I. Etymology. Grammar was at first a branch of philosophy among the Greeks, and with the foundation of the Alexandrian library a new era began with the study of the text of Homer.1 After Photius etymology "rules the whole later grammatical literature."2 The Stoic grammarians were far better in etymology than in anything else and we owe them a real debt in this respect, though their extended struggle as to whether analogy or anomaly ruled in language has left its legacy in the long lists of "exceptions" in the grammars.3 In some grammars the term etymology is still applied to the whole discussion of Forms or Accidence, Formenlehre. But to-day it is generally applied to the study of the original form and meaning of words.4 The word e]tumologi<a is, of course, from e@tumoj and lo<goj, and e@t-umoj, meaning 'real' or 'true,' is itself from the same root et— from which e]t-eo<j, 'true,' comes. So also e]t-a<zw, 'to test.' Compare also Sanskrit sat-yas, ‘true,’ and sat-yam, ‘truth,’ as well as the Anglo-Saxon soth, ‘sooth.’ To> e@tumon is the true literal sense of a word, the root. No more helpful remark can be made at this point than to insist on the importance of the student's seeing the original form and import of each word and suffix or prefix. This is not all that is needed by any means, but it is a beginning, and the right beginning. 5 "It was the comparative study of languages that first gave etymology a surer hold."6 Curtius means etymology in the modern sense, to be sure.

II. Roots. 7 It is not to be supposed that what are called roots necessarily existed in this form. They represent the original stock from which other words as a rule come. What the original words actually were we have no means of telling. They were not necessarily interjections, as some have supposed. Mere articulate sounds, unintelligible roots, did not constitute speech. Some interjections are not roots, but express ideas and can often be analyzed, as “jemine”=Jesu Domine.8 Others, like most nursery words, are onomatopoetic. There is, besides, no evidence that primitive man could produce speech at will.9 But a few root-words appear like the Latin i (‘go’) and probably the Greek h@ (though h]e< is found in Epic Greek). The number of Greek roots is comparatively few, not more than 400, probably less. Harris10 observes that of the 90,000 words in a Greek lexicon only 40,000 are what are termed classic words. The new words, which are constantly made from slang or necessity, are usually made from one of the old roots by various combinations, or at any rate after the analogy of the old words.11 Words are "the small coin of language,"12 though some of them are sesquipedalian enough. There seem to be two ultimate kinds of words or roots, verbs and pronouns, and they were at last united into a single word as fh-mi<, 'say I.' It does not seem possible to distinguish between verbal and nominal roots, as in English to-day the same word is indifferently verb or noun, "walk," for instance. The modern view is that verbs are nominal in origin (Hirt, Handb., p. 201). The pronominal roots may furnish most of the suffixes for both verbs (r[h<mata) and nouns (o]no<mata). Verbs, substantives and pronouns (a]ntwnomi<ai), therefore, constitute the earliest parts of speech, and all the others are developed from these three.13 Adjectives (o]no<mata e]pi<qeta) are merely variations from substantives or pronouns. Adverbs (e]pirrh< mata) are fixed case-forms of substantives or adjectives or pronouns. Prepositions (proqe<seij) are adverbs used with nouns or with verbs (in composition). Conjunctions (su<ndesmoi) are adverbs used to connect words and sentences in various ways. Intensive (e]pita<sewj) particles are adverbs from nominal or pronominal stems of a special kind. Speech has made a very small beginning with isolated words; in fact the sentence is probably as old as human speech, though we first discuss words.14 The number of root-words with the mere ending is not very great, but some few survive even in the N. T., where the case-ending is added directly to the root, as a!l-j (a!la, Mk. 9:50), with which compare Latin sal, English sal-t. So nau?j (Ac. 27:41), Latin nau-is. Instead of a!lj the N. T. elsewhere follows the koinh< in using to> a!laj, and to> ploi?on instead of nau?j. In pou<j (po<d-j) the root is only slightly changed after the loss of d (analogy of ou#j or o]dou<j). The pronoun ei$j (e!n-j) is similarly explained. Pronouns and numerals use the root directly. In verbs we have many more such roots used directly with the personal endings without the thematic vowel o/e and sometimes without any tense-suffix for the present, like fh-mi< (fa-mi<). The whole subject of verbs is much more complicated, but in general the non-thematic forms are rapidly disappearing in the N. T., while in the vernacular modern Greek the non-thematic or mi verbs are no longer used (save in the case of ei#mai), as di<dw for di<dw-mi, for instance. A number of these roots go back to the common Indo-Germanic stock. Take dik, the root of dei<knu-mi. The Sanskrit has dic-a-mi; the Latin dic-o, in-dic-o, ju-dex; the Gothic teiho; the German zeigen. Take the thematic verb ske<p-to-mai. The Sanskrit root is spac (‘look’), spac= spy. The Zend has cpac, the Latin spec-io, spec-alum, spec-to, etc. In the Greek root metathesis has taken place and spek has become skep in ske<p-to-mai (‘to spy out’), skop-h< (‘a watching’), skop-ia< (‘a watch-tower’), skop-o<j (‘a spy,’ ‘a goal’), skw<y (‘owl’).15 Cf. Ph. 3:14 kata> skopo<n. The old Greek writers16 made musth<rion= mu?j threi?n!

