« Prev Case Next »

CASE, 50-61

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 τá½· á¼Âμοὶ καὶ σοá½·, á½Â á¼Â„νθρωπος τοῦ Θεοῦ; 18:26 á¼Âπá½±κουσον ἡμῶν, á½Â Βá½±αλ. Cp. 3 K. [2 Kings} 20:20: Ps. 21:1, 42:2.

For an instance of the nominative without the article standing for the vocative take -

Baruch 4:5 θαρσεá¿Â–τε, λαá½¹ς μου.

The nominative, when thus employed, is often put in apposition with a vocative, as -

3 K. [2 Kings} 17:20 Κá½»ριε, á½Â μá½±ρτυς τá¿Â†ς χá½µρας, 17:21 Κá½»ριε, á½Â Θεá½¹ς μου.

b. In the N.T. also the nominative with the article is often put for the vocative.

Mt. 11:26 ναá½·, á½Â πατá½µρ. Lk. 8:54 ἡ παá¿Â–ς, á¼Âγεá½·ρου. Mk. 9:25 τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ á¼Â„λαλον . . . á¼Â”ξελθε. Lk. 6:25 οá½Âαὶ á½Â‘μá¿Â–ν, οá¼± á¼Âμπεπλησμá½³νοι νῦν. Col. 3:18 αá¼± γυναá¿Â–κες, á½Â‘ποτá½±σσεσθε. Eph. 6:1, Col. 3:20 τá½° τá½³κνα, á½Â‘πακοá½»ετε.

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 Lk. 12:20 and 1 Cor. 15:36 we find á¼Â„φρων put for á¼Â„φρον, and in Acts 7:42 οἶκος Ἰσραá½µλ does duty as vocative.

As instances of apposition of nominative with vocative we may take --

Rom. 2:1 ὦ á¼Â„νθρωπε πᾶς á½Â κρá½·νων. Rev. 15:3 Κá½»ρε á½Â Θεá½¹ς, á½Â παντοκρá½±τωρ

In Rev. 18:20 we have vocative and nominative conjoined --

οá½Âρανá½³, καὶ οá¼± á¼Â…γιοι.

51. Nominative Absolute. Occasionally we get a construction in the LXX, which can be described only by this name.

Nb. 22:24 καὶ á¼Â”στη á½Â á¼Â„γγελος τοῦ Θεοῦ á¼Âν ταá¿Â–ς αá½Â”λαξιν τῶν á¼Â€μπá½³λων, φραγμὸς á¼Âντεῦθεν καὶ φραγμὸς á¼Âντεῦθεν.

Nb. 24:4 á½Â…στις á½Â…ρασιν θεοῦ εἶδεν, á¼Âν á½Â•πνῳ, á¼Â€ποκεκαλυμμá½³νοι οá¼± á½Â€φθαλμοὶ αá½Âτοῦ.

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 -

Job 28:7 τρá½·βος, οá½Âκ á¼Â”γνω αá½Âτá½´ν πετεινá½¹ν.

Ps. 102:15 á¼Â„νθρωπος, á½¥σει χá½¹ρτος αá¼± ἡμá½³ραι αá½Âτοῦ.

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. --

Acts. 7:40 á½Â γá½°ρ Μωσá¿Â†ς οá½Â—τος . . . οá½Âκ οá¼´δαμεν τá½· á¼Âγá½³νετο αá½Âτá¿·.

Rev. 3:12 á½Â νικῶν, ποιá½µσω αá½Âτὸν στῦλον á¼Âν τá¿· ναá¿· τοῦ Θεοῦ μου.

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 á¼Â€κηδιá½±σας á¼Âγá½¼ . . . á¼Âτá½±ρασσá½¹ν 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. --

Mk. 9:20 καὶ á¼°δá½¼ν αá½Âτá½¹ν, τὸ πνεῦμα εá½Âθὺς συνεσπá½±ραξεν αá½Âτá½¹ν.

54. Accusative for Vocative. The accusative for vocative might seem an impossibility, yet here is an instance of it.

Ps. 51:6 á¼ γá½±πησας πá½±ντα τá½° ῥήματα καταποντá½·σμου, γλῶσσαν δολá½·αν.

