SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map : Christian Books : CONJUNCTIONS, 99-111

A Grammar Of Septuagint Greek by Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare


99. ei with the Subjunctive. a. In Homer ei, or its equivalent ai, is common with the subjunctive, especially when accompanied by ke(n), 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 ei with the subjunctive (without an) 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 ei ti pou alsos . . . aneimenon e.

Xen. Anab.3.2.22 hoi potamoi, ei kai proso ton pegon aporoi osi.

Soph. Ant.710 kei tis e sophos. See GMT.454.

b. In Hellenistic Greek the use of ei with the subjunctive becomes common, e.g. -

Arist. E.E.2.1.17 ei e anthropos, 8.9 ei tis prosthe, 18 ei gar . . . apokteine, 10.21 ei polemosin.

Philo 2.19, De Abr. §25 ei emmisthos e.

Jos. B.J.1.31.1 ei . . . asthenese, Ant.1.2.3 ei kai sumbe.

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 ei - ei epistrephete me humeis parataxasthai en huiois Ammon kai parado Kurios autous enopion emou. In Dt.8:5 Swete's text has paideusai in place of paideuse. In 1 K. [1 Sam.] 14:37 ei katabo opiso ton allophulon is so punctuated as to become an instance of ei interrogative (§100). In Sirach 22:26 ei kaka moi sumbe, the sumbe has given place to sumbesetai.

In the N.T. there are a few instances of ei with the subjunctive -

Rom.11:14 ei pos parazeloso.

Phil.3:11 ei pos katanteso eis ten ezanastasin, 3:12 ei kai katalabo.

100. ei Interrogative. a. In classical Greek ei is often used in indirect questions, e.g. -

Thuc.1.5.2 erotontes ei lestai eisin.

Plat. Apol.21 D ereto gar de, ei tis emou eie sophoteros.

Xen. Anab.1.10.5 ebouleueto . . . ei pempoien tinas e pantes ioien.

b. In Biblical Greek ei 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 ei is in all these cases nothing but an itacistic misspelling for the colloquial e.' In

Gen.43:7 legon Ei eti ho pater humon ze; ei estin humin adelphos . . . me edeimen ei erei hemin ktl.

we have first the direct and then the indirect use of ei as an interrogative particle. For other instances of the former take -

1 K. [1 Sam.] 15:32 kai eipen Agag Ei houtos pikros ho thanatos;

2 K. [2 Sam.] 20:17 kai eipen he gune Ei su ei Ioab;

3 K. [2 Kings} 20:20 kai eipenAchaab pros Eleiou Ei heurekas me, ho echthros mou; 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 ei is sometimes followed by the deliberative conjunctive, e.g. -

Jdg.20:28 Ei prosthomen eti exelthein;

2 K. [2 Sam.] 2:1 Ei anabo eis mian ton poleon Iouda;

1 Chr.14:10 Ei anabo epi tous allophulous;

d. In the N.T. ei interrogative is of common occurrence -

Mk.8:23 eperota auton, Ei ti blepeis; Cp. Mk.10:2, where the question may be either direct or indirect.

Mt.12:10 eperotesan auton legontes, Ei exesti tois sabbasi therapeuein; Cp. Mt.19:3.

Lk.13:23 Kurie, ei oligoi hoi sozomenoi; Cp. Lk.22:49.

Acts 1:6 Kurie, ei en to chrono touto ktl. Cp. Acts 7:1, 19:2, 21:37, 22:25, 23:9.

101. ei in Oaths. a. ei is often found in the LXX after an oath in a sense practically equivalent to a negative, e.g. -

Ps.94:11 hos omosa en te orge mou Ei eleusontai eis ten katapousin mou.

This use of ei is a sheer Hebraism. The negative force imported into ei 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 hoti, not by ei, as in -

1 K. [1 Sam.] 29:6 ze Kurios, hoti euthes su kai agathos en ophthalmois mou.

3 K. [2 Kings} 18:15 ze Kurios . . . hoti semeron ophthesomai soi,

or else is devoid of a conjunction, as in -

1 K. [1 Sam.] 1:26 ze he psuche sou, ego he gune ktl.

Jdg.8:19 ze Kurios, ei ezoogonekeite autous, ouk an apekteina humas.

c. In 4 K. [2 Kings] 3:14 hoti ei me is merely a strengthened form of ei me, so that the e by which it is followed in Swete's text, instead of ei, seems to destroy the sense.

d. In the N.T. we have the jurative use of ei in -

Mk.8:12 amen lego humin, ei dothesetai te genea taute semeion.