III. Words with Formative Suffixes. The Indo-Germanic languages have a highly developed system of affixes,17 prefixes, infixes, suffixes. The suffixes are used for various purposes, as case-endings of nouns, as personal endings of verbs, as aids in the creation of words (formative suffixes). The Greek is rich in these formative suffixes, which are more or less popular at various periods of the language. The suffixes in the Greek are quite similar to those in the older Sanskrit. When the formative suffixes are used directly with the root, the words are called primitives; when the stem of the word is not a root, it is called a derivative. Hence there are primitive and derivative verbs, primitive and derivative substantives, primitive and derivative adjectives. There are, of course, in the N. T. Greek no "special" formative suffixes, though the koinh< does vary naturally in the relative use of these terminations from the earlier language. In the modern Greek a number of new suffixes appear like the diminutives –pouloj (pw?loj, ‘foal’), ktl. "In all essentials the old patterns are adhered to" in the N. T. word-formation.18 See also Hadley-Allen (pp. 188 ff.) for the meaning of the Greek formative suffixes.

(a) VERBS. On the stem-building of the verb one can consult Hirt or Brugmann for the new point of view.19 Without attempting a complete list of the new words in the koinh<, I give what is, I trust, a just interpretation of the facts concerning the new words appearing from the time of Aristotle on that we find in the N. T. Hence some classes of words are not treated.

1. Primary or Primitive Verbs. No new roots are used to make verbs with old or new terminations20 in the koinh<. The tendency is all towards the dropping of the non-thematic or mi. forms both with the simple root and with the suffix. The remnants of the mi forms, which are not quite obsolete in the N. T., will be given in the chapter on the Conjugation of the Verb. Here may be mentioned a]po<llumi, which uses the suffix –nu.21 Thematic verbs made from the root by the addition of o/e are very common, like le<g-w, lei<p-w (lip). The N. T., as the koinh<, has new presents like kru<bw, ni<ptw, xu<nnw, etc. These kept increasing and are vouched for by modern Greek. Cf. Thumb, Handbook, pp. 129 ff.

2. Secondary or Derivative Verbs. Not all of these verbs are formed from nouns; many come also from verbs. Denominatives are made from nouns, like tima<-w from timh<, while verbals (postverbals, Jannaris22) are made from verbs. The simple denominatives, 23 ending in –a>w, –e<w, --eu<w, --a<zw, --i<zw are not always distinguished from the intensive verbals or the causative denominatives, though –a<w, –ai<nw, --u<nw more commonly represent the latter. ]Opta<nw (from o@ptw) besides Ac. 1:3 appears in the LXX, Hermes, Tebt. Papyri. Cf. also the rare limpa<nw. The koinh< is rich in new verbs in --nw. Verbs in –a<w are common in the N. T., as in the koinh<, like tima<w, diya<w, za<w, etc. ]Ana-za<w occurs in Artem., Photius, inscriptions, etc. In the modern Greek verbs in –a<w have gained at the expense of verbs in –ew.24 They belong to the oldest Greek speech and come from feminine stems in –a.25 Verbs in –a<zw show great increase in the N. T. as in the koinh< and modern Greek,26 like a[gia<zw (a!gioj, a[gi<zw, LXX), e]ntafia<zw (e]nta<fia, Anthol., Plut.), nhpia<zw (nh<pioj) in Hippocrates, stugna<zw (from stugno<j) in Schol. on AEsch. and in LXX sinia<zw (sini<on, eccl., Byz.). Purra<zw (Mt. 16:2 f.) occurs in LXX and Philo, but W. H. reject this passage.

