magn., p. 10) says that h` qeo,j is used in the inscriptions of Asia Minor in formal religious language. Burnet (Review of Theology and Philosophy, 1906, p. 96) says that in Athens h` qeo,j was used in every-day language, but h` qea, in the public prayers, thus taking the Ionic qea,. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Papyri (Laut- and Wortlehre, 1906), p. 254 f., for papyri illustrations. Blass36 considers h` vIerousalh,m (Ac. 5:28, etc., the common form in LXX, Luke and Paul) feminine because it is a place-name, and hence he explains pa/sa vIeroso,luma (Mt. 2:3) rather than by po,lij understood. Lhno,j in Rev. 14:19 strangely enough has both masculine and feminine, th.n lhno,n . . . to.n me,gan but a fem. (bis). The feminine is the common construction, but the masculine is found in LXX in Is. 63:2 only. Li,qoj is always o` in the N. T., even when it means a precious stone (Rev. 5 times), where Attic after 385 B.C.37 had h`. Limo,j is masculine in Lu. 4:25 as in the Attic, but is chiefly feminine in Acts and Luke, like the Doric and late Attic, as in Lu. 15:14; Acts 11:28.38 In Lu. 13:4, Jo. 9:7, 11 we have o` Silwa,m, while Josephus has both h` (War, V, 12. 2) and o` (War, II, 16. 2). Blass39 explains the use of o` in the Gospels by the participle avpestalme,noj in Jo. 9:7. Sta,mnoj in Heb. 9:4 is feminine after the Attic instead of the Doric o` st., as in Ex. 16:33. In Rev. 21:18 (21) we read also o` u[aloj rather than h` u[aloj as is customary with


precious stones.40 [Usswpoj (Heb. 9:19; Jo. 19:29) reveals its gender only in the LXX (Lev. 14:6, 51 f.) where it is masc. in BA, fem. in E and 1 (3) Ki. 4 : 19 BA. The neuter to. a[laj occurs in papyri as early as third century B.C. (Moulton and Milligan, Expositor, 1908, p. 177).

(b) INTERPRETATION OF THE LXX. In Ro. 11:4 Paul uses th|/ ba,al rather than the frequent LXX tw|/ ba,al. The feminine is due, according to Burkitt, to the Q'ri, tv,B. ( aivscu,nh). Moulton speaks of h` ba,al as occurring "three times in LXX and in Ascensio Isaiae 12."41 But h` ba,al occurs "everywhere in the prophetic books, Jer., Zeph., Hos., etc." (Thayer), though not so common in the historical books, far more than the "three times" of Moulton. In Mk. 12:11 and Mt. 21:42 the LXX au[th is due to tazo, though the translators may have "interpreted their own Greek by recalling kefalh.n gwni,aj."42 In Gal. 4:25 Paul has not mistakenly used to, with [Agar, for he is treating the name as a word merely. Any word can be so regarded.

(c) VARIATIONS IN GENDER DUE TO HETEROCLISIS AND METAPLASM. These will be discussed a little later. Delbruck thinks that originally all the masculine substantives of the first or a declension were feminine and that all the feminine substantives of the second or o declension were masculine.

5. The First or a Declension. There was a general tendency towards uniformity43 in this declension that made it more popular than ever. Here only the N. T. modifications in this general development can be mentioned.

(a) THE DORIC GENITIVE-ABLATIVE SINGULAR a. This form survives in borra/ (Lu. 13:29; Rev. 21:13) and was common in the Attic after 400 B.C. Note also mamwna/ (Lu. 16:9). It is frequent in the LXX, papyri, inscriptions, though mainly in proper names. These proper names in - aj, chiefly oriental, make the genitive-ablative in - a/ or, if unaccented - aj, in a. So Aku,la and vAku,lou in papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 187), though, no gen. in N. T. (only - aj and - an) vAgri,ppa44 (Ac. 25:23), vAnani,a


(from - aj, so Thayer), [Anna (Lu. 3:2), vAnti,paj (indeclinable here or mere slip for - a, Rev. 2:13), `Are,ta (2 Cor. 11:32), Barabba/ (gen. does not appear, only nom. - aj as Mk. 15:7, and accus. - a/n as 15:11, etc.), Barna,ba (Gal. 2:1; Col. 4:10; see Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 187), vEpafra/ (Col. 1:7), `Erma/n (Ro. 16:14, Doric accusative), Zhna/n likewise (Tit. 3:13); vHlei,a (Lu. 1:17) according to aB (so W. H.) vIou,da (person, Lu. 3:33; Mk. 6:3; tribe, Mt. 2:6; Heb. 8:8; land, Lu. 1:39), vIwna/, (Mt. 12:39), Kaia,fa (Lu. 3:2; Jo. 18:13), Khfa/ (1 Cor. 1:12), Klwpa/ (Jo. 19:25), Louka/j (only in nominative, as Col. 4:14, but genitive would be - a/), Satana/ (Mk. 1:13), Si,laj (dative Si,la|. in Ac., and genitive Si,la in Jos. Vit., 17), Skeua/ (Ac. 19:14), Stefana/ (1 Cor. 1:16). Nachmanson finds the Doric genitive fairly common with such short proper names and mentions Shna/ in his list.45 Very common in modern Greek, cf. Hatzidakis, Einl., p. 76.

(b) THE ATTIC GENITIVE-ABLATIVE. The usual Attic form for the masculine gen. abl. ( ou% is found also as in Aivne,aj (so Lobeck, Prol. Pathol., p. 487), vAndre,ou (Mk. 1:29), Baraci,ou (Mt. 23:35), vEzeki,ou (so LXX), vHlei,ou (Lu. 4:25), vHsai,ou (Mt. 3:3, etc.), vIeremi,ou (Mt. 2:17), Lusani,ou (Lu. 3:1), Ouvri,ou (Mt. 1:6), Zaca─ ri,ou (Lu. 1:40). These Hebrew proper names ended in but receive the regular inflection for masculine nouns of the first declension. There are likewise some proper names in - hj with genitive-ablative in - ou. vIannh/j and vIambrh/j (2 Tim. 3:8) only appear in the N. T. in the nominative. Krh,skhj (2 Tim. 4:10) and Pou,dhj (2 Tim. 4:21) belong to the 3d declension. Euvfra,thj (Rev. 9:14; 16:12) has only accusative and dative (instrumental-locative) in the oblique cases in the N. T., though the genitive-ablative form is - ou. `Hrw|,dou (Mt. 2:1) and vIorda,nou (Mt. 3:5) follow the usual rule like a|[dou (Mt. 16:18). vApellh/j (Ro. 16:10), `Ermh/j (Ro. 16:14), like kodra,nthj (Mt. 5:26) and felo,nhj (2 Tim. 4:13), have no oblique case in the N. T. save the accusative (- h/n).46 vIwa,nhj in W. H. always has genitive-ablative in - ou for the Apostle and in Jo. 1:42; 21:15, 16, 17, for the father of Simon Peter, though Bariwna/ in Mt. 16:17.47 So for John Mark (Acts 12:12).


Addenda 3rd ed.

Addenda 3rd ed.

Swsqe,nhj has accusative in - hn (Ac. 18:17) for the first declension and is heteroclite.48 We have only xestw/ in Mk. 7:4. Words like neani,aj have the genitive-ablative in - ou (Ac. 7:58).

(c) Voc. in - a of masc. nouns in - thj in de,spota├ evpista,ta├ kar─ diognw/sta├ u`pokrita,. Cf. a|[dh.

(d) WORDS IN - ra AND PARTICIPLES IN - ui/a. These come regularly49 to have the genitive-ablative in -- hj and the dative-locativeinstrumental in - h| like the Ionic. Moulton50 indeed thinks that "analogical assimilation," on the model of forms like do,xa├ do,xhj, had more to do with this tendency in the koinh, than the Ionic influence. Possibly so, but it seems gratuitous to deny all Ionic influence where it was so easy for it to make itself felt. The "best MSS."51 support the testimony of the papyri and the inscriptions here.52 So W. H. read macai,rhj (Rev. 13:14), plhmmu,rhj (Lu. 6: 48), prw|,rhj (Ac. 27:30), Sapfei,rh| (Ac. 5:1), spei,rhj (Ac. 21:31; 27:1). In Acts B is prone to have - aj, - a| as with D in Ac. 5:1, but W. H. do not follow B here. In Ac. 5:2 suneidui,hj may be compared with evpibebhkkui,hj (1 Sam. 25:20), and other examples in the LXX,53 but the forms - ui,aj, -- ui,a| still survive in the Ptolemaic period.54 The preference of the LXX MSS. and the early papyri for macai,raj (- ra|) shows that it is a matter of growth with time. In the early Empire of Rome - rhj forms are well-nigh universal. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 142. On the other hand note the adjective steira|, (Lu. 1:36). Words like h`me,ra (- ra) and avlh,qeia├ mi,a $ia├ eia% preserve the Attic inflection in - aj├ a|.55

(e) THE OPPOSITE TENDENCY TO (d). We see it in such examples as Lu,ddaj (Ac. 9:38, but Soden reads - dhj with EHLP) and Ma,rqaj (Jo. 11:1). Moulton56 finds the Egyptian papyri giving Tamu,sqaj as genitive. qe,rma is given by Lobeck, though not in N. T. (genitive - hj, Ac. 28:3), and note pru,mna in Ac. 27:41.


Moulton57 suggests that Nu,mfan (Col. 4:15 according to the correct text) is not clue to a Doric Nu,mfan, but by a "reverse analogy process" the genitive Nu,mfhj produced the short nominative Nu,mfa like do,xa├ do,xhj. Blass58 calls crusa/n (Rev. 1:13) "a gross blunder, wrongly formed on the model of crusa/j 1:12," but Moulton59 holds that we have "abundant parallels."

(f) DOUBLE DECLENSION. This phenomenon appears in the case of Ne,an Po,lin (Ac. 16:11) and `Iera|. Po,lei (Col. 4:13), the adjective as well as the substantive being treated separately in the first and third declensions. (g) HETEROCLISIS ( e`tero,klisij) AND METAPLASM ( metaplhasmo,j). Blass60 makes no distinction in his treatment of heteroclisis and metaplasm, though the distinction is observed in Winer-Schmiedel.61 For practical use one may ignore the distinction and call all the examples metaplasm with Blass or heteroclisis with Moulton.62 The fluctuation is rare for the first declension in the N. T. In Ac. 28:8 editors properly read dusente,rion rather than dusente─ ri,a (supported only by a few cursives). The form qea, (Ac. 19:27) and the usual Attic h` qeo,j (Ac. 19:37) are both found. This variation between the first and the second declensions is well illustrated by Gomo,rraj (2 Pet. 2:6) and Gomo,rrwn (Mt. 10:15; - oij, Mk. 6:11 Rec.), Lu,stran (Ac. 14:6) and Lu,stroij (Ac. 14:8). Moulton63 finds abundant parallel in the Egyptian papyri use of place-names. In Rev. 1:11 ABC and some cursives read qua,teiran instead of the usual qua,teira. So in Ac. 27:5 some of the MSS. read Mu,rran instead of Mu,rra as accus., a reading confirmed by Ramsay,64 who found the accus. in - an and the gen. in - wn. Moulton65 cites h` `Ieroso,luma from two MSS. of xi/A.D. (Usener, Pelagia, p. 50).

The chief variation between the first and second declensions appears in the compounds in - archj and (Attic) - arcoj. Moulton66 finds examples of it passim in the papyri and calls the minute work of Winer-Schmiedel "conscientious labour wasted thereon." But Hort67 does not think these variations in good MSS. "wholly


irregular." In the N. T. forms in - archj, like most of the dialects and the koinh, are greatly in the majority.68 Thus in the N. T. we have vAsia,rchj (Ac. 19:31; not in nom. in N. T.), evqna,rchj (2 Cor. 11:32), patria,rchj (Heb. 7:4), polita,rchj (Ac. 17:6, 8), tetraa,rchj (Lu. 3:19), but always cili,arcoj. In the addition of the b text to Ac. 28:16 the MSS. divide between stratope,darcoj (HLP) and - a,rchj (cursives). `Ekato,ntarcoj is the nominative in Mt. Mt.(8:5, 8; 27:54), and the accusative in - con is found once in Acts Acts(22:25). Elsewhere in all cases in Matthew, Luke and Acts the form in - chj is read by the best MSS. (as Ac. 10:1).

The first and the third declensions show variation in di,yoj (old form di,ya) in 2 Cor. 11:27, where indeed B has di,yh| instead of di,yei) Ni,kh (the old form) survives in 1 Jo. 5:4, but elsewhere the late form ni/koj prevails (as 1 Cor. 15:54 f.). The LXX likewise shows to, di,yoj├ to. ni/koj interchangeably with the h` forms. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 49; Thackeray, Gr., p. 157. The dative vIwa,nei (third declension) instead of vIwa,nh| (first declension) is accepted a few times by W. H. (Mt. 11:4; Lu. 7:18; Rev. 1:1). Salami,nh| (first declension) for Salami/ni (third declension) in Ac. 13:5, Hort69 considers only Alexandrian.

The third declension nouns often in various N. T. MSS. have the accusative singular of consonant stems in - n in addition to - a, as cei/ran in Jo. 20:25 ( aAB), 1 Pet. 5:6 ( aA). This is after the analogy of the first declension. Other examples are a;rsenan Rev. 12:13 (A), asebh/n in Ro. 4:5 ( aDFG), avste,ran in Mt. 2:10 ( aC), avsfalh/n in Heb. 6:19 (ACD), Di,an in Ac. 14:12 (DEH), eivko,nan in Rev. 13:14 (A), mh/nan in Rev. 22:2 (A), podh,rhn in Rev. 1:13 (A), suggenh/n in Ro. 16:11 (ABD), u`gih/n in Jo. 5:11 ( a). Blass70 rejects them all in the N. T., some as "incredible," though properly recalling the Attic trih,rhn├ Dhmosqe,nhn. Moulton71 finds this conformation to the "analogy of first declension nouns" very common in "uneducated papyri, which adequately foreshadows


its victory in modern Greek." The inscriptions72 as well as the papyri have forms like gunai/kan├ a;ndran, etc. It is these accusative forms on which the modern Greek nominative in a;rcontai is made (of. Thumb, Handb., p. 47) and thus blended the first and the third declensions.73 Hort74 will accept none of these readings in the N. T. because of the "irregularity and apparent capriciousness" of the MS. evidence, though he confesses the strength of the testimony for avsfalh/n in Heb. 6:19, suggenh/n in Ro. 16:11, and cei/ran in Jo. 20:25. These nouns are treated here rather than under the third declension because in this point they invade the precincts of the first. The LXX MSS. exhibit the same phenomena ( evlpi,dan├ monogenh/n, etc.). See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 50; Thackeray, Gr., p. 147. The opposite tendency, the dropping of n in the first declension .accusative, so common in modern Greek, is appearing in the papyri, as dexia. cei/ra (Volker, Papyrorum Graecorum Syntaxis etc., p. 30 f.).

(h) INDECLINABLE SUBSTANTIVES. These are sometimes inflected in some of the cases in the first declension. Bhqania, is accusative in Lu. 19:29, and so indeclinable, like Bhqfagh,, but elsewhere it is inflected regularly in the first declension (so - i,an Mk. 11:1, etc.) save once or twice in B. Bhqsaida, has accusative Bhqsaida,n in Mk. 6:45; 8:22, but it may be only another alternate indeclinable form (Thayer) like Magada,n. So likewise Golgoqa, has accusative in in Mk. 15:22. Hort75 finds "the variations between Mari,a and the indeclinable Maria,m" "singularly intricate and perplexing, except as regards the genitive, which is always - i,aj, virtually without variation, and without difference of the persons intended." It is not necessary to go through all the details save to observe that as a rule the mother of Jesus and the sister of Martha are Maria,m, while Mary of Clopas is always Mari,a. Mary Magdalene is now Maria,m, now Mari,a. In the Aramaic as in the Hebrew probably all were called Maria,m. Mari,a is merely the Hellenized form of Maria,m. It is probably splitting too fine a hair to see with Hort76 a special appropriateness in Maria,m in Jo. 20:16, 18.

6. The Second or o Declension. There is no distinctively feminine inflection in the o declension, though feminine words oc-


cur, like h` o`do,j. But the neuter has a separate inflection. Modern Greek preserves very few feminines in - oj.77 Thumb (Handb., p. 53 f). gives none. The main peculiarities in the N. T. are here noted.

(a) THE SO-CALLED ATTIC SECOND DECLENSION. It is nearly gone. Indeed the Attic inscriptions began to show variations fairly early.78 The koinh, inscriptions79 show only remains here and there and the papyri tell the same story.80 Already lao,j (as Lu. 1:21) has displaced lew,j and nao,j (as Lu. 1:21) new,j├ though new─ ko,roj survives in Ac. 19:35. vAna,gaion likewise is the true text in Mk. 14:15 and Lu. 22:12, not avnw,gewn nor any of the various modifications in the MSS. In Mt. 3:12 and Lu. 3:17 h` a[lwn may be used in the sense of h` a[lwj (see Thayer) by metonymy. The papyri show a[lwj (Attic second declension) still frequently (Moulton and Milligan, Expositor, Feb., 1908, p. 180). Cf. same thing in LXX. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 49 f.; Con. and Stock, Sel. fr. LXX, p. 26; Thackeray, Gr., p. 144. vApollw,j has accusative in - w,n in 1 Cor. 4:6 and Tit. 3:13, though the Western and Syrian classes have - w, in both instances. In Ac. 19:1 vApollw, is clearly right as only A2L 40 have - w,n. The genitive is vApollw, without variant (1 Cor. ter). So the adjective i[lewj is read in Mt. 16:22 and Heb. 8:12, though a few MSS. have i[leoj in both places. The best MSS. have th.n Kw/ in Ac. 21:1, not Kw/n as Text. Rec. Cf. 1 Macc. 15:23. Blass81 compares albc:os of the third declension.