Also in Hb.3:11, 4:3 in quotations from Ps.94:11.

102. ei' me in Oaths. As ei assumes a negative force in oaths and asseverations, so on the same principle ei me becomes positive. Instances are -

Nb.14:35 ego Kurios elalesa, ei me houtos poieso (= I will do so).

Is.45:23 kat' emautou omnuo, ei me exeleusetai ek tou stomatos mou dikaiosune (= righteousness shall go forth from my mouth).

In 3 K. [2 Kings} 21:23 ean de polemesomen autous kat' euthu, ei me krataiosomen huper autous the oath itself is suppressed as well as the apodosis.

103. ei' men. ei men as a formula of asseveration has been supposed to be a blend between the Hebraistic ei me (§102) and the Greek e men. 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 ei men and regard it as an Interjection. The following are all the passages in which it occurs in the LXX -

Gen.22:17 ei men eulogon eulogeso se, 42:15 ne ten hugian Pharao, ei men kataskopoi este.

Nb.14:23,28: Jdg.15:7: Job 1:11, 2:5, 27:3: Judith 1:12: Baruch 2:29: Ezk.33:27, 34:8, 36:5, 38:19.

In 2 K. [2 Sam.] 19:35 what we have is ei interrogative (§100) followed by men.

In the N.T. ei men occurs only in Hb.6:14 in a quotation from Gen.22:17.

104. ean, etc., with the Indicative. a. As in Hellenistic Greek ei may take the subjunctive, so on the other hand ean, hotan and the like are found with the indicative.

Instances of ean with the indicative in the LXX are -

Gen.44:30 ean eisporeuomai.

Jdg.6:3 ean espeiran.

3 K. [2 Kings} 21:23 ean de polemesomen autous kat' euthu.

Job.22:3 ean su estha.

So in N.T. --

1 Jn.5:15 ean oidamen.

Acts 7:7 to ethnos, ho ean douleusousi. Cp. Herm. Past. Vis.3.12.3 ean . . . eireneuete, 1.3.2 ean . . . metanoesousin.

b. Instances of hotan with the indicative in the LXX are -

Gen.38:9 hotan eisercheto.

Ex.17:11 hotan eperen Mouses tas cheiras.

Nb.11:9 kai hotan katebe he drosos, 21:9 hotan edaknen ophis anthropon.

1 K. [1 Sam.] 17:34 hotan ercheto ho leon kai he arkos.

Ps.119:7 hotan elaloun autois.

c. So in N.T. --

Mk.3:11 kai ta pneumata ta akatharta, hotan auton etheorei, prosepipten auto, 11:19 hotan opse egeneto.

Rev.8:1 hotan enoixe.

Cp. Barn. Ep.4:14 hotan blepete, 15:5 hotan . . . katargesei.

Ign. Eph.8:1 hotan gar medemia eris enereistai en humin.

Herm. Past. Sim.9.1.6 hotan ho helios epikekaukei, xerai egenonto, 4.5 hotan . . . etethesan. Cp. hotan epatassen.

d. Under the same head come the following -

Ex.33:8, 34:34 henika d' an eiseporeueto Moses, 40:30 henika d' an anebe apo tes skenes he nephele.

Tobit 7:11 hopote ean eiseporeuonto. Cp. Barn. Ep.12:3 hopotan katheilen.

105. ean after a Relative. a. ean for an 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 -

hosa ean Gen.44:1: Ex.13:12. henika ean Gen.24:41: Ex.13:5.

hou ean Ex.20:24. kathos ean Sir.14:11: Dan. O' 1:13.

hothen ean Ex.5:11.

As a rule the subjunctive follows, but not always.

