IN dealing with the Septuagint in and for itself we feel that we are in a humble way acting as pioneers. For hitherto the Septuagint has been regarded only as an aid to the understanding of the Hebrew. We have reversed that procedure and have regarded the Hebrew only as an aid to the understanding of the Septuagint. This would be in a strict sense preposterous, were it not for the admitted fact that the Greek translation of the Old Testament has occasionally preserved traces of readings which are manifestly superior to those of the Massoretic text. That text, it should be remembered, was constituted centuries after the Septuagint was already in vogue in the Greek-speaking portion of the Jewish and Christian world.
For permission to use Dr. Swete's text we beg to offer our respectful thanks to the Syndics of the Cambridge Pitt Press and to Dr. Swete himself. To our own university also we owe a debt of gratitude. The Concordance to the Septuagint, edited by Dr. Hatch and Dr. Redpath, is a magnificent work worthy of a university press. Without this aid it would be impossible to speak, with the precision demanded by modern scholarship, about the usage of words in the Septuagint. It is greatly to be regretted that the list of con tributors to this work should somehow have got lost owing to the lamented death of Dr. Edwin Hatch. The labour of many good men, such as the Rev. W. H. Seddon, now Vicarof Painswick, and the Rev. Osmond Archer, to name two who happen to fall under our own knowledge, has thus been left without acknowledgement. They toiled silently for the advancement of learning, like the coral insects who play their part beneath the waters in rearing a fair island for the abode of man.
No one can well touch on Old Testament studies without being indebted to Professor Driver, but our obligations in that and other directions have been acknowledged in the body of the work.
In composing the Grammar of Septuagint Greek we have had before us as a model Dr. Swete's short chapter on that subject in his Introduction to the Septuagint. Help has also been derived from the grammars of New Testament Greek by Winer and by Blass, and from the great historical grammar of the Greek language by Jannaris. But in the main our work in that department is the direct result of our own observation.
To come now to more personal debts, our common friend, Walter Scott, sometime Professor of Greek in the University of Sydney, not merely gave us the benefit of his critical judgement in the early stages of the work, but directly contributed to the subject-matter. We have accepted his aid as freely as it was offered. No Higher Critic is likely to trouble himself about disentangling the different strands of authorship in our Introductions and Notes. Still, if anyone should be tempted to exercise his wits in that direction by way of practice for the Pentateuch, we will give him one clue: If anything should strike him as being not merely sound but brilliant, he may confidently set it down to this third source.
To the Rev. Samuel Holmes, M. A., Kennicott Scholar in the University of Oxford, our thanks are due for guarding us against mistakes in relation to the Hebrew: but he is not to be held responsible for any weakness that may be detected in that direction.
It remains now only to express our sincere gratitude to Professor Thomas D. Seymour for his vigilant and scholarly care of our work during its passage through the press; and to tender our thanks to Messrs. Ginn & Company for extending their patronage to a book produced in the old country. May the United Kingdom and the United States ever form a Republic of Letters one and indivisible!
OXFORD,
May 22, 1905.
THE work of the Bible Society may be said to have been begun at Alexandria under the Ptolemies: for there the first translation of the Bible, so far as it then existed, was made.
Under the old kings of
Egypt there was no city on the site of Alexandria, but only a coast-guard
station for the exclusion of foreigners, and a few scattered huts of herdsmen.
These monarchs had no enlightened appreciation of the benefits of commerce, and
cherished a profound distrust of strangers, especially of Greeks, whom they
regarded as land-grabbers. Strabo XVII § 6, p. 792 πορθηταὶ γὰρ ἦσαν καὶ ἐπιθυμηταὶ κατὰ σπάνιν
γῆς.
Alexander is credited with having perceived the advantages of situation which conferred upon Alexandria its rapid rise to prosperity. With the Mediterranean on the north and Lake Mareia or Mareotis on the south, it received the products of the inland, which came down the Nile and were conveyed into the lake by canal-boats, and then exported them from its harbours. Under the Romans it became of still greater commercial importance as the emporium of the trade then developed between the East and the West, of which it had a practical monopoly.
The vicinity of sea and lake had advantages also in the way of health: for in the summer the etesian winds set in from the north, and the lake, instead of stagnating, was kept full and sweet by the rise of the Nile at that season. The kings too by their successive enclosures secured those breathing-places which are so necessary for the health of a great city. It is estimated by Strabo that a quarter, or even a third, of the whole area was occupied by parks and palaces.
Among the royal
buildings was the famous Museum with its covered walk and arcades, and its hall
for the “fellows” of the Museum, as Professor Mahaffy aptly calls them, to dine
in. Strabo XVII § 8, p.794
τῶν δὲ βασιλείων μέρος ἐστι καὶ τὸ
Μουσεῖον, ἔχον περίπατον καὶ ἐξέδραν καὶ οἶκον μέγαν, ἐν ᾧ το σψσσίτιον τῶν μετεχόντων τοῦ
Μουσείου φιλολόγων ἀνδρῶν.
What relation, if any,
the Alexandrian Library, which was the great glory of the Ptolemies, bore to
the Museum, is not clear. The Museum stood there in Roman tunes, and became
known as “the old Museum,” when the emperor Claudius reared a new structure by
its side, and ordained that his own immortal histories of the Etruscans and
Carthaginians should be publicly read aloud once every year, one in the old
building and the other in the new (Suet. Claud. 42). The library however
is related to have been burnt during Caesar's operations in Alexandria. Not a
word is said on this subject by the historian of the Alexandrian War, but
Seneca De Tranq. An. 9 —
Quadringenta millia librorum Alexandriae arserunt: pulcherrimum regiae
opulentiae monumentum. According to Tertullian (Apol. 18) the MS. of the
translators of the Old Testament was still to be seen in his day in the Serapeum
along with the Hebrew original.
The inhabitants of
Alexandria are described by Polybius, who visited the city under the reign of
the second Euergetes, commonly known as Physcon (B.C. 146-117), as falling into
three classes. There were first the native Egyptians, whom he describes as
intelligent and civilised; secondly the mercenary soldiers, who were many and
unmannerly; and thirdly the Alexandrian citizens, who were better behaved than
the military element, for though of mixed origin they were mainly of Greek
blood. Polyb. XXXIV 14, being a
fragment quoted by Strabo XVII 1 § 12, p. 797.
Polybius makes no
mention of Jews in Alexandria, but we know from
other sources that there was a large colony of that people there. Their
presence in Egypt was partly compulsory and partly voluntary. The first Ptolemy,
surnamed Soter, who had a long and prosperous reign (B.C. 323-285), had invaded
Palestine and captured Jerusalem on the sabbath-day, on which the Jews offered
no defence. Josephus Ant. XII. 1 confirms his
statement of this fact by a quotation from Agatharchides of Cnidos, who wrote
the history of the successors of Alexander — Ἔστιν
ἔθνος Ἰουδαίων λεγόμενον, οἱ πόλιν ὀχυρὰν καὶ μεγάλην ἔχοντες
Ἰεροσόλυμα, ταύτην ὑπερεῖδον ὑπὸ Πτολεμαίῳ γενομένην, ὅπλα λαβεῖν
οὐ θελήσαντες, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν ἄκαιρον δεσιδαιμονίαν χαλεπὸν ὑπέμειναν
ἔχειν δεσπότην.
With this large Jewish population in Alexandria, whose native language was now Greek, and to whom Hebrew had ceased to be intelligible, we see an obvious reason why the first translation of the Bible should have been made in that city. Arguing a priori we should certainly be inclined to assume that it was the necessities of the Alexandrian synagogue that brought about the translation. This however is not the account which has conic down to us, and which worked its way into the fabric of Christian belief. That account represents the desire of the second Ptolemy for the completeness of his library, and Pagan curiosity about the sacred books of the Jews, as having been the motives which led to their translation into, Greek. It is contained in a letter purporting to be written by one Aristeas to his brother Philocrates.
Aristeas, we gather,
was a person of high account at the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus (B.C.
285-247), probably one of the three captains of the royal body-guard, Sosibius
of Tarentum and Andreas (§§ 12, 40) being the other two. That Aristeas was himself
captain of the body-guard is not stated in the letter, but it is not
unnaturally inferred from it by Josephus. This again, while only
implied in the letter, is explicitly stated by Josephus, who makes Aristeas say
(Ant. XII 2 § 2) Ἴσθι μέντοι γε, ὦ βασιλεῦ, ὡς οὔτε γένει προσήκων αὐτοῖς, οὔτε
ὁμόφυλος αὐτῶν ὢν ταῦτα περὶ αὐτῶν ἀξιῶ. The description of these
presents occupies a considerable portion of the letter, §§ 51-82. § 99 καὶ
διαβεβαιοῦμαι πάντα ἄνθρωπον προσελθόντα τῇ θεωρίᾳ τῶν προειρημένων
εἰς ἔκπληξιν ἥξειν καὶ θαυμασμὸν ἀδιήγητον, μετατραπέντα τῇ διανοίᾳ
διὰ τὴν περὶ ἐκαστὴν ἁγίαν κατασκευήν.
The High-priest
Eleazar, in compliance with the request of Pbiladelphus, selected seventy-two
venerable elders, six from each tribe, whose names are given, men not only
learned in the law, but also skilled in the language and literature of the
Greeks, § 121: cp. Philo Vita
Mosis II § 6, p. 139.
When the deputation arrived in Egypt, the king waived the requirements of court ceremonial and received the elders in audience at once. He first paid reverence to the volume of the law written in letters of gold, which they carried with them, and then extended a welcome to its bearers. After this they were entertained for a week at banquets, at which everything was arranged by a special court functionary in accordance with their own customs, so that there might be nothing to offend their susceptibilities. Elisha, the eldest of the Seventy-two, was asked to say grace, the ordinary court-chaplains being superseded for the occasion. The grace he pronounced was as follows: ‘May God almighty fill thee, O King, with all the good things which he hath created; and grant to thee and to thy wife and to thy children and to those who think with thee to have these things without fail all the days of thy life!’ (§ 185). The delivery of this benediction was followed by a round of applause and clapping of hands.
The feast of reason was
added to the enjoyment of the royal fare. For at a certain point in the
proceedings the king addressed questions of a vaguely ethico-political
character to the elders, which were answered by them to the admiration of all,
especially of the philosophers who had been invited to meet them, among whom
was Menedemus of Eretria. Diog. Laert. 11 § 140 Ἐπρέσβευσε
δὲ καὶ πρὸς Πτολεμαῖον (probably Soter) καὶ Λυσίμαχον.
At the close of this
week's festivities an interval of three days was allowed, after which the
elders were conducted by Demetrius to the island of Pharos, which was connected
with the mainland by a dam nearly a mile long § 301. τὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ σταδίων ἀνάχωμα τῆς θαλάσσης
cp. Strabo XVII § 6, p. 792 τῷ ἑπτασταδίῳ
καλουμένῳ χώματι.
When the whole was
finished, Demetrius summoned all the Jews in Alexandria to the island of
Pharos, and read the translation aloud to them all in the presence of the
interpreters, after which a solemn curse was pronounced upon any one who altered
it. Then the whole work was read over to the king, who expressed much
admiration at the deep insight of the law-giver and asked how it was that
historians and poets had combined to ignore his legislation. Demetrius of
Phalerum replied that this was because of its sacred character. He had heard
from Theopompus Theopompus came to Egypt
during the reign of Ptolemy Soter. Theodectes died at the age
of forty-one, about B.C. 334, i.e. at least half a century before the
time of speaking: but the expression παρὰ
θεοδέκτου . . . μετέλαβον ἐγώ
(§ 318), as contrasted with ἔφησεν
ἀκηκοέναι θεοπόμπου(§ 314), seems to imply
that the communication was not direct.
The elders, having now accomplished the work for which they had come, were dismissed by the king with handsome presents both to themselves and to Eleazar, to whom Philadelphus at the same time wrote a letter begging that, if any of the elders purposed to come and see him again, the High-priest would not prevent it.
Such is the traditional account of the origin of the Septuagint, of which we have next to consider the value. But first there are a few points to be noted.
To begin with, we see the reason of the name. The Seventy (Lat. LXX: Gk. οἱ Ο´) is a round number for the Seventy-two. There were seventy-two interpreters, who took seventy-two days over their work.
Next we see that the
name is a misnomer as applied to the Greek version of the Old Testament
generally. There is no word in Aristeas as to a translation by the Elders of
anything but the Law. See §§ 30, 38, 309, 312:
Jos. Ant. Proœm. § 3 οὐδὲ γὰρ
πᾶσαν ἐκεῖνος (sc. Ἐλεάζαρος)
ἔφθη λαβεῖν τὴν ἀναγραφὴν, ἀλλ’ αὐτὰ μόνα τὰ τοῦ νόμου παρέδοσαν
οἱ πεμφθέντες ἐπὶ τὴν ἐξήγησιν εἰς τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν.
Thirdly we have to notice that in the Letter of Aristeas no claim to inspiration is advanced on behalf of the translators.
That the Bible, as we have it in English, is inspired, has often been tacitly assumed, but seldom laid down as a doctrine. But the inspiration of the Greek version was a point of belief with those who used it, and presumably is so to the present day in the Greek church. Already in Philo we find this claim advanced. He says that the interpreters all agreed in employing exactly the same words, ‘as though by the whispering of some unseen prompter’ Vita Mosis II § 7, II 140), and that a comparison of the original with the translation by those who are acquainted with both tongues will clearly show that they were not mere translators, but inspired hierophants and prophets.
Josephus (Ant.
XII 2), presumably because he was not a Hellenist, and could read his Bible in
the Hebrew, does not see the necessity for this doctrine of the inspiration of
the Septuagint. He follows Aristeas closely, except at the end, where he
actually turns the curse pronounced on alteration into an invitation to
retrench superfluities or supply defects! Cp. Aristeas § 211 with
Jos. Ant. XII 2 § 13 ad fin.
The early Christian Fathers gave play to their imagination over the story of the Septuagint. Justin Martyr (Apol. I 31 §§ 2-5) has a brief allusion to it, but the amount of credit which is due to him in this connexion may be judged from the fact that he makes Ptolemy send to King Herod for interpreters of the sacred books!
Irenaeus about a
quarter of a century later (A.D. 175) says that Ptolemy, being afraid lest the
translators might combine to conceal the truth in some matter by their
interpretation, had them isolated, and ordered each to translate the whole.
When it was found that they all agreed word for word, then of a truth the
Gentiles knew that the Scriptures were interpreted by inspiration of God. But
this, he adds, was nothing surprising, seeing that, when the Scriptures had
been lost during the captivity in Babylon, God inspired Ezra to rewrite
them. Irenaeus quoted by Eus. H.
E. V 8.
Clement of Alexandria (about A.D. 190) follows to the same effect as to literal inspiration, and adds the prophetic writings to the work of the first interpreters (Strom. I § 148, p. 409 P).
Eusebius, with his
exceptional regard for truth, is content to give us an epitome of Aristeas. Praep. Ev. VIII 2-5 and 9. Josephus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and most subsequent writers
with the exception of St. Jerome call Aristeas Ἀρισταῖος. The two forms would appear not to have
differed appreciably in pronunciation. In the names of two of the interpreters
there is a similar variation, Βασέας
and Βανέας appearing also asΒασαίας and Βαναίας, whence it is an easy step to
the more familiar Greek termination -αῖος.
Epiphanius however (died A.D. 402) is lavish of details. He tells us that the king had thirty-six houses constructed on the island of Pharos, in which he shut up the interpreters two together. In these houses, which had no windows in the wall, but only skylights, the interpreters worked from morning till evening under lock and key. In the evening they were taken over in thirty-six different boats to the palace of Ptolemy Philadelphus, to dine with him. Then they slept two together in thirty-six different bedrooms. All these precautions were taken to prevent communication between the pairs, and yet when the thirty-six copies of each book of the Bible were compared together, they were found to be identical. ‘So manifestly were these men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and where there was an addition made to the original, it was made by all, and where there was something taken away, it was taken away by all; and what they took away is not needed, and what they added is needed.’
This explicit assertion
of the plenary inspiration of the Septuagint is manifestly prompted by the craving
for an infallible Bible, which was felt in ancient as in modern times. St.
Jerome, who, unlike the bulk of the Christian Fathers, made himself acquainted
with the text of the original, nailed this false coin to the counter; Preface to the
Pentateuch— et nescio quia primus auctor septuaginta cellulas Alexandriae
mendacio suo exstruxerit, quibus divisi eadem scriptirarint, cum Aristeas
eiusdem Ptolemaei ὑπερασπιστὴς et
multo post tempore Iosephus Nihil tale retulerint, sed in una basilica
congregatos contulisse scribant, non prophetasse. Jerome died A.D. 420,
Augustine A.D. 430. Aug. de Civ. Dei
XVIII 42 and 43.
These later embellishments of the story of the Septuagint may unhesitatingly be set aside as the outcome of pious imagination. But what of the original narrative which goes under the name of Aristeas? Is that to be regarded as fact or fiction?
At first sight we seem
to have strong external evidence for its truth. There was an Alexandrian Jew
named Aristobulus, who is mentioned at the beginning of Second Maccabees as
‘the teacher of king Ptolemy’ (1:10). The Ptolemy in question was the sixth,
surnamed Philometor (B.C. 180-145). Aristobulus, though a Jew, was also a
Peripatetic philosopher, and anticipated Philo as an exponent of the
allegorical method of interpreting Scripture. So at least we gather from
Eusebius, who in his Praeparatio Evangelica several times quotes
a work on the ‘Interpretation of the Holy Laws’ Eus. Pr. Ev. VII 13,
14 : VIII 9, 10 : IX 6 : XIII 11, 12.
The external evidence being thus favourable, let us now examine the internal.
Time is the great
revealer of secrets, and it is also, in another sense, the great detector of
forgeries. We have therefore first to inquire whether the document is
consistent in point of chronology with its own claims. Who are the persons
mentioned, and did they live together? With regard to what may be called the
minor characters there is no difficulty. Aristeas himself, Andreas, and
Sosibius are otherwise unknown, while in the case of Menedemus of Eretria,
Theodectes, and Theopompus, we are not debarred by considerations of time from
accepting what is said of them, though it would fit in better with the reign of
the first than of the second Ptolemy. But the relations between Ptolemy
Philadelphus and Demetrius of Phalerum, as represented in the Letter, are
inconsistent with what we know from other sources. Demetrius was expelled from
Athens in B.C.307 by his namesake Demetrius the Besieger of Cities.
Having subsequently found his way to Egypt, he became the chief friend of
Ptolemy Soter, by whom he was even intrusted with legislation. AElian V.H. : III
17: Plut. de Exsilio p. 602. Cicero pro Bab.
Post. § 23 implies that Demetrius was intentionally got rid of in this way
— Demetrium et ex republica, quam optime gesserat, et ex doctrina nobilem et
clarum, qui Phalereus vocitatus est, in eodem isto AEgyptio regno aspide ad
corpus admota vita esse privatum. Against Apion I 22 ἀνὴρ περὶ πᾶσαν ἱστορίαν ἐπιμελής.
It would seem then
that, if Demetrius of Phalerum had anything to do with the translation of the
Jewish Scriptures, that translation must have been made under the first
Ptolemy. This is actually asserted by Irenaeus, Quoted in Eusebius V 8.
There are some minor points which have been urged as proofs of historical inaccuracy in the Letter, which do not seen to us to have any weight. One is connected with the letter of Eleazar, which begins thus (§ 41) — ‘If thou thyself art well, and the queen Arsinoe, thy sister, and the children, it will be well, and as we would have it.’ Now Philadelphus had two wives in succession, both named Arsinoe. By the first, who was the daughter of Lysimachus, he had three children, Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and Berenice; by the second, who was his own sister, he had none. But then, as Eleazar was addressing Ptolemy, who was aware of these facts, it would have been superfluous for him to guard himself against misconstruction (cp. § 45). Again (§ 180) Philadelphus is made to speak of his victory 'in the sea fight against Antigonus.' It is asserted that Philadelphus was really defeated in this battle: but, if so, this fal sification of fact is not inappropriate in the monarch's own mouth. Who does not know the elasticity of the term 'victory'?
More important than the preceding are two passages in which the author, despite his cleverness, seems to forget that he is Aristeas, and to speak from the standpoint of his own later age. For in § 28, in commenting on the systematic administration of the Ptolemies, he says ‘for all things were done by these kings by means of decrees and in a very safe manner.’ Now it is conceivable that Aristeas might say this with reference to Philadelphus and his father Soter, but it seems more like the expression of one who could already look back upon a dynasty. Again in § 182, in recording how the national customs of the Jews were complied with in the banquet, he says ‘for it was so appointed by the king, as you can still see now.’ This could hardly be said by a person writing in the reign of which he is speaking.
Our inquiries then seem to have landed us in this rather anomalous situation, that, while external evidence attests the genuineness of the Letter, internal evidence forbids us to accept it. But what if the chief witness be himself found to be an impostor? This is the view taken by those who are careful to speak of the pseudoAristobulus. Aristobulus, the teacher of Ptolemy, would be a tempting godfather to a Jewish author wishing to enforce his own opinions. One thing is certain, namely, that the Orphic verses quoted by Aristobulus (Eus. Pr. Ev. XIII 12) are not of Greek but of Jewish origin. This however does not prove much. For since they were employed by some Jew, why not by one as well as by another? The Jewish Sibylline verses also go back to the reign of Ptolemy Philometor. There is another thing which may be affirmed with safety, namely, that the closest parallel to the Greek of Aristeas is to be found in the Greek of Aristobulus. Indeed it might well be believed that both works were by the same hand. We incline therefore to think that whatever was the date of the ‘Interpretation of the Holy Laws’ was the date also of the Letter of Aristeas. If the former work is really by Aristobulus writing under Ptolemy Philometor, then we assign the Letter to the same period. But, if the Jewish love of pseudonymity deludes us here also, then we are unmoored from our anchorage, and can be certain of nothing except that the Letter was accepted as history by the time of Josephus, who paraphrases a great part of it, and mentions the name of the supposed author. Philo’s evidence is not so clear. He agrees with the author of the Letter in making the translation take place under Philadelphus, but he diverges from him, as we have seen, in asserting its inspiration, nor does he anywhere refer to the writer as his authority in the way Josephus does.
