Siá c. acc. monopolised the field, which it still holds in MGr.1 With the genitive, Stá is often contrasted with ék, úπó, etc., as denoting mediate and not original authorship, as 1 Co 8o, Mt 122. In Heb 210 it is used of God, who is "the final Cause and the efficient Cause of all things" (Westcott). There seems no adequate reason for accepting Blass's conjectural emendation, di' do Oeveías, in Gal 413: "because of an illness" is an entirely satisfactory statement (see Lightfoot in loc.), and the Vulgate per is not strong enough to justify Blass's confidence.2 Merá c. gen. has in Lk 158 a use influenced by literal translation from Semitic." Its relations with oúv are not what they were in Attic, but it remains very much the commoner way of saying with. Thumb points out (Hellen. 125) that MGr use disproves Hebraism in πоλeμеîv μeтá Tivos, Rev 127 al. Thus, for example, Abbott 44: πολέμησε μὲ τρεῖς χιλιάδες Τούρκους, “he fought with 3000 Turks."

and with
three.

The category of prepositions used with three cases is hurrying towards extinction, as we should expect. Μετά, περί and ὑπό have crossed the line into the two-case class; and in the NT πpós has nearly gone a step further, for its figures are c. gen. 1 (Ac 273+, literary), dat. 6 ("close to" or "at," in Mk, Lk, Jn ter and Rev), acc. 679. With the dative, however, it occurs 104 times in LXX, and 23 times c. gen. : the decay seems to have been rapid. Cf however PFi 5 πρоs τ πνλνi, as late as 245 A.D. For Tapá the numbers are, c. gen. 78, dat. 50, acc. 60. Blass notes that c. dat. it is only used of persons, as generally in classical Greek, except in Jn 1925. One phrase with Tapá calls for a note on its use in the papyri. Оi πаρ' aνтoû is exceedingly common there to denote "his agents" or "representatives." It has hitherto been less easy to find parallels for Mk 321, where it must mean "his family": see Swete and Field in loc. We can now cite GH 36 (ii/B.C.) oi таρ' nμŵv TÁVTES,

1 Contrast Ac 242 with OP 41 (iii/iv A.D.) πоλλŵv åɣа@ŵv åπolavoμev διὰ σαί.

2 Οὐ δυνάμενος δι ̓ ἀσθένειαν πλεῦσαι may be quoted from OP 726 (ii/A.D.), and a like phrase from OP 261 (i/A.D.), but of course they prove little or nothing. [a See pp. 246 f.; see p. 247.

BU 998 (ii/B.C.), and Par P 36 (ii/B.C.). Finally we come to é, the only preposition which is still thoroughly at home with all the cases (gen. 216, dat. 176, acc. 464). The weakening of case-distinctions is shown however by the very disproportion of these figures, and by the confusion of meaning which is frequently arising. In Heb 810 1016 we construe καρδίας as acc. only because of ἐπὶ τὴν διάνοιαν which follows it in the latter passage: on the other hand, the original in Jer 31(38) is singular, which favours taking it as genitive.2 Our local upon can in fact be rendered by ẻπí with gen., dat., or acc., with comparatively little difference of force. Particular phrases are appropriated to the several cases, but the reason is not always obvious, though it may often be traced back to classical language, where distinctions were rather clearer. Among the current phrases we may note ẻπì Tò aỶTÓ “together," "in all," often used in arithmetical statements: see Ac 115 247. Blass 330 might be read as suggesting comparative rarity for this phrase, which recurs scores of times. The common e' c. fut. indic. "on condition that," does not appear in the NT. But with a pres. in 2 Co 54, and an aor. in Rom 512, the meaning is essentially the same ("in view of the fact that "), allowing for the sense resulting from a jussive future.

1 Expos. VI. vii. 118, viii. 436.

2 See also Mk 639 ¿Tì Tậ XÓρTw, where Mt 1419 substitutes éπl Toû X., but with Tì Tòv x. in D. In Ac 7" D substitutes gen. for acc., and in 816 acc. for dat. In Eph 110 it seems difficult to draw any valid distinction between the cases of ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς and ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. To add one further example, there seems no difference between èπ' éσxáтoυ in Heb 11 and the dative in Tb P 69 (ii/B.c.), ὧν ἡ διοίκησις ἐπ ἐσχάτῳ τέτακται.

CHAPTER VI.

THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION.

66 'Aktionsart.”

For

OUR first subject under the Verb will be one which has not yet achieved an entrance into the grammars. the last few years the comparative philologists—mostly in Germany-have been busily investigating the problems of Aktionsart, or the "kind of action" denoted by different verbal formations. The subject, complex in itself, has unfortunately been entangled not a little by inconsistent terminology; but it must be studied by all who wish to understand the rationale of the use of the Tenses, and the extremely important part which Compound Verbs play in the Greek and other Indo-Germanic languages. The English student may be referred to pp. 477 ff. of Mr P. Giles's admirable Manual of Comparative Philology, ed. 2. A fuller summary may be found in pp. 471 ff. of Karl Brugmann's Griech. Gramm., ed. 3, where the great philologist sets forth the results of Delbrück and other pioneers in comparative syntax, with an authority and lucidity all his own.

