|« Prev||Conjunctions||Next »|
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 Jdg. 11:9, where an indicative and subjunctive are both made dependent on εἰ - εἰ ἐπιστρέφετέ με ὑμεῖς παρατάξασθαι ἐν υἱοῖς Ἀμμὼν καὶ παραδῷ Κύριος αὐτοὺς ἐνώπιον ἐμοῦ. In Dt. 8:5 Swete’s text has παιδεύσαι in place of παιδεύσῃ. In 1 K. [1 Sam.] 14:37 εἰ καταβῶ ὀπίσω τῶν ἀλλοφύλων is so punctuated as to become an instance of εἰ interrogative (§100). In Sirach 22:26 εἰ κακά μοι συμβῇ, the συμβῇ has given place to συμβήσεται.
In the N.T. there are a few instances of εἰ with the subjunctive -
Rom. 11:14 εἴ πως παραζηλώσω.
Phil. 3:11 εἴ πως καταντήσω εἰς τὴν ἐζανάστασιν, 3:12 εἰ καὶ καταλάβω.
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
Gen. 43:7 λέγων Εἰ ἔτι ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ζῆ; εἰ ἔστιν ὑμῖν ἀδελφός . . . μὴ ᾔδειμεν εἰ ἐρεῖ ἡμῖν κτλ.
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 Gen. 17:17, 39:8, 43:27: Ex. 2:14: Jdg. 13:11: 1 K. [1 Sam.] 9:11, 10:22,24; 14:37, 45; 15:22: 3 K. [2 Kings} 13:14, 18:17: 4 K. [2 Kings] 1:3: Tob. 5:5: Jonah 4:4, 9: Joel 1:2: Dan. 6:20.
c. The interrogative εἰ is sometimes followed by the deliberative
conjunctive, e.g. -
Jdg. 20:28 Εἰ προσθῶμεν ἔτι ἐξελθεῖν;
2 K. [2 Sam.] 2:1 Εἰ ἀναβῶ εἰς μίαν τῶν πόλεων Ἰούδα;
1 Chr. 14:10 Εἰ ἀναβῶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀλλοφύλους;
d. In the N.T. εἰ interrogative is of common occurrence -
in Oaths. a. εἰ is often found
in the LXX after an oath in a sense practically equivalent to a negative, e.g.
Ps. 94:11 ὡς ὤμοσα ἐν τῇ ὀργῇ μου Εἰ ἐλεύσονται εἰς τὴν κατάπουσίν μου.
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 Gen. 14:23: Nb. 32:10,11: Dt. 1:34,35: 1 K. [1 Sam.] 3:14, 14:45, 17:55, 19:6, 28:10: 2 K. [2 Sam.] 19:35: 3 K. [2 Kings} 1:52, 2:8, 17:1,12, 18:10: 4 K. [2 Kings] 2:2: Ps. 131:2-4: Jer. 45:16.
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.
Jdg. 8:19 ζῇ Κύριος, εἰ ἐζωογονήκειτε αὐτούς, οὐκ ἂν ἀπέκτεινα ὑμᾶς.
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 -
Mk. 8:12 ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, εἰ δοθήσεται τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ σημεῖον.
Also in Hb. 3:11, 4:3 in quotations from Ps. 94:11.
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).
Is. 45:23 κατ’ ἐμαυτοῦ ὀμνύω, εἰ μὴ ἐξελεύσεται ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου δικαιοσύνη (= righteousness shall go forth from my mouth).
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.
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
Gen. 22:17 εἰ μὴν εὐλογῶν εὐλογήσω σε, 42:15 νὴ τὴν ὑγίαν Φαραώ, εἰ μὴν κατάσκοποί ἐστε.
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 Gen. 22:17.
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 -
Gen. 44:30 ἐὰν εἰσπορεύομαι.
Jdg. 6:3 ἐὰν ἔσπειραν.
3 K. [2 Kings} 21:23 ἐὰν δὲ πολεμήσομεν αὐτοὺς κατ’ εὐθύ.
Job. 22:3 ἐὰν σὺ ἦσθα.
So in N.T. --
1 Jn. 5:15 ἐὰν οἴδαμεν.
Acts 7:7 τὸ ἔθνος, ᾧ ἐὰν δουλεύσουσι. Cp. Herm. Past. Vis. 3.12.3 ἐὰν . . . εἰρηνεύετε, 1.3.2 ἐὰν . . . μετανοήσουσιν.
b. Instances of ὅταν with the indicative in the LXX are -
Gen. 38:9 ὅταν εἰσήρχετο.
Ex. 17:11 ὅταν ἐπῆρεν Μωυσῆς τὰς χείρας.
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.
Ps. 119:7 ὅταν ἐλάλουν αὐτοῖς.
c. So in N.T. --
Mk. 3:11 καὶ τὰ πνεύματα τὰ ἀκάθαρτα, ὅταν αὐτὸν ἐθεώρει, προσέπιπτεν αὐτῷ, 11:19 ὅταν ὀψὲ ἐγένετο.
Rev. 8:1 ὅταν ἤνοιξε.
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 -
Tobit 7:11 ὁπότε ἐὰν εἰσεπορεύοντο. Cp. Barn. Ep. 12:3 ὁπόταν καθεῖλεν.
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 -
ὅθεν ἐάν Ex. 5:11.
As a rule the subjunctive
follows, but not always.
Gen. 2:19 πᾶν ὃ ἐὰν ἐκάλεσεν.
c. In the N.T. also it is
easier to find ἐάν in this connexion
than ἄν, e.g. -
οὓ ἐάν 1 Cor. 16:3.