The Teubner editor of the Letter, Paul Wendland, puts its composition later than the time of the Maccabees (say after B.C. 96) and before the invasion of Palestine by the Romans, B.C. 63. The earlier limit is determined by arguments from names, which might be disputed, and the later is taken for granted. We ourselves think that the work was composed before the Jews had any close acquaintance with the Romans: but there is a point which might be urged against this view. Among the questions asked lay Philadelphus of the Elders there are two in immediate succession — (1) What kind of men ought to be appointed στρατηγοί? (2) What kind of men ought to be appointed ‘commanders of the forces’? (§§ 280, 281). One or other of these questions seems superfluous until we inquire into the meaning of στρατηγοί in this context. The answer to the question in the text clearly shows that the word here stands for ‘judges.’ Now, if we remember that στρατηγός was the Greek equivalent for the Roman praetor, it might at first seem that it could only have been under the Romans that στρατηγός acquired the meaning of ‘judge.’ But this leaves out of sight, the question how στρατηγός came to be selected as the equivalent of the Roman praetor. -The word must already in Greek have connoted civil as well as military functions before it could have seemed to be a fit translation of praetor. And this we know to have been the case. The στρατηγοί at Athens were judges as well as generals. At Alexandria they seem to have become judges instead of generals.
Turning now from the date of the Letter of Aristeas to that of the Septuagint itself, we have already found that there were two forms of the tradition with regard to its origin, one putting it under the reign of the second, the other tinder that of the first Ptolemy The latter comes to us through Irenwus and is compatible with the part assigned to Demetrius of Phalerum in getting the Law of Moses translated, whereas the former is not. Both versions of the story were known to Clement of Alexandria, who gives the preference to the former. They were combined by Anatolius (Eus. H.E. VII 32), who declares that Aristobulus himself was one of the Seventy, and addressed his books on the Interpretation of the Law of Moses to the first two Ptolemies. This however is out of keeping with the fragments of Aristobulus themselves.
From the Prologue to
Ecclesiasticus we may fairly infer that ‘the Law, the Prophecies, and the rest
of the Books,’ so far as the last were then written, already existed in Greek
at the time of writing, and the text itself shows acquaintance with the phraseology
of the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch. That Prologue cannot have been
written later than 132 B.C., and may have been written as early as the reign of
the first Euergetes, who succeeded Philadelphus (B.C. 247-222). In that case the words ‘In
the eight and thirtieth year in the reign of Euergetes I came into Egypt’ may
mean simply ‘When I wax thirty-eight years old,’ etc., which is the sense in
which Professor Mahaffy takes them. Wendland has pointed out a resemblance of
expression which might seem to imply that the writer of the Letter was
acquainted with the Prologue to Ecciesiasticus. Cp. Aristeas § 7 with the words
in the Prologue — καὶ ὡς οὐ μόνον . . .
χρησίμους εἶναι.
Philo displays an acquaintance through the Greek with all the books of the Old Testament, except Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, and Daniel. But he quotes the Prophets and Psalms sparsely, and seems to regard them as inferior in authority to the Law.
The making of the Septuagint, as we have it, was not a single act, but a long process, extending perhaps from the reign of the first Ptolemy down to the second century after Christ: for the translation of Ecclesiastes looks as if it had been incorporated from the version of Aquila, of which we shall speak presently. Tradition is perhaps right in connecting the original translation of the Law with the desire of the early Ptolemies for the completeness of their library. Eusebius sees in this the hand of Providence preparing the world for the coming of Christ by the diffusion of the Scriptures, a boon which could not otherwise have been wrung from Jewish exclusiveness (Pr. Ev. VIII 1).
We need not doubt
Tertullian’s word when he says that the Old Testament Scriptures in Greek were
to be seen in the Serapeum in his own day along with their originals. But the
question is how they got there. Were they really translated for the library?
Or, having been translated by the Jews for their own use was a copy demanded
for the library? On this question each must judge for himself. To us the story
of the Seventy-two Interpreters carries no conviction. For why should the king
send to Judaea for interpreters, when there was so large a Jewish population in
his own kingdom? The seventy-two interpreters, six from each tribe, savour
strongly of the same motive which dictated the subsequent embellishments of the
story, namely, the desire to confer authority upon the Hellenist Scriptures. We
lay no stress in this connexion on the loss of the ten tribes, which has been
supposed to render the story impossible from the commencement. If it had been
an utter impossibility to find six men from each tribe at Jerusalem, no Jew
would have been likely to invent such a story. Moreover in New Testament times
the ten tribes were not regarded as utterly lost ( On the price of slaves see
Xen. Mem. 115 § 2 : Plato Anterastae 136 C : Lucian Vit. Auct.
27.
Of any attempt prior to
the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew Scriptures we have no authentic information.
It is true that the writer of the Letter speaks of previous incorrect
translations of the Law (§ 314) as having been used by Theopompus: but his
motive seems to be a desire to exalt the correctness of what may be called the
authorised version. Similarly Aristobulus (Eus. Pr. Ev. IX 6, XIII 12)
speaks of parts of the Pentateuch as having been translated ‘before Demetrius
of Phalerum’ and before ‘the supremacy of Alexander and the Persians.’ But
again there is a definite motive to be found for this vague chronological
statement in the attempt which was made at Alexandria to show that Plato and
before him Pythagoras were deeply indebted to Moses. Aristobulus in Eus. Pr.
Ev. XIII 12 § 1 — Φανερὸν ὅτι
κατηκολούθησεν ὁ Πλάτων τῇ καθ ᾽ ἡμᾶς νομοθεσίᾳ, καὶ φανερός ἐστι
περιειργασμένος ἕκαστα τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ. Διερμήνευται γὰρ πρὸ Δημητρίου
τοῦ Φαληρέως δι ᾿ ἑτέρων πρὸ τῆς Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Περσῶν ἐπικρατήσεως
κτλ. . . . Γέγονε γὰρ πολυμαθὴς, καθὼς καὶ Πυθαγόρας πολλὰ τῶν παρ ᾽
ἡμῖν μετενέγκας εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ δογματοποιΐαν κατεχώρισεν.
Of translations of the
Old Testament subsequent to the Septuagint the three most famous are those of
Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. Aquila, like his namesake, the husband of
Priscilla, was a native of Pontus, and though not a Jew by birth was a prose.
lyte to the Jewish religion. His version is distinguished by the total
sacrifice of the Greek to the letter of the Hebrew text. So much is this the
case that a Hebrew prefix which is both a sign of the accusative and has also
the meaning ‘with’ is represented, where it occurs in the former sense, by σύν, so that we are presented with the
phenomenon of σύν with the accusative.
This peculiarity presents itself in the Greek version of Ecclesiastes E.g. 2:17 καὶ ἐμίσησα σὺν τὴν ζωήν.
Theodotion of Ephesus is said to have lived towards the close of the same century, under Commodus (A.D. 180-192). He also was a Jewish proselyte. His work was rather a revision of the Septuagint than an independent translation. So far as the book of Daniel is concerned, it was accepted by the Christian Church, and the older Septuagint version was discarded.
Symmachus of Samaria, who, according to Eusebius (H.E. VI 17), was an Ebionite Christian, flourished in the next reign, that of Septimius Severus (A.D. 193-211). His version was more literary in form than that of Aquila.
The reader will observe
that all three of these versions come from the side of Judaism. The Christian
Church was content with the Septuagint, whereon to found its claim as to the
witness of the Old Testament to Christ. Eusebius points to the providential
nature of the fact that the prophecies which foretold his coming were stored
in a public library under the auspices of a Pagan king centuries before his
appearance, so that the coincidence between prediction and fulfilment could not
be ascribed to any fraud on the part of the Christians. The Jews however were
not so well satisfied with this aspect of things. The question of the Virgin
birth divided the religions world then, as it does now. Aquila and Theodotion
were at one in substituting νεᾶνις for
παρθένος in
Besides these
well-known versions there were two other anonymous ones, which were brought to
light through the industry and good fortune of Origen, the most scholarly of
the Christian Fathers. One of these, which was called the Fifth Edition, was
found hidden in an old wine-cask at Jericho in the reign of that Antoninus who
is better known as Caracalla (A.D. 211-217); the other, which was called the
Sixth Edition, was discovered in the subsequent reign of Alexander Severus (A.D.
222-235) concealed in a similar receptacle at Nicopolis in Epirus, where we may
presume St. Paul to have spent his last winter (
The renderings of the four main versions were arranged by Origen in parallel columns along with the original both in Hebrew and Greek characters, in a work which was consequently known as the Hexapla. For the Psalms Eusebius tells us Origen employed ‘not only a fifth, but also a sixth and seventh interpretation’ (H.E. VI 16). There was another work published by Origen called the Tetrapla, which contained only the Septuagint along with the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. What the I seventh interpretation' spoken of by Eusebius was, it would be hard to say. What is called by Theodoret the Seventh Edition was the recension of Lucian, which was later than the work of Origen. Lucian was martyred under Diocletian (284-305 A.D.).
The work of Origen might enlighten the learned, but it did not affect the unique position held in the Christian Church by the Septuagint ever since it was taken over from the Hellenist Jews. We are familiar with the constant appeal made by the writers of the New Testament to ‘Scripture,’ an appeal couched in such words as ‘It is written’ or ‘As the Scripture saith.’ In the great majority of cases the Scripture thus appealed to is undoubtedly the Septuagint; seldom, if ever, is it the Hebrew original. We have seen how, even before the Christian era, the Septuagint had acquired for itself the position of an inspired book. Some four centuries after that era St. Augustine remarks that the Greek-speaking Christians for the most part did not even know whether there was any other word of God than the Septuagint (C.D. XVIII, 43). So when other nations became converted to Christianity and wanted the Scriptures in their own tongues, it was almost always the Septuagint which formed .the basis of the translation. This was so in the case of the early Latin version, which was in use before the Vulgate; and it was so also in the case of the translations made into Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, and other languages. The only exception to the rule is the first Syriac version, which was made direct from the Hebrew. When at the close of the fourth century St. Jerome had recourse to the Hebrew original in revising the accepted Latin text, the authority of the Septuagint stood in the way of the immediate acceptance of his work. , ‘The Churches of Christ,’ said St. Augustine, ‘do not think that anyone is to be preferred to the authority of so many men chosen out by the High-priest Eleazar for the accomplishment of so great a work.’
Nevertheless Jerome's revision did triumph in the end, and under the name of the Vulgate became the accepted text of the Western Church. But the Vulgate itself is deeply tinctured by the Septuagint and has in its turn influenced our English Bible. Many of the names of Scripture characters, e.g. Balaam and Samson, come to us from the Septuagint, not from the Hebrew; our Bible often follows the verse-division of the Septuagint as against that of the Hebrew; the titles of the five books of Moses are derived from the Septuagint, not from the Hebrew. Thus the Septuagint, while it still survives in the East, continued its reign even in the West through the Vulgate; nor was it until the time of the Reformation that the Hebrew Scriptures themselves began to be generally studied in Western Europe.
Never surely has a translation of any book exercised so profound an influence upon the world as the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. This work has had more bearing upon ourselves than we are perhaps inclined to think. For it was the first step towards that fusion of the Hebraic with the Hellenic strain, which has issued in the mind and heart of modern Christendom. Like the opening of the Suez Canal, it let the waters of the East mingle with those of the West, bearing with them many a freight of precious merchandise. Without the Septuagint there could have been, humanly speaking, no New Testament: for the former provided to the latter not only its vehicle of language, but to a great extent also its moulds of thought. These last were of course ultimately Semitic, but when religious ideas had to be expressed in Greek, it was difficult for them to escape change in the process.
So long as the New Testament is of interest to mankind, the Septuagint must share that interest with it. The true meaning of the former can only be arrived at by correct interpretation of the language, and such correct interpretation is well-nigh impossible to those who come to the Jewish Greek of the reign of Nero and later with notions derived from the age of Pericles. Not only had the literary language itself, even as used by the most correct writers, undergone great changes during the interval, but, further than this, the New Testament is not written in literary, but rather in colloquial Greek, and in the colloquial Greek of men whose original language and ways of thinking were Semitic, and whose expression was influenced at every turn by the phraseology of the Old Testament. If we wish then to understand the Greek of the New Testament, it is plain that we must compare it with the Greek of the Old, which belongs, like it, to post-classical times, is colloquial rather than literary, and is so deeply affected by Semitic influence as often to be hardly Greek at all, but rather Hebrew in disguise. That everything should be compared in the first instance with that to which it is most like is an obvious principle of scientific method, but one which hitherto can hardly be said to have been generally applied to the study of the New Testament. Now however there are manifold signs that scholars are beginning to realise the importance of the study of the Greek Old Testament in its bearing upon the interpretation of the New.
Attic Greek was like a vintage of rare flavour which would only grow on a circumscribed soil. When Greek became a world-language, as it did after the conquests of Alexander, it had to surrender much of its delicacy, but it still remained an effective instrument of thought and a fit vehicle for philosophy and history. The cosmopolitan form of literary Greek which then came into use among men of non-Attic, often of non-Hellenic origin, was known as the Common (κοινή, sc. διάλεκτος) or Hellenic dialect. Aristotle may be considered the first of the Hellenists, though, as a disciple of Plato, he is far nearer to Attic purity than the Stoics, Epicureans, and Academics who followed him.
Hellenistic Greek we may regard as the genus, of which Alexandrian Greek is a species. Now the language of the Septuagint is a variety of Alexandrian Greek, but a very peculiar variety. It is no fair specimen either of the colloquial or of the literary language of Alexandria.
The interesting light thrown upon the vocabulary of the Septuagint by the recent publication of Egyptian Papyri has led some writers to suppose that the language of the Septuagint has nothing to distinguish it from Greek as spoken daily in the kingdom of the Ptolemies. Hence some fine scorn has been wasted on the ‘myth’ of a ‘Biblical’ Greek. ‘Biblical Greek’ was a term aptly applied by the late Dr. Hatch to the language of the Septuagint and New Testament conjointly. It is a serviceable word, which it would be unwise to discard. For, viewed as Greek, these two books have features in common which are shared with them by no other documents. These features arise from the strong Semitic infusion that is contained in both. The Septuagint is, except on occasions, a literal translation from the Hebrew. Now a literal translation is only half a translation. It changes the vocabulary, while it leaves unchanged the syntax. But the life of a language lies rather in the syntax than in the vocabulary. So, while the vocabulary of the Septuagint is that of the market-place of Alexandria, the modes of thought are purely Hebraic. This is a rough statement concerning the Septuagint as a whole: but, as the whole is not homogeneous, it does not apply to all the parts. The Septuagint does contain writing, especially in the books of the Maccabees, which is Greek, not Hebrew, in spirit, and which may fairly be compared with the Alexandrian Greek of Philo.
The New Testament, having itself been written in Greek, is not so saturated with Hebrew as the Septuagint: still the resemblance in this respect is close enough to warrant the two being classed together under the title of Biblical Greek. Hence we must dissent from the language of Deissmann, when he says ‘The linguistic unity of the Greek Bible appears only against the background of classical, not of contemporary “profane,” Greek.’ Biblical Greek does appear to us to have a linguistic unity, whether as compared with the current Alexandrian of the Papyri or with the literary language of such fairly contemporary authors as Aristeas, Aristobulus, and Philo, not to add others who might more justly be called ‘profane.’
The language of the Septuagint, so far as it is Greek at all, is the colloquial Greek of Alexandria, but it is Biblical Greek, because it contains so large an element, which is not Hellenic, but Semitic.
Josephus, it has been asserted, employs only one Hebraism, namely, the use of προστίθεσθαιwith another verb in the sense of ‘doing something again’ (see Gram. of Sept. Gk. § 113). For the accuracy of this statement it would be hazardous to vouch, but the possibility of its being made serves to show the broad difference that there is between Hellenistic Greek, even as employed by a Jew, who, we know, had to learn the language, and the Biblical Greek of the Septuagint.
The uncompromising
Hebraism of the Septuagint is doubtless due in part to the reverence felt by
the translators for the Sacred Text. It was their business to give the very
words of the Hebrew Bible to the Greek world, or to those of their own
countrymen who lived in it and used its speech; as to the genius of the Greek
language, that was entirely ignored. Take for instance
One of our difficulties
in explaining the meaning of the Greek in the Septuagint is that it is often
doubtful whether the Greek had a meaning to those who wrote it. One
often cannot be sure that they did not write down, without attaching any
significance to them, the Greek words which seemed to be the nearest
equivalents to the Hebrew .before them. This is especially the case in the
poetical passages, of which
Another obvious cause of difference between Biblical and Alexandrian Greek is the necessity under which the translators found themselves of inventing terms to express ideas which were wholly foreign to the Greek mind.
The result of these various causes is often such as to cause disgust to the classical student. Indeed a learned Jesuit Father has confessed to us what a shock he received on first making acquaintance with the Greek of the Septuagint. But the fastidiousness of the classical scholar must not be nourished at the expense of narrowing the bounds of thought. The Greek language did not die with Plato; it is not dead yet; like the Roman Empire it is interesting in all stages of its growth and its decline. One important stage of its life-history is the ecclesiastical Greek, which followed the introduction of Christianity. This would never have been but for the New Testament. But neither, as we have said before, would the New Testament itself have been but for the Septuagint.
| 1 Clem. | 1 Clement |
| 2 Clem. | 2 Clement |
| Acc. | Accusative |
| Ant. | Antiquities. |
| B | (Codex) Vaticanus |
| B. J. | Wars of the Jews (Josephus) |
| Barn. | Barnabas |
| Ep. | Epistle |
| Gen. | Genitive (sometimes Genesis) |
| Herm. | Hermas |
| Hes. | Hesiod |
| Hom. | Homer |
| Il | Iliad |
| Isocr. | Isocrates |
| Jos. | Josephus |
| L. & S. | Liddell and Scott. |
| Mart. | Martyrdom of Polycarp |
| Mss. | Manuscripts |
| N.T. | New Testament |
| Ο´ | Origen |
| Od | Odyssey |
| Past. Mdt. | Shepherd, Mandate. |
| Past. Sim. | Shepherd, Similitudes. |
| Past. Vis. | Shepherd, Visions. |
| Plat. | Plato |
| Plaut. | Plautinus |
| Θ | Theodotion |
| S. Ign. | Ignatius |
| Sim. | Similitudes |
| Xen | Xenophon |
| Ec | Economics |
| Eur | Euripides |
| I.T. | Iphigenia in Tauris |
| Phaedr | Phaedrus |
| Thuc | Thucydides |
| Cyrop | Cyropedia |
1. Disuse of the Dual. The Greek of the LXX has two numbers, the singular and the plural. The dual, which was already falling into disuse in the time of Homer, and which is seldom addhered to systematically in classical writers, has disappeared altogether.
Contrast with the above—
Plat. Rep. 470 B ἐπὶ δυοῖν διαφοραῖν. Isocr. Paneg. 55 c περὶ τοῖν πολέοιν τούτοιν.
2. Εἷς
as Article. Under the influence of Hebrew idiom we find the numeral εἷς turning into an indefinite
pronoun in the Greek of the LXX, as in
There are instances of the same usage in the two most Hebraistic books of the N. T.
Our
own indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ (Scotch ane) is originally the same
as ‘one.’ We can also see the beginning of the French article in the
colloquial language of the Latin comedians.
Ter. And. 118 forte unam aspicio adulescentulam.
Plaut. Most. 990 unum vidi mortuum efferri foras.
Apart from the influence of the Hebrew, εἷς is occasionally found in good Greek on the way to becoming an article. See L. & S. under εἷς 4. In German the indefinite article and the first of the numerals coincide, and so a German, in beginning to speak English, frequently puts ‘one’ for ‘a.” In the same way a Hebrew learning to speak Greek said εἷς ἀετός and so on.
3. First Declension. In classical Greek there is
a tendency for proper names, especially those of foreign origin, which end in
the nominative in -α
preceded by a consonant other than ρ,
to retain the α in the genitive, e.g. Λήδας, Ἀνδρομέδας, Κομπλέγας (name of
a Spanish town, App. VI De Reb. Hisp. 43). In pursuance of this analogy we have such genitives
as Βάλλας and Ζέλφας (
On the other hand, nouns in -α pure, or -α preceded by ρ, are in a few instances found in the LXX to take the Ionic form of the genitive and dative in -ης and -ῃ.
It is said
that in the Papyri σπείρης is always
used, never σπείρας.
The plural of γῆ is found in the LXX
Acc. γᾶς 4 K. [2 Kings] 18:35. Gen γαιῶν 4 K. [2 Kings] 18:35;
4. Second Declension.
θεός has a vocative θεέ.
But in
Θεέ μου Θεέ μου ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες;
The Attic form of this declension is of rare occurrence in the LXX. Λαός and ναός are the regular forms. Λεώς does not occur at all, and νεώς only in Second Maccabees. ἅλως is common: but for that there is no non-Attic form, as it does not arise, like the others, on the principle of transpositon of quantity.
5. Third Declension.
The word σκνίψ (
6. Absence of Contraction. Many words are left uncontracted in the LXX which in Attic Greek would be contracted, e.g.—
7. Feminine Forms of Movable
Substantives. The form βασίλισσα
for βασίλεια was not approved by
Atticists. It is comon in the LXX, whereas βασίλεια
does not occur. Cf.