(b) CONTRACTION. There is little to say here. The adjectives will be treated later. vOstou/n (Jo. 19:36) has ovste,a, accus. pl., in the best MSS. in Lu. 24:39 and ovste,wn in Mt. 23:27 and Heb. 11:22. So also ovste,wn in the Western and Syrian addition to Eph. 5:30. vOrne,ou (Rev. 18:2) and o;rnea (Rev. 19:21) are without variant. The papyri show this Ionic influence on uncontracted vowels in this very word as well as in various adjectives (Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 435). For examples in the LXX (as ovste,wn, 2 Ki. 13:21) see Winer-Schmiedel, p. 82, and Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 36; Thackeray, p. 144; Con. and Stock, Sel. fr. LXX, p. 27. Moulton82 considers it remarkable that the N. T. shows


no traces of the contraction of ku,rioj into ku,rij and paidi,on into paidi,n, for instance, since the papyri have so many illustrations of this tendency. The inscriptions83 show the same frequency of the - ij, - in forms which finally won the day in modern Greek. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 61.

(c) THE VOCATIVE. In the o declension it does not always end in e in the masculine singular. qeo,j in ancient Greek is practically always retained in the vocative singular. The N. T. has the same form as in Mk. 15:34 (cf. also Jo. 20:28), but also once (Mt. 27:46). This usage is found occasionally in the LXX and in the late papyri.84 So also Paul uses Timo,qee twice (1 Tim. 1:18; 6:20). Aristophanes had vAmfi,qee, Lucian Timo,qee, and the inscriptions filo,qee.85 Note also the vocative ui`o.j Dauei,d (Mt. 1:20) and even in apposition with ku,rie (Mt. 15:22). The common use of the article with the nominative form as vocative, chiefly in the third declension, belongs more to syntax. Take as an instance of the second declension mh. fobou/├ to. mikro.n poi,mnion (Lu. 12:32).

(d) HETEROCLISIS AND METAPLASM. Variations between the first and second declensions have been treated on p. 257. The number of such variations between the second and third declensions is considerable. Nou/j is no longer in the second declension, but is inflected like bou/j, viz. noo,j (2 Th. 2:2), noi> (1 Cor. 14:15, 19). So ploo,j in Ac. 27:9, not plou/.86 The most frequent interchange is between forms in - oj, masculine in second declension and neuter in the third. In these examples the N. T. MSS. show frequent fluctuations. To. e;leoj wholly supplants to.n e;leon (Attic) in the N. T. (as in the LXX), as, for instance, Mt. 9:13; 12:7; 23:23; Tit. 3:5; Heb. 4:16, except in a few MSS. which read e;leon. Without variant we have evle,ouj and evle,ei. On the other hand o` zh/loj is the usual N. T. form as in the ancient Greek (so zh,lw, Ro. 13:13; 2 Cor. 11:2) , but to. zh/loj is the true text in 2 Cor. 9:2 and Ph. 3:6. In Ac. 5:17 only B has zh,louj, and all read zh,lou in Acts 13:45. =Hcoj is usually masculine and in the second declension, as in Heb. 12:19 (cf. Lu. 4:37; Ac. 2:2), and for the


earlieraccording to Moeris and Blass.87 In Lu. 21:25 W. H. read hvcou/j from hvcw, but Hort88 admits h;couj from to. h=coj to be possible, and Nestle reads h;couj in his sixth edition. In Ac. 3:10 C reads qa,mbou instead of qa,mbouj. In eight instances in Paul (2 Cor. 8:2; Ph. 4:19; Col. 1:27; 2:2; Eph. 1:7, 2:7; 3:8, 16) in the nominative and accusative we have to. plou/toj, but o` plou/toj in Gospels, Jas., Heb., Rev. The genitive is always -- tou. To. sko,toj instead of o` sko,toj is read everywhere in the N. T. save in the late addition to Heb. 12:18 where sko,tw| appears, though zo,fw| is the true text. The form da,krusin (Lu. 7:38, 44) is from da,kru, an old word that is found now and then in Attic, but to. da,kruon appears also in Rev. 7:17; 21:4; dakru,wn may belong to either decl. Sa,bbaton (- tou├ ──tw|) is the form used in the N. T. always, as Mk. 6:2, but sa,bbasin as Mk. 1:21, etc. B has sabba,toij, like the LXX sometimes, in Mt. 12:1, 12. Kath,gwr is accepted by W. H. and Nestle in Rev. 12:10 on the authority of A against aBCP, which have the usual kath,goroj. According to WinerSchmiedel89 this is not Greek, but a transliteration of the Aramaic rwgy[q. Blass,90 however, thinks it is formed on the model of r`h,twr.

Several words fluctuate between the masculine and the neuter in the second declension. In Lu. 14:16; Rev. 19:9, 17, several MSS. read dei/pnoj instead of the usual dei/pnon. Like the old Greek, desmo,j has the plural desma, in Lu. 8:29; Ac. 16:26; 20:23, but oi` desmoi, in Ph. 1:13. Before Polybius - zugo,n was more common. (Thayer), but in the N. T. it is zugo,j (Mt. 11:30). `O qeme,lioj is the only form of the nom. sing. in the N. T., as 2 Tim. 2:10 (supply li,qoj); Rev. 21:19, but ta. qeme,lia (acc) in Ac. 16:24 like the LXX and the Attic. The plural qemeli,ouj we have in Help 11:10; Rev. 21:14, 19. qeme,lion (acc.) may be either masculine, or neuter. In Ro. 11:10 o` nw/toj is used in the quotation from the 0. T. instead of the older to. nw/ton) In the early Greek o` si/toj (never to. si/ton% had a plural in si/ta as well as si/toi. The same, thing is true of the N. T. MSS. for Ac. 7:12 except that they divide between ta. si/ta and ta. siti,a, and siti,a is the correct text.


Blass91 indeed objects that siti,a does not suit the sense. Sta,dion has stadi,ouj rather than the Attic sta,dia in Lu. 24:13; Jo. 6:19 (W. H. and Nestle, but Tisch. sta,dia aD), and is a marginal reading in Rev. 21:16 instead of stadi,wn.

(e) THE MIXED DECLENSION. Some substantives with special inflection have this. It is particularly in foreign names in the a and o declensions that this inflection became popular. "The stem ends in a long vowel or diphthong, which receives - j for nom inative and -- n for accusative, remaining unchanged in vocative, genitive, and dative singular. vIhsou/j is the most conspicuous of many N. T. examples. It plays a large part in modern Greek."92 Hence we have vIhsou/j nominative, vIhsou/ genitive-ablative, as Mt. 26:6; dative, etc., as Mt. 27:57; vocative Mk. 1:24. Some MSS. of the LXX have dative vIhsoi/ in Deut. 3:21, etc. The accusative is vIhsou/n, as Mt. 26:4. vIwsh/ is the genitive of vIwsh/j according to the reading of Mt. 27:56 in W. H. Mg. instead of vIswh,f, but in Mk. 6:3 vIwsh/toj is the reading. So runs Leuei,j (nominative, Lu. 5: 29), Leuei, (genitive, Lu. 3 : 24), Leuei,n (accusative, Lu. 5:27). Dative appears only in the LXX as Gen. 34:30 Leuei,. Manassh/j has accusative Manassh/ in Mt. 1:10 and the genitive in - h/ (Rev. 7:6), but Hort93 calls attention to the fact that abB have Manassh/ instead of the nominative in Mt. 1:10, making the word indeclinable.

(f) PROPER NAMES. vIakw,b is indeclinable in Mt. 1:2, but we have vIa,kwbon in Mt. 4:21. Several proper names have only the plural, as qua,teira (Rev. 2:18, but B - rh and ABC - ran, 1:11), vIeroso,luma (Mt. 2:1, but pa/sa 'I., 2:3), Fi,lippoi (Ac. 16:12), Kau/da (Ac. 27:16), Mu,rra (Ac. 27:5), Pa,tara (Ac. 21:1), Sa,repta (Lu. 4:26), So,doma (Jude 1:7). The Latin words mo,dioj (Mt. 5:15) and ma,kellon (1 Cor. 10:25) are inflected. So Latin proper names like vIou/stoj (Ac. 18:7) and Pau/loj (Ro. 1:1). For Gomo,rraj and Lu,stran see 5 (g).

7. The Third Declension (consonants and close vowels i and u). The third declension could easily be divided into several and thus we should have the five declensions of the Sanskrit and the Latin. But the usual seven divisions of the third declension have the genitive-ablative singular in - ─oj (-- wj). The consonantal


Addenda 3rd ed.

stems show more sweeping changes than the vocalic (sonantic) stems in this declension.94 Only those changes that are related to the N. T. Greek can be here discussed.

(a) THE NOMINATIVE AS VOCATIVE. There is an increasing use of nominative forms as vocatives. This usage had long existed for nouns that were oxytone or had labial or guttural stems. Elsewhere in general the stem had served as vocative. No notice is here taken of the common use of the article with the nominative form as vocative, like h` pai/j (Lu. 8:54), a construction coming under syntactical treatment. According to WinerSchmieder95 the use of the singular without the article belongs also to syntax and the solution of W. H. is called "certainly false." Hort96 had suggested that in the case of quga,thr as vocative (Mk. 5:34; Lu. 8:48; Jo. 12:15) and path,r (Jo. 17:21, 24, 25) the long vowel ( h) was pronounced short. Why not the rather suppose that the vocative is like the nominative as in the case of labial and guttural stems? The usage is thus extended sometimes to these liquids. Indeed, in Jo. 17:25 we have path.r avgaqe, the adjective having the vocative form. In Mk. 9:19 (Lu. 9:41) we have w= genea. a;pistoj and a;frwn in Lu. 12:20; 1 Cor. 15:36). See also w= plh,rhj (Ac. 13:10) for - ej, which might be an indeclinable form like the accusative (II, 2 (f)). But these adjectives show that the usage is possible with substantives. There are indeed variant readings in the MSS. above, which have qu,gater and pa,ter, but in Mt. 9:22 DGL have quga,thr. Note also a;ner (1 Cor. 7:16) and gu,nai (Lu. 13:12). For peculiarities in nom. see (d).

(b) THE ACCUSATIVE SINGULAR. The theoretical distinction that consonant-stems had the accusative singular in - a and vocalic stems in - n began to break down very early. From the third century B.C. Jannaris97 suspects that popular speech began to have all accusative singulars with n, an overstatement, but still the tendency was that way. The use of n with words like po,lin├ nau/n (Ac. 27:41, only time in N. T., elsewhere vernacular ploi/on), etc., together with the analogy of the first and second declensions, had a positive influence. See p. 258 for discussion of the double accusative ending - a plus n, like a;ndran in the papyri.98 These forms belong in reality to the third declension, though formed after the analogy of the first, and so were presented when first reached in the Lis-


cussion. However, there are other consonant-stems which form the accusative in - n instead of - a. In Tit.3:9 and Ph. 1:15 we have e;rin instead of e;rida.99 So in Rev. 3:7 and 20:1 the Attic klei/n is read, for this is not a new tendency by any means, but Lu. 11:52 the MSS. have klei/da, though here also D has klei/n. Klei/da is found in the LXX as in Judg. 3:25. Ca,rita appears in Ac. 24:27 and Ju. 4, , and A has it in Ac. 25:9, but the Attic ca,rin holds the field (forty times).100 In the LXX the Ionic and poetical ca,rita occurs only twice (Zech. 4:7; 6:14) and is absent from the papyri before the Roman period. Cf Thackeray, Gr., p. 150. For the irrational n with mei,zw in Jo. 5:36 see Adjectives. In Ac. 27:40 the correct text is avrte,mwna, not - ─ona, from nom. avrte,mwn.

(c) THE ACCUSATIVE PLURAL. In Winer-Schmiedel (p. 88) e;reij is given as nominative and accusative except in 1 Cor. 1:11 ( e;ridej, nom.), but as a matter of fact the accusative plural does not appear in the N. T. except as an alternative reading e;reij in acACKLP, in Tit. 3:9 (correct text e;rin). In Gal. 5:20 W. H. put e;reij in the margin rather than e;rij, probably "an itacistic error."101 W. H. read ta.j klei/j in Rev. 1:18, but klei/daj in Mt. 16:19. In Ac. 24:27 ca,ritaj is supported by HP and most of the cursives against ca,rita (correct text) and ca,rin ( acEL, etc.). The accusative in - nj has changed into - aj with -- u and -- ou stems, as bo,aj from bou/j (Jo. 2:14 f., cf. LXX), bo,truaj from bo, truj (Rev. 14:18), ivcqu,aj from ivcqu,j (Mt. 14:17).102 This simplification of the accusative plural was carried still further. Just as po,leaj had long ago been dropped for po,leij, so basile,aj has become - ei/j like the nominative, "and this accusative plural is regular in N. T. for all words in - ─euj."103 In the LXX - ─eaj appears a few times, but since 307 B.C. the Attic inscriptions show - ─eij as accusative.104 It is found indeed sometimes in Xenophon and


Addenda 2nd ed.

Addenda 3rd ed.

Thucydides, though the strict Atticists disown it. Cf. gramma─ tei/j in Mt. 23:34, etc. A few forms in - eaj survive in the inscriptions.105 Nh,steij (from nh/stij) is the correct accusative in Mk. 8:3 and Mt. 15:32. a here reads nh,stij, but is unreliable on this itacism (Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157). The Achaean, Elean, Delphian and Phocian inscriptions106 (Northwest Greek) have ithe accusative plural in - ej just like the nominative (cf. Latin).107 It is very common in the modern Greek vernacular and in the papyri.108 Moulton109 finds many examples like gunai/kej├ mh/nej├ o;ntej├ pa,ntej├ te,ktonej├ te,ssarej, etc. In the LXX te,ssarej as accusative is very common as a variant in the text of Swete.110 In Herodotus tessa─ reskai,deka is indeclinable and treiskai,deka in Attic since 300 B.C.111 So in the N. T. some MSS. read te,ssarej (though the most still have te,ssaraj) as aA in Jo. 11:17, a in Ac. 27:29, AP in Rev. 4 :4; 7: 1, a in Rev. 9:14.112 In Rev. 4:4 the best authority ( a, AP, etc.) is really on the side of te,ssarej (second example).113 Indeed "in the N. T. te,ssaraj never occurs without some excellent authority for te,ssarej."114 In the first 900 of Wilcken's ostraca, Moulton (Prol., p. 243) finds forty-two examples of accusative te,ssarej and twenty-nine of te,ssaraj. Moulton115 considers it probable that other nominative forms in Revelation, like avste,rej in A (Rev. 1:16), may be illustrations of this same tendency.


Addenda 3rd ed.

(d) PECULIARITIES IN THE NOMINATIVE. In general one may say that the various ways of forming the nominative singular in Greek are blending gradually into unity, the masculine in j and the feminine in a or h. Many of the new substantives went over to the first declension.116 Luke has gen. vElaiw/noj, in Ac. 1:12 from nom. vElaiw,n, and the papyri give nearly thirty examples of this noun.117 Jos. also (Ant. vii, 9, 2) has vElaiw/noj. On the other hand the use of vElai,a is frequent (in Jos. also), as eivj to. o;roj tw/n vElaiw/n, (Mt. 21:1). But in Lu. 19:29 we have pro.j to. o;roj to. kalou,menon vElaiw/n, (W. H.),and in Lu. 21:37 eivj to. o;roj ktl) In both these examples it would be possible to have vElaiw,n, not as an indeclinable substantive, but as a lax use of the nominative with o` kalou,menoj (cf. Revelation and papyri). So Deissmann.118 But even so it is still possible for vElaiw/n to be proper (on the whole probably correct) in these two disputed passages.119 It is even probable that the new nominative vElaiw,n, is made from the genitive vElaiw/n.120 ;Ereij is a variant with e;rij in Gal. 5:20 ( marg. W. H.), 1 Cor. 3:3; 2 Cor. 12:20; 1 Tim. 6:4, but in 1 Cor. 1:11 all MSS. have e;ridej. W. H. once (Ac. 1:10) accept the rare form e;sqhsij (2, 3 Macc.) rather than the usual evsqh,j, though the Alexandrian and Syrian classes have it also in Lu. 24:4. In Lu. 13:34 aD read nominative not found in ancient Greek (Thayer), though the Doric used the oblique cases o;rnicoj, etc.121 Elsewhere in all MSS. the usual o;rnij occurs, as Mt. 23:37, and in the N. T. only the nominative singular is found.122 Another contrary tendency to the usual j in the nominative singular is seen in wvdi,n (1 Th. 5:3; cf. also Is. 37:3) for the usual wvdi,j. The papyri show forms like ovxu,rrin.

One or two points about neuter substantives call for remark. The inflection in - aj, - aoj = - wj, has nearly vanished.123 A few examples still survive in the inscriptions.124 In Lu. 1:36 the Ionic form gh,rei from gh/raj is found, as often in the LXX and Test.


XII Pat.125 Ke,raj always in the N. T. (as in LXX) has the Attic plural ke,rata (Rev. 8 times) and te,raj regularly te,rata (11 times). The plural kre,a (from kre,aj) is the only form in the N. T. (1 Cor. 8:13; Rom. 14:21) as in the LXX, though a MSS. or so in each case has kre,aj (singular).

(e) THE GENITIVE-ABLATIVE FORMS. These call for little remark save in the adjective, for which see later. Sina,pewj (from si,napi) is uniform in the N. T., as Mt. 17:20. Ph,cuj has no genitive singular in the N. T. though ph,ceoj is common in the LXX,126 but has phcw/n (from Ionic phce,wn or through assimilation to neuters in - oj), not the Attic ph,cewn. In Jo. 21:8 only A Cyr. have ph,cewn and in Rev. 21:17 only a.127 For the genitive singular of vIwsh/j and Manassh/j see 6 (e).

(f) CONTRACTION. It is not observed in ovre,wn (Rev. 6:15) and ceile,wn (Heb. 13:15). In both instances the Ionic absence of contraction is always found in the LXX (Prov. 12:14). This open form is not in the Attic inscriptions, though found in MSS. of Attic writers and the poets especially.128 In the koinh, it is a "widespread tendency" to leave these forms in -os uncontracted, though evtw/n is correct in Ac. 4:22, etc.129 So the LXX, Thackeray, Gr., p: 151.