Gen.2:19 pan ho ean ekalesen.

b. The use of an in such cases is not quite excluded, e.g. Ex.12:15, 19: Nb.22:20.

c. In the N.T. also it is easier to find ean in this connexion than an, e.g. -

ho ean Mt.5:19, 10:14,42: Lk.17:33.

ho ean Mt.11:27: Lk.10:22.

ohu ean 1 Cor.16:3.

ho ean 1 Cor.6:18: Gal.6:7: Col.3:23: Eph.6:8: Jn.15:7: 1 Jn.3:22: 3 Jn.5.

katho ean 2 Cor.8:12.

hopou ean Mt.8:19.

ho ti ean 1 Jn.3:19.

For instances of an take 1 Jn.3:17: Mt.10:11: Lk.10:5,8,10,35.

d. In the Apostolic Fathers also we find the same use of ean after relatives-

Barn. Ep.7:11 ho ean thele, 11:8 pan rhema ho768; ean exeleusetai.

Herm. Past. Vis.3.2.1 ho ean pathe, Sim.7.7 hosoi [ean] en tais entolais mou tautais poreuthosin, 9.2.7 hosa ean soi deixo.

106. hina with the Indicative. a. In the vast majority of places in which hina 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 hina after a primary tense or the imperative mood takes a future indicative.

Gen.16:2 eiselthe . . . hina teknopoieseis.

3 K. [2 Kings} 2:3 phulaxeis . . . hina poieseis.

Sus. O 28 enedreuontes hina thanatosousin auten. Dan. O 3:96 ego krino hina pan ethnos . . . diamelisthesetai.

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 apostethi . . . hina me pataxo se.

This might easily lead by false analogy to -

apeleusomai, hina me pataxeis me.

This theory however fails to account for the following -

1 Esd.4:50 hina aphiousi.

Tob.14:9 su de tereson ton nomon . . . hina soi kalos en.

The last can only be regarded as a monstrosity.

c. In the N.T. hina with the future indicative occurs occasionally and is common in Revelation -

1 Cor.9:18 hina . . . theso.

Gal.2:4 hina hemas katadoulosousin.

1 Pet.3:1 hina . . . kerdethesontai.

Rev.3:9, 6:4, 8:3, 9:20, 14:13, 22:24 hina estai . . . kai . . . eiselthosin.

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 hina with a present indicative -

1 Cor.4:6 hina me . . . phusiousthe.

Gal.1:17 hina autous zeloute.

With regard to these Winer came to the conclusion that hina 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, phusiousthe and zeloute 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 oo.' 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 hotan maiousthe tas Hebraias kai osin pros to tiktein.

107. Ellipse before hoti. By the suppression of an imperative of a verb of knowing hoti acquires the sense of know that.'

Ex.3:12 legon Oti esomai meta sou.

Jdg.15:7 eipen . . . Sampson . . . hoti ei men ekdikeso en humin.

3 K. [2 Kings} 19:2 eipen . . . hoti tauten ten horan ktl.

This usage originates in the Hebrew, but has a parallel in Greek in the similar ellipse before hos, 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.

108. all' e. a. The combination of particles all' e occurs in Swete's text 114 times at least. In most of these passages all' e is simply a strengthened form of alla. 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 all' e 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 ei me. But even this latter meaning can be borne by the simple alla, if we may trust the reading of -

Gen.21:26 oude ego ekousa alla semeron.

b. The idea has been entertained that all' e is not for alla e, as the accentuation assumes, but for allo e. 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 all' e follows allos or heteros, as in 4 K. [2 Kings] 5:17: Dan.3:95, Th 2:11: 1 Mac.10:38, the alla would be superfluous in classical Greek, so that in these cases it might be thought that the e was strengthened by the alla, and not vice versa: but if we accept the use in Gen.21:26, it follows that even here it is the alla 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 ouchi, lego humin, all' e diamerismon.

2 Cor.1:13 ou gar alla graphomen humin, all' e ha anaginoskete.

109. hoti all' e. 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 all' e. In the bulk of them hoti all' e 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 hoti, 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 dioti in place of hoti.

3 K. [2 Kings} 22:18 Ouk eipa pros se Ou propheteuei houtos moi kala, dioti all' e kaka;

110. hoti ei me. This combination occurs in the following passages -

2 K. [2 Sam.] 2:27 Ze Kurios, hoti ei me elalesas, dioti tote ek proithen anebe ho laos.

3 K. [2 Kings} 17:1 Ze Kurios . . . ei estai . . . huetos; hoti ei me dia stomatos logou mou.

4 K. [2 Kings] 3:14 Ze Kurios . . . hoti ei me prosopon Iosaphath . . . ego lambano, ei' (A) epeblepsa pros se.

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 hoti might be dispensed with, and owes its presence to the Hebrew.