γενέτις
8. Heteroclite Nouns.
αἰθάλη (
ἅλων (
γήρους, γήρει for γήρως, γήρᾳ, but nominative always γῆρας. For γήρους,
see
ἔλεος, τό for
ἔλεος, ὁ. Plural τὰ ἐλέη
(
ἔνεδρον (
λύχνος, τό (Dan. Ο´ 5:0).
νῖκος, τό (
σκότος, τό for ὁ, occurs in the best Attic prose as well as in the LXX (e.g.
The N. T. and the Apostolic Fathers afford other instances of heteroclites, which do not occur in the LXX. Thus —
ζῆλος, τό (
πλοῦς declined like βοῦς (
πλοῦτος, τό (
τῦφος, τό (1 Clem. 13:1).
9. Verbal Nouns in -μα.
a. The Abundance of verbal nouns in – μα is characteristic of Hellenistic Greek from Aristotle onwards. The following instances from the LXX are taken at random—
ἀγνόημα
ἀνόμημα 1 Ki. [1 Sam.] 25:28 (17 times in all).
διχοτόμημα
κατάλειμμα
ὕψωμα . . . γαυρίαμα . . . καύχημα
b. A point better worth noting is the preference for the short radical vowl in their formation, e.g. —
ἀνάθεμα Lvt. 27:28 etc. So in the N.T.
ἀφαίρεμα
ἄφεμα
εὕρεμα
ἕψεμα
σύστεμα
χύμα (for)
10. Non-Attic Forms of
Substantives.
ἀλώπηκας accusative plural (
ἄρκος (1 K. [1 Sam.] 17:34) for ἄρκτος, which does not occur. Cp.
δῖνα (
ἔυστρον (
ἐπαοιδός (
κλίβανος (
μόλιβος (
ταμεῖον (
ὑψεία (
χείμαρρος (1 K. [1 Sam.] 17:40) for χειμάρρους.
11. Non-Attic Forms of Adjectives.
εὐθής, εὐθές, for εὐθύς, εὐθεῖα, εὐθύ, which also occurs frequently.
ἥμισυς, -υ is an adjective of two terminations in the LXX. ἡμίσεια does not occur. Cp. Nb. 34:14 τὸ ἥμισυ φυλῆς Μανασσή with Jos. Ant. 4.7.3 καὶ τῆς Μανασσίτιδος ἡμίσεια.
χάλκειος, -α, -ον, the Homeric form, occurs in
ἀργυρικός
αἰσχυντηρός
σιγηρός
κλεψιμαῖος
Θνησιμαῖος often used in the neuter for ‘a corpse,’ e.g. 3 K. [2 Kings} 13:25.
12. Comparison of Adjectives.
ἀγαθώτερος (
αἰσχρότερος (
ἐγγίων and ἔγγιστος are
usual in the LXX, e.g.
πλησιέστερον adv. for πλησιαίτερον (4 Mac. 12:3).
13. Pronouns. a. Classical Greek has no
equivalent for our unemphatic pronoun ‘he.’ One cannot say exactly ‘he said’
in the Attic idiom. Αὐτὸς ἔφη is
something more, and ἔφη something
less, for it may equally mean ‘she said.’ The Greek of the LXX gets over this
difficulty by the use of αὐτός as an
unemphatic pronoun of the 3d person.
1 K. [1 Sam.] 17:42 καὶ εἶδεν Γολιὰδ τὸν Δαυεὶδ καὶ ἠτίμασεν αὐτόν, ὅτι αὐτὸς ἦν παιδάριον καὶ αὐτὸς πυρράκης μετὰ κάλλους ὀφθαλμῶν.
In the above the repeated αὐτός is simply the nominative of the αὐτόν preceding. In a classical writer αὐτός so used would necessarily refer to
Goliath himself. For other instances see
b. As usual in later Greek the compound reflexive pronoun of the 3d person is used for those of the 1st and 2d.
So also in Aristeas 3, 213, 217, 228 (ἑαυτόν = σεαυτόν), 248. This usage had already begun in the best Attic. Take for instance -
Plat. Phoedo 91 C ὅπως μὴ ἐγώ... ἅμα ἑαυτόν τε καὶ ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατήσας, 78 B δεῖ ἡμᾶς ἐρέσθαι ἑαὐτούς, 101 D σὺ δὲ δεδιὼς ἄν... τὴν ἑαὐτοῦ σκιάν.
Instances abound in N.T.
c. A feature more peculiar to LXX Greek is the use of the personal pronoun along with the reflexive, like the English ‘me myself,’ ‘you yourselves,’ etc.
So also
As there is nothing in the Hebrew to warrant this duplication of the pronoun, it may be set down as a piece of colloquial Greek.
d. The use of ἴδιος as a mere possessive pronoun is common to the LXX with the N.T. e.g. -
14. Numerals. a. δυσί(ν) is the regular form for the dative of δύο. So also in N.T. e.g.
b. The following forms of numerals differ from those in classical use: -
δέκα δύο
δέκα τρεῖς
δέκα τέσσαρες
δέκα πέντε
δέκα ἕξ
δέκα ἑπτά
δέκα ὀκτώ
The above numerals occur also in the regular forms -
δώδεκα
τρεῖς καὶ δέκα, τρισκαίδεκα Nb. 29:13, 14
τέσσαρες καὶ δέκα Nb. 16:49.
πέντε καὶ δέκα Lvt. 27:7: 2 K. [2 Sam.] 9:10
ἑκκαίδεκα, ἓξ καὶ δέκα Nb. 31:40, 46, 52
ἑπτὰ καὶ δέκα
ὀκτὼ καὶ δέκα 2 K. [2 Sam.] 8:13.
ἐννέα καὶ δέκα 2 K. [2 Sam.] 2:30 only.
c. The forms just given may be written separately or as one word. This led to the τέσσαρες in τεσσαρεσκαίδεκα becoming indeclinable, e.g. -
The same license is extended in the LXX to δέκα τέσσαρες.
Nb. 29:29 ἀμνοὺς ἐνιαυσίους δέκα τέσσαρες ἀμώμους.
The indeclinable use of τεσσαρεσκαίδεκα is not peculiar to the LXX.
Hdt. 7.36 τεσσαρεσκαίδεκα (τριήρεας). Epict. Ench. 40 ἀπὸ τεσσαρεσκαίδεκα ἐτῶν. Strabo p. 177, 4.1.1 προσέθηκε δὲ τεσσαρεσκαίδεκα ἔθνη, 189, 4.2.1 ἐθνῶν τεσσαρεσκαίδεκα.
d. The alternative
expressions ὁ ει–ς καὶ εἰκοστός (
15. The Verb Εἶναι. ἤμην the
1st person singular of the imperfect, which is condemned by Phrynichus, occurs
frequently in the LXX. It is found also in the N.T. --
ἦς for ἦσθα, which is
condemned by the same authority, occurs in
ἔστωσαν is the only form for the 3d person plural imperative, neither ἔστων nor ὄντων being used. This form is found in Plato (Meno 92 D). See 16 d.
ἤτω or ἔστω occurs in
ἤμεθα for ἦμεν occurs
in 1 K. [1 Sam.] 25:16:
16. The Termination -σαν. a. Probably the thing which will
first arrest the attention of the student who is new to the Greek of the LXX is
the termination in -σαν of the 3d
person plural of the historical tenses of the active voice other than the
pluperfect.
There are in Greek two
terminations of the 3d person plural of the historic tenses --
(1) in -ν, (2) in -σαν. Thus in Homer we have ἔβαν and also ἔβησαν. In Attic Greek the rule is that thematic aorists (i.e. those which have a connecting vowel between the stem and the termination) and imperfects take ν, e.g. --
ἔ-λυσ-α-ν, ἔ-λαβ-ο-ν, ἐλάμβαν-ο-ν,
while non-thematic tenses and the pluperfect take -σαν, e.g. --
ἔ-δο-σαν, ἐ-τί-θε-σαν, ἐ-λε-λύκ-ε-σαν
In the Greek of the LXX, which in this point represents the Alexadrian vernacular, thematic 2d aorists and imperfects may equally take -σαν.
Of 2d aorists we may take the following examples --
εἴδοσαν or ἴδοσαν, εἴποσαν, ἐκρίνοσαν, ἐλάβοσαν, ἐπίοσαν,
εὕροσαν, ἐφέροσαν (=2d aor.),
ἐφάγοσαν, ἐφύγοσαν, ἤλθοσαν, ἡμάρτοσαν, ἤροσαν (
Compounds of these and others abound, e.g. -
ἀπήλθοσαν, διήλθοσαν, εἰσήλθοσαν, ἐξήλθοσαν, παρήλθοσαν, περιήλθοσαν, προσήλθοσαν, συνήθοσαν, ἐνεβάλοσαν, παρενεβάλοσαν, ἐξελίποσαν, κατελίποσαν, ἀπεθάνοσαν, εἰσηγάγοσαν.
b. Instances of imperfects, which, for our present purpose, mean historic tenses formed from a strengthened present stem, do not come so readily to hand. But here are two -
ἐλαμβάνοσαν Ezk. 22:12. ἐφαίνοσαν
These seem to be more common in the case of contracted vowel verbs --
| ἐγεννῶσαν |
εὐθηνοῦσαν |
| ἐπηξονοῦσαν Nb. 1:18. | ἠνομοῦσαν Ezk. 22:11. |
| ἐποιοῦσαν |
κατενοοῦσαν |
| ἐταπεινοῦσαν |
οἰκοδομοῦσαν 2 Esd. [Ezra] 14:18. |
| εὐλογοῦσαν |
παρετηροῦσαν Sus. Θ:12. |
| ἐδολιοῦσαν |
Cp. Herm. Past. Sim. 6.2.7 εὐσταθοῦσαν, 9.9.5 ἐδοκοῦσαν.
Such forms occur
plentifully in Mss. of the N.T., but the Revisers’ text has only ἐδολιοῦσαν in
c. The same termination -σαν sometimes takes the place of -εν in the 3d person plural of the optative.
| αἰνέσαισαν | θηρεύσαισαν |
| εἴποισαν | ἴδοισαν |
| ἐκκόψαισαν | καταφάγοισαν |
| ἐκλείποισαν | ὀλέσαισαν |
| ἔλθοισαν | περιπατήσαισαν |
| ἐνέγκαισαν | ποιήσαισαν |
| εὐλογήσαισαν | πυρσεύσαισαν |
| εὕροισαν | ψηλαφήσαισαν |
d. In Hellenistic Greek generally -σαν is also the termination of the 3d person plural of the imperative in all voices, e.g. --
1 K. [1 Sam.] 30:22 ἀπαγέσθωσαν καὶ ἀποστρεφέτωσαν.
For instances in N.T. see
17. Termination of the 2d Person Singular of Primary Tenses Middle and Passive. In the LXX, as in Attic, the 2d person singular of the present and futures, middle and passive, ends in -ῃ, e.g. ἄρξῃ, φάγῃ, λυπηθήσῃ. The only exceptions to this rule in Attic are βούλει, οἴει, ὄψει, and ἔσει, of which the last is only used occasionally. In the LXX we have ὄψει in Nb. 23:13.
The full termination of the 2d person singular of primary tenses middle and passive (-σαι), which in Attic Greek appears only in the perfect of all verbs and in the present of -μι verbs, as λέ-λυ-σαι, δί-δο-σαι, is occasionally to be found in the LXX in other cases.
ἀπεξενοῦσαι 3 K. [2 Kings} 14:6.
κοιμᾶσαι
κτᾶσαι
πίεσαι
φάγεσαι
So in N.T. --
καυχᾶσαι
κατακαυχᾶσαι
ὀδυνᾶσαι
φάγεσαι καὶ πίεσαι σύ
The Pastor of Hermas yields us ἐπισπᾶσαι, πλανᾶσαι, χρᾶσαι. Such forms are still used in Modern Greek.
In theory -σαι is the termination of every 2d person singular in the middle and passive voices, as in δί-δο-σαι, λέ-λυ-σαι, so that πί-ε-σαι, is a perfectly regular formation. But in Attic Greek the σ has dropped out wherever there is a connecting vowel, and then contraction has ensued. Thus πίεσαι becomes first πίεαι, and finally πίῃ. Confirmation of this theory is to be found in Homer, where there are many examples of the intermediate form, e.g. ἀναίρεαι, δευήσεαι, ἔρχεαι, εὔχεαι, ἴδηαι, κέλεαι, λέξεαι, λιλαίεαι, μαίνεαι, νέμεαι, ὀδύρεαι, πώλεαι. It is an interesting question whether πίεσαι and φάγεσαι are survivals in the popular speech of pre-Homeric forms, or rather revivals, as Jannaris and others think, on the analogy of the perfect middle and passive of all verbs and of the present middle and passive of -μι verbs.
In καυχᾶσαι and the like, contraction has taken place in the vowels preceding the σ (καυχάεσαι = καυχάσαι). ἀπεχενοῦσαι (3 K. [2 Kings} 14:6) looks like a barbarism for ἀπεξένωσαι.
As against these fuller forms, we sometimes find contracted forms in the LXX, where the -σαι is usual in Attic.
δύνῃ for δύνασαι.
Dan. Ο´ 5:16. So in N.T.
ἐπίστῃ for ἐπίστασαι.
Nb. 20:14:
18. Aorist in -α. a. Another inflexional form for the frequency of which the classical student will hardly be prepared is the aorist in -α in other than semivowel verbs. Attic Greek offers some rare instances of this formation, as εἶπ-α, ἤνεγκ-α, ἔχε-α, and in Homer we have such stray forms as κήαντες (Od. 4.231), ἀλέασθαι (Od. 9.274), σεῦα (Il. 20.189). Nevertheless this is the type which has prevailed in the modern language.
b. In Attic the aorist εἶπα occurs more frequently in the other moods than in the indicative (e.g. Plat. Soph. 240 D εἴπαιμεν, Prot. 353 A εἴπατον imperative, Phileb. 60 D εἰπάτω, Meno 71 D εἶπον imperative).
In the LXX this aorist is
equally common in the indicative.
εἶπα
εἶπας
εἴπαμεν
εἴπατε
εἶπαν
εἰπόν
εἰπάτω Dan. Θ 2:7.
εἴπατε (imperative)
εἴπας
c. While the classical
aorist ἦλθον is common in the LXX, the
form with -α also occurs, especially in
the plural.
ἤλθαμεν Nb. 13:28.
ἤλθατε
ἦλθαν
ἐλθάτω
ἔλθατε
εἰσελθάτωσαν
This aorist is common in Mss. of the N.T., but has not been admitted into the Revisers’ text. Cp. Herm. Past. Vis. 1.4.1 ἦλθαν, .3 ἀπῆλθαν: 1 Clem. 38:3 εἰσήλθαμεν.
d. By the side of εἶδον we have an aorist in -α, especially in the 3d person plural, where
its advantage is obvious. (See h below.)
εἴδαμεν 1 K. [1 Sam.] 10:14.
εἶδαν
e. Similarly by the side
of ει–λον we have parts formed as
though from ει–λα.
καθεῖλαν
εἵλατο
ἀνείλατο
ἀπείλατο 1 K. [1 Sam.] 30:18.
διείλαντο
ἐξειλάμην 1 K. [1 Sam.] 10:18.
ἐξείλατο
παρείλατο Nb. 11:25.
f. The aorist ἔπεσα occurs frequently in the 3d person
plural, but is rare in other parts.
ἔπεσα Dan. Ο´ 8:17. πεσάτω
ἔπεσας 2 K. [2 Sam.] 3:34. πέσατε
Among compounds we find ἀπεπεσάτωσαν, διέπεσαν, ἐνέπεσαν, ἐπέπεσαν.
So in N.T. --
ἔπεσα
ἔπεσαν
ἐξεπέσατε
Cp. Polyb. 3.19.5 ἀντέπεσαν.
g. Other aorists of the same type are -
ἀπέθαναν
ἐγκατέλιπαν
ἔβαλαν 3 K. [2 Kings} 6:3. ἔφυγαν
ἐμβάλατε
h. The frequency of the 3d person plural in this form is no doubt due to a desire to differentiate the 3d person plural from the 1st person singular, which are confounded in the historic tenses ending in -ον. It also secured uniformity of ending with the aorist in -σα. In 2 K. [2 Sam.] 10:14 we have this collocation -
εἶδαν . . . ἔφυγαν . . . εἰσῆλθαν . . . ἀνέστρεψαν.
In
19. Augment. a. The augment with the pluperfect is at times omitted by Plato and the best Attic writers. Instances in the LXX are -
| βεβρώκει 1 K. [1 Sam.] 30:12. | ἐνδεδύκει Lvt. 16:23. |
| δεδώκειν 2 K. [2 Sam.] 18:11. | ἐπεβεβήκει Nb. 22:22. |
| δεδώκει 3 K. [2 Kings} 10:13 | πεπώκει 1 K. [1 Sam.] 30:12. |
| ἐνδεδύκειν |
So in N.T. --
| δεδώκει | μεμενήκεισαν |
| δεδώκεισαν | πεπιστεύκεισαν |
| ἐκβεβλήκει | πεποιήκεισαν |
| κεκρίκει |
But in the LXX we
occasionally find other historic tenses without the augment, e.g. 2 Esd. [Ezra]
14:18 οἰκοδομοῦσαν. This is
especially the case with εἶδον.
| ἴδες | ἴδον |
| ἴδεν | πρόιδον |
b. In Attic Greek, when a preposition had lost its force and was felt as part of the verb, the augment was placed before, instead of after, it, as ἐκάθευδον, ἐκάθιζον, ἐκαθήμην.
The same law holds in the
Greek of the LXX, but is naturally extended to fresh cases, e.g. to προνομεύειν, which in the Alexandrian
dialect seems to have been the common word for ‘to ravage.’
| ἐπρονομεύσαμεν | ἠνεχύρασαν |
| ἐπρονόμευσαν Nb. 31:9. |
c. The aorist ἤνοιξα is already found in Xenophon. In the LXX it is common, though by no means to the exclusion of the form with internal augment. Besides ἤνοιξα itself, which is conjugated throughout the singular and plural, we have also the following --
| ἠνοίχθη Nb. 16:32: | ἤνοιγον |
| ἠνοίχθησαν Ezk. 1:1. | ἠνοίγετο 3 K. [2 Kings} 7:21. |
| ἠνοιγμένα |
So also in N.T. --
| ἤνοιξε | διηνοιγμένους |
| διήνοιξε | ἠνοίγη |
Besides the Attic form with
double internal augment, ἀνέῳξα, the
LXX has also forms which augment the initial vowel of this, and so display a
triple augment. --
ἠνέῳξε
ἠνεῴχθησαν
ἠνεῳγμένους 3 K. [2 Kings} 8:29:
ἠνεῳγμένα 3 K. [2 Kings} 8:52.
So in N.T. --
ἠνεῳγμένον
d. In προφητεύειν the internal augment is wrong,
since the verb is formed on the noun προφήτης.
In the LXX προεφήτευσεν occurs only in
1 K. [1 Sam.] 18:10 (A) and
προεφήτευον
προεφήτευσε
προεφήτεύσαμεν
προεφήτευσαν
e. Instances of double augment in the LXX are --
ἀπεκατέστη
ἀπεκατέστησεν
ἠνωχλήθην 1 K. [1 Sam.] 30:13. Cp.
20. Reduplication a. In verbs compounded
with a preposition reduplication is sometimes applied to the preposition.
κεκαταραμένος
πεπρονομευμένος
b. In the form κεκατήρανται (Nb. 22:6, 24:9. Cp. Enoch 27:1,2.) we have what may be called double reduplication.
c. With ῥεριμμένος (
d. The reduplicated present ἐκδιδύσκειν occurs in four passages --
1 K. [1 Sam.] 31:8: 2 K.
[2 Sam.] 23:10:
1 K. [1 Sam.] 1:28:
e. The verb κράζειν has a reduplicated weak aorist, ἐκέκραξα, which is very common, especially in the Psalms; also a reduplicated strong aorist, though this is very rare.
ἐκέκραγεν
21. Attic Future. a. What is called the Attic future, i.e. the future out of which σ has dropped, is more common in the LXX than in Attic Greek. Thus the future of ἐλπίζειν, so far as it appears in Attic authors at all, is ἐλπίσω: but in the LXX it is always ἐλπιῶ. Among verbs in -ιζω which take this form of future are --
| αἰχμαλωτίζειν | ἐγγίζειν | κερατίζειν | οἰωνίζειν |
| ἀποσκορακίζειν | ἐπιστηρίζειν | κομίζειν | σαββατίζειν |
| ἀφαγνίζειν | εὐαγγελίζειν | μελίζειν | συλλογίζειν |
| ἀφανίζειν | καθαρίζειν | μερίζειν | συνετίζειν |
| ἀφορίζειν | καθίζειν |
There is no apparent reason
for the contradiction in the future of verbs in -ίζειν.
The retention of σ in the future of
such verbs is quite exceptional, as in
| μηνιῶ | μηνιεῖς Lvt. 19:18. |
| μηνιεῖ |
b. In Attic Greek there
are a few instances of verbs in -άζειν
dropping the σ and contracting in the
future. Thus βιβάζειν, ἐξετάζειν have the futures βιβῶ, ἐξετῶ in addition to the full
forms. In the LXX the former of these sometimes retains the σ in the future (
ἁρπᾷ Lvt. 19:13.
