James 5: 18, which is found only in the later writers; and ¿yάunoa for synua, Mark 6: 7, of which, out of the New Testament, no example is to be found, except 2 Macc. 14: 25.

There remain many other instances of the same nature, which we here cannot pursue in detail; as the imperative xávov for xáθησο;87 the perfect οἴδασι for ἴσασι;88 the optative δώη for δοίη ;9 the participle ἀπολλύων for ἀπολλύς 90 etc.

IV. A fourth class is constituted by words that are heterogeneous, or employed by the later language in a different gender. The ancient dialects employed many nouns with a difference of gender; from which circumstance a great variety of usage was introduced into the later tongue. Thus the sacred writers use both o oxóros in the masculine, Heb. 12: 18; and also to oxóTos in the neuter, Matt. 4: 16. 6: 23. 8: 12. Both were also in use among the Attics; the other Greeks had only the neuter.91 This promiscuous usage in the common language therefore, is to be derived from the Attic dialect. From the Doric comes uós, famine; for which the other Greeks said o Mós.92 In the New Testament it is twice found joined with an adjective of the feminine gender, viz. Luke 15: 14 huos ioxvoά; Acts 11: 28 μov μeyaλýv; which reading both Valckenaer93 and Fischer94 have judged to be preferable to the printed one, in which the adjectives are of the masculine gender. The Attics also said o páros, bramble, in the masculine 95 the writers of the New Testament with the other Greeks use it in the feminine gender, Mark 12: 26. Luke 6: 44. 20: 37. Acts 7: 35; which usage is also found in the xovoi.96-The Gram88 Ibid. p. 474.

87 Thom. Mag. p. 485.

89 Phrynich. p. 152. Moeris p. 117.

90 Moeris p. 12. Thom. Mag. p. 98.

91 Scholiast. ad Eurip. Hecub. 1. Inttp. ad Moerid. p. 354. 92 Phrynich. p. 80. Etymolog. Mag. p. 566. Acl. Dionys. apud Eustath. ad Od. a. p. 1390, 56. The feminine is employed by the Megarean in Aristophanes, Archanens. 743. Hence we need not listen to Sextus Empiricus when he affirms, (adv. Grammat. p. 247,) that the Athenians employed τὴν στάμνον, θόλον, βώλον, Luov, onluxos i. e. in the feminine gender.

93 Specimen Annott. crit. in locos quosd. N. T. p. 383 seq. 94 Proluss. p. 672.

95

Moeris p. 99. Thom. Mag. p. 148. Schol. ad Theocr. I. 132. 96 Theophr. Hist. Plantar. III. 18. Dioscorid. IV. 37.

marians disapprove of rous deoμous, because the Attic writers employ ta deouά.97 That the former is an Ionic form, we may τα δεσμά perhaps not improperly infer from the fact, that Homer had already exhibited this word in the masculine.98 In the New Testament both are found; the Attic form in Luke 8: 29. Acts 16: 26; the Ionic in the writings of Paul, Phil. 1: 13.-Thus far in regard to idioms derived from the more ancient language; but the later usage also introduced other like examples, before unknown. We have a remarkable instance of this in the noun

eos, which is employed by all Greek writers in the masculine; but stands as neuter in the New Testament, Luke 1: 50, 78. 1 Pet. 1: 3. Rom. 9: 23; in the Alexandrine version, Gen. 19: 9. Num. 11: 15; and in the ecclesiastical writers.

V. The fifth class of vestiges of the later language in the New Testament, is constituted by the peculiar forms of words; not only such as have passed down from the ancient dialects into the common language; but also those which were coined anew either according to previous analogy, or in other ways. Several of these have been noted by the grammarians; but many more may be discovered by personal observation. To begin with the source first mentioned; the style of the writers of the New Testament is distinguished by many forms of nouns and verbs, derived from the ancient dialects. The nouns alextwo for ἀλεκτρυών, σκοτία for σκότος, βασίλισσα for βασιλίς, were adopted into the common language from the Doric; as has been shown by Fischer99 and Sturz. 100 I add also ἡ οἰκοδομή, for which the Attics, according to the Grammarians, employed oixodóμnua.101 It is used in the New Testament by Matthew, οἰκοδόμημα.101 24: 1, and by Paul, Rom. 14: 19; also in the Septuagint, Ez. 17: 17. 1 Chr. 26: 27. In other Greek writers it is rarely found; and only among the xovol.102 I am disposed to refer it to the Doric on the authority of Suidas, who quotes a very ancient Laconic proverbial imprecation in these words: oixodoμα σε λάβοι. The word οἰκοδεσπότης is a compound noun un

97 Moeris p. 127. Thom. Mag. p. 204. Phavorin. v. deoμd. Eustath. ad Od. a. p. 1390, 56.

98

Odyss. 9. 296.

100 De Dial. Mac. et Alex. p.

99 Proluss.

151 seq.

101 Phrynich. p. 186. Thom. Mag. p. 645.

102 Philo de Monarch. T. II. p. 223.

known to the Attics;103 but Pollux testifies,104 that it was employed by Alexis, a poet of the middle comedy, a native of Thurium, ἐν Ταραντίνοις, and also by Theano, γυνή Πυθαγό Qɛlos, a female disciple of Pythagoras, in an epistle to Timareta. From these circumstances we may with reason conjecture, that it was current among the Dorians. It occurs Matt. 13: 27. 20: 1, et al. and also in Plutarch, 105 Sextus Empiricus,106 and others.-To the Ionic dialect we may refer the verb Evoάa, Acts 21: 24. 1 Cor. 11: 5; which Thomas Magister107 banishes from the Attic dialect, and establishes vow in place of it. It is found frequently in Herodotus,108 and also in the xovoí.109 That the Ionians often exchanged verbs in áo for κοινοί. those in w, it is hardly necessary to mention. The same is the case with the present of the verb nooo, which the Grammarians affirm should, according to Attic usage, be ényvvμ.110 The form génoow is found Mark 2: 22. 9: 18; in the Septuagint 1 Chr. 11: 31; and in Homer; whence we may draw the conclusion, that it was a form belonging to the Ionic dialect.