καθὸ ἐάν 2 Cor. 8:12.
ὅπου ἐάν Mt. 8:19.
ὅ τι ἐάν 1 Jn. 3:19.
d. In the Apostolic
Fathers also we find the same use of ἐάν
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.
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.
Gen. 16:2 εἴσελθε . . . ἵνα τεκνοποιήσεις.
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 -
1 Esd. 4:50 ἵνα ἀφίουσι.
Tob. 14:9 σὺ δὲ τήρησον τὸν νόμον . . . ἵνα σοι καλῶς ἦν.
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 -
1 Cor. 9:18 ἵνα . . . θήσω.
Gal. 2:4 ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλώσουσιν.
1 Pet. 3:1 ἵνα . . . κερδηθήσονται.
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 -
1 Cor. 4:6 ἵνα μὴ . . . φυσιοῦσθε.
Gal. 1:17 ἵνα αὐτοὺς ζηλοῦτε.
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 -
Ex. 1:16 ὅταν μαιοῦσθε τὰς Ἑβραίας καὶ ὦσιν πρὸς τῷ τίκτειν.
107. Ellipse before ὅτι. By the suppression of an
imperative of a verb of knowing ὅτι
acquires the sense of ‘know that.’
Ex. 3:12 λέγων Ὄτι ἔσομαι μετὰ σοῦ.
Jdg. 15:7 εἶπεν . . . Σαμψών . . . ὅτι εἰ μὴν ἐκδικήσω ἐν ὑμῖν.
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.
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 -
Gen. 21:26 οὐδὲ ἐγὼ ἤκουσα ἀλλὰ σήμερον.
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 Gen. 28:17, 47:18: Dt. 10:12: 2 K. [2 Sam.] 12:3: Sir. 22:14, where it happens that a neuter singular precedes, but it seems to have nothing else to recommend it.
Where ἀλλ’ ἤ follows ἄλλος or ἕτερος, as in 4 K. [2 Kings] 5:17: Dan. 3:95, Θ 2:11: 1 Mac. 10:38, the ἀλλά would be superfluous in classical Greek, so that in these cases it might be thought that the ἤ was strengthened by the ἀλλά, and not vice versa: but if we accept the use in Gen. 21:26, it follows that even here it is the ἀλλά which is strengthened.
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 -
Lk. 12:51 οὐχί, λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀλλ’ ἢ διαμερισμόν.
2 Cor. 1:13 οὐ γὰρ ἄλλα γράφομεν ὑμῖν, ἀλλ’ ἢ ἃ ἀναγινώσκετε.
109. ὅτι ἀλλ’ ἤ. This combination of particles occurs in the following passages of the LXX - Jdg. 15:13: 1 K. [1 Sam.] 2:30, 21:4, 21:6, 30:17, 30:22: 2 K. [2 Sam.] 13:33, 21:2: 3 K. [2 Kings} 18:18: 4 K. [2 Kings] 4:2, 5:15, 10:23, 14:6, 17:35,36, 23:23: 2 Chr. 2:6.
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;
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.
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 Jdg. 15:3 (§ 109). In the fourth also ὅτι ἀλλ’ ἤ might have been used in the sense of ‘but’ in ‘nothing but,’ etc., as in 1 K. [1 Sam.] 21:6, 30:17: 4 K. [2 Kings] 4:2, 5:15: 2 Chr. 2:6.
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-
Gen. 15:1: 1 K. [1 Sam.] 15:10 ἐγενήθη ῥῆμα Κυρίου . . . λέγων.
4 K. [2 Kings] 18:36 ὅτι ἐντολὴ τοῦ βασιλέως λέγων.
Also, if the sentence is
3 K. [2 Kings} 20:9 ἐγέγραπτο . . . λέγων.
2 Chr. 21:12 ἦλθεν . . . ἐν γραφῇ . . . λέγων.
Jonah 3:7 ἐρρέθη . . . 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 -
Dt. 13:12 ἐὰν δὲ ἀκούσῃς . . . λεγόντων.
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 -
διεβοήθη ἡ φωνὴ . . . λέγοντες Gen. 45:16.
εὐλογηθήσεται Ἰσραὴλ λέγοντες Gen. 48:20.
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 Dt. 18:16 we have even ἦτήσω . . . λέγοντες.
g. Where the principal
verb is not one of saying, the divorce between it and the participle is
complete, both in sense and grammar -
Ex. 5:14 ἐμαστιγώθησαν . . . λέγοντες, 5:19 ἑώρων . . . λέγοντες,
where the ‘being beaten’ and the ‘seeing’ are predicated of one set of persons and the ‘saying’ of another. Cp. the complex case in 1 Mac. 13:17,18.
h. In the N.T. this
Hebraism occurs only once -
Rev. 11:15 φωναὶ . . . λέγοντες.
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,
b. Sometimes τοῦ precedes the infinitive, as -
Ex. 9:34 προσέθετο τοῦ ἁμαρτάνειν.
Josh. 23:13 οὐ μὴ προσθῇ Κύριος τοῦ ἐξολεθρεῦσαι.
c. The same construction may be used impersonally in the passive -
Ex. 5:7 οὐκέτι προστεθήσεται διδόναι ἄχυρον τῷ λαῷ.
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.
Ex. 11:6 ἥτις τοιαύτη οὐ γέγονεν καὶ τοιαύτη οὐκέτι προστεθήσεται.
|« Prev||Conjunctions||Next »|
►Proofing disabled for this book
► Printer-friendly version