ἁρπῶμαι
ἐκδικᾶται Lvt. 19:18:
ἐργᾷ
ἐργᾶται Lvt. 25:40:
ἐργῶνται
κατεργᾷ
κοιμᾷ
κοιμᾶται
c. Both in the LXX and in the N.T. semivowel verbs, i.e. those with λ, ρ, μ, ν, have a contracted future, as in Attic, e.g. ψαλῶ, σπερεῖς, τεμεῖς, ῥανεῖ.
d. In Attic Greek the future of χέω is still χέω and indistinguishable from the present. In the LXX the future is distinguished by being treated as a contracted tense. Thus we have --
| ἐκχεῶ, | ἐχεεῖς, | ἐκχεεῖ, |
| ἐκχεεῖτε, | ἐκχεοῦσι. |
The 1st person plural does not seem to occur.
e. To the contracted
futures the LXX adds the post-classical ἑλῶ,
from the same stem as ει–λον. This
future occurs both in the active and the middle voices, e.g. ἀφελῶ (Nb. 11:17), ἐξελεῖσθε (
So in N.T. --
ἀνελεῖ
f. In Attic τελεῖν and καλεῖν are in the future indistinguishable from the present. In the later Greek of the LXX this ambiguity is avoided by the retention of the full form of the future. Thus we have --
| συντελέσω, | συντελέσεις, | συντελέσει, |
| συντελέσετε, | συντελέσουσιν, |
and
| καλέσω, | καλέσεις, | καλέσει, |
| καλέσετε, | καλέσουσιν. |
g. The future ὀλέσω, which is common in Homer but rare in
Attic, does not occur in the LXX, which has only the contracted forms --
| ὀλεῖ | ὀλοῦνται |
| ὀλεῖται |
h. On the other hand, ἐλάσεις in
i. In Attic σκεδάννυμι has future σκεδῶ, but in the LXX it retains the σ, e.g. διασκεδάσω
22. Retention of Short Vowel in the Future.
As a rule in Greek α and ε verbs lengthen the vowel in forming the
future. Exceptions are σπάω and χαλάω among α
verbs, and among ε verbs αἰνέω, καλέω, τελέω. When the vowel is
short in the future, it is also short in the 1st aorist.
To the ε verbs which have the vowel short in the future and 1st aorist we may add from the LXX πονεῖν, φθονεῖν, φορεῖν.
So in N.T. --
ἐφορέσαμεν . . . . . φορέσομεν
Cp. Herm. Past. Sim. 9.13.3, 15.6 ἐφόρεσαν.
23. Aorist of Semivowel Verbs. In Attic
Greek semivowel verbs with ᾰ in
their stem lengthen the ᾰ into η in forming the 1st aorist (as φαν-, ἔφηνα), except after ι or ρ,
when they lengthen into ᾱ (as
μιαν-, ἐμίᾱνα, περαν-, ἐπέρᾱνα). See
G. .672.
In the LXX many such verbs
lengthen into ᾱ when the
ᾰ of the stem is preceded by a
consonant. Hence we meet with such forms as ἐγλύκανας,
ἐκκάθαρον, ἐξεκάθαρα, ἐπέχαρας, ἐπίφανον, ἐποίμανεν, ἐσήμανεν,
σημάνῃ, ὑφᾶναι, ὕφανεν, ὑφάνῃς, ψάλατε. In
The form καθάρῃς is read in Dindorf’s text of Xen. Ec. 18.8, and in Hermann’s text of Plato Laws 735 we have καθάρῃ in B followed by καθήρειεν in D. The aorist ἐσήμανα is found as early as Xenophon. Cp. Aristeas 16, 33. Ἐκέρδανα was always regarded as good Attic.
Such forms are also to be found in the N.T., e.g. --
| ἐβάσκανεν | ἐσήμανεν |
24. The Strong Tenses of the Passive. The
Greek of the LXX displays a preference for the strong over the weak tenses of
the passive, i.e. for the tenses which are formed directly from the
verbal stem, namely, the 2d aorist and the 2d future. Thus ἠγγέλην, which is not to be found in
classical authors, except in a disputed reading of Eur. I.T. 932, occurs
frequently (in compounds) in the LXX, and the future passive, when employed, is
the corresponding form in -ήσομαι, e.g.
So again from ῥίπτω we find only the 2d aorist and 2d future passive, e.g. Ezk. 19:12 ἐρρίφη, 2 K. [2 Sam.] 20:21 ῥιφήσεται.
The following are other instances of the same formation: -
βραχήσεται (Βρέχω)
γραφήσονται Ezk. 13:9. Cp. Aristeas 32.
διεθρύβησαν
ἐκλεγῆναι Dan. Ο’ 11:35.
ἑλιγήσεται
ἐνεφράγη
ἐξαλιφῆναι
ἐπεσκέπησαν
ἠκαταστάτησαν
ὀρυγῇ
περιεπλάκησαν
συνεφρύγησαν
ὑπετάγησαν
25. The Verbs πεινᾶν and διψᾶν. In Attic Greek these two verbs contract into η instead of ᾱ. In the LXX they contract into ᾱ, and πεινάω further forms its future and aorist in ᾱ instead of η.
| ἐὰν πεινᾷ . . . ἐὰν διψᾷ | ἐπείνας |
| διψᾷ (ind.) |
The parts of πεινᾶν which occur in the future and aorist are πεινάσει, πεινάσετε, πεινάσουσι, ἐπείνασεν, ἐπείνασαν, πεινάσω (subj.), πεινάσωμεν, πεινάσητε.
So also in N.T. --
πεινᾶν
πεινᾷ (ind.)
πεινᾷ . . . . . διψᾷ (subj.)
ἐὰν τις διψᾷ
For the future and aorist
of πεινᾶν in N.T. see
26. The Perfect of ἥκειν. Ἥκειν in
the LXX has a perfect ἧκα, which
occurs however only in the plural.
ἥκαμεν
ἥκατε
ἥκασι(ν) 18 times.
This form occurs once in the N.T. --
ἥκασι
Cp. 1 Clem. 12:2 in a quotation
from
The aorist ἧξα, which is found in late authors, is not used in the LXX.
Wherever the form ἧκε occurs, it is either imperative, as in 2
K. [2 Sam.] 14:32, or imperfect, as in
27. Presents formed from Perfects. a. From the perfect ἕστηκα there was formed a new present στήκω, which occurs in two or three passages of the LXX.
| στήκει | στήκειν 3 K. [2 Kings} 8:11. |
| στήκετε (imper.) |
So in N.T. --
στήκει
στήκετε (ind.)
στήκετε (imper.)
στήκητε
b. Similar to this is the verb γρηγορεῖν, formed from ἐγρήγορα. We may conjecture that the pluperfect ἐγηγόρει came to be regarded as a contracted imperfect, and so gave rise to γρηγορῶ.
ἐγρηγόρουν
γρηγορεῖν
γρηγορούντων
γρηγορήσω
ἐγρηγορησε(ν)
ἐγρηγορήθη
From this verb in its turn was formed a new verbal noun γρηγόρησις Dan. Θ 5:11, 14. Cp. also the proper name Γρηγόριος.
So in N.T. --
γρηγορῶμεν
γρηγορεῖτε (imper.)
γρηγορήσατε
c. Of like origin is the
aorist ἐπεποίθησα, which occurs in
d. The tendency to form new presents from perfects is already exhibited in Homer. Thus we have ἀνώγει (Od. 5.139 etc.) formed from ἄνωγα, and γεγωνεῖν (Il. 12.337) from γέγωνα; also the imperfect ἐμέμηκον (Od. 9.439) from μέμηκα.
28. The Verb ἱστάναι and its Cognates. By the side of the forms in -μι there existed from Homer downwards
alternative forms in -ω. Some of these
present themselves in the LXX. Thus we have the following parts of the
transitive verb ἱστάω.
ἱστῶσιν
ἱστῶν 2 K. [2 Sam.] 22:34:
Among its compounds we may notice the following -
καθιστῶν
καθιστᾷ. . . . . μεθιστᾷ Dan. Θ 2:21.
μεθιστῶν . . . . . καθιστῶν Dan. Ο’ 2:21.
μεθιστῶσι
μεθιστᾶν
So in N.T. --
| ἱστῶμεν | συνιστῶν
|
| ἀποκαθιστᾷ | συνιστῶντες |
The form ἱστάνειν, also transitive, occurs in Ezk. 17:14. Cp. Aristeas 280, 281 καθιστάνειν.
So in N.T. --
| μεθιστάνειν | συνιστάνειν |
Cp. Herm. Past. Vis. 1.3.4 μεθιστάνει.
Later Greek has a transitive perfect ἕστακα, which is implied by the rare, though classical, perfect passive ἕσταμαι (Plat. Tim. 81 D). Thus in [Plato] Axiochus 370 D we find περιέστακας.
ἑστάκαμεν
ἀφέστακα
καθέστακα
καθεστάκαμεν
So in N.T. --
ἐξεστακέναι
In
29. The Verb τιθέναι and its Cognates. This verb does not offer much scope for remark. The imperfect is formed, so far as it occurs, from the alternative form τιθέω.
| ἐτίθεις | ἐτίθει |
This is in accordance with
classical usage, which however has ἐτίθην
in the 1st person. Ἐτίθη is read by
A in
The strong and weak aorists
active seem to be about equally frequent. The only person of the latter that
is missing is the 2d person plural.
Ἐθήκαμεν is found (2 Esd. [Ezra] 15:10:
The 2d person singular of the strong aorist middle is always ἔθου, as in Attic.
In
30. The Verb διδόναι and its Cognates. The present tense runs thus --
| δίδωμι, | δίδως, | δίδωσι, |
| διδόασιν. |
In
| ἐδίδουν, | ἐδίδους, | ἐδίδου, |
| ἐδίδουν or ἐδίδοσαν. |
Ἐδίδουν as 3d person plural occurs in
The imperative active δίδου is found in
The 2d aorist subjunctive runs thus --
| δῶ, | δῷς, | δῷ, |
| δῶτε, | δῶσι. |
Of the above forms only διδοῖ, 3d person plural ἐδίδουν, and ἔδωκαν are non-Attic.
The optative of the 2d aorist has the stem vowel long -
δῴης
δῴη 29 times. In
So in N.T. --
δῴη
31. The Verb ἱέναι and its Cognates. a. The simple verb ἱέναι does not occur in the LXX. It has therefore to be studied in its compounds. The regular inflexion of the imperfect in Attic is supposed to be ἵην, ἵεις, ἵει, though in Plat. Euthyd. 293 A we have 1st person singular ἠφίειν. Ἠφίεις therefore (Sus. O’ 53) may be considered classical.
b. The following two passages will set before us the points that have to be noticed with regard to ἀφιέναι --
In the former of these ἀφεῖς must be from ἀφέω, a cognate thematic form to ἀφίημι, but without the reduplication.
In the latter we have a new formation which treats the reduplication as though it were itself the stem. Of this new verb we have the following parts --
| ἀφίω | ἀφίουσι |
| ἀφίων |
In
the N.T. also we find ἀφεῖς (
the imperfect of ἀφίω. Cp. Herm. Past. Vis. 3.
7.1 ἀφίουσιν.
The weak aorist occurs in
the singular and in the 3d person plural ἀφῆκαν,
e.g.
c. A thematic verb συνιεῖν existed in classical Greek. Theognis 565 has the infinitive συνιεῖν: Plat. Soph. 238 E uses ξυνιεῖς. Of this verb we find the following parts in the LXX, if we may trust the accentuation --
| συνιεῖν 3 K. [2 Kings} 3:9, 11. | συνιοῦσιν (dat. pl.) |
| συνιῶν |
So also in N.T. --
ὁ συνιῶν
συνιοῦσι (3d pl.)
d. In addition to this we find a verb of new formation like ἀφίω -
συνίεις
συνίει
συνίων Dan. Θ 8:5, 23, 27 and passim.
συνιόντων (gen. pl.)
In
The new participle συνίων has not entirely ousted the -μι form in the LXX. We have συνιείς
e. The 3d person plural of the 1st aorist ἧκαν, which occurs in Xen. Anab. 4.5.18, is used in the LXX in its compound ἀφῆκαν.
f. The verb συνίειν is to be met with also in the Apostolic Fathers -
συνίω Herm. Past. Mdt. 4.2.1, 10.1.3.
συνίει 4.2.2.
συνίουσιν 10.1.6.
σύνιε 6.2.3, 6: Sim. 9.12.1.
συνίων Barn. Ep. 12:10.
g. The 2d person singular
present middle προίῃ in
32. The Imperatives ἀνάστα and ἀπόστα, etc. It is the by-forms in -ω which account for these imperatives (ἀνάστα = ἀνάστα-ε). Ἀνάστα in the LXX is used interchangeably
with ἀνάστηθι. Thus in
So in N.T., where we find in addition the 3d person singular and the 2d person plural.
| ἀνάστα | καταβάτω |
| ἀνάβα | ἀναβάτε |
Cp. Herm Past. Mdt. 6.2.6, 7 ἀπόστα . . . ἀπόστηθι, Vis. 2.8 ἀντίστα.
Similar forms are to be found even in the Attic drama and earlier.
ἔμβα Eur. Elec. 113: Ar. Ran. 377.
ἐπίβα Theognis 845.
ἔσβα Eur. Phoen. 193.
κατάβα Ar. Ran. 35, Vesp. 979.
πρόβα Eur. Alc. 872: Ar. Ach. 262.
33. Special Forms of Verbs.
αἱρετίζειν denominative from αἱρετός.
ἀμφιάζειν 4 K. [2 Kings] 17:9:
ἀποκτέννειν
ἐλούσθης Ezk. 16:4.
ἑόρακας 2 K. [2 Sam.] 18:11. Maintained by some to be the true Attic form.
ἐρρηγώς
for ἐρρωγώς.
ἔσθειν for ἐσθίειν.
Lvt. 7:15, 11:34, 17:10, 19:8, 26:
κάθου for κάθησο.
μαιμάσσειν
οἶσθας
πιάζειν for πιέζειν.
ῥάσσειν
34. Adverbs. Hellenistic Greek supplied
the missing adverb to ἀγαθός. Ἀγαθῶς
occurs in Aristotle Rh. 2.11.1. In the LXX it is found in 1 K. [1 Sam.] 20:7:
4 K. [2 Kings] 11:18:
Among adverbs of time we
may notice ἐκ πρωίθεν and ἀπὸ προωίθεν as peculiar to the LXX. For
the former see 2 K. [2 Sam.] 2:27: 3 K. [2 Kings} 18:26:
In the Greek of the LXX pouv is used for ποῖ, just as we commonly say ‘where’ for ‘whither.’
Cp.
Ποῖ occurs only in a doubtful reading in
Similarly οὗ is used for οἷ, which is not found at all.
Cp.
So in N.T. --
ποῦ = ποῖ
ὅπου = ὅποι
ὅποι does not occur in Biblical Greek.
35. Homerisms. The Ionic infusion which is
observable in the Greek of the LXX may possibly be due to the use of Homer as a
schoolbook in Alexandria. This would be a vera causa in accounting for such
stray Ionisms as κυνομυίης, μαχαίρῃ,
ἐπιβεβηκυίης, and the use of σπείρης
in the Papyri; possibly also for γαιῶν,
γαίαις. Such forms also as ἐπαοιδός,
ἔσθειν, ἐτάνυσαν (
36. Movable Consonants. ν ἐφελκυστικόν is freely employed before
consonants, as in
To ἄχρι and μέχρι ς is sometimes appended before a vowel and sometimes not.
Ἀντῑκρύ and ἄντῐκρυς differ from one another by more than the σ. The former does not occur at all in the
LXX, the latter in Swete’s text only once,
In the Revisers’ text of
the N.T. we find ἄχρι before a
consonant in
37. Spelling. In matters of spelling Dr. Swete’s text appears to reflect variations in the Mss.
a. The diphthong ει is often replaced by ι, as in
ἀπωλία, δουλία, λατρία, πλινθία, συγγενία, ὑγία, φαρμακία.
Neuters plural in -εῖα also sometimes end in -ια with recession of accent, as --
ἄγγια
In the pluperfect of ἵστημι again we sometimes find ι for ει --
ἱστήκει
παριστήκει
So also in the future and 1st aorist of λείχω, as --
ἐκλίξει, ἐκλίξαι, ἔλιξαν, λίξουσιν.
On the other hand εἰδέαι for ἰδέαι (nom. pl. of ἰδέα) occurs in Dan. Θ 1:13.
b. ν in composition is sometimes changed into μ before a labial and sometimes not, as --
συμβιβάσω
Before a guttural or π, ν is often retained, instead of being turned into γ, as -
ἐνκάθηται, ἐνκρατεῖς, ἐνκρούσῃς, ἐνκρυφίας, ἐνποίῃ, ἐνχωρίῳ.
But on the other hand -
σύγκρισις, συγγενία.
c. In the spelling of λαμβάνειν μ appears in parts not formed from the present stem, as --
λήμψομαι, λήψῃ, λήμψεσθε, ἐλήμφθη, καταλήμψῃ.
This may indicate that the syllable in which the μ occurs was pronounced with β. In modern Greek μπ stands for β, and we seem to find this usage as early as Hermas (Vis. 3.1.4), who represents the Latin subsellium by συμψέλιον. Cp. Ἁμβακούμ for Habakkuk.
d. The doubling of ῥ in the argument of verbs is often neglected, as -
ἐξερίφησαν, ἔρανεν, ἐράπιζον, ἔριψεν.
e. The following also may be noticed -
ἐραυνᾶν for ἐρευνᾶν
μιερός, μιεροφαγία, μιεροφαγεῖν, μιεροφονία all in Maccabees only.
τεσσεράκοντα
38. The Construction of the LXX not Greek. In treating of Accidence we have been concerned only with dialectical varieties within the Greek language, but in turning to syntax we come unavoidably upon what is not Greek. For the LXX is on the whole a literal translation, that is to say, it is only half a translation - the vocabulary has been changed, but seldom the construction. We have therefore to deal with a work of which the vocabulary is Greek and the syntax Hebrew.
39. Absence of μέν and δέ.
How little we are concerned with a piece of Greek diction is brought home to us
by the fact that the balance of clauses by the particles μέν and δέ,
so familiar a feature a Greek style, is rare in the LXX, except in the books of
Wisdom and Maccabees. It does not occur once in all the books between
Deuteronomy and Proverbs nor in Ecclesiastes, the Song, the bulk of the Minor
Prophets, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel; and in each of the following books it occurs
once only -
Leviticus (27:7), Numbers
(22:33), Tobit (14:10), Haggai (1:4), Zechariah (1:15), Isaiah (6:2). Where
the antithesis is employed, it is often not managed wiht propriety, e.g. in
2 K. [2 Sam.] 11:25 ποτὲ μὲν οὕτος.
3 K. [2 Kings} 18:6 μιᾷ . . . ἄλλῃ.
40. Paratactical Construction of the LXX. Roughly speaking, it is true to say that in the Greek of the LXX there is no syntax, only parataxis. The whole is one great scheme of clauses connected by καὶ, and we have to trust to the sense to tell us which is to be so emphasized as to make it into the apodosis. It may therefore be laid down as a general rule that in the LXX the apodosis is introduced by καὶ. This is a recurrence to an earlier stage of language than that which Greek itself had reached long before the LXX was written, but we find occasional survivals of it in classical writers, e.g. Xen. Cyrop. 1.4.28 καὶ ὁδόν τε οὔπω πολλὴν διηνύσθαι αὐτοῖς καὶ τὸν Μῆδον ἥκειν. Here it is convenient to translate καί ‘when,’ but the construction is really paratactical. So again Xen. Anab. 4.2.12 Καὶ τοῦτόν τε παρεληλύθεσαν οἱ Ἕλληνες, καὶ ἕτερον ὁρῶσιν ἔμπροσθεν λόφον κατεχόμενον. Cp. Anab. 1.8.8, 2.1.7, 4.6.2; also Verg. Æn. 2.692 -
Vix ea fatus erat senior, subitoque fragore intonuit laevom.
In the above instances the two clauses are coordinate. But in the LXX, even when the former clause is introduced by a subordinative conjunction, καί still follows in the latter, e.g. -
Sometimes a preposition with a verbal noun takes the place of the protasis, e.g. -
In Homer also καί is used in the apodosis after ἐπεί (Od. 5.96), ἦμος (Il. 1.477: Od. 10.188), or ὅτε (Od. 5.391, 401: 10.145, 157, 250).
The difficulty which
sometimes arises in the LXX in determining which is the apodosis amid a
labyrinth of καὶ clauses, e.g. in
41. Introduction of the Sentence by a Verb of
Being. Very often in imitation of Hebrew idiom the whole sentence is
introduced by ἐγένετο or ἔσται.
3 K. [2 Kings} 18:12 καὶ ἔσται ἐὰν ἐγὼ ἀπέλθω ἀπὸ σοῦ, καὶ πνεῦμα Κυρίου ἀρεῖ σε εἰς τὴν γῆν ἣν οὐκ οἶδας.
In such cases in accordance with western ideas of what a sentence ought to be, we say that καί introduces the apodosis, but it may be that, in its original conception at least, the whole construction was paratactical. It is easy to see this in a single instance like -
but the same explanation may be applied to more complex cases, e.g. -
Nb. 21:9 καὶ ἐγένετο ὅταν ἔδακνεν ὄφις ἄνθρωπον, καὶ
ἐπέβλεψεν ἐπὶ τὸν ὄφιν τὸν χαλκοῦν, καὶ ἔζη. And there was
when a serpent bit a man, and he looked on the brazen serpent, and lived. Cp.
42. Apposition of Verbs. Sometimes the καί does not appear after ἐγένετο, ἐγενήθη, or ἔσται, thus presenting a construction which
we may denote by the phrase Apposition of Verbs.
1 K. [1 Sam.] 31:8 καὶ ἐγενήθη τῇ ἐπαύριον, ἔρχονται οἱ ἀλλόφυλοι.
In two versions of the same
Hebrew we find one translator using the καί
and the other not.
4 K. [2 Kings] 19:1 καὶ ἐγένετο ὣς ἤκουσεν βασιλεὺς Ἑζεκίας, καὶ διέρρηξεν τὰ ἱμάτια ἑαυτοῦ.
43. Δέ
in the Apodosis. The use of δέ
to mark the apodosis, which is found occasionally in classical authors from
Homer downwards, is rare in the LXX.
44. Generic Use of the Article. This is due to following the Hebrew.
1 K. [1 Sam.] 17:34 ὁ λέων καὶ ἡ ἄρκος = ‘a lion or a bear,’ 17:36 καὶ τὴν ἄρκον ἔτυπτεν ὁ δοῦλός σου καὶ τὸν λέοντα.
45. Elliptical Use of the Feminine Article. The use of the feminine article with some case of χώρα or γῆ understood is not due to the influence of the Hebrew.
ἡ ὑπ’ οὐρανόν
τὴν ὑπ’ οὐρανόν
τῆς ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν
τῆς ὑπ’ οὐρανόν
τῇ ὑπ’ οὐρανόν
So in N.T. --
46. Elliptical Use of the Feminine Adjective.
There is nothing about the feminine gender which should make ellipse more
frequent with it than with the masculine or neuter. Only it happens that some
of the words which can be most easily supplied are feminine. This elliptical
use of the feminine adjective (or of adv. = adj.) is a feature of Greek
generally. It is not very common in the LXX. Instances are -
ἐπ’ εὐθείας (ὁδοῦ)
ἐν τῇ εὐθείᾳ
τῆς πλατείας
τὴν σύμπασαν (γῆν)
ἕως τῆς σήμερον (ἡμέρας)
τὴν αὔριον
ἐβόησεν μεγάλῃ (τῇ φωνῇ) 4 K. [2 Kings] 18:28.
εἰς τὴν ὑψηλήν (χώραν)
In the N.T. this idiom
occurs much more frequently. Take for instance
Cp. also -
τὴν πρὸς θάνατον (ὁδόν) Eus. H.E. 2.23.
οὐκ εἰς μακράν Philo Leg. ad C. 4.
ἐπ’ εὐθείας Philo Q.O.P.L. 1.
ἐπὶ ξένης (χώρας or γῆς) Philo Leg. ad C. 3.
πεδιάς τε καὶ ὀρεινή ibid. 7.
τῇ πατρίῳ (γλώσσῃ) Jos. B.J. Prooem. 1.
τὰς περιοίκους (πόλεις) ibid. 8.
47. Feminine for Neuter. The use of the
feminine for the neuter is a pure Hebraism, which occurs principally in the
Psalms.
1 K. [1 Sam.] 4:7 οὐ γέγονεν τοιαύτη ἐξθὲς καὶ τρίτῆ.
In the N.T. this license
only occurs in
48. Singular for Plural. Sometimes in imitation of Hebrew idiom we find the singular used in the sense of the plural. When the article is employed along with a singular noun, we have the Generi Use of the Article (44), but the presence of the article is not necessary.
4 K. [2 Kings] 2:12 ἅρμα Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ἱππεὺς αὐτοῦ.
Ezk. 47:9 ἔσται ἐκεῖ ἰχθὺς πολὺς σφόδρα.
This throws light on an otherwise startling piece of grammar -
49. Singular Verb with more than One Subject.
In accordance with Hebrew idiom a singular verb often introduces a plurality of
subjects, e.g.-
4 K. [2 Kings] 18:26 καὶ εἶπεν Ἐλιακεὶμ . . . καὶ Σόμνας καὶ Ἰώας, 18:37 καὶ εἰσῆλθεν Ἐλιακεὶμ κτλ.
This may happen also in Greek apart from Hebrew.
Xen. Anab. 2.4.16 Ἔπεμψέ μεἈριαῖος καιἊρτάοζος.
50. Nominative for Vocative. a. The use of the nominative for the vocative was a colloquialism in classical Greek. It occurs in Plato, and is common in Aristophanes and Lucian. When so employed, the nominative usually has the article. As in Hebrew the vocative is regularly expressed by the nominative with the article, it is not surprising that the LXX translators should often avail themselves of this turn of speech.
3 K. [2 Kings} 17:18 τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, ὁ ἄνθρωπος τοῦ Θεοῦ;
18:26 ἐπάκουσον ἡμῶν, ὁ Βάαλ.
Cp. 3 K. [2 Kings} 20:20:
For an instance of the nominative without the article standing for the vocative take -
The nominative, when thus employed, is often put in apposition with a vocative, as -
3 K. [2 Kings} 17:20 Κύριε, ὁ μάρτυς τῆς χήρας, 17:21 Κύριε, ὁ Θεός μου.
b. In the N.T. also the nominative with the article is often put for the vocative.
The use of the nominative
without the article for the vocative is rare in the N.T., as it is also in the
LXX. In
As instances of apposition of nominative with vocative we may take --
In
οὐρανέ, καὶ οἱ ἅγιοι.
51. Nominative Absolute. Occasionally we
get a construction in the LXX, which can be described only by this name.
Nb. 22:24 καὶ ἔστη ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ταῖς αὔλαξιν τῶν ἀμπέλων, φραγμὸς ἐντεῦθεν καὶ φραγμὸς ἐντεῦθεν.
Nb. 24:4 ὅστις ὅρασιν θεοῦ εἶδεν, ἐν ὕπνῳ, ἀποκεκαλυμμένοι οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ.
As this construction arises out of a literal following of the Hebrew, it would be superfluous to adduce Greek parallels. Like effects might be found, but the cause would be different.
52. Nominative of Reference. What is meant by this term will be best understood from the examples -
To throw out the subject of discourse first, and then proceed to speak about it, is a Hebraism, but at the same time it is a common resource of language generally.
So in N.T. --
53. Nominativus Pendens. The nominative
which is left without a verb owing to a sudden change of construction is a
familiar feature in classical Greek, especially if this be at all colloquial.
It is not however very common in the LXX.
Dan. Ο´ 7:15 καὶ ἀκηδιάσας ἐγὼ . . . ἐτάρασσόν με.
Such cases can generally be explained on the principle of construction according to the sense.
It is seldom that we meet with so violent an anacoluthon as the following in the N.T. --
54. Accusative for Vocative. The accusative
for vocative might seem an impossibility, yet here is an instance of it.
55. Accusative of Time When. In connexion
with classical Greek we think of Time When as being expressed by the genitive
or dative, rather than by the accusative, though the latter also is used. The
employment of the accusative became more frequent after the classical period,
and alone survives in the modern language.
Dan. Θ 9:21 ὡσεὶ ὥραν θυσίας ἑσπερινῆς (Ο´ has ἐν ὥρᾳ).
So also sometimes in N.T. --
56. Cognate Accusative. a. By a Cognate
Accusative is here meant that particular form of the Figura Etymologica in
which a verb is followed by an accusative of kindred derivation with itself,
irrespective of the question whether it be an accusative of the external or of
the internal object. We have both kinds of accusative together in the
following verse, where θήραν =
venison.
b. The great frequency of the cognate accusative in the LXX is due to the fact that here the genius of the Hebrew and of the Greek language coincides. Besides being a legitimate Greek usage, this construction is also one of the means employed for translating a constantly recurring Hebrew formula. Sometimes the appended accusative merely supplies an object to the verb, as in such phrases as δάνιον δανείζειν, διαθέσθαι διαθήκην, διηγεῖσθαι διήγηα, ἐνύπνιον ἐνυπνιάζεσθαι, ἐπιθυμεῖν ἐπιθυμίαν, θύειν θυσίαν, νηστεύειν νηστείαν, ὁρισμὸν ὁρίζεσθαι, πλημμελεῖν πλημμέλησιν or πλημμελίν, προφασίζεσθαι προφάσεις.
At other times it is accompanied by some specification, as -
Nb. 18:6 λειτουργεῖν τὰς λειτουργίας τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου.
c. Sometimes the cognate accusative is conveyed in a relative clause, as -
Nb. 1:44 ἡ ἐπίσκεψις ἣν ἐπεσκέψαντο.
1 K. [1 Sam.] 2:23 ἡ ἀκοὴ ἣν ἐγὼ ἀκούω.
d. By other changes of construction we have still the figura etymologica, but no longer a cognate accusative. Thus, starting from the common phrase δοῦναι δόμα, we have δεδομένοι δόμα (Nb. 3:9) and δόμα δεδομένον (Nb. 18:6).
e. In one instance the cognate accusative is reinforced by a still further application of the etymological figure -
This is not due to the Hebrew.
f. In a wider sense the term ‘cognate accusative’ includes an accusative of kindred meaning, though not of kindred derivation, as -
g. Instances of cognate accusative are common enough in the N.T., e.g. -
There also it occurs sometimes in a relative clause -
h. We have a triple use of the etymological figure in -
i. That the playing with paronymous terms is in accordance with the spirit of the Greek language may be seen from the frequent employment of the device by Plato, e.g. -
Prot. 326 D ὥσπερ οἱ γραμματισταὶ τοῖς μήπω δεινοῖς γράφειν τῶν παίδων ὐπογράψαντες γραμμὰς τῇ γραφίδι οὕτω τὸ γραμματεῖον διδόασι.
Hip. Maj. 296 C Ἄλλα μέντοι δυνάμει γε δύνανται οἱ δυνάμενοι· οὐ γάρ που ἀδυναμίᾳ γε.
57. Accusative in Apposition to Indeclinable
Noun. In the LXX an indeclinable noun is sometimes followed by an
accusative in apposition to it, even though by the rules of grammar it is
itself in some other case, e.g.-
4 K. [2 Kings] 1:2 ἐν τῷ Βάαλ μυῖαν θεὸνἈκκαρών.
Perhaps it would be more satisfactory if this and § 54 were thrown together under a head of Bad Grammar, a category which the reader might be inclined to enlarge.
58. Genitive Absolute. Strictly speaking, a Genitive Absolute is a clause in the genitive which does not affect the general construction. It ought not therefore to refer either to the subject or the object of the sentence. Even in classical authors however the so-called genitive absolute is sometimes not employed with the precision which grammarians might desire, e.g. -
Plat. Rep. 547 B βιαζομένων δὲ καὶ ἀντιτεινόντων ἀλλήλοις . . . ὡμολόγησαν.
Xen. Cyrop. 1.4.2 καὶ γὰρ ἀσθενήσαντος αὐτοῦ οὐδέποτε ἀπέλειπε τὸν πάππον.
Xen. Anab. 1.2.17 θᾶσσον προϊόντων . . . δρόμος ἐγένετο τοῖς στρατιώταις.
The genitive absolute is often employed in the same loose way in the LXX.
So in N.T. --
59. The Genitive Infinitive of Purpose. The genitive of the verbal noun formed by prefixing the article to the infinitive, which we may call for convenience the Genitive Infinitive, is one of the regular ways of expressing purpose in Biblical Greek, corresponding to our use of ‘to.’ The construction is not entirely unknown to classical authors (e.g. Plat. Gorg. 457 E τοῦ καταφανὲς γενέσθαι) and is especially favoured by Thucydides. There is nothing in the Hebrew to suggest it. The following will serve as examples -
So also frequently in N.T., e.g. -
60. Other Uses of the Genitive Infinitive. a. The genitive infinitive of purpose is only one use out of many to which this syntactical device is applied. Take for instance -
Purpose is not expressed in either of these cases. In the former we have what may be called the Explanatory Use of the Genitive Infinitive; in the latter we have something which represents ‘from serving us’ in the orginal, but which we shall nevertheless class as a Genitive Infinitive of Consequence, since it is only thus that the Greek can be explained.
b. The Explanatory Use of the Genitive Infinitive is common in the LXX, e.g. -
So in N.T. --
c. As an instance of the Genitive Infinitive of Consequence we may take -
So in N.T. --
Hb. 11:5 Ἐνὼχ μετετέθη τοῦ μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον.
d. What is called in Latin Grammar the ‘prolative infinitive’ after ‘extensible’ verbs, or more simply, the latter of two verbs, is also commonly expressed in the LXX by the genitive infinitive, e.g. -
So in N.T. --
61. Cognate Dative. a. Another form of
the figura etymologica which abounds in the LXX may be called Cognate
Dative. As in the case of the cognate accusative its frequency is in great
measure due to the coincidence of idiom in this particular between Greek and
Hebrew. Let us first show by a few examples from Plato that this construction
is in accordance with the genius of the Greek language.
Crat. 385 B λόγῳ λέγειν. Phdr. 265 C παιδίᾳ πεπαῖσθαι. Symp. 195 B φεύγων φυγε῀ι τὸ γῆρας. Crat. 383 A φύσει . . . πεφυκυῖαν. Cp. 389 C, D. Phileb. 14 C φύσει . . . πεφυκότα.
b. But while we have to search for this idiom in classical Greek, it thrusts itself upon us at every turn in the Greek of the LXX, owing to its aptness for rendering a mode of expression familiar in the original.
c. Corresponding to the cognate dative in Greek, we find in Latin also a cognate ablative as a rare phenomenon, e.g. -
curriculo percurre Ter. Heaut. 733. Cp. Plaut. Most. 349
qui non curro curriculo domum.
occidione occisum Cic. Fam. 15.4.7. Cp. Liv. 2.51.9.
d. The instances of cognate dative of most frequent occurrence in the LXX are ἀκοῇ ἀκούειν, ζωῇ ζῆν, θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖ, θανάτῳ θανατοῦσθαι, σάλπιγγι σαλπίζειν. But besides these there are many others, as -
ἀγαπήσει ἀγαπᾶσθαι κακίᾳ κακοποιεῖν
ἀλαλαγμῷ ἀλαλάζειν κακίᾳ κακοῦν
ἀλοιφῇ ἐξαλείφειν κατάραις καταρᾶσθαι
ἀπωλίᾳ ἀπολλύναι κλαυθμῷ κλαίειν
ἀφανισμῷ ἀφανίζειν λήθῃ λαθεῖν
βδελύγματι βδελύσσειν λίθοις λιθοβολεῖν
δεσμῷ δεῖν λύτροις λυτροῦν
διαλύσει διαλύειν μνείᾳ μνησθῆναι
διαμαρτυρίᾳ διαμαρτυρεῖν οἰωνισμῷ οἰωνίζεσθαι
διαφθείρειν φθορᾷ ὀργίζεσθαι ὀργῇ
δίκῃ ἐκδικεῖν ὅρκῳ ὁρκίζειν
ἐκβάλλειν ἐκβολῇ παραδόσει παραδοθῆναι
ἐκθλίβειν ἐκθλιβῇ περιπίπτειν περιπτώματι
ἐκλείψει ἐκλείπειν πλημμελίᾳ πλημμελεῖν
ἐκτριβῇ ἐκτριβῆναι προνομῇ προνομευθῆναι
ἐτρίψει ἐκτριβῆναι προσοχθίσματι προσοχθίζειν
ἐξεπαυνᾶν ἐξεραυνήσει πτώσει πίπτειν
ἐξουδενώσει ἐξουδενοῦν ταλαιπωρίᾳ ταλειπωρεῖν
ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπιθυμεῖν ταραχῇ ταράσσειν
ἐπισκοπῇ ἐπισκέπτεσθαι ὑπεροράσει ὑπεριδεῖν
θελήσει θέλειν φερνῇ φερνίζειν
καθαιρέσει καθαίρειν φθορᾷ φθαρῆναι
καθαρισμῷ καθαρίζειν χαίρειν χαρᾷ
e. From the foregoing
instances it is an easy step to others in which the substantive is of kindred
meaning, though not of kindred derivation with the verb.
Nb. 11:15 ἀπόκτεινόν με ἀναίρεσει, 35:26 ἐξόδῳ ἐξέλθῃ.
Ezk. 33:27 θανάτῳ ἀποκτενῶ.
f. Instances of the cognate dative are to be found also in the N.T., though not with anything like the frequency with which they occur in the LXX.
g. The expression in 2
Pet. 3:3 ἐν ἐμπαιγμονῇ ἐμπαῖκται,
while not exactly parallel with the foregoing, belongs to the same range of
idiom; so also
62. ἥμισυς. In Attic Greek ἥμισυς, like some other adjectives, mostly of quantity, has a peculiar construction. It governs a noun in the genitive, but agrees with it in gender. Thus -
Plat. Phædo 104 A ὁ ἥμισυς τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ ἅπας. Thuc. 5.31.2 ἐπὶ τῇ ἡμισείᾳ τῆς γῆς. Demosth. p. 44, 4.16 τοῖς ἡμίσεσι τῶν ἱππέων.
This idiom is kept up by Hellenistic writers, such as Philo, Strabo, and the translator of Josephus’ Jewish War. It is however very rare in the LXX, occuring only in the following passages -
3 K. [2 Kings} 16:9 ὁ ἄρχων τῆς ἡμίσους (§ 11) τῆς ἵππου.
Elsewhere instead of the Attic idiom we find τὸ ἥμισυ or ἥμισυ, irrespective of the gender and number of the noun which follows, e.g. -
τὸ ἥμισυ τοῦ σίκλου
τὸ ἥμισυ αὐτῆς Lvt. 6:20. ἐν ἡμίσει ἡμερῶν
τὸ ἥμισυ τοῦ αἵματος
63. πᾶς. a. In classical Greek the rule for πᾶς in the singular is that with the article it is collective, without the article it is distributive -
πᾶσα ἡ πόλις = all the city.
πᾶσα πόλις = every city.
πᾶς differs from ordinary adjectives in taking the predicative position in an attributive sense. Thus while ἀγαθὴ ἡ πόλις means ‘the city is good,’ πᾶσα ἡ πόλις means ‘all the city.’ πᾶς may however take the attributive position, like any other adjective. When it does so, the collective force is intensified -
πᾶσα ἡ πόλις = all the city.
ἡ πᾶσα πόλις = the whole city.
Thus Plato’s expression (Apol. 40 E) ὁ πᾶς χρόνος is rendered by Cicero (T.D. 1.97) perpetuitas omnis consequentis temporis. For other instances of this use in classical authors we may take -
Hdt. 7.46 ὁ πᾶς ἀνθρώπινος βίος. Plat. Rep. 618 B ὁ πᾶς κίνδυνος, Phileb. 67 B οἱ πάντες βόες = all the oxen in the world.
Xen. Anab. 5.6.5 οἱ πάντες ἄνθρωποι.
In such cases there is an additional stress gained by the unusual position assigned to πᾶς.
b. In the LXX the same distinction seems to be maintained. It is true a writer will go from one to the other, e.g. -
but so in English we might first say he told her his whole heart, and then add and she saw that he had told her all his heart.
Other instances of the strongly collective force of πᾶς in the attributive position are -
Still there is a tendency in the LXX to assimilate πᾶς to adjectives generally and to employ it in the attributive position without any special emphasis.
c. Neither is the rule that πᾶς without the article is distributive at all closely adhered to, e.g. -
1 K. [1 Sam.] 7:2 πᾶς οἶκος Ἰσραήλ.
d. In the plural οἱ πάντες is rare, but may be found -
Αἱ πᾶσαι is still rarer, but see -
Τὰ πάντα is comparatively common, occuring, e.g., in
e. In the N.T. the collective use of πᾶς followed by the article is clearly marked in many passages, e.g. -
Also the distributive use
of πᾶς without the article, as in
ἵνα πᾶν στόμα φραγῇ, καὶ ὑπόδικος γένηται πᾶς ὁ κόσμος τῷ Θεῷ.
On the other hand there are also instances of πᾶς in the singular and without the article being used collectively, e.g. -
Eph. 2·21 πᾶσα οἰκοδομή.
f. In the plural οἱ πάντες is more common in St. Paul than in the LXX. Take for instance -
οἱ πάντες ἄνδρες.
Τὰ πάντα occurs in
64. Comparison of Adjectives. Owing to the
peculiarity of Hebrew syntax the treatment of this subject mostly falls under
the head of Prepositions. We need only notice here that the positive may be
put for the comparative.
So in N.T. --
65. Omission of μᾶλλον. The comparison of attributes may be effected by
the use of verbs as well as of adjectives. In such cases the omission of μᾶλλον is common in the LXX.
Nb. 22:6 ἰσχύει οὗτος ἢ ἡμεῖς, 24:7 ὑψωθήσεται ἢ Γὼγ βασιλεία.
Cp. Aristeas § 322 τέρπειν γὰρ οἴομαί σε ταῦτα ἢ τὰ τῶν μυθολόγων βιβλία.
66. Superfluous Use of Pronoun. A pronoun is sometimes employed superfluously after the object, direct or indirect, has been already expressed, e.g. --
Nb. 26:37 καὶ τῷ Σαλπαὰδ υἱῷ Ὄφερ οὐκ ἐγένοντο αὐτῷ υἱοί.
The above may be considered as deflexions of the Nominative of Reference (§ 52) into an oblique case by Attraction.
So in N.T. --
In
ὑμεῖς ἐξελέξασθε Κυρίῳ λατρεύειν αὐτῷ -
Κυρίῳ should be τὸν Κύριον (which A has). Then λατρεύειν αὐτῷ would be an explanatory clause added after the usual manner.