Conjugation

and Tense
Stems.

The student of Hebrew will not need

telling that a Tense-system, dividing verbal action into the familiar categories of Past, Present and Future, is by no means SO necessary to language as we once conceived it to be. It may be more of a surprise to be told that in our own family of languages Tense is proved by scientific inquiry to be relatively a late invention, so much so that the elementary distinction between Past and Present had only been developed to a rudimentary extent when the various branches of the family separated so that they ceased to be mutually intelligible. As the language then possessed no Passive whatever, and no distinct Future, it will be realised that its resources

On

needed not a little supplementing. But if they were scanty in one direction, they were superabundant in another. Brugmann distinguishes no less than twenty-three conjugations, or present-stem classes, of which traces remain in Greek; and there are others preserved in other languages. We must add the aorists and perfect as formations essentially parallel. In most of these we are able to detect an Aktionsart originally appropriate to the conjugation, though naturally blurred by later developments. It is seen that the Aorist has a "punctiliar" action,1 that is, it Point Action; regards action as a point: it represents the point of entrance (Ingressive, as Baλeîv “let fly,” Baσideûoai come to the throne"), or that of completion (Effective, as Baλeîv "hit"), or it looks at a whole action simply as having occurred, without distinguishing any steps in its progress (Constative, as Baoiλevoai "reign," or as when a sculptor says of his statue, éπoinσev o deiva "X. made it"). ἐποίησεν the same graph, the Constative will be a line reduced to a point by perspective. The Present has generally a durative action"linear," we may call it, to keep up the same graphic illustration as in Báλλew "to be throwing," Baoiλevev "to be on the throne." The Perfect action is a variety by itself, denoting what began in the past and still continues: thus Perfect Action; from the "point" root weido, "discover, descry," comes the primitive perfect oida, "I discovered (eidov) and still enjoy the results," ie. "I know." I know." The present stems which show an -reduplication (oτnu, yiyvoμai) are supposed to have started with an Iterative action, so that yiyvopai would originally present the succession of moments which are individually represented by eyevóμnv. And so throughout the conjugations which are exclusively present. Other conjugations are capable of making both present and aorist

Action in Perspective;

Linear Action;

Iterative
Action.

1 I venture to accept from a correspondent this new-coined word to represent the German punktuell, the English of which is preoccupied.

2 Unity of terminology demands our accepting this word from the German pioneers, and thus supplementing the stores of the New English Dictionary. Otherwise one would prefer the clearer word "summary."

stems, as ἔφην compared with ἔβην, γράφειν with τραπεῖν, στένειν with γενέσθαι. In these the pure verb-root is by nature either (a) “punctiliar,” (b) durative, or (c) capable of being both. Thus the root of everykeiv, like our bring, is essentially a "point" word, being classed as "Effective": accordingly it forms no present stem. That of pépw, fero, bear, on the other hand, is essentially durative or "linear", and therefore forms no aorist stem.1 So with that of eσT, est, is, which has no aorist, while eyevóμnv, as we have seen, had no durative present. An example of the third class is exw, which (like our own have) is ambiguous in its action. "I had your money" may mean either "I received it" (point action) or I was in possession of it" (linear action). In Greek the present stem is regularly durative, “to hold,” while eσxov is a point word, "I received": eoxov Taρà σoû is, for instance, the normal expression in a papyrus receipt.2 Misapprehension of the action-form of exw is responsible for most of the pother about exwμev in Rom 51. The durative present can only mean "let us enjoy the possession of peace": (Sikaiwθέντες) ἔσχομεν εἰρήνην is the unexpressed antecedent premiss ; and Paul wishes to urge his readers to remember and make full use of a privilege which they ex hypothesi possess from the moment of their justification. See p. 247.

Defective

Verbs.

It is evident that this study of the kind Rationale of of action denoted by the verbal root, and the modification of that action produced by the formation of tense and conjugation stems, will have considerable influence upon our lexical treatment of the many verbs in which present and aorist are derived from different roots. Opáw (cognate with our "beware") is very clearly durative wherever it accurs in the NT; and

1 The new aorist (historically perfect) in the Germanic languages (our bore) has a constative action.

2 Note also a petition, Par P 22 (ii/B.C.), in which the tenses are carefully distinguished, as the erasure of an aorist in favour of the imperfect shows. Two women in the Serapeum at Memphis are complaining of their mother, who had deserted her husband for another man: kaì тOÛTO Tоńσaσa

οὐκ ἔσχε τὸ τῆς ἀδικησάσης πρόσωπον, ἀλλὰ συνηργάσατο ὡς ἐπανελεῖται αὐτὸν ὁ δηλούμενος, she did not put on the face of the wrong-doer, but (her paramour) began to intrigue with her to destroy (her husband)."