The majority of the new verbs in –e<w are compound, as a]sxhmone<w, plhrofore<w (plhro-fo<roj, LXX, pap.), but dunate<w (only in N. T.) is to be noticed on the other side.27  ]Akaire<w (from a@kairoj) is found in Diodorus; eu]proswpe<w (eu]pro<swpoj) is found in Gal. 6:12 (in papyri, 114 B.c.; o!pwj eu]proswpw?men, Tebt. P. No. 1912 f.). Cf. Moulton, Expositor, 1903, p. 114. These verbs have always been very numerous, though –ew gradually retreats before –aw. Grhgore< w (Arist., LXX, Jos.) is formed from the perfect e]grh<gora, which is not in the N. T., but Winer long ago found a similar form in e]pikexeire<w (Papyri Taurin. 7).28  ]Elattone<w (Arist., LXX, pap.) is from e@llaton. ]Elloge<w (and –a<w) is in inscriptions and papyri. ]Ecakolouqe<w (Polyb., Plut., inscriptions) is not "biblical" as Thayer called it. Au]qente<w (au]qe<nthj, au]to<j and e@ntea) is in the koinh<, according to Moeris, for the Attic au]todike<w. (In the late papyri see Deissmann, Light, p. 85.) No great distinction in sense exists between –a<w and —e<w.

Verbs in –eu<w are also very common and are formed from a great variety of stems. Ai]xmalwteu<w (from ai]xma<lwtoj) is read in 2 Tim. 3:6 only by Dc EKL al. p1. Or., the form in –i<zw being genuine. It is, however, common in the LXX, as is e]gkrateu<omai (1 Cor. 9:25), from e]gkrath<j (in Aristotle). Gumniteu<w (not gumnhteu< w, Dio Chrys., Plut., Dio Cass., etc.) is found in 1 Cor. 4:11 and is from gumnh<tj. Zh<leue (Simplic., Democr.), not zh<lwson, is the correct text in Rev. 3:19 (so W. H. with ABC against xP). Both are from zh?loj. qriambeu<w (from qri<amboj) is in the literary koinh<.29  [Ierateu<w (Lu. 1:8) is from i[ereu<j and is found in the LXX, the koinh< writers and the inscriptions. Mesiteu<w (Heb. 6:17) is from mesi<thj and is found in Arist., Polyb. and papyri. Maqhteu<w is from maqhth<j (Plut., Jambl.); o]loqreu<w (Heb. 11:28, LXX) is from o@leqroj (ADE read o]leqreu<wn in Heb. 11:28). In Ac. 3:23 e]coleqreu<w) is the form accepted by W. H. after the best MSS. of the LXX.30 Pagideu<w (Mt. 22 : 15) is from pagi<j and occurs in the LXX. Para-boleu<omai is the correct word in Ph. 2:30 against CKLP which read para-bouleu<omai. The word is from para<-boloj, which has not been found in other writers, but an inscription (ii/A.D.) at Olbia on the Black Sea has the very form paraboleusa<menoj used by Paul (cf. Deissmann, Light, p. 84). Perpereu<omai (1 Cor. 13:4) is made from pe<rperoj and is found in Antoninus. Xrhsteu<omai is from xrhsto<j. Three verbs in –qw appear which are made from verbs in –a<w and –ew, viz. a]lh<qw (a]le<w), knh<qw (kna<w) nh<qw (ne<w), one (nh<qw) being found also in Plato Polit. (p. 289 c). Cf. modern Greek qe<tw (ti<qhmi).

The causative ending –o<w is usually formed on noun-stems and is very common, sometimes supplanting verbs in –eu<w or –i<zw, as a]na-kaino<w (Isocrates, a]nakaini<zw),31 a]nastato<w (from a]na<statoj, LXX, papyri. Cf. a]nastatoi? me, 'he upsets me,' Deissmann, Light, p. 81); a]f-upno<w (Anthol., classical a]fupni<zw); dekato<w (classical dekateu<w); dolio<w (LXX, from do<lioj); dunamo<w (LXX, eccl. and Byz., from du<namij); e]coudeno<w (often in LXX, but W. H. read e]coudene<w in Mk. 9:12, Plutarch even e]coudeni<zw); qemelio<w (LXX) is from qeme<lion; kauso<w (from kau?soj, Disc., Galen); kefalio<w (Lob., ad Phryn., p. 95, kefali<zw, though not in any known Greek author) W. H. read in Mk. 12:4 with xBL as against kefalaio<w and it means 'beat on the head' (cf. kolafi<zw). So kolobo<w (from ko<loboj, Arist., Polyb., Diod.); nekro<w (from nekro<j, Plut., Epict., M. Aur., inscriptions); krataio<w (LXX, eccl.), from kratu<nw; saro<w (Artem., Apoll., Dysc.), from sai<rw (sa<roj); shmeio<w (from shmei?on, Theoph., Polyb., LXX, Philo, Dion. Hal., etc.); sqeno<w (Rhet. Gr.), from sqene<w (sqe<noj); xarito<w (LXX, Jos., eccl.), from xa<rij. Verbs in –o<w do not always have the full causative idea,32 a]cio<w=’deem worthy’ and dikaio<w='deem righteous.'