67. Frequent Use of Pronouns. Apart from any Semitic influence there is also a tendency in later Greek to a much more lavish use of pronouns than was thought necessary by classical authors. We have seen already (§ 13) that the missing pronoun of the 3d person was supplied. The possessive use of the article moreover was no longer thought sufficient, and a possessive genitive was added, e.g. -
So in N.T. --
68. Ἀδελφός as a Reciprocal Pronoun. The use of ἀδελφός as a reciprocal pronoun is a sheer Hebraism, e.g. -
69. Hebrew Syntax of the Relative. a. One of the most salient characteristics of LXX Greek is the repetition of the pronoun after the relative, as though in English, instead of saying ‘the land which they possessed,’ we were to say habitually ‘the land which they possessed it,’ and so in all similar cases. This anomaly is due to the literal following of the Hebrew text. Now in Hebrew the relative is indeclinable. Its meaning therefore is not complete until a pronoun has been added to determine it. But the relative in Greek being declinable, the translator was forced to assign to it gender, number, and case, which rendered the addition of the pronoun after it unnecessary. Nevertheless the pronoun was retained out of regard for the sacred text. As instances of the simplest kind we may take the following -
Nb. 35:25 ὃν ἔχρισαν αὐτόν, 13:33 τῆς γῆς ἣν κατεσκέψαντο αὐτήν.
b. Where the relative is followed by ἐάν the same construction is employed, e.g. -
Nb. 17:5 ὁ ἄνθρωπος ο§ν ἐὰν ἐκλέξωμαι αὐτόν, 19:22 παντὸς οὗ ἐὰν ἅψηται αὐτοῦ ὁ ἀκάθαρτος.
c. Sometimes a demonstrative takes the place of the personal pronoun -
d. In all the foregoing instances the appended pronoun is in the same case as the relative, but this is not necessary.
Nb. 3:3 οὓ ἐτελείωσεν τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν ἱερατεύειν.
The construction here, though determined by the Hebrew, happens to agree with the Greek Accusative of the Part Affected.
e. Very often there is the same preposition both before the relative and before the appended pronoun -
Nb. 11:21 ἐν οἷς εἶμι ἐν αὐτοῖς.
f. Occasionally the preposition is the same, but the case it governs is different, e.g. -
g. Sometimes the preposition is confined to the appended pronoun. Then the problem arises, Into what case is the relative to be put? -
a problem which is solved differently in different passages. In some the case chosen coincides with that of the pronoun following, e.g. -
In others it does not -
Nb. 14:31 τὴν γῆν η§ν ὑμεῖς ἀπέστητε ἀπ’ αὐτῆς, 19:2 ᾗ οὐκ ἐπεβλήθη ἐπ’ αὐτὴν ζυγός.
3 K. [2 Kings} 17:1 ᾧ παρέστην ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ.
h. Sometimes the relative has a different preposition from the pronoun following -
Nb. 13:20 τίς ἡ γῆ εἰς ἣν οὗτοι ἐνκάθηνται ἐπ’ αὐτῆς . . . τίνες αἱ πόλεις εἰς ἃ οὗτοι κατοικοῦσιν ἐν αὐταῖς.
For other instances see
i. Sometimes the preposition is the same, but instead of a mere pronoun we have a phrase, e.g. -
j. The construction of which we have been speaking is not confined to the simple relative, e.g. -
k. The habitual repetition of the pronoun in the LXX is a mere Hebraism, though a search among Greek writers might reveal traces of a somewhat similar usage arising independently. Here are a few instances -
Plat. Tim. 28 A ὅτου μὲν οὖν ἂν ὁ δημιουργός . . . τὴν ἰδέαν καὶ δύναμιν αὐτοῦ ἀπεργάζηται, Parm. 130 E ὧν τάδε τὰ ἀλλὰ μεταλαμβάνοντα τὰς ἐπωνυμίας αὐτῶν ἴσχειν. Artist. Cat. 5.38 οἷον ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ἄλλων οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι τις τὸ τοιοῦτο προενεγκεῖν.
l. In the N.T. this Hebrew syntax of the relative occurs not infrequently.
Cp.
Instances are most frequent
in the very Hebraistic book of Revelation. See
70. ἀνήρ
= ἕκαστος. The use of ἀνήρ
as a distributive pronoun is a pure Hebraism.
4 K. [2 Kings] 18:31 πίεται ἀνὴρ τὴν ἄμπελον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀνὴρ τὴν συκῆν αὐτοῦ φάγεται.
71. ὅστις
for ὅς. Except in the
neuter singular ὅ τι, as in
1 K. [1 Sam.] 30:10 διακόσιοι ἄνδρες οἵτινες ἐκάθισαν πέραν τοῦ
χειμάρρου. Cp.
Οἵτινες = οἵ occurs several times in Aristeaς -
§§ 102, 121, 138, 200, 308.
The same use of ὅστις for the simple relative is found in the N.T., e.g. -
72. Analytic Tenses. By an Analytic Tense is meant one which is formed with an auxiliary instead of by an inflexion, as in English, ‘is coming’ for ‘comes.’ No reader of the LXX can fail to be struck by the frequency of such forms. It results from the fact that both languages combine to produce them. They are suggested by the great use made of the participle in Hebrew, while at the same time there was a strong tendency towards the employment of such forms within the Greek language itself. They are to be found in the best writers, both in prose and poetry, from Homer downwards. Plato often has recourse to them, partly for the sake of philosophical precision, and partly, it must be confessed, because in his later style he preferred two words to one. In the Laws πρέπον ἐστί almost altogether displaces πρέπει.
3 K. [2 Kings} 20:5 οὐκ εἶ σὺ ἐσθίων ἄρτον; Cp.
3 K. [2 Kings} 18:12 ἐστὶν φοβούμενος.
Nb. 14:8 ἐστὶν ῥέουσα. Cp. 3 K. [2 Kings} 20:15:
2 Esd. [Ezra] 23:24 οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐπιγινώσκοντες.
Dan. Ο’ 6:26 ἔστωσαν προσκυνοῦντες.
Nb. 8:19 ἔσται . . . προεγγίζων. Cp.
Ezk. 34:29 ἔσονται ἀπολλύμενοι. Cp.
Nb. 22:12 ἔστιν γὰρ εὐλογημένος.
2 K. [2 Sam.] 22:3:
Dan. Ο’ 7:11 θεωρῶν ἤμην.
1 K. [1 Sam.] 17:34 ποιμαίνων ἦν.
3 K. [2 Kings} 18:3 ἦν φοβούμενος. Cp. Dan. Ο’ 6:18.
Dan. Ο’ 1:16 ἦν . . . ἀναιρούμενος.
Dan. Ο’ 10:9 ἤμην πεπτωκώς.
Dan. Θ 10:9 ἤμην κατανενυγμένος.
1 K. [1 Sam.] 4:13 ἦν . . . ἐξεστηκυῖα.
b. Γίγνεσθαι may be used as an auxiliary instead of εἶναι.
Nb. 10:34 ἐγένετο σκιάζουσα.
c. Sometimes the verbal
adjective is used in place of the participle.
d. When a causative form is wanted corresponding το ἀκουστὸν γενέσθαι recourse is had to ἀκουστὸν ποιεῖν, e.g. -
e. In the N.T. these analytic tenses are relatively even commoner than in the LXX.
Hb. 7:21, 23 εἰσὶ γεγονότες.
Hb. 4:2 ἐσμὲν εὐηγγελισμένοι.
Hb. 10:10 ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμέν.
Hb.
2:13 ἔσομαι πεποιθώς
(from
f. Besides εἶναι other auxiliaries are used in the N.T. --
With the last example cp. Aristeas § 193 εἰ μὴ πεποιθὼς ὕπαρχοι. The
same author has κεχαρισμένος ἔσῃ in § 40 and ἰσχῦόν ἐστι in 241.
g. Instances of analytic tenses occur here and there in Josephus, e.g. -
B.J. 1.31.1 καὶ τοῦτο ἦν μάλιστα τάρασσονἈντίπατρον.
Ant. 2.6.7 τί παρόντες εἴημεν.
h. Also in the Apostolic Fathers -
2 Clem. 17:7 ἔσονται δόξαν δόντες. Barn. Ep. 19:4 ἔσῃ τρέμων,
19:6 οὐ μὴ γένῃ ἐπιθυμῶν. Cp. 19:9. Herm. Past. Vis. 3.4.2
ὑπερέχοντες αὐτούς εἰσιν, Sim. 5.4.2 ἔσομαι ἑωρακώς . . . ἀκηκοώς,
9.13.2 ἔσῃ . . . φορῶν, Mdt. 5.2.8 ἔσῃ εὑρισκόμενος, Sim. 9.1.8 εὐθηνοῦν
ἦν, 9.4.1 ὑποδεδυκυῖαι ἦσαν . . . ὑποδεδύκεισαν.
73. Deliberative Use of the Present Indicative. The deliberative use of
the present indicative is not unknown in Latin, especially in Terence, e.g.
Phorm. 447 quid ago? Cp. Heaut. 343: Eun. 811: Ad. 538. It occurs also in
the Greek of the LXX.
So in N.T. --
74. The Jussive Future. a. The Jussive Future is rare in Attic Greek, and,
when it does occur, is regarded as a weak form of imperative. In the LXX,
on the other hand, it is very common, and is employed in the most
solemn language of legislation. From the nature of the case it is not used
in the first person. It may be employed in command or in prohibition. As
instances
of the former we may take -
Lvt. 19:18 ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν. Cp. Ex.
34:18,20: 3 K. [2 Kings} 17:11.
Lvt. 19:19 τὸν νόμον μου φυλάξεσθε. Cp. Lvt. 11:44.
Lvt. 19:22 καὶ ἐξιλάσεται ὁ ἱερεύς. Cp. Lvt. 19:20,21.
b. Very often the jussive future follows an imperative.
c. Of the use of the
jussive future in prohibition we have a conspicuous example in the Ten
Commandments (
d. In the case of the jussive future we have οὐ in prohibition, because the formula was originally one of prediction.
e. Occasionally there is a transition from the jussive future to οὐ μή with subjunctive -
Nb. 23:25 οὔτε κατάρασις καταράσῃ μοι αὐτόν, οὔτε εὐλογῶν μὴ εὐλογήσῃς αὐτόν.
f. In the N.T. the jussive future is often used in passages quoted from the LXX. In Matthew it is employed independently.
75. The Optative. a. The pure optative,
i.e. the optative as employed to express a wish, is of frequent occurrence in
the LXX, as might be expected from the character of the contents, so much of
which is in the form either of aspiration or of imprecation. But the use of
the optative where in Latin we should have the historic tenses of the
subjunctive is hardly to be found outside of Maccabees.
4 Mac. 17:1 ἔλεγον δὲ καὶ τῶν δορυφόρων τινες ὡς . . . ἵνα μὴ ψαύσειέν τι τοῦ σώματος αὐτῆς, ἑαύτην ἔρριψεν κατὰ τῆς πυρᾶς.
The established practice is for the subjunctive to follow the historic tenses in a final clause -
Cp. Aristeas §§ 11, 18, 19, 26, 29, 42, 111, 175, 193.
b. In the N.T. also the subjunctive is regularly employed in final clauses after an historic tense, e.g. -
c. The pure optative is
said to occur 35 times in the N.T., always, except in
In Luke-Acts the optative is commonly employed in dependent questions, e.g. -
with which contrast
Outside of Acts the optative with εἰ is found only in four passages -
76. Conditional with ἄν. Occasionally we find the apodosis
in a conditional sentence devoid of ἄν.
Nb. 22:33 καὶ εἰ μὴ ἐξέκλινεν, νῦν οὖν σὲ μὲν ἀπέκτεινα, ἐκείνην δὲ περιεποιησάμην. Contrast 22:29 and compare 2 K. [2 Sam.] 2:27.
77. Infinitive of Purpose. The use
of the infinitive to express purpose, as in English, is common to all stages of
the Greek language, but abounds more in the LXX than in classical Greek.
Of the use of the infinitive with the article to express purpose we have had occasion to speak already (§ 59).
78. Infinitive of Consequence. This
construction is of doubtful propriety in Attic Greek. In the LXX it is much
less common than the Infinitive of Purpose.
79. Paucity of Participles. The small use made of participles in the LXX, as compared with classical Greek, is a natural result of the paratactical construction which reigns throughout. The same is the case, though to a less extent, in the N.T. Take for instance -
The participle has disappeared in the modern language. Doubtless the influence of Biblical Greek was among the causes of its decline.
80. Misuse of the Participle. The misuse of the participle marks a stage of its decline. We find this tendency already manifesting itself in the LXX. Such an anacoluthon indeed as the following -
may be passed over, as it might easily be paralleled from the most strictly classical writers. But we find sentences in the LXX in which a participle is the only verb. Sometimes this arises from following the Hebrew as in -
More often it does not, as in -
Moreover we find a participle coupled with a finite verb by καί. When the subject of the two is the same, it is open to us to say that it is not copulative, but merely emphasizes the verb, as in -
Nb. 21:11 καὶ ἐξάραντες (Hb. impf.) ἐξ Ὠβώθ, καί παρενέβαλον ἐν Χαλγαεί, 22:23 καὶ ἰδοῦσα ἡ ὄνος . . . καὶ ἐξέκλινεν.
Hardly so however when the subject is different.
Nb. 22:23 καὶ ἰδὼν Βαλάκ . . . καὶ ἐφοβήθη Μωάβ.
81. The Intensive Participle. On the other hand there is a cause in operation in the LXX tending to an unnecessary use of participles. For in place of a cognate dative we often find the participle used along with a finite form of the same verb, to convey the intensive force that is accomplished in Hebrew by the addition of the infinitive to the finite verb, e.g. -
We might fill pages with instances of this idiom, but a statement of its frequency must suffice. This emphatic use of the participle is a more unmitigated Hebraism than the other forms of the etymological figure. The cognate accusative is quite Greek and the cognate dative is to be found in pure Greek, but we should search in vain among classical authors for the intensive use of the participle. There is a clear instance indeed in Lucian (Dialogi Marini 4.3 ἰδὼν εἶδον), but it is interesting to remember that Lucian himself came from the banks of the Euphrates. In Hdt. 5.95 αὐτὸς μὲν φεύγων ἐκφεύγει there is a difference of meaning between the participle and the finite verb - he himself escapes by flight.
In the N.T. we have one instance, other than a quotation, of this Hebraism, namely -
but both the reading and the interpretation of this passage are disputed.
82. Other Varieties of the Etymological Figure.
In
Sometimes we find an adverb in place of the participle -
Nb. 22:17 ἐντίμως γὰρ τιμήσω σε.
The following turns of expression may also be noticed -
1 K. [1 Sam.] 1:11 δώσω αὐτὸν ἐνώπιόν σου δοτόν.
83. Middle and Passive Voices. In later Greek the boundary lines between the middle and passive voices are not clearly demarcated. Even in classical authors we find the future middle used in a passive sense, as it is also in -
The same seems to be the
case with ξυρήσωμαι and ἐξυρήσατο in
So in N.T. --
though here Riddell’s semi-middle sense of the verb might plausibly be brought in by way of explanation.
Instances of passive form with middle meaning are common in the LXX -
Nb. 22:34 ἀποστραφήσομαι I will get me back again.
3 K. [2 Kings} 17:3 κρύβηθι hide thyself, 18:1 πορεύθητι καὶ ὄφθητι τῷἈχαάβ go and shew thyself, 20:25 ἐπράθη sold himself.
So in N.T. in
84. Causative Use of the Verb. a. The causative use of the verb which is found in the LXX may be set down with confidence as a Hebraism. Βασιλεύειν according to the Greek language means ‘to be king,’ but it is frequently employed in the LXX in the sense of ‘to make king,’ e.g. -
1 K. [1 Sam.] 8:22 βασίλευσον αὐτοῖς βασιλέα, 15:11 ἐβασίλευσα τὸν Σαοὺλ εἰς βασιλέα.
There are all together thirty-six occurrences of the word in this causative sense.
b. Classical Greek again knows βδελύσσεσθαι in the sense of ‘to loathe’ or ‘abominate,’ but not βδελύσσειν in the sense of ‘to make abominable,’ as in -
Lvt. 11:43 καὶ οὐ μὴ βδελύξητε τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν.
Cp. Lvt. 20:25:
c. Still more strange to classical Greek is the sense of ‘to make to sin’ often imposed upon ἐξαμαρτάνειν, e.g. -
4 K. [2 Kings] 17:21 καὶ ἐξήμαρτεν αὐτοὺς ἁμαρτίαν μεγάλην.
This is the prevailing sense of the word in the LXX, which is found all together twenty-eight times, mostly in the phrase ὃ ἐξήμαρτεν τὸν Ἰσραήλ.
d. In this causative use
of the verb is to be found the explanation of
1 K. [1 Sam.] 4:3 κατὰ τί ἔπταισεν ἡμᾶς κύριος σήμερον;
85. Reduplication of Words. In Greek we are accustomed to reduplication of syllables, but not to reduplication of words. This primitive device of language is resorted to in the LXX, in imitation of the Hebrew, for at least three different purposes -
1) intensification,
2) distribution,
3) universalisation.
1) The intensifying use.
σφόδρα σφόδρα
σφόδρα σφοδρῶς
To the same head may be assigned -
In all the above instances perhaps the kind of intensification involved
is that of a repeated process.
2) The distributive use.
εἷς εἷς
δύο δύο
ἑπτὰ ἑπτά
χιλίους ἐκ φυλῆς, χιλίους ἐκ φυλῆς Nb. 31:6.
τὸ πρωὶ πρωί
ἐργασίᾳ καὶ ἐργασίᾳ
In pure Greek such ideas would be expressed by the use of ἀνά or κατά. Sometimes we find κατά; employed in the LXX along with the reduplication, as in --
The idea ‘year by year’ is expressed in many different ways -
ἐνιαυτὸν κατ’ ἐνιαυτόν
κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν ἐνιαυτόν 1 K. [1 Sam.] 7:16.
ἐνιαυτὸν ἐξ ἐνιαὐτοῦ
τὸ κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν ἐνιαὐτῷ 3 K. [2 Kings} 10:28.
τὸ κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν ἐνιαυτόν
3) The universalising use.
ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος = whatsoever man Lvt. 17:3, 8, 10, 13; 18:6; 20:9; 22:18: Ezk. 14:4, 7.
ἀνδρὶ ἀνδρί Lvt. 15:3.
Of the above three uses the
distributive is the only one which is to be found in the N.T.
So also in the Pastor of Hermas -
Sim. 8.2.8 ἦλθον τάγματα τάγματα, 4.2 ἔστησαν τάγματα τάγματα.
86. Expressions of Time. a. ‘Year after year’ is expressed in 2 K. [2 Sam.] 21:1 by a nominative absolute ἐνιαυτὸς ἐχόμενος ἐνιαυτοῦ without any pretence of grammar.
b. The use of the word ‘day’ in vague expressions of time is a Hebraism, e.g. -
3 K. [2 Kings} 18:1 μεθ’ ἡμέρας πολλάς = after a long time.
c. ‘Day by day’ (Hb. day,
day) is expressed in
d. The use of ‘yesterday
and the day before’ as a general expression for past time = heretofore is a
Hebraism which presents itself in the LXX under a variety of slight
modifications.
ἐχθὲς καὶ τρίτην 1K. 4:7, 10:11: 2 K. [2 Sam.] 3:17, 5:2:
ἐχθὲς καὶ τρίτην ἡμέραν
ἐχθὲς καὶ τρίτης
ἀπ’ ἐχθὲς καὶ τρίτης ἡμέρας
πρὸ τῆς ἐχθὲς καὶ τρίτης
πρὸ τῆς ἐχθὲς καὶ πρὸ τῆς τρίτης.
πρὸ τῆς ἐχθὲς καὶ πρὸ τῆς τρίτης ἡμέρας
πρὸ τῆς ἐχθὲς οὐδὲ πρὸ τῆς τρίτης
πρὸ τῆς ἐχθὲς οὐδὲ πρὸ τῆς τρίτης ἡμέρας.
In
e. ‘Just at that time’ is expressed variously as follows -
αὐθωρί Dan. Ο´ 3:15.
αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ
ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ Dan. Θ
5:5. Cp.
ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐκείνῃ Dan. Ο´ 5:5.
ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ καιρῷ
87. Pleonastic Use of ἐκεῖ and ἐκεῖθεν. Just as a personal pronoun is supplied after the
relative (§ 69), so a demonstrative adverb of place is supplied after a
relative adverb or after some phrase equivalent to one.
Dan. Θ 9:7 οὗ διέσπειρας αὐτοὺς ἐκεῖ.
3 K. [2 Kings} 17:19 ἐν ᾧ αὐτὸς ἐκάθητο ἐκεῖ. Cp.
Nb. 14:24 εἰς ἣν εἰσῆλθεν ἐκεῖ. Cp. 15:18,
35:26:
4 K. [2 Kings] 1:4 ἡ κλίνη ἐφ’ ἧς ἀνέβης ἐκεῖ.
Nb. 23:13 ἐξ ὧν οὐκ ὄψῃ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖθεν.
Dan. Ο´ 9:7 εἰς ἃς διεσκόρπισας αὐτοὺς ἐκεῖ.
This idiom, which is thoroughly Hebrew, is to be explained on the same principle as in § 69. In the N.T. it is found only in Revelation -
88. πᾶς with οὐ and μή. a. The use of πᾶς with a negative particle, where in classical Greek οὐδείς or μηδείς would be employed, is a Hebraism, even though in certain cases the resulting expression may be paralleled from pure Greek usage. The πᾶς may either precede or follow the negative (οὐ, μή, μηδέ, οὐ μή) without difference of meaning.
b. We will first take instances from the LXX where the πᾶς precedes the negative.
Dan. Ο´ 5:9 πᾶς ἄνθρωπος οὐ δύναται. Cp. Dan. Ο´ 2:10.
Hbk. 2:19 πᾶν πνεῦμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ.
So in N.T. --
2 Pet. 1:20 πᾶσα προφητεία γραφῆς ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται.
c. In the following passages of the LXX the πᾶς follows the negative -
2 K. [2 Sam.] 15:11 οὐκ ἔγνωσαν πᾶν ῥῆμα.
So in N.T. --
89. Prominence of Prepositions. The prominence of prepositions in the LXX is partly a characteristic of later Greek generally and partly due to the careful following of the Hebrew. But while prepositions are employed to express relations for which in classical Greek cases would have been thought sufficient, there is at the same time a tendency to blur some of the nice distinctions between the uses of the same preposition with different cases.
90. εἰς. a. εἰς in classical Greek denotes motion or direction: in Biblical Greek it denotes equally rest or position, and may be translated by ‘at’ or ‘in’ as wel as by ‘to,’ e.g. -
For examples of the former meaning only we may take -
Nb. 25:33 τὴν γῆν εἰς ἣ ὑμεῖς κατοικεῖτε.
b. In the N.T. εἰς denoting rest or position is very common.
Cp. also
The obliteration of the distinction between rest and motion is one of the marks of declining Greek. In the modern language εἰς has usurped the functions both of ἐν and πρός.
c. The use of εἰς with the accusative after εἶναι and γενέσθαι as practically equivalent to the nominative may safely be regarded as a Hebraism.
d.
3 K. [2 Kings} 20:2 ἔσται μοι εἰς κῆπον λαχάνων. Cp.
1 K. [1 Sam.] 17:9 ἐσόμεθα ὑμῖν εἰς δούλους.
1 K. [1 Sam.] 4:9 γένεσθε εἰς ἄνδρας.
πρός in one passage takes the place of εἰς.
e. In the New Testament
this idiom occurs both in quotations from the Old and otherwise.
The same usage is to be found also in the Apostolic Fathers -
Herm. Past. Sim. 9.13.5 ἔσονται εἰς ἓ πνεῦμα, εἰς ἓν σῶμα.
1 Clem. 11:2 εἰς κρίμα καὶ εἰς σημείωσιν . . . γίνονται.
Ign. Eph. 11:1 ἵνα μὴ ἡμῖν εἰς κρῖμα γένηται.
f. The employment of εἰς to express the object or destination of
a thing might easily be paralleled from classical Greek, but its frequent use
in the LXX is due to its convenience as a translation of the corresponding
Hebrew.
3 K. [2 Kings} 19:15 χρίσεις τὸνἈζαὴλ εἰς βασιλέα.
When the verb is active and transitive, as in all but the second of the above instances, εἰς might be dispensed with as far as Greek is concerned. When a verb of being is employed, this use runs into the preceding -
g. The use of εἰς with the accusative, where classical Greek would simply have employed a dative, is shown by the Papyri to have been a feature of the vernacular Greek of Alexandria.
So in N.T. --
91. ἐν.
a. Although ἐν was destined
ultimately to disappear before εἰς,
yet in Biblical Greek we find it in the plenitude of its power, as expressing
innumerable relations, some of which seem to the classical student to be quite
beyond its proper sphere. One principal use may be summed up under the title
of “The ἐν of Accompanying
Circumstances.” This includes the instrumental use, but goes far beyond it.
Under this aspect ἐν invades the
domain of μετά and σύν. In most cases it may be rendered by
the English ‘with.’
4 K. [2 Kings] 18:17 ἐν δυνάμει βαρείᾳ. In the parallel
passage
So in N.T. --
2 Pet. 3:16 ἐν ἀνθρώπου φωνῇ.
b. The ἐν of accompanying circumstances is not wholly foreign to classical Greek, though the extended use made of it in Biblical diction is.
Eur. Tro. 817 ὦ χρυσέαις ἐν οἰνοχόαις ἁβρὰ βαίνων.
c. In another of its Biblical uses ἐν becomes indistinguishable from εἰς, as in -
So in N.T. --
92. ἀπό.
a. ἀπό in the LXX is often little
more than a sign of the genitive, like our English ‘of,’ provided that the
genitive be partitive.
3 K. [2 Kings} 18:13 ἔκρυψα ἀπὸ τῶν προφητῶν Κυρίου ἑκατὸν ἄνδρας.
2 Esd. [Ezra] 11:2 εἷς ἀπὸ ἀδελφῶν μου.
So in N.T. --
b. ἀπό = ‘by reason of’ is another unclassical use which occurs in the LXX.
3:7 καὶ τῆς κραυγῆς αὐτῶν ἀκήκοα ἀπὸ τῶν ἐργοδιωκτῶν.
In this way ἀπό becomes = ὑπό, as in Dan. Ο’ 1:18.
So in N.T. --
Hb. 5:7 εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας.
Of ἀπό = ὑπό see
instances in
c. The combination ἀπό . . . ἕως is a Hebraism. It may be rendered “from . . . unto,” as in -
or “both . . . and,” as in -
Sometimes καί precedes the ἕως -
93. μετά. μετά with genitive = ‘in dealing with’ is
a Hebraism.
So in N.T. --
94. ὑπέρ.
a. The frequent use of ὑπέρ in the
LXX to express comparison is due to the fact that the Hebrew language has no
special form for the comparative degree. We therefore sometimes find the LXX
representing the original by the positive with ὑπέρ.
1 K. [1 Sam.] 9:2 ὑψηλὸς ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν.
Ezk. 5:1 ῥομφαίαν ὀξεῖαν ὑπὲρ ξυρὸν κουρέως.
b. More often however the
comparative is used, but the construction with ὑπέρ
still retained.
3 K. [2 Kings} 19:4 κρείσσων . . . ὑπὲρ τοὺς πατέρας. Cp.
Hbk. 1:8 ὀξύτεροι ὑπὲρ λύκους.
Dan. O’ 1:20 σοφωτέρους δεκαπλασίως ὑπὲρ τοὺς σοφιστάς.
c. ὑπέρ is employed in the same way after verbs -
1 K. [1 Sam.] 1:5 τὴν Ἄνναν ἠγάπα Ἐλκανὰ ὑπὲρ ταύτην.
Dan. O’ 3:22 ἡ κάμινος ἐξεκαύθη ὑπὲρ τὸ πρότερον ἑπταπλασίως.
d. So in N.T. --
after a comparative -
Hb. 4:12 τομώτερος ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαιραν.
after a verb -
Cp. Herm. Past. Mdt. 5.1.6 ἡ μακροθυμία γλυκυτάτη ἐστὶν ὑπὲρ τὸ μέλι. Mart. Polyc. 18 δοκιμώτερα ὑπὲρ χρυσίον ὀστᾶ αὐτοῦ.
95. ἐπί. a. ἐπί with the accusative is used of rest as well as of motion.
b. ἐπί is sometimes used to reinforce an accusative of duration of time.
c. In
d. In the N.T. also ἐπί with the accusative is used of rest or position -
96. παρά.
a. παρά naturally lends itself to the
expression of comparison, and is so used occasionally in the best Greek, e.g.
Thuc. 1.23.4: Xen. Mem. 1.4.14: Hdt. 7.103. It is therefore not
surprising that it should have been employed by the translators in the same way
as ὑπέρ.
Nb. 12:3 καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος Μωυσῆς πραὺς σφόδρα παρὰ πάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους.
Dan. Ο’ 1:10 ἀσθενῆ παρὰ τοὺς συντρεφομένους ὑμῖν (Θ has σκυθρωπὰ παρὰ τὰ παιδάρια τὰ συνήλικα ὑμῶν). Cp. Ο’ 1:13.
Dan. Θ 7:7 διάφορον περισσῶς παρὰ πάντα τὰ θήρια.
Dan. Ο’ 11:13 μείζονα παρὰ τὴν πρώτην (Θ has πολὺν ὑπὲρ τὸν πρότερον).
b. In the N.T. παρά after a comparative is abundant in Hebrews -
1:4, 3:3, 9:23, 11:4, 12:24.
We find it after a positive and after a comparative in Luke -
and after verbs in -
Hb. 1:9 ἔχρισέ σε ὁ Θεός . . . παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου.
c. In the Apostolic Father cp. -
Herm. Past. Vis. 3.12.1 ἱλαρωτέραν παρὰ τὸ πρότερον, Sim. 9.18.2 πλείονα . . . παρά.
Barn. Ep. 4:5 (in a quotation from Daniel which is neither Ο´’ nor Θ) χαλεπώτερον παρὰ πάντα τὰ θήρια.
97. New Forms of Prepostion. a. Besides the more liberal use made of the prepositions already current in classical Greek, we meet also in the LXX with new forms of preposition.
b. ἀπάνωθεν occurs in Swete’s text in
c. ὑποκάτωθεν, which is only used as an adverb in classical Greek, assumes in the LXX the function of a preposition, e.g. -
The corresponding form ὑπεράνωθεν occurs in the LXX only twice,
once as an adverb in
Ezk. 1:25 ὑπεράνωθεν τοῦ στερεώματος.
d. ἔναντι in many passages of the LXX has been replaced in Swete’s
text by ἐναντίον, but there are still
numerous instances of it left, e.g.
ἀπέναντι is also common, e.g.
κατέεναντι is specially frequent in the book of Sirach.
e. ἐνώπιον is another preposition unknown to classical authors, but extremely common in Biblical Greek, as being an apt equivalent for certain Hebrew forms of expression. Deissmann gives instances of its adverbial use in the Papyri, so that we need not suppose it to have been invented by the translators of the O.T. In the N.T. it occurs frequently in Luke-Acts, Paul, and Revelation, but is not used in Matthew or Mark.
κατενώπιον occurs in the LXX in Lvt. 4:17:
f. ὀπίσω as a preposition is unclassical, but extremely common in the LXX.
In the N.T. it occurs in
g. κατόπισθε(ν) is construed with a genitive in Hom. Od. 12.148, but its classical use is almost wholly adverbial, whereas in the LXX, in which it occurs twenty-four times in all, it is mainly prepositional.
In
h. κυκλόθεν occurs in the LXX as a preposition in 3 K. [2 Kings}
18:32:
In N.T. only in
κύκλῳ is sometimes used in the same way, as in 3 K. [2 Kings}
18:35:
Cp. Strabo 17.6, p. 792 τὰ δὲ κύκλῳ τῆς κώμης.
i. Other prepositions that
may be briefly noticed are ἐχόμενα πέτρας
In
98. Prepositions after Verbs. The great use made of prepositions after verbs is one of the main characteristics of Biblical Greek. It is partly a feature of later Greek generally, but to a still greater extent it is due to the influence of the Hebrew. In the following list of instances perhaps the last only is irreproachable as Greek: -
ἀδυνατεῖν ἀπό
ἀθετεῖν ἐν 4 K. [2 Kings] 1:1; 3:5, 7; 18:7; 24:1, 20:
αἱρετίζειν ἐν
βδελύσσεσθαι ἀπό
βοᾶν ἐν 3 K. [2 Kings} 18:24.
ἐκδικεῖν ἐκ
ἐκλέγειν ἐν
ἐλπίζειν ἐπί with accusative
ἐλπίζειν ἐπί with dative
ἐνεδρεύειν ἐπί
ἐντρέπεσθαι ἀπό
ἐπικαλεῖσθαι ἐν 3 K. [2 Kings} 18:25, 26.
ἐσθίειν ἀπό Lvt. 22:6:
εὐδοκεῖν ἐν
θέλειν ἐν 1 K. [1 Sam.] 18:22:
θεωρεῖν ἐν
καταφρονεῖν ἐπί
λογίζεσθαι εἰς 1 K. [1 Sam.] 1:13.
μυκτηρίζειν ἐν
πατάσσειν ἐν
ποιεῖν ἔλεος ἐν
ποιεῖν ἔλεος μετά
πολεμεῖν ἐν 1 K. [1 Sam.] 28:15.
προσέχειν εἰς
προσοχθίζειν ἀπό Nb. 22:3.
συνιέναι εἰς
ὑπερηφανεύεσθαι ἀπό
φείδεσθαι ἐπί
φοβεῖσθαι ἀπό
φυλάσσεσθαι ἀπό
99. εἰ with the Subjunctive. a. In Homer εἰ, or its equivalent αἰ, is common with the subjunctive, especially when accompanied by κε(ν), e.g. Il. 1.80, 4.249, 7.375, 8.282, 11.791, 15.403, 16.861, 18.601: Od. 4.35, 5.471, 472, 16.98, 22.7.
In classical authors instances of εἰ with the subjunctive (without ἄν) are rare rather than absent. Some of them may have been improved out of existence, owing to a desire for uniformity.
Plato Laws 761 C εἴ τί που ἄλσος . . . ἀνειμένον ᾖ.
Xen. Anab. 3.2.22 οἱ πόταμοι, εἰ καὶ πρόσω τῶν πηγῶν ἄποροι ὦσι.
Soph. Ant. 710 κεἴ τις ᾖ σοφός. See GMT. 454.
b. In Hellenistic Greek the use of εἰ with the subjunctive becomes common, e.g. -
Arist. E.E. 2.1.17 εἰ ᾖ ἄνθρωπος, 8.9 εἴ τις προσθῇ, 18 εἰ γὰρ . . . ἀποκτείνῃ, 10.21 εἰ πολεμῶσιν.
Philo 2.19, De Abr. §25 εἰ ἔμμισθος ᾖ.
Jos. B.J. 1.31.1 εἰ . . . ἀσθενήσῃ, Ant. 1.2.3 εἰ καὶ συμβῇ.
We should therefore antecedently
expect to find this construction in the LXX, and yet it is seldom found. It
occurs in
In the N.T. there are a few instances of εἰ with the subjunctive -
100. εἰ
Interrogative. a. In classical Greek εἰ
is often used in indirect questions, e.g. -
Thuc. 1.5.2 ἐρωτῶντες εἰ λῃσταί εἰσιν.
Plat. Apol. 21 D ἤρετο γὰρ δή, εἴ τις ἐμοῦ εἴη σοφώτερος.
Xen. Anab. 1.10.5 ἐβουλεύετο . . . εἰ πέμποιέν τινας ἢ πάντες ἴοιεν.
b. In Biblical Greek εἰ has become a direct interrogative particle. This transition seems so natural as to make us doubt the statement of Jannaris (Hist. Gk. Gr. §2055) that εἰ is in all these cases ‘nothing but an itacistic misspelling for the colloquial ἦ.’ In
we have first the direct
and then the indirect use of εἰ as an
interrogative particle. For other instances of the former take -
1 K. [1 Sam.] 15:32 καὶ εἶπεν Ἀγάγ Εἰ οὕτως πικρὸς ὁ θάνατος;
2 K. [2 Sam.] 20:17 καὶ εἶπεν ἡ γυνή Εἰ σὺ εἶ Ἰωάβ;
3 K. [2 Kings} 20:20 καὶ εἶπενἈχαὰβ πρὸς Ἠλειού Εἰ εὕρηκάς με,
ὁ ἐχθρός μου; Cp. also
c. The interrogative εἰ is sometimes followed by the deliberative
conjunctive, e.g. -
2 K. [2 Sam.] 2:1 Εἰ ἀναβῶ εἰς μίαν τῶν πόλεων Ἰούδα;
d. In the N.T. εἰ interrogative is of common occurrence -
101. εἰ
in Oaths. a. εἰ is often found
in the LXX after an oath in a sense practically equivalent to a negative, e.g.
-
This use of εἰ is a sheer Hebraism. The negative force
imported into εἰ is due to a
suppression of the apodosis, which the reader may suply as his own sense of
reverence suggests. Other instances will be found in
b. When an affirmative asseveration is conveyed by the oath, it is introduced by ὅτι, not by εἰ, as in -
1 K. [1 Sam.] 29:6 ζῇ Κύριος, ὅτι εὐθὴς σὺ καὶ ἀγαθὸς ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς μου.
3 K. [2 Kings} 18:15 ζῇ Κύριος . . . ὅτι σήμερον ὀφθήσομαι σοι,
or else is devoid of a
conjunction, as in -
1 K. [1 Sam.] 1:26 ζῇ ἡ ψυχή σου, ἐγὼ ἡ γυνὴ κτλ.
c. In 4 K. [2 Kings] 3:14 ὅτι εἰ μή is merely a strengthened form of εἰ μή, so that the ἦ by which it is followed in Swete’s text, instead of εἰ, seems to destroy the sense.
d. In the N.T. we have the
jurative use of εἰ in -
Also in Hb. 3:11, 4:3 in
quotations from
102. ει’
μή in Oaths. As εἰ assumes
a negative force in oaths and asseverations, so on the same principle εἰ μή becomes positive. Instances are -
Nb. 14:35 ἐγὼ Κύριος ἐλάλησα, εἰ μὴ οὕτως ποιήσω (= I will do so).
In 3 K. [2 Kings} 21:23 ἐὰν δὲ πολεμήσομεν αὐτοὺς κατ’ εὐθύ, εἰ μὴ κραταιώσομεν ὑπὲρ αὐτούς the oath itself is suppressed as well as the apodosis.
103. ει’
μήν. εἰ μήν as a formula
of asseveration has been supposed to be a blend between the Hebraistic εἰ μή (§102) and the Greek ἦ μήν. It is however not confined to
Biblical Greek, but occurs also on the Papyri. We treat it under the head of
Conjunctions because of the lack of accent. It would perhaps be more correct
to wirte it εἶ μήν and regard it as
an Interjection. The following are all the passages in which it occurs in the
LXX -
Nb. 14:23,28:
In 2 K. [2 Sam.] 19:35 what we have is εἰ interrogative (§100) followed by μήν.
In the N.T. εἰ μήν occurs only in Hb. 6:14 in a
quotation from
104. ἐάν,
etc., with the Indicative. a. As in Hellenistic Greek εἰ may take the subjunctive, so on the other
hand ἐάν, ὅταν and the like are found with the indicative.
Instances of ἐάν with the indicative in the LXX are -
3 K. [2 Kings} 21:23 ἐὰν δὲ πολεμήσομεν αὐτοὺς κατ’ εὐθύ.
So in N.T. --
b. Instances of ὅταν with the indicative in the LXX are -
Nb. 11:9 καὶ ὅταν κατέβη ἡ δρόσος, 21:9 ὅταν ἔδακνεν ὄφις ἄνθρωπον.
1 K. [1 Sam.] 17:34 ὅταν ἤρχετο ὁ λέων καὶ ἡ ἄρκος.
c. So in N.T. --
Cp. Barn. Ep. 4:14 ὅταν βλέπετε, 15:5 ὅταν . . . καταργήσει.
Ign. Eph. 8:1 ὅταν γὰρ μηδεμία ἔρις ἐνήρεισται ἐν ὑμῖν.
Herm. Past. Sim. 9.1.6 ὅταν ὁ ἥλιος ἐπικεκαύκει, ξηραὶ ἐγένοντο, 4.5 ὅταν . . . ἐτέθησαν. Cp. 17.3. 6.4 ὅταν ἐπάτασσεν.
d. Under the same head
come the following -
105. ἐάν
after a Relative. a. ἐάν for ἄν after a relative seems to occur
occasionally in Mss. of Attic authors, especially of Xenophon, but to have been
expunged by editors. It is proved by the Papyri to have been in common use in
Egypt during the first two centuries B.C. Biblical Greek is so full of this
usage that it is superfluous to collect examples. Besides the simple relative
in its various cases we have -
ὅσα ἐάν
οὗ ἐάν
ὅθεν ἐάν
As a rule the subjunctive
follows, but not always.
b. The use of ἄν in such cases is not quite excluded, e.g.
c. In the N.T. also it is
easier to find ἐάν in this connexion
than ἄν, e.g. -
ὃ ἐάν
ᾧ ἐάν
οὓ ἐάν
ὃ ἐάν
καθὸ ἐάν
ὅπου ἐάν
ὅ τι ἐάν
For instances of ἄν take
d. In the Apostolic
Fathers also we find the same use of ἐάν
after relatives-
Barn. Ep. 7:11 ὃ ἐὰν θέλῃ, 11:8 πᾶν ῥῆμα ὁ768; ἐὰν ἐξελεύσεται.
Herm. Past. Vis. 3.2.1 ὃ ἐὰν πάθῃ, Sim. 7.7 ὅσοι [ἐὰν] ἐν ταῖς ἐντολαῖς μου ταύταις πορευθῶσιν, 9.2.7 ὅσα ἐάν σοι δείξω.
106. ἵνα
with the Indicative. a. In the vast majority of places in which ἵνα occurs in the LXX it governs the
subjunctive. The optative, as we have seen, has practically vanished from
dependent clauses. But there are a few passages in Swete’s text, and perhaps
Ms. authority for more, in which ἵνα
after a primary tense or the imperative mood takes a future indicative.
3 K. [2 Kings} 2:3 φυλάξεις . . . ἵνα ποιήσεις.
Sus. Ο´ 28 ἐνεδρεύοντες ἵνα θανατώσουσιν αὐτήν. Dan. Ο´ 3:96 ἐγὼ κρίνω ἵνα πᾶν ἔθνος . . . διαμελισθήσεται.
b. The 1st person singular
of the 1st aorist subjunctive may possibly have served as a stepping-stone to
this use. Take for instance -
2 K. [2 Sam.] 19:22 ἀπόστηθι . . . ἵνα μὴ πατάξω σε.
This might easily lead by false analogy to -
ἀπελεύσομαι, ἵνα μὴ πατάξεις με.
This theory however fails
to account for the following -
The last can only be regarded as a monstrosity.
c. In the N.T. ἵνα with the future indicative occurs
occasionally and is common in Revelation -
The last instance shows that even in the debased Greek of this book the subjunctive still claimed its rights on occasions.
d. There are two apparent
instances in St. Paul’s writings of ἵνα
with a present indicative -
With regard to these Winer
came to the conclusion that ‘ἵνα with
the indicative present is to be regarded as an impropriety of later Greek.’
Perhaps however in these cases it is the accidence, not the syntax, that is
astray, φυσιοῦσθε and ζηλοῦτε being meant for the subjunctive.
Winer closes his discussion of the subject by saying, ‘It is worthy of remark,
however the case may be, that in both instances the verb ends in οω.’ Here the true explanation seems to
lie. The hypothesis of an irregular contraction is not in itself a violent
one, and it is confirmed by a passage of the LXX -
107. Ellipse before ὅτι. By the suppression of an
imperative of a verb of knowing ὅτι
acquires the sense of ‘know that.’