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.

Gen. 43:16 μετ’ á¼Âμοῦ γá½°ρ φá½±γονται οá¼± á¼Â„νθρωποι á¼Â„ρτους τá½´ν μεσημβρá½·αν.

Ex. 9:18 á¼°δοὺ á¼Âγá½¼ á½Â•ω ταá½»την τá½´ν á½¥ραν αá½Â”ριον χá½±λαζαν.

Dan. Θ 9:21 ὡσεὶ á½¥ραν θυσá½·ας á¼Â‘σπερινá¿Â†ς (Ο´ has á¼Âν á½¥ρá¾³).

So also sometimes in N.T. --

Jn. 4:52 χθá½²ς á½¥ραν á¼Â‘βδá½¹μην á¼Â€φá¿Â†κεν αá½Âτὸν á½Â πυρετá½¹ς.

Rev. 3:3 καὶ οá½Â μá½´ γνá¿·ς ποá½·αν á½¥ραν á¼¥ξω á¼Âπá½· σε.

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 θá½µραν = venison.

Gen. 27:3 á¼Âξá½³στη δá½² Ἰσαá½°κ á¼Â”κστασιν μεγá½±λην σφá½¹δρα καὶ εἶπεν “Τá½·ς οá½Â–ν á½Â θηρεá½»σας μοι θá½µραν;”

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 δá½±νιον δανεá½·ζειν, διαθá½³σθαι διαθá½µκην, διηγεá¿Â–σθαι διá½µγηα, á¼Âνá½»πνιον á¼Âνυπνιá½±ζεσθαι, á¼Âπιθυμεá¿Â–ν á¼Âπιθυμá½·αν, θá½»ειν θυσá½·αν, νηστεá½»ειν νηστεá½·αν, á½Âρισμὸν á½Âρá½·ζεσθαι, πλημμελεá¿Â–ν πλημμá½³λησιν or πλημμελá½·ν, προφασá½·ζεσθαι προφá½±σεις.

At other times it is accompanied by some specification, as -

Nb. 18:6 λειτουργεá¿Â–ν τá½°ς λειτουργá½·ας τá¿Â†ς σκηνá¿Â†ς τοῦ μαρτυρá½·ου.

Dan. 11:2 πλουτá½µσει πλοῦτον μá½³γαν.

1 Mac. 2:58 á¼Âν τá¿· ζηλῶσαι ζá¿Â†λον νá½¹μου.

c. Sometimes the cognate accusative is conveyed in a relative clause, as -

Ex. 3:9 τὸν θλιμμὸν á½Âƒν οá¼± Αá¼°γá½»πτιοι θλá½·βουσιν αá½Âτοá½»ς.

Nb. 1:44 ἡ á¼Âπá½·σκεψις á¼£ν á¼Âπεσκá½³ψαντο.

1 K. [1 Sam.] 2:23 ἡ á¼Â€κοá½´ á¼£ν á¼Âγá½¼ á¼Â€κοá½»ω.

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 δá½¹μα, we have δεδομá½³νοι δá½¹μα (Nb. 3:9) and δá½¹μα δεδομá½³νον (Nb. 18:6).

e. In one instance the cognate accusative is reinforced by a still further application of the etymological figure -

Gen. 47:22 á¼Âν δá½¹σει γá½°ρ á¼Â”δωκεν δá½¹μα τοá¿Â–ς á¼±ερεῦσιν.

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 -

Jdg. 15:8 á¼Âπá½±ταξεν . . . πληγá½´ν μεγá½±λην.

g. Instances of cognate accusative are common enough in the N.T., e.g. -

1 Jn. 5:16 á¼Âμαρτá½±νοντα á¼Âμαρτá½·αν μá½´ πρὸς θá½±νατον.

Mt. 2:10 á¼Âχá½±ρησαν χαρá½°ν μεγá½±λην σφá½¹δρα.

Jn. 7:24 τá½´ν δικαá½·αν κρá½·σιν κρá½·νατε.

There also it occurs sometimes in a relative clause -

Mk. 10:38 τὸ βá½±πτισμα á½Âƒ á¼Âγá½¼ βαπτá½·ζομαι.