111. all' e hoti. There are four passages in which this combination occurs -

Nb.13:29 all' e hoti thrasu to ethnos.

1 K. [1 Sam.] 10:19 Ouchi, all' e hoti basilea steseis eph' hemon, 12:12 Ouchi, all' e hoti basileus basileusei eph' hemon.

2 K. [2 Sam.] 19:28 hoti ouk en pas ho oikos tou patros mou all' e hoti andres thanatou.

No one meaning suits all the above passages. In the first of them the Hebrew which corresponds to all' e hoti is rendered in the R.V. howbeit.' In the next two all' e hoti might just as well have been hoti all' e (= Lat. sed.), as in Jdg.15:3 (§ 109). In the fourth also hoti all' e 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.

112. legon, 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 apengeilen . . . legon, 19:11 apengeile . . . legousa.

b. If the subject is neuter or feminine, the participle may still be masculine-

Gen.15:1: 1 K. [1 Sam.] 15:10 egenethe rhema Kuriou . . . legon.

4 K. [2 Kings] 18:36 hoti entole tou basileos legon.

Also, if the sentence is impersonal -

3 K. [2 Kings} 20:9 egegrapto . . . legon.

2 Chr.21:12 elthen . . . en graphe . . . legon.

Jonah 3:7 errethe . . . legon.

c. But the participle may even refer to another subject, as -

4 K. [2 Kings] 19:9 ekousen . . . legon = he heard say.

d. It is rare for the Greek to fare so well as in -

Dt.13:12 ean de akouses . . . legonton.

And here the genitive is probably not governed by akouein, but used absolutely. Cp. -

1 K. [1 Sam.] 24:2 apengele auto legonton.

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 -

apengele . . . legontes Gen.38:24, 48:2: Josh.2:2, 10:17: 1 K. [1 Sam.] 14:33, 15:12, 19:19, 23:1.

anengele . . . legontes Jdg.16:2: Gen.22:20.

dieboethe he phone . . . legontes Gen.45:16.

eulogethesetai Israel legontes Gen.48:20.

An adjacent case is -

Ezk.12:22 Tis he parabole humin . . . legontes;

f. When the verb is active and finite, the construction presents itself as good Greek, as in -

3 K. [2 Kings} 12:10 elalesan . . . legontes,

but this is a little better than an accident, for what immediately follows is -

Tade laleseis to lao touto tois lalesasi pros se legontes ktl.

In Dt.18:16 we have even eteso . . . legontes.

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 emastigothesan . . . legontes, 5:19 heoron . . . legontes,

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 phonai . . . legontes.

113. Idiomatic Use of prostithenai. a. Another very common Hebraism is the use of prostithenai with the infinitive of another verb in the sense of doing a thing more or again, e.g. -

Gen.37:8 prosethento eti misein = they hated still more. Cp. Gen.4:2, 12, 8:21, 44:23. Ex.8:29 me prosthes eti . . . exapatesai. Cp. Ex.9:28, 10:28, 14:13.

Nb.22:15,19,25: Dt.3:26, 5:25: Josh.7:12: Jdg.8:28, 10:6, 13:1,21: 1 Mac.9:1.

b. Sometimes tou precedes the infinitive, as -

Ex.9:34 prosetheto tou hamartanein.

Josh.23:13 ou me prosthe Kurios tou exolethreusai.

Jdg.2:21 ou prostheso tou exarai. Cp. Jdg.9:37, 10:13.

c. The same construction may be used impersonally in the passive -

Ex.5:7 ouketi prostethesetai didonai achuron to lao.

d. Sometimes the dependent verb is dropped after the middle or passive -

Nb.22:26 kai prosetheto ho angelos tou Theou kai apelthon hupeste. Cp.4 K. [2 Kings] 1:11.

Ex.11:6 hetis toiaute ou gegonen kai toiaute ouketi prostethesetai.

<<  Contents 

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy