doubtedly seems to be nearer the truth-you choose to regard it as put for the imperative of the first aorist ina. They employed also, in the imperative present of siui, the form to for oro, according to Heraclides ;55 which same form occurs also once in Plato.56 It seems to have arisen from ἔε, ἐέτω. In the New Testament Paul uses this form, 1 Cor. 16:22; comp. Ps. 104: 31.-The second person present of the passive ending in oa is preserved in the New Testament, in xavzãoαi Rom. 2: 17, 23, for zavza ;57 and oduvãoat Luke 16: 25, for oduva. This termination is retained by the Attics only in the perfect and pluperfect, and also in verbs in . It is manifest that this cannot be regarded as a new form; but as more ancient even than the Attic, which is shortened from it. We may therefore perhaps not improperly assign it to the Doric dialect." To these peculiarities of the ancient dialects, thus mixed up and confounded, there are superadded several new forms of flexion in verbs, which were first introduced in the later idiom, and of which the vestiges are not rare in the books of the New Testament. The Grammarians have noted many of these; and in some instances have specified the place, where they suppose these new forms of verbs to have first arisen. We cannot indeed suppose that they were every where in use; but that various changes and modifications arose in various regions. The style of the New Testament exhibits many things, according to the different writers, which cannot be alone referred to the usage of those who spoke Greek in Palestine; but which were introduced from other sources into the language of the apostles. We can here exhibit only the more important examples. And first of the termination av, which the common language first introduced, in the third person plural of the perfect, for aoi; as ἔγνωκαν for ἐγνώκασι, John 17:7; εἴρηκαν for ειρήκασι, Rev. 19: 3. This form is found much more frequently in the Alexandrine interpreters; e. g. opazav Deut. 11: 7; пαéστηαv Jer. 5: 29. It is easy to see whence the form arose; the peculiarity of the aorist is transferred to the perfect. The Grammarians affirm that this metaplasm was current at Chalcis58 and at Alexandria.59 .55 Apud Eustathium p. 1411, 22. 57 Moeris p. 16. v. άxooα. 59 Sextus Empiricus adv. Grammat. 56 Republic. II. p. 215. The common or later language affected also in another way, the termination of the third plural, both in the imperfect and the second aorist, viz. by inserting the syllable σa. Of this form the New Testament exhibits but one instance, idolovoav Rom. 3: 13, for ¿dohcouv. The Septuagint however presents it much more frequently; comp. Ex. 15: 27. Ps. 47: 4, doσav. Ex. 16: 24, κατελίποσαν. 18: 28, ἐκρίνισαν, et alia. Heraclides attributes this form ty qavray;60 Phavorinus calls it Doric;61 others refer it to the usage of the inhabitants of Chalcis, whom Aristotle mentions, περὶ τὴν Ασίαν; 63 and that it was current at Alexandria is also testified in the passages cited. Hence we may draw the not improbable conjecture, that this widely diffused mode of speaking was perhaps first introduced by the Macedonians into the common language. Besides this too, as Fischer has well observed,64, verbs in ut exhibit almost the same formation; and therefore this form is properly to be derived from the most ancient language of the Greeks. The inhabitants of Cilicia are said by Heraclides 65 to have formed the second aorist after the model of the first; nor was this usage unknown also to the Alexandrians, since it frequently occurs in the Alexandrine version; e. g. dauev 1 K. 10: 14; εἴδαν and ἔφυγαν 2 Κ. 10: 14; εὕραν 17:20; ἐφάγαμεν 19: 42; et alia. In the New Testament I have no doubt that in many places this form ought to be restored, instead of the printed reading; not only according to the general authority of antiquity, but also by the consent of the best manuscripts; e. g. in Matt. 25: 36, ἤλθατε ; Luke 7: 24, ἐξήλθατε; 11:52, εἰσήλθατε; Acts 2: 32, ἀνείλατε ; 7: 10, ἐξείλατο ; 7: 21, ανείλατο ; 12: 11, ἐξείλατο; 22: 7, ἔπεσα ; et alia. To these examples, which Sturz has already noted in the Alexandrine language, I subjoin several others in the singular of some verbs. First, the future Exxew Acts 2: 17, found also in the Septuagint Ez. 12: 14. Ex. 30: 19. 4: 9. 29: 12; from the theme xxio; which form belongs properly to verbs having 2, u, v, o for their characteristic, but is here transferred by metaplasm to those who have not this character. Hence however it is plain, as Buttmann has also observed,66 how the Grammarians were led to assign a place to the second future in the paradigm of the regular verb. The use of the second person of the present indicative duvy for dúvacat, is condemned by the Atticists.67 It occurs Rev. 2: 22; also in writers called oi novoi;68 and is found in the Septuagint, Job 33: 5. Esth. 6: 13. Attic writers employed it only in the subjunctive.69 There remains further the augment in voie, John 9: 17, 21; voiyon, Acts 12: 10; voiyn, Rev. 11: 19. 15: 5; for which the Attics employed the double augment ; as ανέωξα, ἀνεῴχθην, avenv.70 In the Apocalypse we find this verb twice with a ἀνεῴγην. triple augment; viz. 4: 1, θύρα ήνεωγμένη. 20: 12, ἠνεῴχθη. I subjoin here another observation, which seems to have been overlooked by all who have treated grammatically of the language of the New Testament. It has reference to some tenses of several verbs; which, although they exhibit nothing anomalous in their formation, are yet never found in use among approved writers. The cause of this seems to lie in the circumstance, that these tenses had in them something either unpleasant to the ear, or difficult in pronunciation; or else, from some similarity of sound with other forms, admitted a certain ambiguity of the sense; all of which the more ancient writers studied as much as possible to avoid. Such however was not the endeavour in the common language, nor among the later authors; in whose writings the Grammarians have noted many things of this kind, from which the classic authors entirely abstained. In the sacred writings, in like manner, there occur not a few things, which must be placed under the same category; and in which the style of the New Testament differs from the pure Attic. We adduce here some examples; with reference chiefly to the fu tures and aorists. The future vooua was never used by the Attics, either simply or in composition; but for it they employed iμi, co.71 66 Griech. Gramm. p. 175. 4th Ed. [§95. Anm. 16. p. 153. 13th Ed. 1829.] 67 Phrynich. p. 158. Thom. Mag. p. 252. 68 Synes. Ep. 80. Diog. Laert. p. 158. 69 Plato in Phaedon. p. 132. 71 Phrynich. P;, E. 70 Thom. Mag. p. 71. 12. Moeris p. 16. Thom. Mag. p. 88, 336. Sui das v. έξειμι et ἄπει. It It is found only in Homer and some of the later writers. occurs in both ways in the New Testament; e. g. Matt. 9: 15 ἐλεύσονται. 25: 46, ἀπελεύσονται. 2: 6, ἐξελεύσεται, etc. 77 74 76 78 The Grammarians give the same directions in regard to the futures ago for ašoua,73 Acts 22: 5. 1 Thess. 4: 14; xavion, Matt. 25: 31, for which the Attics preferred the contracted form καθιώ," as they did in almost all verbs in εξω; σαλπίσω for σαλπίγξω,75 from the old theme σαλπίγγω, 1 Cor. 15: 52; χαρήσου μαι for χαιρήσω, Luke 1: 14. John 16: 20, 22, πράξω for πράξομαι, Acts 15: 29. 