3 K. [2 Kings} 19:2 εἶπεν . . . ὅτι ταύτην τὴν ὥραν κτλ.
This usage originates in the Hebrew, but has a parallel in Greek in the similar ellipse before ὡς, which is common in Euripides, e.g. Med. 609: Alc. 1094: Phæn. 720, 1664: Ion. 935, 1404: Hel. 126, 831: Hec. 346, 400. Cp. Soph. Aj. 39.
108. ἀλλ’
ἤ. a. The combination of particles ἀλλ’ ἤ occurs in Swete’s text 114 times at least. In most of
these passages ἀλλ’ ἤ is simply a
strengthened form of ἀλλά. If it
differs at all from it, it is in the same way as ‘but only’ in English differs
from the simple ‘but.’ In the remainder of the 114 passages ἀλλ’ ἤ has the same force as the English
‘but’ in the sense of ‘except’ after a negative expressed or implied. It is
thus an equivalent for the classical εἰ μή.
But even this latter meaning can be borne by the simple ἀλλά, if we may trust the reading of -
b. The idea has been
entertained that ἀλλ’ ἤ is not for ἀλλὰ ἤ, as the accentuation assumes, but
for ἄλλο ἤ. This view would suit
very well with such passages as
Where ἀλλ’ ἤ follows ἄλλος or ἕτερος, as in
4 K. [2 Kings] 5:17:
c. In contrast with the
abundance of instances in the O.T. and in Hellenistic Greek generally, e.g. in
Aristotle, it is strange how rare this combination is in the N.T. In the
Revisers’ text it occurs only twice -
109. ὅτι
ἀλλ’ ἤ. This combination of particles occurs in the following
passages of the LXX -
An examination of these instances will show that they all fall under the same two heads as ἀλλ’ ἤ. In the bulk of them ὅτι ἀλλ’ ἤ is simply a strongly adversative particle (= but); in the remainder it is like our ‘but’ = ‘except’ after a negative expressed or implied. The reader will observe that the range of literature, within which this combination of particles is found, is very limited, being almost confined to the four books of Kingdoms. It looks therefore as if we had here a mere device of translation, not any recognised usage of later Greek. In all but the first two instances the underlying Hebrew is the same, consisting of two particles; in the first two there is only the particle corresponding to ὅτι, and these passages seem really to fall under § 107.
There is one place in which
we find this combination of particles still more complicated by the use of διότι in place of ὅτι.
3 K. [2 Kings} 22:18 Οὐκ εἶπα πρὸς σέ Οὐ προφητεύει οὗτός μοι καλά, διότι ἀλλ’ ἢ κακά;
110. ὅτι
εἰ μή. This combination occurs in the following passages -
2 K. [2 Sam.] 2:27 Ζῇ Κύριος, ὅτι εἰ μὴ ἐλάλησας, διότι τότε ἐκ πρωίθεν ἀνέβη ὁ λαός.
3 K. [2 Kings} 17:1 Ζῇ Κύριος . . . εἰ ἔσται . . . ὑετός· ὅτι εἰ μὴ διὰ στόματος λόγου μου.
4 K. [2 Kings] 3:14 Ζῇ Κύριος . . . ὅτι εἰ μὴ πρόσωπον Ἰωσαφὰθ . . . ἐγὼ λαμβάνω, ει’ (A) ἐπέβλεψα πρὸς σέ.
In the first of the above passages ‘unless,’ in the second ‘except,’ in the third ‘only that’ seem to give the exact shade of meaning. In all of them the ὅτι might be dispensed with, and owes its presence to the Hebrew.
111. ἀλλ’
ἤ ὅτι. There are four passages in which this combination occurs -
Nb. 13:29 ἀλλ’ ἢ ὅτι θρασὺ τὸ ἔθνος.
1 K. [1 Sam.] 10:19 Οὐχί, ἀλλ’ ἢ ὅτι βασιλέα στήσεις ἐφ’ ἡμῶν, 12:12 Οὐχί, ἀλλ’ ἢ ὅτι βασιλεὺς βασιλεύσει ἐφ’ ἡμῶν.
2 K. [2 Sam.] 19:28 ὅτι οὐκ ἦν πᾶς ὁ οἶκος τοῦ πατρός μου ἀλλ’ ἢ ὅτι ἄνδρες θανάτου.
No one meaning suits all
the above passages. In the first of them the Hebrew which corresponds to ἀλλ’ ἢ ὅτι is rendered in the R.V.
‘howbeit.’ In the next two ἀλλ’ ἤ ὅτι
might just as well have been ὅτι ἀλλ’ ἤ (= Lat. sed.), as in
112. λέγων,
etc., for the Hebrew Gerund. a. A special cause of irregularity in LXX
Greek is the treatment of the Hebrew gerund of the verb ‘to say’ (= Lat. dicendo),
which is constantly used to introduce speeches. As the Greek language has no
gerund, this is rendered in the LXX by a participle. But the form being fixed
in the Hebrew, the tendency is to keep it so in the Greek also. Hence it is
quite the exception to find the participle agreeing with its subject, as in -
1 K. [1 Sam.] 19:2 ἀπήγγειλεν . . . λέγων, 19:11 ἀπήγγειλε . . . λέγουσα.
b. If the subject is
neuter or feminine, the participle may still be masculine-
4 K. [2 Kings] 18:36 ὅτι ἐντολὴ τοῦ βασιλέως λέγων.
Also, if the sentence is
impersonal -
3 K. [2 Kings} 20:9 ἐγέγραπτο . . . λέγων.
c. But the participle may
even refer to another subject, as -
4 K. [2 Kings] 19:9 ἤκουσεν . . . λέγων = he heard say.
d. It is rare for the
Greek to fare so well as in -
And here the genitive is
probably not governed by ἀκούειν, but
used absolutely. Cp. -
1 K. [1 Sam.] 24:2 ἀπηγγέλη αὐτῷ λεγόντων.
e. A very common case is
to have the verb in the passive, either impersonally or personally, and the
participle in the nominative plural masculine, thus -
ἀπηγγέλη . . . λέγοντες
ἀνηγγέλη . . . λέγοντες
διεβοήθη ἡ φωνὴ . . . λέγοντες
εὐλογηθήσεται Ἰσραὴλ λέγοντες
An adjacent case is -
Ezk. 12:22 Τίς ἡ παραβολὴ ὑμῖν . . . λέγοντες;
f. When the verb is active
and finite, the construction presents itself as good Greek, as in -
3 K. [2 Kings} 12:10 ἐλάλησαν . . . λέγοντες,
but this is a little better than an accident, for what immediately follows is -
Τάδε λαλήσεις τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ τοῖς λαλήσασι πρὸς σὲ λέγοντες κτλ.
In
g. Where the principal
verb is not one of saying, the divorce between it and the participle is
complete, both in sense and grammar -
where the ‘being beaten’
and the ‘seeing’ are predicated of one set of persons and the ‘saying’ of
another. Cp. the complex case in
h. In the N.T. this
Hebraism occurs only once -
113. Idiomatic Use of προστιθέναι. a. Another very common
Hebraism is the use of προστιθέναι with
the infinitive of another verb in the sense of doing a thing more or again,
e.g. -
Nb. 22:15,19,25:
b. Sometimes τοῦ precedes the infinitive, as -
c. The same construction may be used impersonally in the passive -
d. Sometimes the dependent
verb is dropped after the middle or passive -
Nb. 22:26 καὶ προσέθετο ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἀπελθὼν ὑπέστη. Cp. 4 K. [2 Kings] 1:11.
Genesis
1:9 1:10 1:11 1:16 1:29 1:31 2:7 2:19 2:24 3:11 3:15 3:16 3:21 3:22 3:24 3:39 4:2 4:8 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:14 4:14 4:29 4:39 5:8 6:4 6:7 6:19 7:3 7:11 7:19 8:6 12:2 14:23 15:1 15:11 15:15 16:2 17:17 17:25 17:39 18:7 18:18 21:23 21:26 21:26 22:17 22:17 22:17 22:20 24:38 24:41 24:42 25:6 25:29 26:27 26:42 27:3 27:22 27:40 28:13 28:17 28:47 30:43 31:2 31:5 31:13 31:15 31:39 31:41 33:19 34:12 37:2 37:2 37:2 37:3 37:8 37:9 37:17 37:18 37:25 37:25 37:30 37:31 37:40 37:40 37:47 38:9 38:11 38:24 38:27 38:48 39:10 39:19 39:20 39:23 39:42 40:2 40:3 40:4 40:13 40:14 41:8 41:17 41:19 41:19 41:31 41:36 42:7 42:9 42:25 42:27 42:31 42:32 42:35 42:43 42:44 43 43:7 43:9 43:12 43:16 43:22 43:34 43:44 44:1 44:1 44:4 44:11 44:20 44:23 44:29 44:30 44:31 45:1 45:2 45:7 45:16 45:17 45:17 45:20 46:2 46:18 46:22 47:4 47:18 47:22 48:19 48:19 48:20 49:8 49:12 50:7
Exodus
1:7 1:9 1:11 1:12 1:12 1:16 2:5 2:10 2:10 2:14 2:23 3:1 3:9 3:12 3:12 3:19 3:20 4:9 4:10 4:12 4:21 4:23 5:7 5:7 5:11 5:14 5:14 5:20 5:21 6:1 6:4 6:7 6:26 7:9 7:11 7:14 7:26 7:28 7:28 8:6 8:9 8:14 8:15 8:16 8:16 8:21 8:22 8:29 8:29 9:8 9:10 9:10 9:11 9:18 9:18 9:21 9:21 9:25 9:28 9:34 10:14 10:23 11:1 11:6 12:6 12:10 12:13 12:15 12:16 12:19 12:20 12:30 12:37 12:43 12:44 12:46 13:5 13:12 13:14 13:18 14:5 14:6 14:11 14:13 14:25 15:1 15:10 15:27 17:4 17:11 17:12 18:4 18:8 18:11 18:13-14 19:12 19:21 20:2 20:9 20:10 20:13-17 20:16 20:24 20:24 20:34 21:13 21:13 21:29 21:36 22:20 22:22 22:25 22:28 24:6 25:11 25:28 26:25 27:15 28:12 28:21 28:23 28:34 29:24 29:27 32:4 32:9 32:32 33:8 33:8 33:34 34:12 39:2 39:23
Numbers
Deuteronomy
1:1 1:7 1:20 1:20 1:22 1:29 1:34-35 1:44 2:3 2:35 3:5 3:7 3:24 3:26 4:7 4:16 4:19 4:23 4:27 4:36 4:42 5:13 5:14 5:15 5:17-21 6:7 6:16 7:7 7:16 7:17 7:22 8:5 8:35 9:2 9:9 9:11 9:14 9:22 9:24 9:28 9:31 10:12 12:9 13:12 13:14 14:21 14:33 15:10 15:20 17:8 17:15 17:18 18:3 18:8 18:11 18:16 18:19 19:1 19:4 21:23 22:2 25:18 26:18 28:29 28:29 28:39 28:39 28:43 30:5 31:16 31:16 32:43 33:10 33:16
Joshua
1:3 1:5 2:2 2:3 2:5 2:8 2:8 2:10 2:12 2:13 3:4 3:14 3:16 4:1 4:1 4:12 4:14 4:18 4:23 7:12 7:22 7:22 8:4 8:7 8:9 8:14 9:8 9:12 10:19 10:26 11:6 14:6 14:7 15:36 15:41 17:13 19:6 20:5 21:18 21:40 22:8 22:16 23:13 24:10 24:13 24:22 24:27 24:33 25:10
Judges
1:7 1:34 2:1 2:21 3:10 3:14 3:15 3:24 4:16 4:22 5:30 6:3 6:3 6:16 6:28 7:12 7:21 8:10 8:10 8:11 8:19 8:28 8:35 9:6 9:10 9:37 11:7 11:9 11:10 11:15 11:25 11:25 11:25 11:25 11:33 11:35 12:1 13:1 13:2 13:4 13:5 13:8 13:11 13:14 13:14 13:14 13:16 13:16 13:19-20 14:1 14:11 14:15 14:17 14:18 14:18 15:1 15:2 15:3 15:3 15:4 15:5 15:5 15:7 15:7 15:7 15:8 15:9 15:10 15:12-13 15:13 15:15 15:15-16 16:1 16:2 16:2 16:2 16:5 16:5 16:11 16:17 16:17-18 16:20 16:21 16:21 16:22 16:26 16:26 16:27 16:27 16:28 16:29 16:29 17:10 18:26 19:17 19:17 19:30 20:28 20:46 21:3 21:12 21:16
Ruth
2:3 2:7 2:9 2:11 2:14 2:14 3:2 3:2 3:3 3:12 3:12 3:18 4:15
1 Chronicles
4:9 6:15 6:23 9:27 11:2 11:6 11:21 12:17 12:31 14:10 19:12 21:15 24:6 26:31 28:4 28:5 29:1 29:4
2 Chronicles
1:3 2:6 2:6 3:1 5:8 6:7 6:20 6:40 9:24 10:19 11:21 15:16 18:34 21:12 21:14 24:5 24:17 25:5 25:18 25:19 25:28 26:5 27:5 28:5 28:17 29:6 29:11 30:22 34:12 34:13 34:38 35:13 35:25 36:12
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
1:2 1:2 1:4 1:7 1:11 1:19 2:1 2:2 2:25 4:20 5:12 5:14 6:2 6:8 6:15 6:19 6:19 7:10 7:14 7:16 7:19 8:13 8:17 10:13 10:35 13:11 13:20 15:9 15:36 18:4 18:7 18:9 18:11 18:11 18:20 20:10 20:26 21:20 22:3 24:3 28:7 29:14 29:14 29:31 31:24 32:6 32:11 32:12 32:19 33:29 38:4 38:4 38:18 42:17
Psalms
2:9 3:7 4:5 4:6 5:9 5:13 7:1 8:6 9:28 9:30 11:6 13:3 16:7 17:33 18:4 21:1 21:1 21:42 21:81 26:3 26:4 27:5 31:8 32:15 33:11 34:25 34:25 36:21 36:26 36:114 39:13 39:13 40:5 43:24 43:27 48:11 49:18 49:20 51:6 58:13 59:10 61:5 62:12 68:5 70:9 70:18 72:14 73:17 77:23 77:34 77:100 83:11 84:7 84:120 89:4 91:15 93:18 94:11 94:11 101:4 101:25 102:9 102:15 103:31 103:35 104:17 105:2 105:17 105:108 105:142 109:1 109:1 111:5 117:22 117:23 118:61 119:7 125:3 127:2 131:2-4 134:5 138:2 140:6 142:2 142:10 142:11 145:3 146:10 146:10
Proverbs
1:32 2:13 2:22 3:5 3:8 3:14 3:16 8:9 8:28 8:28 9:5 9:9 9:22 13:9 13:11 13:14 18:18 21:12 21:29 23:1 24:52 25:21 25:21 30:17
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
3:19 5:10 5:19 6:2 6:3 6:4 7:14 7:14 8:14 10:8 10:17 10:20 12:2 12:2 12:8 17:7 17:22 18:3 20:6 22:11 22:24 23:5 28:15 29:8 30:12 30:30 30:45 32:3 34:3 34:4 36:2 37:1 37:10 37:38 40:4 40:13 42:2 42:16 42:20 43:6 44:26 45:23 47:7 48:3 50:10 58:14 62:2 66:3 66:20
Jeremiah
1:6 1:10 2:28 3:12 4:19 4:24 5:3 5:6 9:4 16:5 17:15 17:16 17:22 17:26 17:31 23:39 26:23 27:2 27:3 27:31 27:38 29:13 37:8 37:9 37:22 38:1 38:28 38:28 38:33 39:9 39:44 42:16 43:5-7 44:20 44:21 45:16 49:2 51:35
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
2:28 3:5 3:50 3:95 6:20 7:5 7:10 10:2 11:2 11:35 12:3
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Matthew
1:18 2:3 2:10 3:12 4:10 4:19 5:5 5:10 5:19 5:25 5:48 6:22 6:24 7:22 8:19 8:19 9:12 9:13 9:34 10:11 10:37 11:18 11:26 11:27 12:1 12:3 12:10 12:24-25 12:25 13:3 13:13 13:23 14:3 14:28 15:7 18:8-9 19:3 19:5 19:9 21:42 21:42 22:5 22:44 24:22 25:29 25:35 26:52 27:42 27:46
Mark
1:7 1:9 1:11 1:34 1:39 2:1 2:14 2:18 3:11 4:11 4:38 6:7 7:6 7:25 8:3 8:12 8:23 9:12 9:20 9:25 9:43 9:45 10:2 10:10 10:38 11:25 12:11 12:36 13:3 13:9 13:19 13:30 13:37 14:11 14:16 14:44 15:7 15:10 16:9
Luke
1:8 1:37 1:67 2:25 2:40 3:5 3:16 3:17 4:2 4:11 4:23 4:44 5:11 5:16 5:23 5:27 6 6:13 6:20 8:5 8:54 9:17 9:22 9:61 10:5 10:8 10:10 10:22 10:35 10:37 11:38 12:12-13 12:20 12:47-48 12:51 13:1 13:2 13:19 13:23 14:27 16:2 16:8 16:13 16:25 17:8 17:24 17:33 18:36 19:3 20:42 22:15 22:49
John
1:18 1:32 3:29 3:35 4:20 4:52 6:19 6:35 7:24 7:37 9:7 9:20 11:15 11:47 11:51 11:57 12:19 15:7 16:20 17:26 21:6 21:10
Acts
1:2 1:6 1:10 1:13 1:14 2:13 2:34 2:36 3:12 4:17 5:20 5:25 5:37 7:1 7:4 7:6 7:7 7:8 7:8 7:19 7:19 7:40 7:42 7:56 7:60 8:11 8:15 8:16 8:21 8:27 10:11 10:11 10:14 10:15 10:30 10:30 12:5 12:6 12:7 12:14 12:14 12:14 12:22 14:23 14:27 15:17 16:12 16:14 17:7 17:25 19:6 19:7 19:24 20:9 20:15 20:16 21:3 21:13 21:17 21:33 22:13 23:14 23:14 24:20 24:25 25:10 26:7 27:9
Romans
2:1 2:17 2:23 3:11 3:13 3:19 3:20 3:31 8:11 8:32 9:3 9:18 10:12 11:14 11:32 12:20 14:4 14:5 15:5
1 Corinthians
1:29 4:6 4:7 4:21 6:11 6:18 7:9 7:12 7:36 9:18 9:22 10:17 11:4-5 11:15 11:21 11:26 12:3 12:16 13:2 13:11 14:10 14:10 14:15 15:9 15:12 15:27 15:36 15:49 15:55 15:57 16:1 16:3 16:13 16:13 16:22 63:3
2 Corinthians
1:13 1:19 2:17 3:1 3:15 4:2 4:6 4:16 4:18 5:10 5:14 6:14 6:18 8:2 8:12 8:16 9:12 10:12 10:18 12:2 12:17
Galatians
1:8-9 1:10 1:14 1:17 1:18 1:22 1:22 1:23 2:1 2:4 2:10 2:16 3:1 3:4 3:10 3:19 4:2 4:24 5:1 5:1 5:4 5:14 6:7
Ephesians
1:4 1:7 1:17 2:3 3:16 4:1 4:5 4:13 4:29 5:5 5:13 5:14 6:1 6:2 6:8
Philippians
1:27 2:21 2:26 3:6 3:11 4:1 4:12 4:19
Colossians
1:6 1:18 1:22 1:27 2:23 3:2 3:5 3:18 3:20 3:23
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
James
1:1 2:3 3:4 5:12 5:16 5:17 5:17
1 Peter
2:24 3:1 3:5 3:14 3:17 3:20 5:8
1 John
2:3 2:11 2:19 2:21 3:6 3:10 3:15 3:17 3:19 3:22 5:8 5:15 5:16
3 John
Jude
Revelation
1:1 1:17 2:2 2:7 2:17 2:20 2:23 3:2 3:3 3:6 3:8 3:9 3:12 4:1 4:3 4:5 5:6 5:14 7:16 8:1 8:1 8:11 8:13 10:8 11:11 11:12 11:15 11:19 12:6 13:2 13:3 15:3 18:20 18:22 21:27 22:3
Tobit
1:15 2:13 3:8 3:9 3:17 4:1 4:7 4:14 4:16 4:18 5:5 5:5 5:7 6:6 6:9 6:18 7:5 7:11 8:20 8:21 8:21 10:10 12:11 13:2 13:10 14:9
Judith
1:12 2:20 4:2 4:9 7:21 11:10 12:9 15:9 16:14 16:19 16:23
Wisdom of Solomon
6:3 7:9 7:12 9:1 9:11 11:23 16:11 16:14
Baruch
Susanna
1 Maccabees
1:48 1:59 2:27 2:37 2:58 2:61 3:12 3:34 3:37 4:6 4:50 6:43 8:1 8:13 9:1 9:13 9:28 9:44 10:16 10:20 10:31 10:38 10:80 11:2 11:34 11:41 12:27 13:17-18 13:48 14:17
2 Maccabees
2:18 2:24 3:37 4:8 4:31 7:2 8:9 8:12 8:23 10:5 10:12 10:23 12:40 14:15
1 Esdras
1:11 1:33 1:45 1:51 1:54 3:9 4:7 4:30 4:35 4:50 4:50 8:24 8:65
3 Maccabees
1:1 2:3 2:31 3:30 5:16 5:38 6:18 6:24 7:14
Sirach
3:16 6:7 6:30 7:25 8:6 9:7 13:9 13:11 14:11 18:14 18:26 20:6 20:9 20:12 20:16 22:14 22:26 23:18 23:21 24:20 26:14 26:15 26:35 27:26 28:20 29:25 30:17 33:9 36:15 40:3 43:12 43:14 45:26 46:4 46:17 46:20 50:12