(g) PROPER NAMES. Mwush/j has always the genitive-ablative Mwuse,wj (Jo. 9:28), though no nominative Mwuseu,j is known. The genitive Mwsh/ appears usually in the LXX, as Num. 4:41, and the vocative Mwsh/ as in Ex. 3:4. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 163 f. W. H. have Mwusei/ (always with v. r. - sh|/% as in Mk. 9:4, except in Ac. 7:44 where the form in -- h|/ is due to the LXX (usual form there).130 The accusative is Mwuse,a once only (Lu. 16:29), elsewhere - h/n├ as in Ac. 7:35 (so LXX). Solomw,n (so in the nominative, not - w/n) is indeclinable in a in Mt. 1:6 as usually in the LXX. But the best MSS. in Mt. 1:6 have the accasative Solomw/na, a few - w/nta. So the genitive Solomw/noj in Mt. 12:42,


though a few MSS. have - w/ntoj. The Gospels have uniformly the genitive in - w/noj. But in Ac. 3:11 W. H. accept Solomw/ntoj (so also 5:12), though BD etc. have w/noj in 5:12. Cf. Xenofw/ntoj (from nominative - w/n). Diotr,fhj (3 Jo. 1:9) and `Ermoge,nhj (2 Tim. 1:15) occur in nom. There are other proper names (Roman and Semitic) which are inflected regularly like Babulw,n (Mt. 1:11), Galli,wn (Ac. 18: 12), vElaiw,n (Ac. 1:12) Kai/sar (Mt. 22: 17), Sarw,n (Ac. 9:35), Sidw,n (Mt. 11:21), Si,mwn (Mt. 4:18). There should be mentioned also Salami,j (dative - i/ni, Ac. 13:5). Cf. proper names in the LXX, Thackeray, Gr., pp. 163 ff.

(h) HETEROCLISIS AND METAPLASM. Most of the examples have already been treated under the first declension 5 (g) or the second declension 6 (d). The accusative a[la (Mk. 9:50) is like the old Greek o` a[lj. Some MSS. (Western and Syrian classes) in Mk. 9:49 have a`li, also. In Mk. 9:50 aLA have to. a[la as nominative (cf. Lev. 2:13) like ga.la. But the best MSS. ( aBDL D) give to. a[laj in the first two examples in 9:50 and a[la (accusative) in the third (so W. H.). So also Mt. 5:13 and Lu. 14:34. Cf. dative a[lati in Col. 4:6. In the LXX to. a[laj is rare (Thackeray, Gr., p. 152). Papyri show to. a[laj in third century B.C. (Moulton, and Milligan, Expositor, Feb., 1908, p. 177). Instead of o;rnij in Rev. 18:2 we have the genitive ovrne,ou, from o;rneon (good old Greek word), ovrne,okij in Rev. 19:17, and o;rnea in 19:21. In Mk. 6:4 and Lu. 2:44 suggeneu/si. (cf. 1 Macc. 10:88) is probably131 from suggeneu,j, not suggenh,j. Cf. 1 Macc. 10:89. This is a good place for me to record the admiration which has possessed me as I have tested the work of Hort through the maze of details in the MS. evidence concerning the forms.

8. Indeclinable Words. These do not, of course, belong to any declension. Josephus Grecized most of the Hebrew proper names like vAmi,naboj (Mt. 1:4, vAminada,b).132 Some he put in the first declension, many in the second and third declensions.133 Blass134 sums the matter up by observing that "the Hebrew personal names of the 0. T., when quoted as such," are indeclinable. This is an overstatement. But certainly many that in the LXX and the N. T. are not inflected, might have been, such, for instance, as vAarw,n├ vIakw,b├ Kedrw,n├ Salmw,n├ Sumew,n, to go no further.135 It is hardly worth while to give the entire list of these words.


They include such other words as the majority of those in the genealogy in Mt. 1 and that in Lu. 3, , besides many other proper names,136 including such geographical names as Aivnw,n├ Bhqfagh,, Siw,n├ Sina/, etc.

There are other indeclinable Hebrew and Aramaic words such as Korba/n (Mk. 7:11), ma,nna (Rev. 2:17), pa,sca (Lu. 2:41), si,─ kera (Lu. 1:15 as in LXX). The gender (fem.) of the indeclinable ouvai, (Rev. 9:12; 11:14) is probably due, as Blass137 suggests, to qli,yij. In 1 Cor. 9:16 ouvai, is used as a substantive (so also LXX).

The use of o` w'n kai. o` h=n kai. o` evrco,menoj in the nominative after avpo, in Rev. 1:4, etc., belongs more to syntax than to accidence. It is evidently on purpose (to express the unchangeableness of God), just as o` dida,skaloj kai. o` ku,rioj is in apposition with me (Jo. 13:13) in lieu of quotation-marks.


Donaldson138 is probably right in saying that, in general, the explanation of the adjective belongs to syntax rather than to etymology. But there are some points concerning the adjective that demand treatment here.

1. The Origin of the Adjective. Adjectives are not indispensable in language, however convenient they may be.139 In the Sanskrit, for instance, the adjective plays an unimportant part. Whitney140 says: "The accordance in inflection of substantive and adjective stems is so complete that the two cannot be separated in treatment from one another." He adds141 that this wavering line of distinction between substantive and adjective is even more uncertain in Sanskrit than in the other early Indo-Germanic tongues. Most of the Sanskrit adjectives have,three endings, the masculine and neuter being usually a stems while the feminine may have a or i├ this matter being "determined in great part only by actual usage, and not by grammatical rule." So likewise Giles in his Comparative Philology has no distinct treatment of adjectives. The adjective is an added descriptive appellative ( o;noma evpi,qeton) while the substantive is an essential appellative ( o;noma ouvsiastiko,n). But substantives were doubtless


used in this descriptive sense before adjectives arose, as they are still so used. So, for instance, we say brother man, Doctor A., Professor B., etc. Cf. in the N. T. evn tw|/ vIorda,nh| potamw|/ (Mt. 3:6), etc. This is, indeed, apposition, but it is descriptive apposition, and it is just at this point that the adjective emerges in the early period of the language.142 Other Greek adjectives in form as in idea are variations from the genitive case, the genus case.143 In itself the adjective is as truly a noun as the substantive. As to the form, while it is not necessary144 that in every case the adjective express its gender by a different inflection, yet the adjectives with three genders become far commoner than those with two or one.145 From the etymological point of view this inflection in different genders is the only distinction between substantive and adjective.146 The Greek has a much more highly developed system of adjectives than the Sanskrit, which has survived fairly well in modern Greek, though a strong tendency is present to simplify adjectives to the one declension (-- oj, - h├ ──on). Participles, though adjectives in inflection, are also verbs in several respects and call for separative discussion. The process of treating the adjective as a substantive belongs to syntax.147 The substantivizing of the adjective is as natural, though not so common in Greek as in Latin, as the adjectivizing of the substantive which we have been discussing.148 The distinction between adjective and substantive is hard to draw in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 66). In modern Greek every adjective has a special feminine form. The development is complete. Cf. Thumb, pp. 66 ff.

2. Inflection of Adjectives. In Greek as in Sanskrit, the adjective has to follow the inflection of the substantive in the various declensions, the three genders being obtained by combining the first with the second or the third declensions.

(a) ADJECTIVES WITH ONE TERMINATION. Of course at first this may have been the way the earliest adjectives arose. Then the genders would be formed. But analogy soon led to the formation of most adjectives with three endings. Some of these


adjectives with one ending were used only with the masculine or the feminine, and few were ever used with the neuter.149 Jannaris150 considers them rather substantives than adjectives, but they illustrate well the transition from substantive to adjective, like a;paij├ ma,kar├ fuga,j. In fact they are used of animated beings. In the N. T. we have a[rpax (Mt. 7:15; 1 Cor. 5:10), pe,nhj (2 Cor. 9: 9. Cf. pla,nhtej, Jude 1:13 B), and suggeni,j (Lu. 1:36). Suggeni,j is a later feminine form like euvgeni,j for the usual suggenh,j (both masculine and feminine) which Winer151 treats as a substantive (so Thayer). Strictly this feminine adjective belongs152 only to words in - th,j and - eu,j. Blass153 quotes euvgeni,dwn gunaikw/n by way of comparison. Modern Greek still has a few of these adjectives in use. The ancient adjectives in - hj $euvgenh,j) have disappeared from the modern Greek vernacular (Thumb, Handb., p. 72).

(b) ADJECTIVES WITH TWO TERMINATIONS. Some adjectives never had more than two endings, the masculine and the feminine having the same form. In the so-called Attic second declension this is true of i[lewj (Mt. 16:22). But a few simple adjectives of the second declension never developed a feminine ending, as, for instance, ba.rbaroj (1 Cor. 14:11), ev( aiv) fni,dioj (Lu. 21: 34), swth,rioj (Tit. 2:11).154 In the N. T. h[sucoj has changed to h`su,cioj (1 Pet. 3:4). The adjectives in the third declension which end in - hj or - wn have no separate feminine form. So euvgenh,j (Lu. 19:12), euvsebh,j (Ac. 10: 7) mei,zwn (Jo. 15:13), etc. Then again some simple adjectives varied155 in usage in the earlier Greek, especially in the Attic, and some of these have only two endings in the N. T., like avi>dioj (Ro. 1:20), e;rhmoj (Ac. 1:20, etc., and often as substantive with gh/ or cw,ra not expressed), ko,smioj (1 Tim. 2:9), ouvra,nioj (Lu. 2:13; Ac. 26:19), flu,aroj (1 Tim. 5:13), fro,nimoj (Mt. 25:2, 4, 9), wvfe,limoj (1 Tim. 4:8; 2 Tim. 3:16). With still others N. T. usage itself varies as in the case of aivw,nioj (Mt. 25:46, etc.) and aivwni,a (Heb. 9:12; 2 Th. 2:16, and often as a variant reading); e[toimoj (Mt. 25:10) and e`toi,mh (1 Pet. 1:5); ma,taioj (Jas. 1:26) and matai,a (1 Pet. 1:18); o[moioj (Rev. 4: 3, second example correct text) and o`moi,a (Rev. 9:10,


though W. H. put o`moi,aj in the margin instead of o`moi,aj, 19); o[sioj (1 Tim. 2:8; so probably, though o`si,ouj may be construed with evpai,rontaj instead of cei/raj). The early Attic inscriptions furnish examples of two endings with such adjectives as do,kimoj (no feminine example in the N. T.) and loipo,j with either two or three (N. T. only three).156 The papyri furnish e;rhmoj and ouvra,nioj as feminine and others not so used in the N. T., as di,kaioj├ me,trioj, spo,rimoj.157 It was the rule with compound adjectives to have only two endings, for the most of them never developed a feminine form, as o` $h`% a[logoj.158 This tendency survives in the inscriptions, especially with compounds of a- privative and prepositions, and in the papyri also we have abundant examples.159 The N. T. usage is well illustrated by 1 Pet. 1:4, eivj klhronomi,an a[fqarton kai. avmi,an─ ton kai. avma,ranton. Cf. Jas. 3: 17.

(c) ADJECTIVES WITH THREE TERMINATIONS. The great majority of Greek adjectives, like avgaqo,j├ ──h,├ ──o,n├ developed three endings and continue normal (cf. Thumb, Handbook, p. 68), as is universal in the modern Greek. Some of the compound adjectives also had three endings, especially compounds in - iko,j and - ioj, as monarcikh,├ avnaxi,a (Plato).160 The same thing is observed in the inscriptions161 and the papyri.162 In the N. T. we have several examples, as avrgo,j├ ──h, (Attic always avrgo,j, though Epimenides has -- h,) in 1 Tim. 5:13;. Tit. 1:12; Jas. 2:20 according to BC. In Mk. 4:28 auvtoma,th is not entirely new, for classic writers use it. In 2 Jo. 1:13 (and probably also 1) we have evklekth,) In Mt. 4:13 the MSS. give paraqalassi,a, but D has - ion. However, in Lu. 6:17 para,lioj is the feminine form, though occasionally the LXX and older Greek had - i,a, varying like the other compounds in - ioj. Other adjectives of three endings belong to the third and 538.


the first declensions, like ovxu,j├ ovxei/a├ ovxu,* pa/j├ pa/sa├ pa/n* e`kw,n├ e`kou/sa├ e`kon* me,laj├ me,laina├ me,lan* me,gaj├ mega,lh├ me,ga* plu,j├ pollh,├ polu,. Cf. the perfect active participle in - w,j├ ──ui/a├ ──o,j. The LXX MSS. sometimes have pa/n as indeclinable ( pa/n to.n to,pon, etc.) like plh,rhj. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 51. Indeclinable plh,rhj is retained by Swete in Sir. 19 : 26. Cf. Helbing, ib. See (f) below.

(d) THE ACCUSATIVE SINGULAR. Some adjectives of the third declension have n after the analogy of the first declension. See this chapter, 1, 5, (g), for the discussion in detail. W. H. reject them all, though in a few cases the testimony is strong.163 They are avsebh/n (Ro. 4 :5), avsfalh/n (Heb. 6:19), mei,zwn (Jo. 5:36), suggenh/n (Ro. 16:11), u`gih/n (Jo. 5:11). The use of irrational n with mei,zw (Jo. 5:36 mei,zwn in ABEGM D) is likened by Moulton (Prol., p. 49) to irrational n with subjunctive h|= $h=n%) Cf. ch. VI, II (h), p. 220.

(e) CONTRACTION IN ADJECTIVES. Two points are involved, the fact of contraction (or the absence of it) and the use of a or h after e├ i├ r. The uncontracted forms of adjectives are not so common as is the case with substantives. Cf. this chapter, 1, 6, (b). The contracted forms are practically confined to forms in - ouj, like a`plou/j├ diplou/j├ avrgurou/j├ porfurou/j├ sidhrou/j├ calkou/j├ crusou/j. Here again we have a still further limitation, for the uncontracted forms occur chiefly in the Apocalypse and in a and in the case of crusou/j.164 Cf. Rev. 4:4; 5:8, where a reads cruse,ouj, - e,aj. But in Rev. 2:1 aPB read crusw/n, while AC have cruse,wn) Crusa/n in Rev. 1:13, though accepted by W. H. and read by aAC, is rejected by Blass, but admitted by Debrunner (p. 28), as shown on p. 257. P. Lond. reads crusa/n h' avrgura/n, and L. P.w (ii/iii A.D.) also has crush/n h' avrgurh/n.165 In each instance probably analogy has been at work.166 Thackeray (Gr., p. 172 f.) gives a very few uncontracted forms in - ─eoj in the LXX. W. H. accept the genitive baqe,wj in Lu. 24:1 and prae,wj in 1 Pet. 3:4 instead of the usual form in - oj. Hort167 considers the variations in h[misuj as "curious," but they find abundant parallel in the


papyri as does cruse,wn above.168 In Mk. 6:23 h`mi,souj, not -- eoj, is the genitive form, the usual (probably only) form in the papyri.169 The neuter plural h`mi,sea has practically no support in Lu. 19:8, though h`mi,sh is the Text. Rec. on the authority of late uncials and cursives. Ta. h`mi,su has slight support. W. H. read ta. h`mi,sia ( aBQ 382, L having itacistic - eia) and derive it from a possible h`mi,sioj.170 But it is possible, if not probable, that h`mi,seia was the earlier form changed by itacism to h`mi,sia.171 The plural of nh/stij is nh,steij (Mk. 8:3; Mt. 15:32), and not nh,stij as already shown.172 For participles in - ui,a, - ui,hj see this chapter, p. 256. As a rule the forms in - ui,hj and - rhj predominate, but note stei,ra|, in Lu. 1:36.173 In the case of u`gih,j, whereas the Attic had accusative u`gia/ ( u`gih/ in Plato, Phadr. 89 d), the N. T., like the inscriptions, papyri and the LXX, has only u`gih/ (Jo. 5:11, 15; 7:23).174 In Jo. 18: 1 ceima,rrou is almost certainly from cei,marroj instead of the classical ceima,rrooj.175 In 2 Pet. 2:5 o;gdoon is not contracted, though sometimes the papyri have o;gdouj├ o;gdoun.176

(f) INDECLINABLE ADJECTIVES. The papyri have cleared up two points of much interest here. One is the use of plh,rhj in N. T. MSS. in an oblique case. In Mk. 4:28 Hort (Appendix, p. 24) suggests plh,rhj si/ton (C* two lectionaries) as probably the original. In Ac. 6:5 W. H. put a;ndra plh,rhj in the margin, though plh,rh is read only by B among the MSS. of importance. In Jo. 1:14 all the MSS. (save D 5 followed by Chrys. and Theoph.) have plh,rhj. Moulton177 indeed suggests that plh,rh was the original text, which was changed to the vulgar plh,rhj. But the argument can be turned round just as easily. In almost every N. T. instance of an oblique case of plh,rhj good uncials have the indeclinable form (Moulton, Prol., p. 50). The LXX also has examples of indeclinable plh,rhj (cf. Hort, Appendix, p.


24). So Job 21: 24, aABC. The examples of plh,rhj so used are "fairly common" in the papyri178 and come as early as the second century B.C.179 There seems therefore no reason to refuse to consider plh,rhj in Jo. 1:14 as accusative and to accept it as the text in Mk. 4:28 and Ac. 6:5. The other example of indeclinable adjectives is found in comparative forms in - w, like plei,w. Moulton180 points out that in Mt. 26:53 aBD read plei,w dw,deka legiw/naj, while the later MSS. have mended the grammar with plei,ouj. He quotes also Cronert181 who has furnished abundant evidence from the papyri and literature of such a use of these forms just like plh,rhj. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Papyri, p. 63 f.

3. Comparison of Adjectives. The comparative is a natural development in the adjective, as the adjective itself is a growth on the substantive.

(a) THE POSITIVE ( qetiko.n o;noma OR o;noma a`plou/n). This is the oldest form of the adjective, the most common and the most persistent. It is not always true that the comparative and superlative forms represent an actually higher grade than the positive. The good is sometimes more absolute than better or even best. See avgaqo,j in Mk. 10:18, for instance. Sometimes indeed the positive itself is used to suggest comparison as in Mt. 18:8, kalo,n soi, evstin eivselqei/n ) ) ) h' du,o cei/raj├ ktl) This construction is common in the LXX, suggested perhaps by the absence of comparison in Hebrew.182 The tendency of the later Greek is also constantly to make one of the degrees do duty for two. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 181. But this matter belongs rather to the syntax of comparison. Participles are, of course, used only in the positive save in a few cases where the adjective-idea has triumphed wholly over the verb-conception.183 Verbals in - toj sometimes have comparison, though ma/llon, may be freely used with participles.