16: 28 ; παύσομαι for πεπαύσομαι, 1 Cor. 13: 8. Other instances also, which the Grammarians have passed over in silence, have been noted in a course of careful observation; e. g. άxovoo, Matt. 13: 14, 15; yɛλdow, Luke 6: 31; ἐπαινέσω, 1 Cor. 11: 23; σπουδάσω, 2 Pet. 1: 15; αμαρτή ow, Matt. 18: 21; zλavow, Luke 6: 55; xλ¿w, Matt. 19: 18; ῥεύσω, John 7: 38; καλέσω, Luke 1: 13; κερδήσω, 1 Cor. 9: 19, for all of which the Attic writers79 employed the middle forms ἀκούσομαι, γελάσομαι, ἐπαινέσομαι, σπουδάσομαι, ἁμαρτήσομαι, κλαύσομαι, κλέψομαι, ῥεύσομαι, καλοῦμαι, κερδανώ. 80 81 In like manner also the aorists, of which the sacred writers exhibit several unusual forms. The Grammarians condemn γενηθείς for γενόμενος, Heb.6: 4; ἐγέννησα for έγεννησάμην, δι Matt. 1: 2 seq. doya for ¿voεάuny,82 James 5: 5; ¿yavázτησα for ἠγανακτησάμην, 3 Matt. 20: 24; ημάρτησα for ἥμαρτ τον, ,84 Rom. 5: 14, 16; noпάуn for nonάov,85 2 Cor. 12: 2, 4. Here belongs also ἐβλάστησα for ἔβλαστον, Matt. 13: 26. 72 Josephus B. Jud. VI. 6. 3. Chion. Ep. ad Platon. Chrysost. Or. XXXIII. p. 410. Maxim. Tyr. Diss. XXIV. p. 295. 73 Thom. Mag. p. 7. Moeris p. 38. But Euripides has it, Iphig. in Taur. 1124. 74 Moeris p. 212. Thom. Mag. p. 483. 75 Phrynich. p. 82. Thom. Mag. p. 789. 76 Moeris p. 403. Thom. Mag. p. 910. 77 Moeris p. 293. 78 Moeris 1. c. 79 Buttmann Gr. Gram. p. 299. 4th Ed. [§ 113. 4. Anm. 7. 259. 13th Ed.] Matthiae Gr. Gram. § 184. p. 81 Ibid. James 5: 18, which is found only in the later writers; and iyaunoa for synua, Mark 6: 7, of which, out of the New Testament, no example is to be found, except 2 Macc. 14: 25. There remain many other instances of the same nature, which we here cannot pursue in detail; as the imperative xávov for xáθησο; the perfect οἴδασι for ἴσασι ; the optative δῴη for δοίη; the participle ἀπολλύων for ἀπολλύς, etc. .88 IV. A fourth class is constituted by words that are heterogeneous, or employed by the later language in a different gender. The ancient dialects employed many nouns with a difference of gender; from which circumstance a great variety of usage was introduced into the later tongue. Thus the sacred writers use both o oxótos in the masculine, Heb. 12: 18; and also to σxóTos in the neuter, Matt. 4: 16. 6: 23. 8: 12. Both were also in use among the Attics; the other Greeks had only the neuter.91 This promiscuous usage in the common language therefore, is to be derived from the Attic dialect. From the Doric comes uós, famine; for which the other Greeks said ohMós.92 In the New Testament it is twice found joined with an adjective of the feminine gender, viz. Luke 15: 14 Aquos ioxvpá; Acts 11: 28 heμov μeyahny; which reading both Valckenaer93 and Fischer94 have judged to be preferable to the printed one, in which the adjectives are of the masculine gender. The Attics also said o Baros, bramble, in the masculine 95 the writers of the New Testament with the other Greeks use it in the feminine gender, Mark 12: 26. Luke 6: 44. 20: 37. Acts 7: 35; which usage is also found in the xovol.96-The Gram88 Ibid. p. 474. 87 Thom. Mag. p. 485. 89 Phrynich. p. 152. Moeris p. 117. 90 Moeris p. 12. Thom. Mag. p. 98. 91 Scholiast. ad Eurip. Hecub. 1. Inttp. ad Moerid. p. 354. 92 Phrynich. p. 80. Etymolog. Mag. p. 566. Ael. Dionys. apud Eustath. ad Od. a. p. 1390, 56. The feminine is employed by the Megarean in Aristophanes, Archanens. 743. Hence we need not listen to Sextus Empiricus when he affirms, (adv. Grammat. p. 247) that the Athenians employed τὴν στάμνον, θόλον, βώλον, Lepov, onluxos i. e. in the feminine gender. 93 Specimen Annott. crit. in locos quosd. N. T. p. 383 seq. 94 Proluss. p. 672. 95 Moeris p. 99. Thom. Mag. p. 148. Schol. ad Theocr. I. 132. 96 Theophr. Hist. Plantar. III. 18. Dioscorid. IV. 37. |