tures from a diction purely Greek would of course be expected. Instead of the Opt., they say (with the Hebrew,) τίς με καταστήσεται κριτήν ; They also say:

θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε, ΠΩ ΠΩ; μισῶν ἐμίσησας,

,They also imitate, in some cases שָׁנָא שָׁנָאתָ

the Hebrew composite verbs, (which are made by a preposition following them); as φείδεσθαι ἐπί τινι, οἰκοδομεῖν ἔν τινι, ἐπερωτῶν ἐν κυρίῳ, etc. The New Testament, however, which is not a translation of the Hebrew, but an original work, is more free from these peculiarities. Yet in general, even here, the the use of prepositions is more frequent than with the Greeks, viz. in such cases as ἀποκρύπτειν τι ἀπὸ τινος, ἐσθίειν ἀπὸ τῶν ψιχίων, ἀθῶος ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος, NOIVOVÒS EV TIV, etc.; the like to which may indeed be found in the ancient Greek. But in some cases the imitation of the Hebrew has led the writers of the New Testament to adopt expressions which would sound in a singular manner to a native Greek; e. g. (α) Such as ὁμολογεῖν ἔν τινι, βλέπειν ἀπὸ to beware of, προσέθετο πέμψαι to send again, and the form of the oath in the negative sense, si dodńcerai. (b) The repetition of the same word, in order to signify distribution; as dúo dúo two by two, (instead of avà dúo). (c) The frequent and varied use of the Inf, with roo before it. (d) The imitation of the Inf. abs. in Herew joined with a definitive mood and tense; as in wowν quinoas above. (e) The frequency of nouns in he Gen., which stand in the place of adjectives.

The often repeated use of the Inf. with a preposition in historical narration. Nos. a, b, may be classed

among the pure Hebraisms.

The rest are to be

found in native Greek, although not with the like frequency.

(9.) On the whole, when we consider that many of even the niceties of Greek syntax are observed in the New Testament, e. g. the separation in the use of the Praeter tenses, the construction of verbs with a, the attraction of the relative pronoun, the singular number of the verb with neuter plurals, such idioms also as oixovoμíav TETίorevua, etc.; moreover, the periphrasis for the Opt. which the Seventy use, is here not employed; there is, in fact, very little reason for the charge of ungrammatical composition against the writers of the New Testament. Much has been said, on this subject, by writers for and against the purity of the New Testament, which is very inapposite, or has little foundation. Patient, protracted, and widely extended examination, has at last corrected the errors of both parties, and brought the whole matter very near to the middle ground which those consummate Greek scholars, Robert Stephens and Theodore Beza, seem first to have occupied.

ON THE

SYNTAX

OF THE

NEW TESTAMENT DIALECT.

There are various methods of arranging a Syntax; but the most facile, and that which is more usually followed of late, is to treat of the parts of speech in the natural order in which they would occur to the mind; the noun with its various adjuncts coming first; then the verb with its various moods, tenses, regimen, etc.; and lastly, the various particles which serve as a modification of these. Special peculiarities of phraseology, etc., may then be annexed.

ARTICLE.

§ 1. THE ARTICLE BEFORE LEADING NOUNS. (1.) The article is a declinable part of speech, which, when employed, is usually prefixed to nouns, adjectives, or participles, for the purpose of specification or emphasis.

NOTE 1. Specification may be either on account of individuality, i. e. when one individual is distinguish

D

ed from others of the same species, or when one species or genus is distinguished from other species or genera; or it may be on account of quality, attributes, condition, actions, circumstances, etc., in which case the attributes, etc., are as it were individualized or specificated, when the article is employed; e. g. ò dɛrds the eagle, when one is distinguished from several of the same kind; ὁ ἀετὸς or οἱ ἀετοὶ, when either the singular or plural is used generically, so as to distinguish this species of birds from other species. Other specifications of attributes, etc., are such as follow; viz., ɛioìv oi Xeyovres there are [some] who say, where this class of persons is distinguished by the particular action attributed to them in λέγοντες. So οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ἡγησόμενος there is no one who will lead, where this action of leading is made to distinguish the individual who performs it ; ὁ σπείρων the sower, ὁ πειράζων the tempter, etc., in which latter cases we convert the participles into mere nouns in translating them. The cases of specification which belong to the class above named, are almost without number; e. g. ó ȧyaðòs or oi åyadoi, ὁ κακὸς οι οἱ κακοί· and so οἱ φιλοσοφοῦντες, οἱ ἀποφυ yóvTES, oi doxouvres, etc.; almost all adjectives and participles being capable of such a use, because they are attributives; and so, likewise, a multitude of attributive nouns, as ὁ βαπτιστής, ὁ βασιλεὺς, ὁ ἡγεμὼν, ὁ χιλίαρχος, etc.

NOTE 2. The article, it should be understood, is not rigidly confined to nouns, adjectives, and and participles; but when adverbs, the Inf. mode, a part of a sentence, etc., take the place of a noun or adjective