Jn. 17:26 ἡ á¼Â€γá½±πη á¼£ν á¼ γá½±πηκá½±ς με.

Eph. 4:1 τá¿Â†ς κλá½µσεως ἧς á¼Âκλá½µθητε.

h. We have a triple use of the etymological figure in -

Lk. 8:5 á¼Âξá¿Â†λθεν á½Â σπεá½·ρων τοῦ σπεá¿Â–ραι τὸν σπá½¹ρον αá½Âτοῦ.

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 á½¥σπερ οá¼± γραμματισταὶ τοá¿Â–ς μá½µπω δεινοá¿Â–ς γρá½±φειν τῶν παá½·δων á½Âπογρá½±ψαντες γραμμá½°ς τá¿Â‡ γραφá½·δι οá½Â•τω τὸ γραμματεá¿Â–ον διδá½¹ασι.

Hip. Maj. 296 C á¼ÂŒλλα μá½³ντοι δυνá½±μει γε δá½»νανται οá¼± δυνá½±μενοι· οá½Â γá½±ρ που á¼Â€δυναμá½·á¾³ 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.-

Is. 37:38 á¼Âν τá¿· οá¼´κῳ Νασαρá½°χ τὸν πá½±τραρχον αá½Âτοῦ.

4 K. [2 Kings] 1:2 á¼Âν τá¿· Βá½±αλ μυá¿Â–αν θεὸνá¼Âˆκκαρá½½ν.

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 βιαζομá½³νων δá½² καὶ á¼Â€ντιτεινá½¹ντων á¼Â€λλá½µλοις . . . ὡμολá½¹γησαν.

Xen. Cyrop. 1.4.2 καὶ γá½°ρ á¼Â€σθενá½µσαντος αá½Âτοῦ οá½Âδá½³ποτε á¼Â€πá½³λειπε τὸν πá½±ππον.

Xen. Anab. 1.2.17 θᾶσσον προÏŠόντων . . . δρá½¹μος á¼Âγá½³νετο τοá¿Â–ς στρατιá½½ταις.

The genitive absolute is often employed in the same loose way in the LXX.

Tob. 4:1 á½Â…τε ἤμην á¼Âν τá¿Â‡ χá½½ρá¾³ μου . . . νεωτá½³ρυο μου á½Â„ντος.

Dt. 15:10 οá½Â λυπηθá½µσá¿Âƒ τá¿Â‡ καρδá½·á¾³ σου διδá½¹ντος σου αá½Âτá¿·.

Ex. 2:10 á¼Âδρυνθá½³ντος δá½² τοῦ παιδá½·ου, εá¼°σá½µγαγεν αá½Âτá½¹.

Ex. 5:20 συνá½µντησαν δá½² . . . á¼Âρχομá½³νοις . . . á¼Âκπορευομá½³νων αá½Âτῶν.

So in N.T. --

Mt. 1:18 μνηστευθεá½·σης τá¿Â†ς μητωὸς . . . εá½Âρá½³θη.

Acts. 21:17 γενομá½³νων δá½² ἡμῶν εá¼°ς á¼¹εροσá½¹λυμα á¼Â€σμá½³νως á¼Â€πεδá½³ξαντο ἡμᾶς οá¼± á¼Â€δελφοá½·.

2 Cor. 4:18 κατεργá½±ζεται ἡμá¿Â–ν, μá½´ σκοποá½»ντων ἡμῶν.

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 καταφανá½²ς γενá½³σθαι) and is especially favoured by Thucydides. There is nothing in the Hebrew to suggest it. The following will serve as examples -

Jdg. 16:5 καὶ δá½µσομεν αá½Âτὸν τοῦ ταπεινῶσαι αá½Âτá½¹ν.

Ps. 9:30 á¼Âνεδρεá½»ει τοῦ á¼Âρπá½±σαι πτωχá½¹ν.

Job 1:19 ἦλθον τοῦ á¼Â€παγγεá¿Â–λαá½· σοι.

So also frequently in N.T., e.g. -

Mt. 13:3 á¼Âξá¿Â†λθεν á½Â σπεá½·ρων τοῦ σπεá½·ρειν.