μι

Thus far the forms from the ancient dialects. We turn now to those of later origin. That in process of time new forms of words should have come into general use, no one can wonder; for this is the common lot of all living languages. But it is a remarkable circumstance, that we find in the later tongue many nouns and verbs, formed after an analogy which was unknown in all the diversities of the ancient dialects, or which at least occurred very rarely; and that too, when other forms of the same signification were already extant. Respecting the causes of this formation, little is or can be known. We may indeed suppose that formerly, in the language used by the common people, there already existed forms similar to those which we now find in books written in this vulgar idiom.

103 Phrynich. p. 162. Thom. Mag. p. 645.

104 Onomast. X. 21.

105 De Placit. Philos. V. 18. p. 908. B.

271. D.

106 Physic. I. 122.

And

Probl. Rom. 30. p.

108 II. 65. 121.

109 Palaephat. p. 84. 180. ed. Toll. Lucian. Cynicus, T. III.

p. 547.

much that must now be left unexplained, might doubtless be far better illustrated, did we but possess any full and certain information respecting the nature and character of that ancient idiom, which was the current language of the Grecian common people. Indeed, it is scarcely to be doubted, that far more was adopted from this popular idiom into the later language, than from the idiom employed by authors; of which alone the knowledge has come down to us established by sufficient documents. For these reasons we are able to exhibit under this category only the differences of the later tongue; without being able to assign the ultimate grounds of them. The following are examples.

I begin with substantives. Some less important variations occur only in single examples; as μeroineσia Matt. 1: 11, comp. Jer. 29: 19. Ez. 12: 11; for which we find in Plato μετοίκησις,112 and in Æschylus μετοικία.113 The verb μετοικίζειν occurs in Thucydides,114 from which it is derived after the same analogy as δοκιμασία115 from δοκιμάζειν; which seems in like manner anciently to have had the form δοκιμή.—The formn μα Onroia Acts 9: 36, is reprehended by the Grammarians ;116 who direct us to use μavnrois instead of it. The former occurs in Diogenes117 Petrus Siculus,118 and Palladius.119 I am not sure whether this termination in rola was ever heard in the ancient language. Ορχήστρα for ορχηστρίς is in like manner noted by Moeris.120 But examples of this formation among the ancients do not occur to me. It might perhaps have been coined after the analogy of the Latin magistra, sinistra, etc. with the insertion of the letter ; which could not be omitted without subjecting such words to be confounded with others of a different meaning; as ορχήστρα, παλαίστρα, etc.There is more certainty in regard to the form of the noun καύχησις, which is several times used by Paul, Rom. 3: 27. 15: 17, al. and once by James, 4: 16. Except in the Septuagint, Jer. 12: 13. Ez. 16: 12, it scarcely occurs in any other writer.121 To

12 I have found it in the Etymolog. Magn. p. 400, 38.

this fact is also to be added the authority of the Scholiast on Pindar,122 who affirms that it was not in use among the Attics, but that they employed rather the form xavzý. Similar forms in the ancient language cannot fail to occur to every one; e. g. αὐξή 123 and αὔξησις,124 βουλή125 and βούλησις, 126 and others, to the analogy of which the later form may be easily referred.

But especially to be noted is a class of nouns, which occur very frequently in the sacred writers; viz. nouns ending in μa, of which very many are not found in the ancient language, but instead of them, forms in n, eta, oes, with almost entirely the same signification. The following are the principal nouns of this kind in the New Testament.

Karáhvua, Luke 2: 7, deversorium, inn; for which the Attics said xarayaylov, according to Moeris 127 and Thomas Magister.128 There is also no example of the former extant in Attic writers; but only in the xovoí. But in precisely the same signification Euripides129 uses xaráλvow; as also Plato in his Protagoras.130 The verb xavalve is found in Thucydides.131

Avraлódoua occurs in the New Testament in the sense of retribution, compensation; both in a good sense, as Luke 14: 12; and in a bad one, as Rom. 11: 9. Except in the Alexandrine interpreters, as 2 Chr. 32: 25. Ps. 28: 4. Ecclus. 12: 2, this word is no where else to be found; it is not mentioned by the Grammarians, the Lexicographers, nor the Scholiasts. Thucydides132 has άvraлódoors in the same sense; as also Polybius.1 133 There can be no doubt, but that it is of a later age. But similar instances of double forms with the same signification, are also extant in the earlier writers; as evde yua and ev

122 Ad Nem. IX. 17.

123 Plato Phaedr. p. 1211. D. 1225 B.

124 Xenoph. Oec. V. 1.

126

125 Xenoph. Hellen. VI. 4. 35. 127 Page 241.

Eurip. Andron. 703. Thucyd. VI. 69.

128 Page 501. Pollux places this among the Attic words (I. 73); but in many manuscripts the word is wanting, so that it may not improbably be a gloss.

123 Elect. 393.

131 Lib. I. c. 136.

130 Page 220. D.

132 Lib. IV. c. 81.

133 Lib. VI. 5. 3. XX. 7. 2. XXXII. 13. 6.