vii. 10, ἐξέιλατο ; 21, ἀνείλατο; xii. 11, ἐξείλατο ; xxii. 7, Téoa, &c.

These points in the speech of the Alexandrians have been already taken notice of by Sturzius; I add certain others, of which, in some cases, we have only a single example. In the first place, let me notice the future ixxé, which is found Acts ii. 17, and in the LXX, Ezek. xii. 14, Exod. xxx. 19, iv. 9, xxix. 12, from the verb ixxew. This form belongs properly to verbs which prefix the letters λurg to the terminating vowel, but, by a metaplasm, has been transferred to those in which that characteristic is awanting. From this it is evident, as Buttman has learnedly observed," how grammarians might be led to assign a place to the 2d future in the scheme of the regular verb.

ἐκχέω.

The masters of Attic speech condemn the use of our as the second person of the present indicative, instead of dúvada.c This form occurs Apoc. ii. 22, and in the xorvó-also in the Alexandrian translators, Job xxxiii. 5, Esth. vi. 13, 24. The Attic writers used dun only in the subjunctive.

b Gram. Graec. p. 175, 4th Edit.

C Phrynich. p. 158. Thom. Mag p. 252.

d

Synes, ep. 80. Diog. Laert. p. 158. E.

There remains the form of the augment in vore, John ix. 17, 21, ¿voíxén, Acts xii. 10, voíyn, Apoc. xi. 19; xv. 5, instead of which the ἀνεῴχθεν, ἀνεῴγην, using a In the Apocalypse a threefold augment is twice used in this verb; iv. 1. θύρα ἠνεωγμένη, xx. 12, ήνεώχθη.

Attics said, ἀνεῳξα,

double augment.

To these I shall subjoin another observation, which I see has been omitted by all who have treated grammatically the language of the New Testament. It relates to some tenses of several verbs, which, although without any thing anomalous in their formation, are never found adopted by writers of approved style. We are to seek the reason, it is probable, in this, that these words either had something harsh and ungrateful to the ear, or, from their resemblance in sound to other words, admitted a certain ambiguity of meaning, which the ancients were very studious to avoid. But no such precaution has been used in the case either of the common speech or of the later writers, in whose works grammarians have noticed many things from which the classics altogether abstained. In the sacred books too, we meet with not a few examples of this kind,

Thom. Mag. p. 71.

where the New Testament diction greatly differs from the Attic. Let us bring forward some examples-they relate especially to futures and aorists.

It is certain that the Attics have applied the future λúar neither in the simple nor in a compound state, but, instead of it, have used, si.8 Only Homer and some later writers have it." It is found in both states in the books of the New Testament-Matth. ix. 15, ἐλεύσονται ; xxv. 46, ἀπελεύσονται ; ii. 6, ἐξελεύσεται, &c.

Grammarians give the same view of the futures a for aqua, Acts xxii. 5, 1 Thess. iv. 14; xaliow, Matth. xxv. 31, instead of which the Attics, as in almost all verbs ending in (w, have preferred the contracted form καθιῶ;* σαλπίσω for σαλπίγξω, from the old present σαλπίγγω, 1 Cor. xv. 52; χαρήσομαι, for χαιρήσω, και Lukei. 14, John xvi. 20, 22; gáğw, for gážouar,TM

n

¤ Phrynich. p. 12. Moeris p. 16. Thom Mag. p. 88. 336. Suid. words and .

h Joseph. p. 964. B. Chion. ep. to Plato. Chrysost. Or. 33. p. 410. Max. Tyr. Diss. 24. p. 25.

Thom. Mag. p 7. Moeris, p. 38. But Euripides has the former, Iphig. in T. 1124.

k Moeris. p. 212. Thom. Mag. p. 483.

1 Phrynich. p. 82. Thom. Mag. p. 789.

m

Moeris, p. 403. Thom. Mag. p. 910.

n

Moeris, p. 293.

Acts xv. 29, xvi. 28; παύσομαι for πεπαύσομαι, ο Careful observation has dis

1 Cor. xiii. 8.

covered other examples, not noticed by grammarians; as, azoúow, Matth. xii. 14, 15; yɛhάow, Luke vi. 31 ; ἐπαινέσω, 1 Cor. xi. 23; σπουδάσω, 2 Pet. i. 15 ; ἁμαρτήσω, Matth. xviii. 21 ; κλαύσω, Luke vi. 55; xw, Matth. xix. 18; geúow, John vii. 38; xaλéow, Luke i. 13; xagonow, 1 Cor. ix. 19-instead of which several forms, Attic writers have used ἀκούσομαι, γελάσομαι, ἐπαινέσομαι, σπουδάσομαι, ἁμαρτήσομαι, κλαύσομαι, κλέψομαι, ξεύσου μαι, καλοῦμαι, κερδανῶ.Ρ

r

We have now to take notice of aorists, which have in like manner been used by the sacred writers in unusual forms. Grammarians object to γενηθείς for γενόμενος, Heb. vi. 4; ἐγέννησα for ἐγεννησάμην, Matth. i. 12; ἔθρεψα for ἔθρεψάμην, James v. 5 ; ἐγανάκτησα for ἠγανακτη σάμην, Matth. xx. 24; ἡμάρτησα for ἥμαρτον, Rom. v. 14, 16; ngáyny for ngrádny, 2 Cor. xii. 2, 4. Of the same sort are ἑβλάστησα for Baorov, Matth. xiii. 26, James v. 18, used

t

X

u

only by the later writers, and ἐγάμησα for ἔγημα, Mark vi. 7, of which, except in the New Testament, I have been able to find no example but 2 Maccab. xiv. 25.

There are many other things remaining, with which I must not proceed at present; as, the imperative κάθου for κάθησο;" the perfect twice οἴδασι for ἴσασι ; the optative δῴη for δοίη; the participle ἀπολλύων for ἀπολλύς, &c.

4. Peculiarities of gender constitute the fourth class of cases, occurring in the New Testament, which are to be referred to the common tongue. The more ancient dialects used many nouns in different genders, whence a diversity in this respect was introduced into the later speech. Thus the sacred authors have employed both the masculine form ὁ σκότος, Heb. xii. 18, and the neuter rò exéros, Matth. iv. 16, vi. 23, viii. 12. The Attics used both; the other Greeks only the neuter. The promiscuous use adopted in the common speech is to be traced, therefore, to the manner of the Attics. From the Doric comes λuós, hunger; instead of which, the rest of the Greeks were

Schol. on Eurip. Hecub. 1. Interpr. on Moeris, p. 354.