(b) THE COMPARATIVE ( sugkritiko.n o;noma). The stem may be (besides adjective) either a substantive ( basileu,─teroj) or an adverb ( pro,─teroj). Cf. Monro, Homeric Grammar, p. 82. The primary comparative-ending - iwn, (Sanskrit iyans) is probably kin to the adjective-ending - ioj.184 This form along with the superlative - istoj is


probably originally qualitative in idea and does not necessarily imply excess. In the modern Greek these forms are not used at all.185 They have disappeared before the secondary comparative form - teroj, which even in the earlier Greek is far more common. The ending - teroj does imply excess and appears in various words that are not usually looked upon as comparatives, as e[─teroj ('one of two), e`ka,─teroj (' each of two'), h`me,─teroj (nos-ter), u`me,─teroj (vos-ter), u[s─teroj.186 So also deu,─teroj like pro,─teroj (cf. Latin al-ter, English other) is a comparative form.187 "The comparison-suffixes iwn, istoj├ teroj belong to the Indo-Germanic ground speech."188 In the N. T. the forms in - iwn), as in the papyri,189 hold their own only in the most common words. Schwab (op. cit., p. 5) makes - atoj older than -- tatoj. vAmei,nwn is not used in the N. T. and Be,l─ tion only as an adverb once (2 Tim. 1:18). vEla,sswn appears four times, once about age as opposed to mei,zwn (Ro. 9:12), once about rank as opposed to krei,sswn (Heb. 7:7), once about excellence (Jo. 2:10) as again opposed krei,swn, and once as an adverb ( e;lasson, 1 Tim. 5:9) in the sense of less, not mikro,teroj ('smaller'). -Hsson (neuter only) is found in 1 Cor. 11: 17 as opposed to krei/sson, and as an adverb in 2 Cor. 12:15. Ka,llion (Ac. 25:10) is an adverb. Krei,sswn, is confined to Peter, Paul's Epistles and Hebrews (some eighteen examples, ten of them in Heb.). Mei,zwn is common (some fifty times), though some of them displace the superlative as we shall see directly. The neuter plural ( mei/zona) appears once as mei,zw (Jo. 1:50).190 Once also (3 Jo. 1:4) the double comparative form meizo,teroj occurs, several simitlar examples appearing in the papyri, as meizo,teroj├ melantw,teron, presbuterwt,ra.191 A few other examples in poetry and late Greek are cited by Winer-Moulton,192 like kreitto,teroj├ meizono,teroj├ meizo,─


teroj itself, meio,teroj├ pleio,teroj. Cf. English vernacular " lesser." Ta,cion (W. H. eion), not qa/sson, is the N. T. form as we read in the papyri also.193 Cf. Jo. 20:4, etc. Cei,rwn is found eleven times (cf. Mt. 9:16). The ending -- teroj more and more the usual one. Cf. tomw,teroj (Heb. 4:12). Some comparative adjectives are derived from positive adverbs like evxw,teroj (Mt. 8:12), evsw,teroj (Ac. 16:24), katw,teroj (Eph. 4: 9). These latter adjectives are common in the LXX and the later Greek, not to say Attic sometimes.194 Diplo,teroj (Mt. 23:15) is for the old Attic diplou,steroj. So Appian also. Cf. a`plo,teron, Anthol. Pal., III, 158 (Dieterich, Unters., p. 181). The Ionic already had ovligw,teroj and tacu,teroj (Radermacher, Gr., p. 56). Cf. avgaqw,teroj (Hermas, Mand. VIII, 9, 11) and avgaqw,tatoj (Diod., 16, 85). The rules for the use of - w,teroj and - o,teroj apply in the N. T. As ma/llon is often used with the positive in lieu of the comparative ending, so it is sometimes with the comparative, a double comparative ( ma/llon krei/sson, Ph. 1:23; ma/llon peisso,tern, Mk. 7:36), a construction not unknown to the classic orators of Athens where emphasis was desired.195 Paul did not perpetrate a barbarism when he used evlacisto,teroj (Eph. 3:8), a comparative on a superlative. It "is correctly formed according to the rule of the common language."196 Cf. also such a late form as evscatw,teroj.197

(C) THE SUPERLATIVE ( u`perqetiko.n o;noma). As with the comparative, so with the superlative there are primary and secondary forms. The primary superlative ending - istoj (old Indian isthas, Zend. and Goth. ista)198 did not perhaps represent the true superlative so much as the dative (intensive like English "very") superlative.199 It was never very widely used and has become extinct in modern Greek.200 The koinh, inscriptions show only a few examples like a;gcista├ e;ggista├ ka,listoj├ kra,tistoj├ me,gistoj├ plei/stoj.201 In the papyri Mayser202 notes be,ltiston├ evla,ciston (-- i,sth also), kalli,─ sth├ ka,rtistoj├ plei/stoi├ taci,sthn $- ista), ceiri,sthn. In the N. T., however, the superlative in - istoj is more common than that in - tatoj, though none too frequent in itself. They are besides usually elative (intensive) and not true superlatives.203 D reads e;g─


Addenda 3rd ed.

gista in Mk. 6:36. `O evla,cistoj (1 Cor. 15:9) is a true superlative, a thing so rare in the N. T. that Blass204 attributes this example either to the literary language or to corruption in the text.205 But Moulton206 is able to find a parallel in the Tb.P. 24, ii/B.C. But more about true and elative superlatives in Syntax (ch. XI;V, xiv). In 2 Cor. 12:9, 15 (D in Ac. 13:8), we have h[dista) Kra,tiste (Lu. 1:3, etc.) is "only a title" (Moulton, p. 78). Ma,lista appears a dozen times only, though ma/llon is exceedingly common. Blass207 indeed suggests that a popular substitute for ma,lista as for plei/sta was found in the use of perisso,j. This is much more true of the use of perisso,j as the equivalent of ma/llon or plei,wn (cf. Mt. 5:37; 27:23). Paul uses the comparative adverb perissote,rwj (Ph. 1:14. Cf. double comparative in Mk. 7:36). In Heb. 7:15 (cf. 2:1; 13:19 - wj) perisso,teron e;ti kata,─ dhlon we have more than ma/llon. Cf. me,gistoj (2 Pet. 1:4) and plei/stoj in Mt. 11:20; 21:8; 1 Cor. 14:27. Ta,cista (Ac. 17:15) Blass208 credits again to the literary element in Luke. In u[yistoj we have a superlative that occurs thirteen times and always about God or heaven (as Mk. 5:7; 11:10).

When we take up the form in - tatoj in the N. T. the story is soon told. Brugmann209 finds the origin of this ending in forms like de,katoj (cf. Latin decimus), prw/toj (cf. Latin primus), u[patoj, u[statoj. It has no direct parallel in the other languages.210 Hirt211 suggests - tamoj and - atoj as two forms which finally resulted in - tatoj. It is true that the forms in - atoj faded away as superlatives and e;scaton became evscatw,taton in the koinh, inscriptions,212 but this is true also of the forms in - tatoj.213 The papyri have "scores" of examples of superlatives in - tatoj (chiefly elative).214 The rarity of the - tatoj forms in the N T. may be purely accidental (Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 154). It is not quite true that


"only one example of the -- tatoj superlative" (Moulton, Prol., p. 78) survives in the N. T. There are three with - tatoj, besides those with - atoj: a`giw,tatoj (Ju. 20), <), avkribe,statoj (Acts 26:5), timiw,─ tatoj (Rev. 18:12; 21:11). Thackeray (Gr., p. 182) finds - tatoj much more common in the LXX, though chiefly in the elative sense and in the more literary books of the LXX (Wisd., 2-4 Mace.; Prov., Esd.). vAkribe,statoj (Ac. 26:5) Blass again credits to the literary language. ;Escatoj and prw/toj ( w from ╩wra, Doric a) are both very frequent in the N. T. See Mt. 19:30 for the contrasted prw/toi e;scati ktl) The very great number of times that prw/toj ( prw/ton included) is used in the N. T. (some 200) in contrast to only ten instances of pro,teron and one of prote,ra (Eph. 4:22) deserves comment. This seems in conflict with the observed disuse of the superlative in favour of the comparative. But a counter-tendency is at work here. The disappearance of duality before plurality has worked against pro,teron. Luke does not use pro,teron at all and it appears only once in Grenfell and Hunt's four volumes of papyri.215 The LXX shows prw/toj displacing pro,te─ roj (Thackeray, Gr., p. 183). So in English we say first story of a house with only two, first edition of a book which had only two, etc. It is almost an affectation in Greek and English, however good Latin it may be, to insist on pro,teroj. So in Jo. 1:15 ( prw/─ toj mou), 15:18 ( prw/ton u`mw/n), Ac. 1:1 ( to.n prw/ton lo,gon) we have merely first of two and in the two first instances the ablative construction as with the comparative. Winer properly saw this usage of prw/ton to be true to the Greek genius.216 In Mt. 27: 64 we have both e;scatoj and prw/toj used of two, e;stai h` evsca,th pla,nh cei,rwn th/j prw,thj. Pro,teroj is indeed used in the sense of the former in Eph. 4:22, whereas pro,teron in the sense of the first of two does appear in Heb. 7:27 ( pro,teron- e;peita).217 It is probably a defect in both Latin and Greek that the same forms were used to express the elative and true superlative sense (so as to comparative also).218 As the dual vanished, so it was inevitable that with the same principle at work either the comparative or the superlative would. Outside of e;scatoj and prw/toj where the principle crossed with a different application because pro,teroj was disappearing, it is the superlative that goes down, especially the true superlative as opposed to the dative (intensive). Hermas, though in the vernacular, still uses the superlative in the elative (inten-


sive) sense very often.219 In the N. T. then the comparative is beginning to take the place of the superlative, a usage occasionally found in classical Greek,220 and found now and then in the papyri.221 See 1 Cor. 13: 13 ta. tri,a tau/ta mei,zwn de. tou,twn h` avga,ph. See also o` mei/zwn (Mt. 18:4). But this matter will call for more comment under Syntax (ch. XIV, XIII, (i)).


No great space is demanded for the discussion of the nonsyntactical aspects of the numerals.

1. The Origin of Numerals. Donaldson222 thinks that seven of the first ten numerals may be traced to primitive pronominal elements. Pronouns and numerals belong to the stable elements of lahguage, and the numerals are rather more stable than the pronouns in the Indo-Germanic tongues.223 See the numerals in substantial integrity in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., pp. 80-84). The system of numeration is originally decimal (cf. fingers and toes) with occasional crossing of the duodecimal.224 There possibly were savages who could not count beyond two, but one doubts if the immediate ancestors of the Indo-Germanic peoples were so primitive as that.225 See previous discussion in this chapter, I, 3. Counting is one of the first and easiest things that the child learns. It is certain that the original Indo-Germanic stock had numerals up to 100 before it separated.226 The roots are widespread and fairly uniform.

2. Variety among Numerals.

(a) DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS. The numerals may be either substantive, adjective or adverb. So h` cilia,j (Lu. 14:31), ci,lioi (2 Pet. 3:8), e`pta,kij (Mt. 18:21).227 Number thus embraces separate ideas.

(b) THE CARDINALS ( ovno,mata avriqmhtika,). They may be either declinable or indeclinable, and this according to no very well-defined principle. The first four are declinable, possibly from their frequent use." After 200 ( dia─ko,sioi├ ──ai├ ──a) they have the regular


inflection of adjectives of the second and first declensions. The history of ei-j├ mi,a├ e[n is very interesting, for which see the comparative grammars.228 Ei-j is exceedingly common in the N. T. as a cardinal (Mt. 25:15) and as an indefinite pronoun (Mt. 8:19), approaching the indefinite article. For the use of ei-j in sense of ordinal see Syntax, ch. XIV, xv, (a), but it may be remarked here that the papyri have th|/ mia|/ kai. eivka,di (Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35). The indeclinable use of ei-j (or adverbial use of kata,) is common in later Greek. Cf. kaq v ei-j in Mk. 14:19; (Jo. 8:9); Ro. 12:5.229 So modern Greek uses e[na as neuter with which Mayser230 compares e[na as feminine on an early ostrakon. But the modern Greek declines e[naj├ mi,a├ e[na in all genders (Thumb, Handb., p. 81). Ouvdei,j and mhdei,j are both very common in the N. T. with the inflection of ei-j. Mhqei,j occurs only once (Ac. 27:33). W. H. admit ouvqei,j only seven times (all in Luke and Paul, as Ac. 20:33), and once (Ac. 15:9) ouvde,n is in the margin. Jannaris (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 170) calls this form in q chiefly Alexandrian, rare in Attic, but Mayser (Gr., p. 180) notes ouvdei,j as "Neubildung" while ouvqei,j is good Attic. For history of it see Orthography and Phonetics, p. 219. The frequent use of du,o as indeclinable save in the plural form dusi, in the later Greek has already been commented on in this chapter (1, 3), as well as the disappearance of a;mfw before avmfo,teroi. Indeclinable du,o is classical, and after Aristotle dusi, is the normal dative (Thackeray, Gr., p. 186). Tri,a (possibly also tri,j) is occasionally indeclinable in the papyri.231 The common use of te,ssera in the koinh, and the occasional occurrence of te,ssarej as accusative in N. T. MSS. (like Northwest Greek) have been noticed in chapters VI, 2, (a), and VII, 1, 7, (c).232 Pe,nte├ ea}x and e`pta, need not detain us. The originally dual form ovktw, is found only ten times, and five of them with other numerals. vEnne,a appears only five times, while de,ka is nothing like so common as e`pta,, not to mention the first five cardinals. [Endeka is found six times, but dw,deka is quite common, due chiefly to the frequent mention of the Apostles. From thirteen to nineteen in the N. T., like the papyri233 and the modern Greek, de,ka comes first, usually without kai,,


as de,ka ovktw, (Lu. 13:4), though once with kai, (Lu. 13:16). But unlike the papyri the N. T. never has dekadu,o.234 But dekape,nte (as Jo. 11:18) and dekate,ssarej (as Gal. 2:1) occur several times each. Ei;kosi is a dual form, while tria,konta and so on are plural.235 `Ekato,n is one hundred like a[─pax. W. H. accent e`katonaeth,j, not -- e,thj. Usually no conjunction is used with these numerals, as ei;kosi te,ssarej (Rev. 19:4), e`kato.n ei;kosi (Ac. 1:15), but tessara,─ konta kai. e[x (Jo. 2:20). Cf. Rev. 13:18. In the LXX there is no fixed order for numbers above the "teens." Thackeray, Gr., p. 188. The N. T. uses ci,lioi often and disci,lioi once (Mk. 5:13) and trisci,lioi once (Ac. 2:41). The N. T. examples of muri,oj by reason of case do not distinguish between mu,rioi, 'ten thousand' (Mt. 18:24) and muri,oi, 'many thousands' (1 Cor. 4:15). The N. T. uses muria,j several times for the latter idea ('myriads'), sometimes repeated, as muria,dej muria,dwn (Rev. 5:11). So also cilia,j is more common in the N. T. than ci,lioi, both appearing chiefly in Revelation (cf. 5:11). In Rev. 13:18 B and many cursives have cxj ,╩e`xako,sioi e`xh,kointa e[x, while the cursive 5 has cij , ╩ e`xako,─ sioi de,ka e[x. As a rule in the N. T. MSS. the numbers are spelled out instead of mere signs being used.

(c) THE ORDINALS ( ovno,mata taktika,). They describe rank and raise the question of order, po,stoj.236 They are all adjectives of three endings and all have the superlative form - toj save pro,─ teroj and deu,─teroj which are comparative.237 In most cases the ordinals are made from the same stem as the cardinals.238 But this is not true of prw/toj nor indeed of deu,─teroj (not from du,o, but from deu,omai).239 Cf. the English superlative 'first' (with suffix -isto). Prw/toj has driven pro,teroj out of use in the N. T. except as an adverb (or to. pro,teron) save in one instance, prote,ran avnastrofh,n (Eph. 4:22). The disappearance of prw/toj before the ordinal use of ei-j belongs to Syntax. In the N. T. as in the papyri240 the ordinals up to twelve are regular. From 13 to 19 the N. T., like the vernacular papyri241 (so Ionic and koinh, generally), puts the smaller


number first and as a compound with kai,, only the second half of the word in the ordinal form. So tessareskaide,katoj (Ac. 27: 27), not te,tartoj kai. de,katoj (Attic).242 But the papyri show examples of the usual Attic method,243 as e;natoj kai. eivkosto,j. The distinction between the decades (like triakosto,j) and the hundreds (like tria─ kosiosto,j) should be noted. In modern Greek all the ordinals have disappeared out of the vernacular save prw/toj├ deu,teroj├ tri,─ toj├ te,tartoj)244 The article with the cardinal is used instead.

(d) DISTRIBUTIVES IN THE N. T. The multiplicative distributives (with ending - plou/j) occur in the N. T. also. `Aplou/j as an adjective is found only twice (Mt. 6:22= Lu. 11:34), both times about the eye. Diplou/j appears four times (as 1 Tim. 5:17). Cf. the Latin sim-plex, du-plex, English simple, diplomatic. The proportional distributives end in - plasi,wn. As examples one may note e`katontaplasi,ona (Lu. 8:8) and pollaplasi,ona (Lu. 18: 30). Cf. English "two-fold," "three-fold," etc. One of the commonest ways of expressing distribution is by repetition of the numeral as in du,o du,o (Mk. 6:7). Cf. sumpo,sia sumpo,sia (Mk. 6: 39 f.). In Lu. 10:1 we have avna. du,o du,o in the text of W. H., a "mixed distributive" (Moulton, Prol., p. 97). The modern Greek has either avpo. duo, or duo. duo,) (Thumb, Handb., p. 83). It is a vernacular idiom which was given fresh impetus (Brugmann, Distributiva, p. 9) from the Hebrew idiom. Deissmann cites tri,a tri,a from 0. P. 121 (iii/A.D.). Moulton (Prol., p. 21) follows Thumb (Hellen., p. 152) in denying that it is a Hebraism. See further ch. XIV, xv (d).

(e) NUMERAL ADVERBS. These are of two kinds, either like a[ma (Ac. 24: 26), di,ca, 'in two' (not in the N. T., though see dica,zw Mt. 10:35), or like a[pax├ di,j├ tri,j, etc. The one kind answers to multiplicatives and the other to proportionals.245 The numeral adverbs continue in use in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 189 f.). The modern Greek instead of the numeral adverb uses fora, (Thumb, Handb., p. 83).


1. Idea of Pronouns. It is not the idea of a subject or object that is set forth by the pronoun, but the relation of a subject or object to the speaker.246 Sometimes, to be sure, as in conversation,


the pronoun does not strictly stand in the place of a substantive. When one person addresses another, "I" and "thou" are plain enough from the nature of the circumstances. The pronoun indicates, but does not name the speaker, etc. In a sense then language is a sort of drama in which there are three characters, the speaker, the person addressed and the person spoken of.247 Hence the first and second personal pronouns have no gender, while the third person, who may or may not be present, has gender. Giles248 cites the case of Macaulay who repeated the substantive so often as almost to make the pronoun useless, though the reverse tendency is more common. The right use of pronouns is a good index of style.

2. Antiquity of Pronouns. The personal pronouns are probably the oldest part of the Indo-Germanic declension.249 Pronouns (and numerals) are the most persistent parts of speech. They are essential to the very life of a language.250 Strange enough, the Coptic and the Hebrew, for instance, are only alike in their pronouns and their numerals.251 In Greek as in Sanskrit and English the pronouns maintain themselves with great tenacity. The pronouns are also closely akin in all the Indo-Germanic tongues. Cf. Sanskrit aham, Greek evgw,( n), Latin ego, Gothic ik, Anglo-Saxon ic, German ich, English I, French je. They retain the case-forms better than any other parts of speech.

3. Pronominal Roots. Indeed pronouns present an independent set of roots parallel to the verbal and nominal roots. As verb, noun, adjective, adverb, preposition, conjunctions, intensive particles grow up around the old verbal (and nominal) roots, so pronouns represent a separate history. There are two great root-stocks then (verbal or nominal and pronominal).252 The pronouns can be resolved into monosyllabic roots.253 One may not follow Donaldson254 (now obsolete), when he calls all the pronouns originally demonstrative, and yet something can be said for that idea. In the Sanskrit Whitney255 calls this "very limited set of roots, the so-called pronominal or demonstrative roots." Monro256 remarks that noun-stems name or describe while pronouns only


point out; the one is predicative, the other demonstrative. The difference then is fundamental. "Pronouns are found to contain the same elements as those which furnish the person-endings of verbs." (Monro, ib.)

4. Classification. Pronouns are either substantive in signification and inflection as evgw,, adjective as h`me,teroj, or adverb as ou[twj. The other classification is into nine or ten great classes: personal, intensive, reflexive, possessive, demonstrative, relative, interrogative, indefinite, distributive.257 The correlative pronouns can be regarded separately also. These classes will call for special comment in detail See also ch. XV, 1.

(a) THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. In all the Indo-Germanic tongues the personal pronouns vary a good deal in inflection from the substantives and adjectives.258 The various Greek dialects show great variety in the inflection of the personal pronouns.259 The nominative singular has a different stem in the first personal pronoun from the other cases in all the Indo-Germanic languages. The N. T. follows current and ancient usage fairly well in the form of the first and second personal pronouns. The same thing is true as to the enclitic and the emphatic forms in the oblique cases. The MSS. vary between mou and evmou/, etc. Not only do MSS. give the regular pro,j me, but the papyri260 furnish ei;j me, peri, mou├ u`po, mou. The question whether sou or sou/ should be read is a very delicate one and rests almost wholly with the editor. W. H. have, for instance, evk tou/ ovfqalmou/ sou and evn tw|/ ovfqalmw|/ sou/ in the same sentence (Mt. 7:4. Cf. also the next verse). Nestle here has no such refinement, but sou all through these verses. The third personal pronoun gave trouble in Greek as in some other languages. In Attic the old ou-├ oi-├ e[ (without nominative) was chiefly reflexive,261 though not true of the Ionic. Possibly this pronoun was originally reflexive for all the persons, but came to be used also as the simple pronoun of the third person, whereas in Latin it remained reflexive and was restricted to the third person.262 The N. T. is like the koinh,


in the use of auvto,j (common also in Attic) instead of ou- as the third personal pronoun. It is used in all three genders and in all cases save that in the nominative it usually has emphasis (cf. Mt. 1:21), a matter to be discussed under Syntax. Indeed auvto,j, whatever its etymology, is originally an intensive pronoun (like Latin ipse), not a personal pronoun.263 The "frequent and almost inordinate use" (Thayer) of auvto,j in the LXX (cf. Jer. 18:3 f.) and the N. T. is noticeable. So modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 86)

(b) THE INTENSIVE PRONOUN. The N. T. has nothing new to say as to the form of the intensive auvto,j. It is usually in the nominative that it is intensive like auvto.j mo,noj (Jo. 6:15), though not always (cf. Jo. 14:11). The modern Greek264 uses also a shorter form tou/, etc. (also Pontic avtou/), as personal pronoun. The use of o` auvto,j may be compared with o` i;dioj. See ch. XV, III, (g).

(c) REFLEXIVE PRONOUNS. The reflexive form is nothing but the personal pronoun plus the intensive auvto,j. The reflexive is one use of this intensive in combination with the personal pronoun. They were originally separate words.265 So auvto.j evgw, (Ro. 7:25) which is, of course, not reflexive, but intensive. The Greek reflexives have no nominative and the English has almost lost "himself," "myself" as nominative.266 In the N. T. the first and second persons have a distinct reflexive form only in the singular ( evmautou/├ seautou/). In 2 Th. 1:4 auvtou.j h`ma/j is obviously intensive, not reflexive. In 1 Cor. 7:35 h`mw/n auvtw/n it is doubtful.267 See ch. XV, iv, for further discussion. The contracted form sautou/ is not found in the N. T. It is common in the Kingdom books in the LXX and occurs in the papyri. See even sato,n in su, ble,pe sato.n avpo. tw/n vIoudai,wn, B.G.U. 1079 (A.D. 41). So as to auvtou/. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 190. The modern Greek uses tou/ evmautou/, mou for the reflexive (Thumb, Handb., p. 88). The reflexive for the third person268 (usually e`autou/ in the singular, about twenty times au`tou/, etc., in W. H., as au`to.n in Jo. 2:24), while the only reflexive form for all persons in the plural in the N. T. has no secure place in the N. T. for the first and second person singular. The possible reflexive (or demonstrative?) origin of a made this usage natural. It appears in the papyri269 $ta. au`tou/, Pet. I. 15, 15) and the


late inscriptions270 for the first and second person singular. In the modern Greek the same thing is true.271 But in the N. T. only late MSS. read avf v e`autou/ against avpo. seautou/ ( aBCL) in Jo. 18:34. In Gal. 5:14 and Ro. 13:9 only Syrian uncials have e`auto,n for seauto,n.272 This use of e`autw/n for all three persons is fairly common in classical Attic. Indeed the personal pronoun itself was sometimes so used ( dokw/ moi, for instance).273

(d) POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS ( kthtikai. avntwnumi,ai). It is somewhat difficult in the discussion of the pronouns to keep off syntactical ground, and this is especially true of the possessive adjectives. For the etymology of these adjectives from the corresponding personal pronouns one may consult the comparative grammars.274 But it is the rarity of these adjectives in the N. T. that one notices at once. The third person possessives ( o[j├ sfe,teroj) have entirely disappeared. So,j is found in only two of Paul's letters: 1 Cor. and Phil., and these only three times. So,j is found about twenty-six times and u`me,teroj eleven (two doubtful, Lu. 16:12; 1 Cor. 16:17). `Ume,teroj appears in Paul only in 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Ro. `Ume,teroj appears only nine times counting Lu. 16:12, where W. H. have u`me,teron in the margin, and Ac. 24:6 which W. H. reject. It is only evmo,j that makes any show at all in the N. T., occurring some seventy-five times, about half of them (41) in the Gospel of John. Thumb275 and Moulton276 have made a good deal of the fact that in Pontus and Cappadocia the use of evmo,j├ so,j, etc., is still common, while elsewhere the genitive personal pronoun prevails.277 The point is that the Gospel of John thus shows Asiatic origin, while Revelation is by another writer. But one can easily go astray in such an argument. The Gospel of Luke has evmo,j three times, but Acts not at all. The large amount of dialogue in the Gospel of John perhaps explains the frequency of the pronoun there. The possessive evmo,j is naturally in the mouth of Jesus (or of John his reporter) more than so,j, for Jesus is speaking so much about himself. The possessive is more formal and more emphatic in the solemn


words of Jesus in this Gospel.278 This is probably the explanation coupled with the fact that John was doubtless in Asia also when he wrote the Gospel and was open to whatever influence in that direction was there. The discussion of details will come later, as will the common use of the genitive of the personal pronouns rather than the possessive adjective, not to mention the article. The reflexive pronoun itself is really possessive when in he genitive case. But this as well as the common idiom o` i;dioj need only be mentioned here. The Boeotian inscriptions show F i,dioj in this sense as early as 150 B.C. (Claflin, Syntax of Boeotian Inscriptions, p. 42). The line of distinction between the pronouns is thus not always distinct, as when e`autw/n ( au`tw/n) is used in the reciprocal sense (Lu. 23:12), a usage known to the ancients. The necessity in the N. T. of using the genitive of personal pronouns in the third person after the disappearance of o[j is like the Latin, which used ejus, suus being reflexive. Farrar (Greek Syntax, p. 34) recalls the fact that its is modern, his being originally neuter also.

(e) DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS ( deiktikai. avntwnumi,ai). But deictic must have a special limitation, for all pronouns were possibly originally deictic (marking an object by its position). The anaphoric ( avnaforikai,) pronouns develop out of the deictic by usage. They refer to or repeat. The true relative is a further development of the anaphoric, which includes demonstrative in the narrower sense. In a strict historical method one should begin the discussion of pronouns with the demonstratives in the larger sense and show how the others developed.279 But here we must treat the demonstrative pronouns in the narrower sense as distinct from the original deictic or the later relative. The demonstrative thus applies both to position and relation. The declension of the demonstratives is more akin to that of substantives than any of the other pronouns.280 [Ode281 occurs only ten times in. the N. T., and eight of these in the form ta,de, seven of which come in the formula in Rev. ta,de le,gei (as Rev. 2:1, etc.). The others are ta,de (Ac. 21:11), th|/de (Lu. 10:39), th,nde (Jas. 4:13).282


The inscriptions and the papyri agree with the N. T. in the great rarity of o;de in the later koinh,.283 But in the LXX it is commoner, and chiefly here also ta,de le,gei (Thackeray, Gr., p. 191). There are also many examples of o[j as a demonstrative, as Ro. 14:5 and also cf. o`├ h`├ to, with de,├ as oi` de, in Mt. 27:4. This latter demonstrative construction is very common. Auvto,j is beginning to have a semi-demonstrative sense (common in modern Greek) in the N. T., as in Lu. 13:1, evn autw|/ kairw|/. There is little to say on the non-syntactical side about and evkei/noj and ou-toj save that both are very common in the N. T., ou-toj extremely so, perhaps four times as often as evkei/noj which is relatively more frequent in John.284 Blass285 points out the fact that ou`tos─i,, does not appear in the N. T. (nor in the LXX), though the adverb nun─i, is fairly common in Paul and twice each in Acts and Hebrews. Ouvci, is much more frequent especially in Luke and Paul. Smyth286 compares ev─kei/noj ( kei/noj in Homer) to Oscan e-tanto. Modern Greek uses both forms and also ev─tou/toj and tou/toj in the nominative.287

Of the correlative demonstratives of quality toi/oj is not found in the N. T. and toio,sde only once (2 Pet. 1: 17) . Toiou/toj (neuter toiou/to and - on) occurs fifty-seven times, chiefly in the Gospels and Paul's earlier Epistles (Gal. 5:21). We find neither to,soj nor to,sosde and tosou/toj (the only correlative demonstrative of quantity) is less frequent than toiou/toj (cf. Lu. 7:9). The neuter is also in - ─on and - o) Of the correlatives of age thlikou/toj alone is found four times (cf. Jas. 3:4). See also ch. XV,

(f) RELATIVE PRONOUNS ( avnaforikai. avntwnumi,ai). Homer shows the transition of the demonstrative to the relative, using five forms ( o`├ o[ te├ o[j├ o[j te├ o[j tij). Attic dropped o` and o[ te as well as o[s te. This use of te with o` and o[j may be compared with the common use of the Latin qui = et is. So the Hebrew hz, ('this') is sometimes relative. Cf. German der and English that.288 Relatives in the narrower sense grew naturally out of the anaphoric use of the demonstrative. The weakening of o` to the article and the introduction of the longer demonstratives ( o[de├ ou-toj├ evkei/noj) left o[j more and more for the true relative use. `O and o[j have a


different etymology. Relative o[j= Sanskrit yas. There are thus Only two pure relatives that survive in the N. T., o[j and o[stij, for o[sper and o`sdh,pote are not found save that the Western and Syrian classes read o[nper in Mk. 15:6. `Osdh,pote in Jo. 5:4 disappears with the rejection of that verse. Already the papyri289 and the inscriptions290 show the rare occurrence of o[stij, confined as a rule to the nominative and gradually disappearing in the modern Greek before o` o`poi/oj and even pou/.291 Compare the vulgar "whar" in "the man whar said that." [Ostij is, of course, merely o[j plus the indefinite tij in the sense of 'any one' or again of 'somebody in particular.' Both of these senses occur in the N. T. usage. The N. T. follows the papyri and inscriptions in using only the nominative of o[stij save the neuter accusative o[ ti (Lu. 10:35), and the genitive in set phrases like e[wj o[tou (Jo. 9:18). It is used in both the singular and the plural, however, but is otherwise nearly indeclinable. [Oj ge (Ro. 8:32) is, of course, simply o[j plus the intensive particle ge. [Oj itself is many times more common in the N. T. than o[stij and raises no questions save many syntactical ones. Oi-oj├ o`poi/oj├ o[soj├ h`li,koj are also relatives of quality, quantity and age. Oi-oj is found only fourteen times in the N. T., ten of them in Paul's writings (cf. 2 Cor. 10:11). `Opoi/oj can count up only five examples, four in Paul if we credit to him Ac. 26:29. This is a little strange when one recalls how common it is in the modern Greek. But the correlatives generally are weak in the vernacular292 koinh,. `Opo,soj is not in the N. T. nor modern Greek, but o;soj (1 Cor. 7:39) holds its own. As to h`li,koj, it drops to four instances, two of them in the same sentence (Jas. 3:5).

(g) INTERROGATIVE PRONOUNS. Ti,j, ( ti,) is fairly common in the N. T. both in direct (Mt. 21:31) and indirect questions (Mt. 26:22) like the papyri usage. Ti,j├ ti, in the Thessalian Greek is ki,j├5 ki,. So Sanskrit kas, Latin quis, Gothic hwas, English who, German wer. In Latin and English the relative is formed from the same root, but not so in the Greek. In modern Greek, however, ti,j has vanished before poi/oj $cf. o[stij before o` poi/oj%├293 accented poio,j, though ti, (indeclinable) survives strangely enough in the sense of "what sort."294 In the N. T. the qualitative cor-


Addenda 3rd ed.

relative poi/oj is used fairly often as a direct interrogative (cf. Mk. 11:28) and sometimes as an indirect interrogative (Mt. 24:42). Potapo,j is used a few times in direct (Mt. 8:27) and indirect also (Lu. 7:39). Po,soj is still used as a direct interrogative (Mt. 12:12) in quantitative questions and a few times in indirect questions (Mk. 15:4). Phli,koj occurs only twice (one of these doubtful, Gal. 6 : 11, W. H. h`li,koij margin) and both times in indirect question (Heb. 7:4). The disappearance of duality has taken po,teroj entirely away, though po,teron occurs once as an adverb in an indirect question (Jo. 7:17). In the LXX we find po,teron only once in Job (Thackeray, Gr., p. 192). Modern Greek does not use phli,koj, though po,soj survives.

(h) INDEFINITE PRONOUNS. Like the Latin ali-quis (interrogative quis) the Greek ti.j differs from the interrogative ti,j only in accent. It is very common in the N. T. (as Lu. 1:5), but already it is giving way to ei-j (Mt. 8:19), a usage not unknown to the older Greek.295 In the N. T. we have ei-j tij together (Mk. 14:47; Lu. 22:50). Modern Greek has supplanted ti.j├ ti. by kanei,j ( ka;n, ei-j) and kaqei,j (cf. kaq v ei-j in N. T.).296 The negative forms mh,tij and ou;tij do not appear in the N. T. save that mh,ti occurs in questions (Mt. 12:23) and mh, tij with i[na. But mhdei,j and ouvdei,j are very common. The old dei/na meets us only once (Mt. 26:18), but hangs on in the modern Greek.297 Ouv pa/j and mh. pa/j belong wholly to Syntax.

(1) DISTRIBUTIVE AND RECIPROCAL PRONOUNS. These pronouns have an insecure place in the N. T. with the exception of a;lloj├ avllh,lwn├ e[kastoj and e[teroj. `Eka,teroj like po,teroj has vanished, as implying duality. It is rare in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 192). ;Amfw is gone, but avmfo,teroi lingers on in some fourteen instances (cf. Mt. 9:17). vAllh,lwn (composed of a;lloj├ a;l─ loj) is naturally only in the oblique cases of the plural, but is fairly common (cf. Jo. 4:33). It has vanished in the modern Greek. [Ekastoj on the other hand appears only in the singular except in Ph. 2:4 (probably twice there). It too has disappeared in the modern Greek. [Eteroj is beside avmfo,teroi the only surviving dual pronoun, and it goes down in the modern Greek along with avmfo,teroi.298 It is less common (97 times) in the N. T.


than a;lloj (150), chiefly in Matthew; Luke, Paul, Heb., never in Revelation, Peter, and only once in Jo. Jo.(19:37) and Mk. Mk.(16:12) and this latter in disputed part. It is usually in the singular (73 times, plural 24). The distinction (not always observed in the N. T.) between a;lloj and e[teroj belongs to Syntax. The use of ei-j to.n e[na as reciprocal (1 Th. 5:11) and of e`autw/n (1 Cor. 6:7) along with other uses of a;lloj and e[teroj will receive treatment under Syntax.


1. Neglect of Adverbs. A glance at the average grammar will show that the grammarians as a rule have not cared much for the adverb, though there are some honorable exceptions. Winer has no discussion of the adverb save under Syntax. Still others have not understood the adverb. For instance, Green299 says that once in the N. T. "a preposition without change is employed as an adverb," viz. u`per evgw, (2 Cor. 11:23). That is a perfunctory error which assumes that the preposition is older than the adverb. It is of a piece with the idea that regards some adverbs as "improper" prepositions. Donaldson300 says that, with compliments to Horne Tooke, "the old grammarian was right, who said that when we know not what else to call a part of speech, we may safely call it an adverb." Certainly it is not easy nor practicable always to distinguish sharply between the adverb and preposition, conjunction, interjections and other particles.301 But the great part played by the adverb in the history of the Greek language makes it imperative that justice shall be done to it. This is essential for the clear understanding of the prepositions, conjunctions and particles as well as the aldverb itself. Substantive and verb blend at many points and glide easily into each other in English, for instance. Attention has often been called to the use of "but" in English as adverb, preposition, conjunction, substantive, adjective and pronoun.302


2. Formation of the Adverb. The name suggests a mere addendum to the verb, an added word (like the adjective) that is not necessary. But in actual fact adverbs come out of the heart of the language, expressions fixed by frequent usage.

(a) FIXED CASES. A large number303 of words retain the caseending in the adverb and often with the same function. Perhaps the bulk of the adverbs are either the simple case used directly in an adverbial sense or the formation by analogy. It is just because adverbs are usually fixed case-forms or remnants of obsolete case-forms that they deserve to be treated under the head of Declensions. They have to be approached from the standpoint of the cases to understand their history. Leaving analogy for the moment let us see some examples of the cases that are so used. The cases most commonly used thus are the ablative, locative, instrumental and accusative.304 The dative and genitive are seldom employed as adverbs. The vocative never occurs in this sense, and the nominative (so occasionally in Sanskrit) only in a phrase like kaq v ei-j in the addition to John's Gospel (Jo. 8:9), to. kaq v ei-j (Ro. 12:5). Cf. avna─mi,x. Examples of the various cases as used in the N. T. will be given without attempting to be exhaustive. The koinh, and the modern Greek illustrate the same general tendencies as to adverbs that we see in the earlier Greek. Here the N. T. is in close accord with the papyri as to adverbs in use.305

(1) The Accusative. The most obvious illustration of the accusative in adverbs is the neuter of adjectives in the positive, comparative and superlative (singular and plural). In the comparative the singular is the rule, in the superlative the plural, but variations occur.306 In the modern Greek accusative plural is more common even in the comparative (Thumb, Handb., p. 77). Take for the positive au;rion, euvqu, ( j added later), polla,├ makra,n. The comparative may be illustrated by u[steron├ be,ltion, and the superlative by prw/ton (and prw/ta) and h[dista. Cf. also taci,sthn. Sometimes the article is used with the adjective where the adverbial idea is encroaching, as to. loipo,n├ ta. polla,, and note also th.n avrch,n (Jo. 8:25), substantive with article. But the substantive alone has abundant examples also, as avkmh,n├ avrch,n├ dwrea,n├ pe,ran├ ca,rin.


Scedo,n is a specimen of the adverb in - don, - da. Cf. also o`moquma─ do,n├ r`oizhdo,n. The accusative in adverbs is specially characteristic of the koinh, (cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 459; Schmid, Attic., II, pp. 36 ff.). In the modern Greek the accusative for the adverbs is almost universal. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 77.

(2) The Ablative. All adverbs in - wj are probably ablatives. Kalw/j, for instance, is from an original kalw/d. The d (Sanskrit t) is dropped and a final j is added.307 Cf. old Latin meritod, facilumed.308 The ou[twj├ w`j of the Greek correspond exactly with the old Sanskrit ta ,d, ya ,d. The ending in - wj comes by analogy to be exceedingly common. Practically any adjective can by - wj make an adverb in the positive. Some, like avdialei,ptwj, belong to the later Greek ( koinh,).309 Participles also may yield such adverbs as feidome,nwj (2 Cor. 9:6), o`mologoume,nwj (1 Tim. 3:16), o;ntwj (Mk. 11:32). Radermacher (N. T. Gk., p. 54) cites avrkou,ntwj├ tetolmhko,twj (Diod., XVI, 74. 6), etc. The bulk of the adverbs in - wj are from adjectives and pronouns. But the examples of - wj are rare in the modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 77).

(3) The Genitive. There are not many adverbs in this case outside of those ending in - ou, like quvtou/├ o[pou├ pou/├ o`mou/ and - h/j ( e`xh/j). This use survives in modern Greek. Cf. the local use of the genitive in vEfe,sou (Ac. 19:26). The common use of h`me,raj, nukto,j verges toward the adverb.310 Cf. also tou/ loipou/ (Gal. 6:17). The genitive is almost never used adverbially in Sanskrit.311

(4) The Locative. This is a rare use in Sanskrit,312 but more frequent in Greek. Instance evkei/├ ku,klw|├ oi;koi├ prwi,. So also avei,, pe,rusi, etc. Hirt313 (but not Brugmann) likewise treats examples like dhmosi,a|├ ivdi,a|├ pezh|/, etc., as locative. Certainly poi/ is locative, but it does not appear in the N. T. Cf. also tw|/ o;nti (article and participle) in adverbial sense (Ro. 7:23).

(5) The Instrumental. This case lends itself naturally to the adverb where the idea of manner (associative) is so common.314 In the Sanskrit it is very common for adverbs to be in the instrumental.315 Such adverbs as a[ma (cf. ablative o[mwj from same root), eivkh/, krufh/$h|/%├ la,qra$a|%├ ma,la├ pa,nth$h|%├ pantach/$h|/%├ ta,ca, etc., are doubt-


less instrumental. In some cases i is added to bring it in harmony with the locative-dative cases with which it blended.316 Brugmann317 also puts here such words as a;nw├ ka,tw├ e;xw├ avnwte,rw├ avnw─ ta,tw├ ou;─pw) ──Pw is by ablaut from - ─ph (so Laconic ph,─poka).

(6) The Dative. As in the Sanskrit,318 so in the Greek the dative is very rare in adverbs. Indeed Hirt319 is not far wrong when he says that it is not easy to find any dative adverbs distinct from the locative, though he accepts parai, camai,├ ktl. as dative (p. 260). Brugmann320 thinks otherwise, and one is slow to dissent from the modern master of comparative grammar. He cites pa,lai├ camai,├ katai,├ parai,├ ku,klw|├ spoudh|/, etc. But Delbruck321 is against Brugmann here. Besides the dative in its proper sense is a little difficult to fit into an adverb. But we have given enough to justify the treatment of adverbs under the declensions.322

(b) SUFFIXES. Other adverbs are formed by suffixes which may be relics of lost case-endings that are no longer clear to us. Here only the main suffixes in use in the N. T. will be mentioned. For - a,ki─j take polla,kij and the numeral adverbs like tetra,kij, etc. For - acou/ note pantacou/. For -- de take oi;kade. For - don take o`mo─ qumado,n (Ac. 18:12). For - hj we may note evxai,fnhj├ e`xh/j├ evfexh/j. Those in - qe$n% are numerous, like a;nwqen├ e;xwqen├ ouvrano,qen├ paidio,─ qen, etc. Auvto,qi is common in the papyri, but not in the N. T.323 The deictic i, appears in nuni, and ouvci,. An example of - ─ij appears in mo,lij (cf. mo,gij Text. Rec. in Lu. 9:39). For - ti, note vEbrai?─ sti,├ `Ellhnisti,├ Lukaonisti,├ `Rwmai?sti,. For - ka take h`ni,ka. For - n we have nu/n├ pa,lin. For -- te we may mention o[─te├ po,─te. Then - n is added in the case of di,j├ tri,j and various other words like a;crij, euvqu,j├ ce,crij├ ou[twj├ tetra,kij├ cwri,j, etc. vEkei/se is an instance of ──se. Then - toj appears in evkto,j├ evnto,j, Finally - ca is seen in e;n─ nuca. The papyri furnish parallels for practically all these N. T. examples (and many more).324 [Apax seems to stand by itself.

(c) COMPOUND ADVERBS. Some adverbs are due to the blend-


ling of several words into one word, perhaps with modification by analogy. The koinh, is rather rich in these compound adverbs and Paul fairly revels in them. As samples take e;kpalai (2 Pet. 2:3), kate,nanti (2 Cor. 12:19), katenw,pion (Eph. 1:4), parauti,ka (2 Cor. 4:17), avproswpolh,mptwj (1 Pet. 1:17), para─ crh/ma (Lu. 1:64), u`pera,nw (Eph. 4:10), u`pere,keina (2 Cor. 10:16), u`perekperissou/ (1 Th. 3:10), u`perli,an (2 Cor. 11:5), u`perperissw/j (Mk. 7:37), etc. The intense emotion in 2 Cor. explains the piling-up and doubling of some of these prepositional phrases. Occasionally a verbal clause is blended into one word and an adverb made by analogy with -- wj. So (from nou/n e;cw) nounecw/j (Mk. 12:34), used by Aristotle and Polybius along with another adverb like nouneco,ntwj in Isocrates.325 But in Mark it is used without any other adverb. `Uperballo,ntwj (2 Cor. 11:23) is made from the participle and is common in Attic (Xen., Plato). There are, besides, adverbial phrases like avpo. makro,qen (Mk. 15:40) avp v a;nw─ qen├ e[wj ka,tw (Mt. 27:51), etc. Cf. Con. and Stock, Sel. fr. LXX, p. 47. See chapter V, p. 170, for discussion of the formation of compound adverbs which are very common in the koinh,. Paul uses the idiom frequently. For the use of adverbs in the see Mayser's careful list from the papyri, pp. 455 ff., and NachManson, Magn. Inschr., p. 138 f. New adverbs are continually made in the later Greek, though many of the older ones survive in the modern Greek. Cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 78ff. He groups tillem under place, time, manner and quantity.

(d) ANALOGY. A word is needed to accent the part played by analogy in the formation of adverbs, though it has already been alluded to. The two examples mentioned above, nounecw/j and u`perballo,ntwj will serve as good illustrations of the work done by the principle of analogy. The bulk of the - wj adverbs are ablatives made by analogy.326

(e) THE COMPARISON OF ADVERBS. In general the adverb is like the adjective save that in the comparative the accusative singular is used, like ta,cion, and the accusative plural in the superlative, like ta,cista. But, per contra, note prw/ton and katwte,rw (Mt. 2:16), perissote,rwj (2 Cor. 1:12), spoudaiote,rwj (Ph. 2:28), evsca,twj (Mk. 5:23), porrwte,rw (Lu. 24:28. AB - ron). Cf. further ch. XII, III.

3. Adverbial Stems. The derivation of the adverb deserves a further word, though the facts have already been hinted at. Brief mention is all that is here called for by way of illustration.


(a) SUBSTANTIVES. As N. T. examples of adverbs from substantives may be mentioned avrch,n├ dwrea,n├ ca,rin.

(b) ADJECTIVES. It was and is always possible to make an adverb from any Greek adjective by the ablative ending - wj. Cf. both tacu, (accusative) and tace,wj (ablative). Indeed the line between the adjective and adverb was never sharply drawn, as will be shown when we come to the study of the syntax of the adjective (cf. English "looks bad," "feels bad," a different idea from the adverb, however). In passing note e`kou/sa (Ro. 8:20) and deuterai/oi (Ac. 28:13) in strict accordance with the Greek idiom. The comparison of adverbs is another link between adverb and adjective. In most cases, however, it is merely the use of the comparative and superlative forms of the adjective as an adverb. But in some cases the comparative and superlative adverb is made without any corresponding adjective, done by analogy merely. So ma/llon├ ma,lista, from ma,la├ avnw,teron from the adverb a;nw. Cf. also evggu,teron (Ro. 13:11) from evggu,j├ katwte,rw (Mt. 2:16) from ka,tw, and porrw,teron (Lu. 24:28) from po,rrw. Comparative adjectives made from positive adverbs are, on the other hand, seen in evxw,teroj (Mt. 8:12), evsw,teroj (Heb. 6:19), katw,teroj (Eph. 4:9). Katwte,rw├ perissote,rwj (Heb. 2:1, often in Paul; Gal. 1:14), spoudaiote,rwj (Ph. 2:28), tolmhrote,rwj (Ro. 15:15) rather than the forms in - teron are due to analogy of the ablative - wj. Adverbs made from participles can be looked upon as adjectival or verbal in origin, since the participle is both verb and adjective.

(c) NUMERALS. All that is necessary here is to mention such words as prw/ton├ di,j├ e`pta,kij etc. In Ac. 11:26 we have prw,twj instead of prw/ton. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 58) cites for - wj Clem., Hom. 9, 4; 16, 20; Polyb. vi, 5. 10; Diod., etc.

(d) PRONOUNS. The pronominal adverbs are very numerous, like ou[twj├ w`sau,twj, etc., auvtou/├ pote,├ to,te├ w[de, etc. As with the correlative pronouns, so the correlative adverbs are lessening. Of the indefinite adverbs only pote,├ pou, (a few times), and pwj (only in ei;pwj├ mh, pwj) appear.327 Forms like oi-├ o[poi├ poi/ have vanished before ou-├ o[pou├ pou/. Cf. English,328 "where (rather than 'whither') are you going?" Cf. also the accusative ti,. (Mk. 10:18) = 'why.'

(e) VERBS. Besides such words as nounecw/j (verbal phrase) and participles like o;ntwj├ o`mologoume,nwj├ feidome,nwj├ u`perballo,ntwj one should note vEbrai?sti, (from vEbrai>zw), `Ellhnisti, (from `Ellhni,zw),


Addenda 3rd ed.

etc. In Jas. 4:13; 5:1 a;ge is used with the plural as an adverb, if indeed it is not in reality an interjection. The modern view of the imperative forms like a;ge (cf. vocative avge, from avgo,j) is that it is merely the root without suffix.329 In the case of deu/ro we actually have a plural deu/te. Moulton330 illustrates the close connection between interjectional adverb and verb by the English "Murder!" which could be mere interjection or verbal injunction according to circumstances.

4. Use of Adverbs. This is still another way of looking at the subject, but it is a convenience rather than a scientific principle. Blass331 in his N. T. Grammar follows this method solely.

(a) ADVERBS OF MANNER. These are very numerous indeed, like pneumatikw/j├ spoudai,wj, etc. vEsca,twj e;cei (Mk. 5:23) is not like the English idiom. The phrase really means that she has it in the last stages. Cf. bare,wj e;cousa (Pap. Brit. M., 42). Eu=, so common in Attic, has nearly gone in the N. T. (only in Mk. 14:7; Mt. 25:21, 23; Ac. 15:29; Eph. 6:3 quot.). vEsca,twj e;cei occurs also in Lu. 19:17 (W. H. text, margin eu=%. Kalw/j is common. Be,ltion, appears once (2 Tim. 1:18) and krei/sson often (1 Cor. 7:38). The comparative adverb diplo,teron (Mt. 23:15) is irregular in form ( a`plou,steron) and late.332

(b) ADVERBS OF PLACE. These answer the questions "where" and "whence." "Whither" is no longer a distinct idea in N. T. Greek nor the koinh, generally. Even in ancient Greek the distinction was not always maintained.333 Blass334 carefully illustrates how "here" and "hither" are both expressed by such words as evnqa,de (Ac. 16:28; Jo. 4:16), oddly enough never by evntau/qa, though w-de (especially in the Gospels) is the common word (Lu. 9:33, 41). But evkei/ is very common in the sense of 'there' and 'thither' (here again chiefly in the Gospels) as in Mt. 2:15, 22. vEkei/se ('thither') is found only twice, and both times in Acts Acts(21:3; 22: 5), which has a literary element. So ou- in both senses (Lu. 4:16; 10:1) and o[pou (very common in John's Gospel, 14:3 f.). The interrogative pou/ (Jo. 1:39; 3:8) follows suit. The indefinite pou, is too little used to count (Heb. 2:6) and once without local idea, rather 'about' (Ro. 4:19). vAllacou/ occurs once (Mk. 1: 38), but pantacou/ several times (Lu. 9:6, etc.). `Omou/ is found four times only (Jo. 4:36, etc.), and once D adds o`mo,se (Ac. 20:


18). Pantach|/$h% likewise is read once (Ac. 21:28), Syrian class -- ou/) In Ac. 24:3 pa,nth$h|% is contrasted with pantacou/. Other adverbs of place in the N. T. are a;nw├ evnto,j├ evkto,j├ e;sw├ e;xw├ ka,tw. A number of adverbs answer to the question "whence." They are usually words in - qen. vAllaco,qen (Jo. 10:1) is found only once in the N. T. ;Anwqen (Mk. 15:38) is more frequent, though never ka,twqen) The only pronominal forms that appear in the N. T. are evkei/qen (Rev. 22:2, rather common in Matthew), e;nqen (Mt. 17:20), evnt u/qen (twice in Jo. 19:18, and in contrast with evkei/qen Rev. 22:2), pa,ntoqen (Mk. 1:45), o[qen (Mt. 12:44), po,qen (Mt. 21:25). The last two are fairly frequent. Blass335 notes how "stereotyped and meaningless" the ending - qen has become in many examples, especially with e;mprosqen, (common in Matthew and Luke) and o;psqen (rare). See both in Rev. 4:6. In some cases by a little effort the real force of - qen may be seen, but the old Greek soon allowed it to become dim in these words. In the case of e;swqen and e;xwqen Blass336 insists on the force of - qen, only in Mk. 7:18, 21, 23; Lu. 11:7. Cf. also kuklo,qen (Rev. 4:8). The addition of avpo, occasionally may be due either to the weakened sense of - qen or to a fuller expansion of its true idea. So avp v a;nw─ qen twice (Mt. 27:51, so W. H. against aL a;nwqen, Mk. 15:38), avpo. makro,qen (Mk. 5:6; 15:40, etc.), evk paidio,qen (Mk. 9:21). Blass337 observes that both makro,qen and paidio,qen are late words and that late writers are fond of using prepositions with - qen as Homer had avp v ouvrano,qen. But Luke used only ouvrano,qen in Ac. 14:17.

(c) ADVERBS OF TIME. The list is not very great, and yet appreciable. vAei, (Ac. 7:51) is not in the Gospels at all and is largely supplanted by pa,ntote (Jo. 6:34) like the koinh, and modern Greek. `Hni,ka is read twice only (2 Cor. 3:15 f.). ;Epeia (1 Cor. 12:28) and ei=ta (Mk. 4:17) are about equally frequent. [Ote (Mt. 9:25) occurs 101, o[tan (Mt. 9:15) 130 times. `Opo,te appears only in the Syrian class in Lu. 6:3 against the neutral and Western o[te (so W. H.). Po,te (Mt. 17:17) and pote, (Lu. 22:32) are both far less common than o[te and o[tan. But to,te and pa,lin amply atone for this scarcity. All the numeral adverbs ( a[pax├ prw/ton├ di,j├ e`pta,kij etc.) belong here also.

5. Scope of Adverbs. Here again we are retracing ground and crossing our steps, but a brief word will be useful to show how from adverbs grew other parts of speech. The fact has been stated before. What is here called for is some of the proof and illustration.


(a) RELATION BETWEEN ADVERBS AND PREPOSITIONS. When we come to study prepositions (ch. XIII) a fuller discussion of this matter will be given. Here the principle will be stated. "The preposition therefore is only an adverb specialized to define a case-usage."338 That puts the matter in a nutshell. Many of the older grammars have the matter backwards. The use of prepositions with verbs is not the original one. In Homer they are scattered about at will. So with substantives. "Anastrophe is therefore no exception, but the original type"339 like ti,noj e[neka (Ac. 19:32). To quote Giles340 again, "between adverbs and prepositions no distinct line can be drawn." As samples of cases in prepositions take par─o,j (gen.), par─ai, (dat.), per─i, (loc.), par─a, (instr.). It is unscientific to speak of adverbs which "may be used like prepositions to govern nouns"341 and then term them "preposition adverbs" or "spurious prepositions." Prepositions do not "govern" cases, but more clearly define them. When adverbs do this, they are just as really prepositions as any others. These will be treated therefore in connection with the other prepositions. They are words like a[ma├ a;neu├ e;xw├ ovpi,sw, etc.

(b) ADVERBS AND CONJUNCTIONS. These are usually of pronominal origin like o[─te (acc. plus te% ou- (gen.), w`j (abl.), avlla, (ace. plural), i[─na (instr.), etc. Some conjunctions are so early as to elude analysis, like de,├ te,, etc.342 But in most cases the history can be traced. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 60) remarks on the poverty of the N. T. Greek in particles, a poverty as early as the vAqnhai,wn Politei,a of Aristotle, which is much barer than the N. T. These conjunctions and other particles in the N. T. are cited by Blass: avlla,├ a[ma├ a;ra├ a;rage├ a=ra├ a=ra, ge├ a;cri$j%├ ga,r├ ge├ de,├ dh,├ dh,pou├ dio, dio,per├ eva,n├ eva,nper├ eiv├ ei;per├ ei=ta├ ei=te├ evpa,n evpei,├ evpeidh,├ e`peidh,per├ e`pei,per (only as variation in Ro. 3:30), e;peita├ e[wj├ h'├ h= or ei= mh,n├ h;dh├ h`ni,ka ( h;per only variation in Jo. 12:43), h;toi├ i[na├ kaqa,├ kaqa,per├ kaqo,├ kaqo,ti├ kaqw,j├ kai,├ kai,per├ kai,toi$ge%├ me,n menou/nge├ me,ntoi├ me,cri$j% ou- $me,cri[ j] variation for), mh,, mhde,├ mh,te├ mh,ti├ nai,├ nh,├ o[mwj├ o`po,te├ o[pwj├ o[tan├ o[te├ o[ti├ ouv├ ouvci├ ouvde,├ ouvkou/n├ ou=n├ ou;te├ per with other words, plh,n├ pri,n te├ toi├ (in kai,toi, me,ntoi, etc.), toi─gar─ou/n├ toi,nun├ w`j├ w`sa,n├ w`sei, w[sper├ w`sperei,├ w[ste) Several of these occur only once $dh,pou├ evpeidh,per├ nh,├ o`po,te├ ouv─


kou/n). But Blass has not given a complete list. Cf. also dio,ti├ o[qen├ ou-├ o[poi├ po,te, etc. Fifteen other Attic particles are absent from this N. T. list. The matter will come up again in ch. XXI.

(c) ADVERBS AND INTENSIVE PARTICLES. Pe,r is an older form of per─i,. Usually, however, as with ge, the origin is obscure. Others used in the N. T. are dh,├ dh,pou├ me,n toi, (with other particles). See ch. XXI.

(d) ADVERBS AND INTERJECTIONS. Interjections are often merely adverbs used in exclamation. So with a;ge├ deu/ro├ deu/te├ e;a, i;de├ ivdou,├ ou;a├ ouvai,├ w=. Interjections may be mere sounds, but they are chiefly words with real meaning. ;Age and i;de are both verbstems and ivdou, is kin to i;de. The origin of the adverbs here used as interjections is not always clear. Ouvai, as in Mt. 11:21 (common in the LXX, N. T. and Epictetus) has the look of a dative, but one hesitates. As a substantive h` ouvai, is probably due to qli,yij or talaipwri,a (Thayer). Cf. chapters XII, v, and XVI, v, (e), for use of article with adverb, as to. nu/n. For the adverb like adjective, as h` o;ntwj ch,ra (1 Tim. 5:5), see p. 547. In Lu. 12:49 ti, may be an exclamatory adverb (accusative case), but that is not certain. Deu/ro sometimes is almost a verb (Mk. 10:21). The relative adverb w`j is used as an exclamation in w`j w`rai/oi (Ro. 10:15) and w`j avnexereu,nhta (Ro. 11:33). The interrogative pw/j is likewise so employed, as pw/j du,skolo,n evsti (Mk. 10:24), pw/j sune,comai (Lu. 12:50), pw/j evfi,lei auvto,n (Jo. 11:36). Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 258. Thus we see many sorts of adverbs and many ways of making them.

1 Donaldson, New Crat., p. 421. It is in the accidence that the practical identity of N. T. Gk. with the popular koinh, is best seen, here and in the lexical point of view (Deissmann, Exp., Nov., 1907, p. 434).

2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 102; Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 264.

3 Ib., pp. 105, 111. Cf. Hatzidakis, Einl. etc., pp. 376 ff.

4 Sans. Gr., p. 111.

5 Mod. Gk. vernac. has only three cases (nom., gen. and acc.) and these are not always formally differentiated from each other. The mod. Gk. has thus carried the blending of case-forms almost as far as mod. Eng. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 31.

6 Hadley, Ess. Philol. and Crit., Gk. Gen. or Abl., p. 52. Cf. also Miles, Comp. Synt. of Gk. and Lat., 1893, p. xvii. This blending of the cases in Gk. is the result of "partial confusion" "between the genitive and the ablative between the dative and the locative, between the locative and the instrumental" (Audoin, La Decl. dans les Lang. Indo-Europ., 1898, p. 248). In general on the subject of the history of the eight cases in Gk. see Brugmann, Griech. Gr., pp. 217-250, 375 f.; Comp. Gr. of the Indo-Ger. Lang., vol. III, pp. 52-280; Furze vergl. Gram., II, pp. 418 ff.; K.-B1., I, pp. 365-370, II, pp. 299-307; Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 268-301; Bopp, Uber das Dem. und den Urspr. der Casuszeichen etc., 1826; Hartung, Uber die Casus etc., 1831; Hilbschmann, Zur Casuslehre, 1875; Rumpel, Casusl., 1845; Meillet, Intr. a l'Etude Comp., pp. 257 ff.; Penka, Die Entst. der Synkr. Casus im Lat., Griech. und Deutsch., 1874. See also p. 33 f. of Hubner, Grundr. zu Vorles. uber die gricch. Synt.; Schleicher, Vergl. Griech.; Schmidt, Griech. Gr., etc.

7 Brugmann (Griech. Gr., 1900, p. 225), who considers the j in ou[twj├ ktl), due to analogy merely, like the j in evggu,─j├ ktl. But he sees an abl. idea in evk─to,j. Cf. also ouvrano,─qe like coeli-tus.

8 Hadley, Ess. Phil. and Crit., p. 52.

9 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 287.

10 Ib., p. 290. For survivals of the dat. -at see the Rhodian tai/, (Bjorkegren, De Sonis dial. Rhod., p. 41).

11 Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 228. Cf. the Lat. domi, Romoe(i). For numerous exx. of loc. and dat. distinct in form in the various dialects see Meister, Griech. Dial., Bd. II, pp. 61 ff.; Hoffmann, Griech. Dial., Bd. I, p. 233 (dat. - ai, loc. -- i; dat. - wi, loc. - oi). Cf. Collitz and Bechtel, Samml. d. griech. dial. Inschr., p. 308.

12 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 278 f.

13 Griech. Gr., 3. Aufl., p. 229. Cf. K.-B1., II., pp. 301-307, for examples of the survival of abl., loc. and instr. forms in Gk. adverbs. Cf. also Meister, Griech. Dial., II., p. 295, for survivals of instr. forms in Cypriotic dial. ( avra/├ euvcwla/). See Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I. Tl., p. 194.

14 Farrar, Gr. Synt., p. 23.

15 Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 271. Bergaigne (Du Role de la Deriv. dans la Decl. Indo-Europ., Mem. de la Soc. de Ling. de Paris, to. ii, fasc. 5) and G. Meyer (Zur Gesch. der indo-germ. Stammb. and Decl.) both argue that caseendings had no distinctive meaning in themselves nor separate existence. But see also Hirt, Handb. etc., pp. 231-288, for careful treatment of the cases. On the general subject of syncretism in the Gk. cases see Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., 1. Tl., pp. 189 ff., 195 f. See also Sterrett, Horn. II., N. 15, for traces of abl., loc. and instr. forms in Hom. (loc. - i, -- qi* instr., - fi, - fin; abl., - qen).

16 Giles, op. cit., p. 273.

17 Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 149. Cf. also Keck, Uber d. Dual bei d. griech. Rednern etc., 1882.

18 Tattam's Egyp. Gr., p. 16.

19 Prol., p. 57.

20 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 23. Cf. Geiger, Ursp. d. Spr., ž ix. Cf. Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 264.

21 Prol., p. 57.

22 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 101.

23 Meisterhans, Att. Inschr., p. 201.

24 Moulton, Cl. Rey,, 1901, p. 436.

25 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 138.

26 Compernass, De Serm. Vulg. etc., p. 15. Tatian (p. 96 of his works) shows a dual.

27 Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 289 f. But cf. K.-BI., I, p. 362, for further items about the dual.

28 Deissmann, B. S., p. 187. For dusi,$n% in the inscriptions see Dittenberger, 118. 22, etc. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 313. For similar situations in the LXX MSS. ( toi/j du,o├ toi/j dusi,, and A duoi/n, a duei/n) see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 53. Cf. also C. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 25.

29 Moulton, Prol., p. 80.

30 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 103.

31 Paul, Prim of Hist. of Lang., pp. 289 ff. Brugmann thinks that gender came largely by formal assimilation of adj. to subst. as a;nqrwpoj kako,j├ cw,ra i`era,. Dan. Crawford, the Bantu missionary, claims 19 genders for Bantu.

32 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 26 f.

33 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 64, 259.

34 Prol., p. 59. On the whole subject of gender see K.-B1., I, pp. 358 ff.

35> Moulton, Prol., p. 60, but he adds "is explained by inscriptions." Cf. Nachmanson, Magn. Inschr., p. 126, for many exx.

36 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 32. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 160. Mk. and Jo. have only to. vIeroso,luma and Mt. usually.

37 Meisterhans, Att. Inschr., p. 129.

38 Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157. Moulton (Prol., p. 60) finds limo,j now masc. and now fern. in the pap. LXX MSS. show similar variations. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 45; Thack., p. 145 f., for same situation in LXX concerning ba,toj├ avla,bastroj $──on%├ lhno,j├ sta,mnoj. Cf. C. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 27, for further exx.

39 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 32.

40 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 26. Cf. Theophrast, De lapid. 49, fors h` u[eloj.

41 Moulton, Prol., p. 59. He corrects this erratum in note to H. Scott.

42 Ib.

43 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 106. Swete, 0. T. in Gk., p. 304 f., has some good illustrations and remarks about the declensions in the LXX.

44 Both vAgri,ppa and vAgri,ppou occur in the pap. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, pp. 34 and 434. This gen. in - a gradually became "a ruling principle" for all substantives in - aj (Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 108, 110). See Thumb, Handb., p. 49. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., pp. 160-166. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 33, for LXX illustrations.

45 Magn. Inschr., p. 120. Cf. also Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 139.

46 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 94.

47 Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 159. See Nachmanson (Magn. Inschr., p. 119) and Schweizer (Perg. Inschr., p. 138 f.) for illustrations of these points from the koinh, inscr. The gen. in - ou is more common in the pap. than that in - a. See Mayser, Gr. griech. Pap., 1906, p. 250 f. (Laut- u. Wortlehre). For the contracted forms see p. 252. It is also more frequent in the LXX. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 161 f.

48 W.-Sch., p. 94.

49 B. S., p. 186.

50 Prol., p. 48; Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 34. where a number of exx. are given like avrou,rhj├ kaqhkui,hj, etc. Cf. Thumb, Hellen., p. 69. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 31-33, and Thack., Gr., p. 140 f., for similar phenomena in the LXX.

51> Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 156.

52 Deissmann, B. S., p. 186.

53 Gregory, Prol., p. 117. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 81.

54 Moulton, Prol., p. 48.

55 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25.

56 Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 434. For examples in Attic inscriptions see Meisterhans, p. 119 f. Cf. Sousa,nnaj in LXX, C. and S., Sel. fr. the LXX, p. 26.

57 Prol., p. 48. Cf. also his paper in Proc. Camb. Philol. Soc., Oct., 1893, p. 12.

58 Gr., p. 25, but 4th ed., p. 28, cites P. Lond. I, 124, 26, crusa/n h' avrgura/n.

59 Prol., p. 48. "Falsche Analogie" acc. to W.-Sch., p. 81.

60 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 28 f.

61 Pp. 83 ff. Thack. (Gr., p. 153) includes heteroclisis under metaplasm.

62 Prol., p. 48.

63 Ib., p. 244.

64 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 129. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 48.

65 Ib.

66 Ib. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 34.

67 Notes on Orth., p. 156.

68 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 28; K.-B1., I, 3, 502. Cf. also W.-M., p. 70 f; W.-Sch., p. 82; Soden, p. 1387 f. For illustrations from the LXX see W.-M. Cf. also Nachmanson, Magn. Inschr., p. 121. For numerous pap. examples of compounds from a;rcw see Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap. (Laut- u. Wortl.), p. 256 f. For the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 37 f. Thack., Gr., p. 156, finds - archj ousting - arcoj.

69 Notes on Orth., p. 156.

70 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 26. Not in ed. 4.

71 Prol., p. 49. Cf. Gregory, Prol., p. 118; W.-M., p. 76; Jann., pp. 119, 542; Psichari, Grec de la Sept., pp. 165 ff. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, 34 f., for this "very common" ace, in the pap. See Mayser, Gr. d. griech, Pap., p. 286 f.

72 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 133.

73 Cf. Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 156 f.; Schmid, Atticismus, IV, 586.

74 Notes on Orth., p. 158. Kretschmer (Entst. der koinh,, p. 28) finds this ace. in - an in various dialect inscriptions. Cf. also Reinhold, De Graec. etc., p. 24, for ca,ritan, etc.

75 Notes on Orth., p. 156.

76 Ib.

77 Jam., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 111 f.

78 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 127 f.

79 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 123 f.; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 142.

80 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 34. See also Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., 1906, p. 259 f. For the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 38 f., where a few exx. occur.

81 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25. New,j appears in 2 Macc. 6:2, etc.

82 Prol., p. 48 f. He thinks it proof that the N. T. writers were not illiterate, since the pap. examples are in writers "with other indications of illiteracy." Cf. also Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 34.

83 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 125; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 143. On the origin of these forms see Hatz., Einl., p. 318; Brug., Grundr., ž 62 n.; Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 34.

84 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, pp. 34, 434.

85 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 81. In the LXX both qeo,j and qee, occur. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 34; C. and S., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 26; Thack., p. 145.

86 Cf. Arrian, Peripl., p. 176. See W.-Sch., p. 84, for similar exx. in the inscr., as r`ou/j, r`oo,j in late Gk. For pap. exx. of bou/n├ plou/n and cou/n see Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 257 f., 268 f.

87 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 28. Cf. LXX MSS., for like variations in 7-6 and o` z)├ o` e;leoj and to. e;l)├ o` h=coj and to. h=)├ o` plou/toj and to. pl). See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 47 f. See p. 49 for sa,bbasi and sabba,toij├ da,kruon, da,krusi and Cf. also Thack., Gr., pp. 153 ff.

88 Notes on Orth., p. 158. See W.-Sch., p. 84, for exx. of h;couj in the LXX. For similar variations in the inscr. see Nachrn., Magn. Inschr., p. 135.

89 P. 85. So also Thayer, the Rabbins' name for the devil.

90 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 29; Deiss., Light, p. 90; Raderm., Gr., p. 15.

91 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 28. In the LXX MSS. we find desmoi, and - a,, zugoi,├ and - a,├ qeme,lioi and - a├ nw/toi and - a├ sta,dion and sta,dioi├ si/toj and si/ta. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 46 f.; Thack., p. 154f.

92 Moulton, Prol., p. 49.

93 In the LXX proper names have great liberty in inflection. This is quite natural in a transl. Cf. Thack., Gr., pp. 160-171.

94 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 121.