James 5:17 προσηá½»ξατο τοῦ μá½´ βρá½³ξαι.

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 -

Ex. 14:5 Τá½· τοῦτο á¼Âποιá½µσαμεν τοῦ á¼Âξαποστεá¿Â–λαι τοὺς υá¼±οὺς Ἰσραá½´λ τοῦ μá½´ δουλεá½»ειν ἡμá¿Â–ν (= ὡστε μá½´ δουλεá½»ειν);

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. -

Gen. 3:22 á¼Âˆδá½°μ γá½³γονεν ὡς εἶς á¼Âξ ἡμῶν, τοῦ γιγνá½½σκειν καλὸν καὶ πονηρá½¹ν.

Ex. 8:29 μá½´ προσθá¿Â‡ς á¼Â”τι, Φαραá½½, á¼Âξαπατá¿Â†σαι τοῦ μá½´ á¼Âξαποστεá¿Â–λαι τὸν λαá½¹ν.

Ps. 26:4 ταá½»την (§ 47) á¼Âκζητá½µσω· τοῦ κατοικεá¿Â–ν με κτλ.

So in N.T. --

Acts 7:19 á¼Âκá½±κωσε τοὺς πατá½³ρας ἡμῶν, τοῦ ποιεá¿Â–ν á¼Â”κθετα τá½° βρá½³φη αá½Âτῶν.

Gal. 3:10 á½Âƒ οá½Âκ á¼Âμμá½³νει á¼Âν πᾶσι τοá¿Â–ς γεγραμμá½³νοις . . . τοῦ ποιá¿Â†σαι αá½Âτá½±.

c. As an instance of the Genitive Infinitive of Consequence we may take -

Ex. 7:14 βεβá½±ρηται ἡ καρδá½·α Φαραá½¼ τοῦ μá½´ á¼Âξαποστεá¿Â–λαι τὸν λαá½¹ν.

So in N.T. --

Hb. 11:5 á¼Â˜νá½¼χ μετετá½³θη τοῦ μá½´ á¼°δεá¿Â–ν θá½±νατον.

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. -

Ps. 39:13 οá½Âκ á¼ δυνá½±σθην τοῦ βλá½³πειν.

2 Chr. 3:1 ἤρξατο τοῦ οá¼°κοδομεá¿Â–ν.

Gen. 18:7 á¼Âτá½±χυνεν τοῦ ποιá¿Â†σαι αá½Âτá½¹.

So in N.T. --

Acts 3:12 ὡς . . . πεποιηκá½¹σι τοῦ περιπατεá¿Â–ν αá½Âτá½¹ν, 15:20 á¼Âπιστεá¿Â–λαι . . . τοῦ á¼Â€πá½³χεσθαι, 27:1 á¼Âκρá½·θη τοῦ á¼Â€ποπλεá¿Â–ν.

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 λá½¹γῳ λá½³γειν. Phdr. 265 C παιδá½·á¾³ πεπαá¿Â–σθαι. Symp. 195 B φεá½»γων φυγεá¿Â€á¾¾ τὸ γá¿Â†ρας. Crat. 383 A φá½»σει . . . πεφυκυá¿Â–αν. Cp. 389 C, D. Phileb. 14 C φá½»σει . . . πεφυκá½¹τα.

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 á¼Â€κοá¿Â‡ á¼Â€κοá½»ειν, ζωá¿Â‡ ζá¿Â†ν, θανá½±τῳ á¼Â€ποθανεá¿Â–, θανá½±τῳ θανατοῦσθαι, σá½±λπιγγι σαλπá½·ζειν. But besides these there are many others, as -

á¼Â€γαπá½µσει á¼Â€γαπᾶσθαι κακá½·á¾³ κακοποιεá¿Â–ν

á¼Â€λαλαγμá¿· á¼Â€λαλá½±ζειν κακá½·á¾³ κακοῦν

á¼Â€λοιφá¿Â‡ á¼Âξαλεá½·φειν κατá½±ραις καταρᾶσθαι

á¼Â€πωλá½·á¾³ á¼Â€πολλá½»ναι κλαυθμá¿· κλαá½·ειν

á¼Â€φανισμá¿· á¼Â€φανá½·ζειν λá½µθá¿Âƒ λαθεá¿Â–ν

βδελá½»γματι βδελá½»σσειν λá½·θοις λιθοβολεá¿Â–ν

δεσμá¿· δεá¿Â–ν λá½»τροις λυτροῦν

διαλá½»σει διαλá½»ειν μνεá½·á¾³ μνησθá¿Â†ναι

διαμαρτυρá½·á¾³ διαμαρτυρεá¿Â–ν οá¼°ωνισμá¿· οá¼°ωνá½·ζεσθαι

διαφθεá½·ρειν φθορá¾· á½Â€ργá½·ζεσθαι á½Â€ργá¿Â‡

δá½·κá¿Âƒ á¼Âκδικεá¿Â–ν á½Â…ρκῳ á½Âρκá½·ζειν

á¼Âκβá½±λλειν á¼Âκβολá¿Â‡ παραδá½¹σει παραδοθá¿Â†ναι

á¼Âκθλá½·βειν á¼Âκθλιβá¿Â‡ περιπá½·πτειν περιπτá½½ματι

á¼Âκλεá½·ψει á¼Âκλεá½·πειν πλημμελá½·á¾³ πλημμελεá¿Â–ν

á¼Âκτριβá¿Â‡ á¼Âκτριβá¿Â†ναι προνομá¿Â‡ προνομευθá¿Â†ναι

á¼Âτρá½·ψει á¼Âκτριβá¿Â†ναι προσοχθá½·σματι προσοχθá½·ζειν

á¼Âξεπαυνᾶν á¼Âξεραυνá½µσει πτá½½σει πá½·πτειν

á¼Âξουδενá½½σει á¼Âξουδενοῦν ταλαιπωρá½·á¾³ ταλειπωρεá¿Â–ν

á¼Âπιθυμá½·á¾³ á¼Âπιθυμεá¿Â–ν ταραχá¿Â‡ ταρá½±σσειν

á¼Âπισκοπá¿Â‡ á¼Âπισκá½³πτεσθαι á½Â‘περορá½±σει á½Â‘περιδεá¿Â–ν

θελá½µσει θá½³λειν φερνá¿Â‡ φερνá½·ζειν

καθαιρá½³σει καθαá½·ρειν φθορá¾· φθαρá¿Â†ναι

καθαρισμá¿· καθαρá½·ζειν χαá½·ρειν χαρá¾·

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.

Gen. 1:16 βρá½½σει φαγá¿Â‡, 31:15 κατá½³φαγεν καταβρá½½σει.

Ex. 19:12, 21:16, 17 θανá½±τῳ τελευτᾶν.

Ex. 22:20 θανá½±τῳ á½Â€λεθρευθá½µσεται.

Nb. 11:15 á¼Â€πá½¹κτεινá½¹ν με á¼Â€ναá½·ρεσει, 35:26 á¼Âξá½¹δῳ á¼Âξá½³λθá¿Âƒ.

Ezk. 33:27 θανá½±τῳ á¼Â€ποκτενῶ.

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.

Jn. 3:29 χαρá¾· χαá½·ρει. Lk. 22:15 á¼Âπιθυμá½·á¾³ á¼Âπεθá½»μησα. Acts 4:17 á¼Â€πειλá¿Â‡ (μαργιν) á¼Â€πειλησá½½μεθα, 5:28 παραγγελá½·á¾³ παρηγγεá½·λαμεν, 23:14 á¼Â€ναθá½³ματι á¼Â€ναθεματá½·σαμεν. James 5:17 προσευχá¿Â‡ προσηá½»ξατο. Gal. 5:1 τá¿Â‡ á¼Âλευθερá½·á¾³ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς á¼ λευθá½³ρωσε.

g. The expression in 2 Pet. 3:3 á¼Âν á¼Âμπαιγμονá¿Â‡ á¼Âμπαá¿Â–κται, while not exactly parallel with the foregoing, belongs to the same range of idiom; so also Rev. 2:23 á¼Â€ποκτενῶ á¼Âν θανá½±τῳ.

« Prev Case Next »

VIEWNAME is workSection