95 P. 90.

96 Notes on Orth., p. 158. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35, gives mh,thr as voc. three times in a iii/A.D. pap. (B.U.).

97 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 119.

98 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 435.

99 Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157. For the LXX see Thack., p. 140; Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 40 f., where the N. T. situation is duplicated.

100 See Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 151, for illustr. of these accs. in the inscr. For the pap. see Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35, both ca,rita and ca,rin, etc. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 271 f.

101 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157.

102 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 26, and W.-Sch., p. 86. Arrian has ivcqu,aj. LXX MSS. (Thack., Gr., p. 147) show nho,j and new,j├ nh/aj and nau/j├ bo,aj. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 43. Usually ivcqu,aj, p. 44.

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

104 Meisterh., p. 141. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 86. So the LXX. Cf. Thack., Gr., p. 147 f.; Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p, 43. Wackern. (Indoger. Forsch., 1903, p. 371) thinks the acc. in - eij is due not to the nom. but to compensative lengthening.

105 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 150.

106 Also early in Phthiotis (J. Wackernagel, Zur Nominalinfl., indoger. Forsch., 1903, p. 368). Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 119; Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., 1906, p. 270 f.

107 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 546.

108 Moulton, Prol., p. 36. Cf. Volker, Pap. Grace. Synt., p. 28.

109 Cl. Rev., 1901, pp. 34, 435. Cf. also Buresch, Rhein. Mus., XLVI, 218.

110 W.-Sch., p. 87.

111 Ib. Cf. Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 163 f.

112 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 26. Cf. Jann., p. 120.

113 Cf. Hort, Notes on Sel. Read., p. 138.

114 Moulton, Prol., p. 36. "In Rev. CB have - raj, a 3/5, AP 3/6." H. Scott.

115 Ib. This use of - ej as acc. may be compared with the common acc. pl. in - ej in the mod. Gk. vernac. Cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 47 ff. Cf. nom. like o` pate,raj (Psichari, Ess. de Gr. Hist. Neo-grecque, 1886, le partie, p. Even h`me,rej├ poli,tej, etc. In the Eleatic dial. the loc.-dat. pl. is - oij as in crhma,toij. Cf. Meister, Bd. II, p. 61. The LXX MSS. show te,ssarej as acc. See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 54. The acc. in - ej rare in LXX MSS. outside of te,ssarej. Thack., Gr., p. 148 f. Moulton (Prol., p. 243, ed. 2) suggests that this tendency started with te,sarej because it is the only early cardinal that had a separate form for the acc. plural.

116 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 121.

117 Moulton, Prol., p. 49; Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35. Deiss., B. S., pp. 208 ff.

118 B. S., p. 210.

119 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 158. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 93. Moulton (Prol., pp. 69, 235) has a full presentation of the facts.

120 Moulton, Prol., p. 235.

121 The form o;rnixi appears several times in the pap. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 149.

122 W.-Sch., p. 89. LXX ovrni,qwn.

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

124 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 156.

125 W.-Sch., p. 86. So Sir. 25:3, etc. The LXX also has the Ionic gen. gh,rouj. See Thack., Gr., p. 149; Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 42. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. Griech. Pap., p. 276.

126 As Ex. 25:9. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 87.

127 Hort, Notes on Orth. But Xen. and Plut. (often) have phcw/n. See W.-M., p. 75. In LXX note ph,ceoj and ph,cewj├ ph,cewn and phcw/n. Helbing, Gr., p. 45; Thack., p. 151.

128 W.-Sch., p. 88.

129 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 27.

130 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 158. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 581-60, for discussion of the decl. of proper names in the LXX. The phenomena correspond to those in N. T. MSS. Promhqeu,j had an Attic nom. - h,j, gen. - e,wj, Thumb, Handb., ž 330. 1,

131 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 158.

132 W.-Sch., p. 91.

133 Ib. for extensive list.

134 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 29.

135 Thack., Gr., p. 169, suggests that place-names in - wn are declined or indeclinable according to rank and distance.

136 See further list in W.-Sch., p. 91.

137 New Crat., p. 502.

138 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 32.

139 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p.' 29.

140 Sans. Gr., p. 111.

141 Ib. Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 117, for the adjectival use of the substantive.

142 Delbruck, Syntakt. Forsch., IV, pp. 65, 259. Cf. Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 239.

143 Donaldson, New Crat., p. 474.

144 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 139.

145 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 30.

146 Donaldson, New Crat., p. 502.

147 Brug. (Griech. Gr., pp. 413-417) has no discussion of the adjective save from the syntactical point of view.

148 See Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 414 f., for numerous exx. in the earlier Gk.

149 K.-B1., I, p. 547 f.

150 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 143.

151 W.-M., p. 80. But cf. W.-Sch., p. 97.

152 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33.

153 Ib.

154 Cf. K.-B1., I, p. 535 f., for fuller list. Some of the simple verbals in - toj also had no fem., as w;nhtoj.

155 In the LXX we see a very slight tendency towards giving a fem. form to all adjs. Thack., Gr., p. 172.

156 Cf. Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 148. Cf. also aiw,nioj├ ko,smioj├ in Magnesia Magn. Inschr., p. 140). Aristophanes used basi,leioj├ be,baioj├ maka,─ rioj├ ouvra,nioj├ pa,trioj with two endings (G. Wirth, De Motione Adjectivorum, 1580, p. 51). This is true also of Euripides (ib., p. 49 f.). For further discussion of adjectives with two endings see Wilhelm, Zur Motion der Adjec. dreier End. in Griech. etc., p. 23; Wilhelm, Der Sprachgebr. der Lukianos etc., p. 23. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 57 f. On the whole the LXX shows the extension of the fem. so that adjs. which in Attic have two or three terminations have three in the LXX ( a;grioj├ be,baioj├ di,kaioj├ evleu,qeroj├ ma,taioj). Thack., Gr., p. 172.

157 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 289 f.

158 K.-B1., I, p.

159 Cf. Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 141; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 158; ayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 291.

160 K.-B1., I, p. 538 f.

161> Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 158.

162 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 291.

163 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157 f. For pap. exx. of u`gih/n see Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 295. Thack. (Gr., p. 146) considers it a vulgarism, though it began as early as iv/B.C. (see Swkra,thn├ trih,rhn). It is common ii/A.D.

164 Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 34 f., for LXX.

165 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, pp. 35, 435.

166 Moulton, Prol., p. 48. Cf. th.n i`erh.n kefalh,n on Rom. tomb (Kaibel, Epigram. Graeca, 1878, p. 269).

167 Notes on Orth., p. 158.

168 Cruse,w| is exceedingly common in the pap. (Moulton, Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, p. 435).

169 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 294 f. Cf. also Deiss., B. S., p. 186; Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 34. So also the LXX, Thack., Gr., p. 179.

170 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 15S. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 87. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 52.

171 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 87. `Hmi,seia occurs in Antoninus Liberalis (ab. 150 A.D.) and oivkei/oj is analogous.

172 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157.

173 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25.

174 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35. For adjs. with acc. in - h (and sometimes n added, - hn) see Dieterich, Unters., p. 175. Cf. this ch., II, 2, (d).

175 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25.

176 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 294.

177 Prol., p. 50. See Cronert, Mem., p. 179; Turner, Jour. Theol. St., I, pp. 100 ff. Milligan (N. T. Doc. s, p. 65) finds one ex. of indecl. plh,rhj B.C.

178 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35. For the indecl. plh,rhj in Acta Thomae see Reinhold, De Graec. etc., p. 24. Cf. Sir. 19 : 26. See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 52. It is not till i/A.D. that it is common in the pap. Thack. (Gr., p. 176) thinks it not genuine in the LXX.

179 lb., p. 435. But see Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 297.

180 Prol., p. 50.

181 Philologus, LXI., pp. 161 ff.

182 W.-M., p. 302.

183 K.-BI., I, p. 553; Schwab, Die Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comparative, 3. Heft, 1895, pp. 152 ff.

184 Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 290; Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 30,

185 Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 73.

186 Cf. Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 292; Brug., Indoger. Forsch., 1903, pp. 7 ff.

187 Cf. Ascoli in Curtius' Stud. zur griech. and lat. Gr., 1876, p. 351.

188 Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., Heft I, 1893, p. 3.

189 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 298. He mentions belti,wn├ evla,sswn├ h[sswn├ plei,wn $ple,wn). For the inscr., Nachm. (Magn. Inschr., p. 143) adds avmei,nwn and mei,zwn.

190 The pap. have many exx: of the form without n as in plei,w ( ouj), etc. See Mayser,. Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 298 ff. But the usage varies greatly. The LXX MSS. show similar variations. See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 54 f. As LXX exx. of uniformity in form of comp. note avgaqw,teroj and aivscro,teroj, but only evggi,wn(- stoj), not evggu,teroj (- tatoj), C. and S., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 29. Thack. (Gr., pp. 184 ff.) gives a careful summary of the exx. of - iwn├ ──istoj in the LXX.

191 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, pp. 35, 435.

192 P. 81. Cf. also Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 180, for ovlizo,teroj.

193 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35. Cf. also avmeino,teroj in the older language (Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 34).

194 W.-M., p. 81; Thack., Gr., p. 183.

195 Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc., Heft III, p. 65.

196 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 34.

197 W.-M., p. 81, Jann., p. 147.

198 K.-B1., I, p. 554; Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 291.

199 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 30.

200 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 144.

201 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 160; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 143.

202 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 298.

203 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33.

204 Ib.

205 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33 f.

206 Prol.,p. 79.

207 Ib., p. 33.

208 Indog. Forsch., 1903, pp. 7-9. Ascoli (Curtius' Stud., etc., 1876, p. 351) suggests tri,toj (cf. Hom. tri,tatoj) also. Cf. also e;scatoj.

209 Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 294.

210 Ib.

211 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 161.

212 This double superl. does not appear in the N. T., but various instances are noted in the pap. and the later Gk. as evlacisto,tatoj, megisto,tatoj├ prw,tista. So Lat. minissimus, pessimissimus. Cf. W.-M., p. 81; Dieterich, Unters., p. 181.

213 Moulton, Prol., p. 78; Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 297 f. See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept. pp. 54-57, for corresponding infrequency of the superl. forms in the LXX. The compar. is driving it out. Cf. also ib., p. vii.

214 Moulton, Prol., p. 79

215 W.-M., p. 306.

216 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 34.

217 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 30.

218 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33. He cites the mod. Italian also which makes no distinction between the comp. and superl.

219 Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., II, pp. 172 ff.

220 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 439.

221 Giles, Man., etc., p. 393.

222 New Crat., p. 294.

223 Ib.

224 However, see Moulton, Prol., p. 58. Cf. Taylor, Prim. Cult., I, p. 242 f.

225 Moulton, Prol., p. 58.

226 Cf. K.-B1., I, p. 621 f.

227 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 35.

228 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 211; Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 311; Giles, Man., p. 394. On numerals in the LXX see Thack., Gr., pp. 186-190; C. and S., Sel. fr. the LXX, p. 30 f.

229 Cf. W.-M., p. 312. So avna. ei-j (Rev. 21:21).

230 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 312. Perhaps the earliest ex. of indeclinable e[na. For the LXX usage cf. W.-Sch., p. 90.

231 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 315.

232 Ib. Cf. also Dittenb., 674. 28.

233 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 316.

234 De,ka du,o is normal in the pap. of the Ptol. age. Cf. Rec., Ac. 19:7. Cf. Thack., Gr., p. 188. So also de,ka trei/j, and even de,ka mia/j once. Always de,ka te,ssarej├ de,ka pe,nte├ de,ka ovktw,) Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35.

235 Giles, Man., p. 398.

236 K.-Bl, I, p. 622. Cf. Brug., po,stoj, Cl. Philol., 1907, p. 208.

237 These both have a superl., as prw/toj and deu,tatoj (Horn.). Brug., Gk. Gr., p. 212.

238 Giles, Man., p. 400. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 212; Moulton, Prol., p. 95 f.

239 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 318.

240 Ib. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35.

241 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 35. So the LXX also. Thack., Gr., p. 188.

242 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35. And even the use of forms like ea}n kia. eivkosto.n, Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 318.

243 Thumb, Handb. d. neugr. Volksspr., p. 56. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 175.

244 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 36.

245 K.-B1., I, p. 579.

246 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 32. He accents pro,swpon (persona) as illustrating this dramatic aspect.

247 Giles, Man., p. 238..

248 Ib., p. 297.

249 Ib., p. 13.

250 Renan, Hist. des Lang. Semit., p. 84 f.

251 Cf. Bopp, Uber den Einfl. der Pron. auf die Wortbild., 1832.

252 Donaldson, New Crat., p. 241.

253 Ib., p. 245.

254 Sans. Gr., p. 185.

255 Hom. Gr., p. 57; Bopp, Vergl. Gr., ž 105.

256 K.-B1., I, p. 579, have only five.

257 Hirt, Handb., p. 296. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 84, for mod. Gk.

258 Cf. K.-B1., I, pp. 580 ff. See briefer summary in Giles, Man., p. 298 f., and Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 244 f. On the multiplicity of roots in the pers. pron. see Riem. and Goelzer, Phonet., p. 336.

259 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p.302 f. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 165.

260 Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 33. He illustrates by the Eng.: "I will lay me down and sleep." Cf. u`mi/n in Mt. 6:19 f.

261 Riem. and Goelzer, Phonet., p. 341.

262 Flensberg (Uber Urspr. and Bild. des Pron. auvto,j, 1893, p. 69) denies that it is from au=├ but rather from aua. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 244.

263 Thumb, Handb., p. 85.

264 Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 144.

265 K.-Bl., I, p. 596.

266 Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 33.

267 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 62.

268 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 303 f.

269 Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 161.

270 Thumb, Handb., p. 88.

271 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 167. These last two quote Lev. 19:18. Cf. Simcox, ib.; Dyroff, Gesch. des Pron. Reflex., 2. Abt., pp. 23 (Hefte 9 and 10 in Schanz's Beitr. etc.).

272 Cf. Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 63; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 167.

273 Giles, Man., p. 301; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 250; Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 307.

274 Theol. Literaturzeit., 1893, p. 421.

275 Prol., p. 40 f. He admits that the other possessives do not tell the same story.

276 Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 89.

277 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 54. Dr. Abbott (Joh. Gr., p. 295) thinks that John's love of contrast leads him to use u`mei/j as often as all the Synoptists.

278 So Riem. and Goelzer in their Phonet., pp. 316 ff.

279 Ib.

280 Gildersleeve (Am. Jour. of Phil., 1907, p. 235) considers SSE the pron. of the first person, ou-toj of the second, evkei/noj of the third.

281 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 35 f. For the etymology of the dem. pron. see Brug., Gk. Gr., p. 242 f.

282 See Nachm., Magn. p. 145; Dieterich, Unters., p. 197; Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 308.

283 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 171.

284 Ib., p. 35; Thackeray, p. 191.

285 The Ionic Dial., p. 448.

286 Cf. Thumb, Handb. d. neugr. Volkspr., p. 64. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 161.

287 Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 185 ff.; Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 35.

288> Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 310.

289 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 145.

290 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 167 f. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 93.

291 Mayser, Cr. d. griech. Pap., p. 311; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 145.

292 K.-B1., I, p. 613; Hoffmann, Die gr. Dial., Bd. II, p. 558.

293 Thumb, Handb., p. 94.

294 Ib.

295 Dieterich, Unters., p. 202; Hatz., Einl., p. 207.

296 Thumb, Handb., p. 95 f.

297 Ib., p. 98.

298> Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 179. The pap. (Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 312) show a few examples of e`ka,teroj├ mhde,teroj├ o`po,teroj) Once (Prov. 24:21) the LXX has mhqe,teroj.

299 Handb. to the Gr. of the N. T., p. 138.

300 Gk. Gr., p. 37. Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 535-643, has the most complete treatment of the adv.

301 Brug., Gk. Gr., p. 250. In the Sans. the line is still less clearly drawn between the various indeclinable words (Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 403).

302 Giles, Man., p. 237 f. Cf. Schroeder, Uber die form. Untersch. der Redet., p. 35 f.; Delbruck, Grundr., Bd. III, p. 536 f.

303 Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 250

304 Hirt, Handb. etc., pp. 320 ff.

305 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 456 ff.

306 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 251; Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 322. In the Sans. the acc. also is the case most widely used adverbially (Whitney, Sans. Gr., 408). Cf. Delbruck, Grundl., pp. 34 ff.

307 Giles, Man., p. 240.

308 Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 320.

309 Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 457 f., for further exx. Cf. the Lat. adv. (abl.) raro, quomodo etc., Bopp, Vergleich. Gr., ž 183. Cf. also Delbruck, Grundl., pp. 48 ff.

310 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 252.

311 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 410.

312 Ib.

313 Handb. etc., p. 321. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 252 (dat. ace. to Brug.).

314 Hirt, Handb., p. 321.

315 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 409.

316 Hirt, Handb., p. 321 f.

317 Griech. Gr., p. 252 f. Cf. Delbruck, Grundr., III, p. 581 f.

318> Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 410.

319 Handb., p. 321.

320 Griech. Gr., p. 252. Cf. also p. 229 f., where he acknowledges the other point of view as possible.

321 Grundr., p. 60 f.

322 In Lat. adv. are partly remnants of case-forms and partly built by analogy. Draeger, Hist. Synt., p. 109. For Gk. see also Lutz, Die Casus-Adv. bei att. Rednern (1891).

323 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 456.

324 Ib., pp. 455-459. See also Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 253-257. Cf. Donaldson, New Crat., pp. 449-501, for discussion of these adv. suffixes.

325 Giles, Man., p. 240.

326 Ib.

327 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 59 f,

328 Green, Handb. to N. T. Gk., p. 137.

329 Moulton, Prol., p. 171.

330 Ib., p. 171 f. But adv. from verbs are "late and always rare," Giles, Man., p. 342.

331 Gr. of N. T. Gr., pp. 58 ff.

332 Ib.

333 Ib.

334 Ib.

335 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 59,

336 Ib.

337 Ib.

338 Giles, Man., p. 341. Cf. also Krebs, Die Prapositionsadverbien in der spateren hist. Grac., Tl. I, 1884.

339 Giles, ib. On "Nouns used as Prep." see Donaldson, New Crat., pp. 478 ff.

340 Ib.

341 Green, Handb., etc., p. 138.

342 Giles, Man., p. 343.