Verbs in –i<zw do not necessarily represent repetition or intensity. They sometimes have a causative idea and then again lose even that distinctive note and supplant the older form of the word. Forms in –i<zw are very common in modern Greek. [Ranti<zw (LXX, Athen.), for instance, in the N. T. has displaced r[ai<nw, and bapti<zw (since Plato) has nearly supplanted ba<ptw. These verbs come from many sorts of roots and are very frequent in the N. T., as the koinh< is lavish with them. The new formations in the koinh< appearing in the N. T. are as follows: ai[reti<zw (from ai[reto<j, LXX, inscriptions); ai]xmalwti<zw (literary koinh< and LXX), from ai]xma<- lwtoj; a]naqemati<zw (LXX and inscriptions), from a]na<qema; a]nemi<zw (Jas. 1:6) is found in schol. on Hom. Od. 12, 336, the old form being a]nemo<w; a]teni<zw (from a]tenh<j, Arist., Polyb., Jos.); deigmati<zw (from dei?gma) appears in apocryphal Acts of Peter and Paul; dogmati<zw (from do<gma) is in Diodorus and the LXX; e]ggi<zw (from e]ggu<j, from Polyb. and Diod. on); e]c-upni<zw (from u!pnoj LXX, Plut.); qeatri<zw (from qe<atron) in ecclesiastical and Byzantine writers, e]kqeatri<zw being in Polybius; i[mati<zw (from i[ma<tion) is found in Serapeum papyrus 163 B.C.; i]oudai zw (from ]Ioudai?oj) is found in the LXX and Josephus and is formed like e[llhni<zw and, similar ethnic terms; kaqari<zw (classic kaqai<rw, from kaqaro<j, LXX, Jos., inscriptions); krustalli<zw (from kru<stalloj, Rev. 21:11) is still "not found elsewhere" (Thayer); mukthri<zw (from mukth<r, the nose') is in the LXX; o]rqri<zw (from o@rqroj) is in the LXX; peleki<zw (from pe<lekuj) is common in literary koinh<; skorpi<zw (akin to skorpi< oj, root skerp) is in LXX and in literary koinh<, Attic form being skeda<nnumi, old Ionic according to Phrynichus; splagxni<zomai (from spla<gxna, Heb. MymiHEva) occurs in LXX, Attic had an active splagxneu<w; summorfi<zw (from su<mmorfoj) is the correct text in Ph. 3:10 against summorfo<w (EKL), though neither word is known elsewhere, perhaps coined by Paul; fulaki<zw (from rom fulakh<) is in LXX and Byzantine writers. Of verbs in –u<zw, goggu<zw (onomatopoetic, like tonqru<zw of the cooing of doves) is in the LXX and the papyri.

Verbs in –u<nw are fairly common, like parocu<nw. Only one word calls for mention, sklhru<nw (from sklhro<j), which takes the place of the rare sklhro<w and is found in LXX and Hippocrates. No new verbs in –ai<nw (like eu]frainw) appear in the N. T. Verbs in –skw are, like the Latin verbs in –sco, generally either inchoative or causative. It is not a very common termination in the N. T., though eu[ri<skw, ginw<skw and dida<skw occur very often, but these are not derivative verbs. In the N. T. the inchoative sense is greatly weakened. The suffix belongs to the present and the imperfect only. In modern Greek it has nearly disappeared save in the dialects.33 Gami<skw (accepted by W. H. in Lu. 20:34) rather than gami<zw is causative (Arist. pol.); ghra<skw and mequ<skw both come from the earlier Greek.34 ]En-didu<-skw occurs in the LXX, Jos., inscriptions. The new present sth<kw (Mk. 11:25) is made from the perfect stem e!sthka (ste<kw in modern Greek). As in N. T., so in modern Greek desideratives in –sei<w, –sia<w drop out. The verbs in –ia<w still retained (a]gallia<w, a]rotr-ia<w, qum-ia<w, kop-ia<w) have no desiderative meaning. Of these a]gallia<w, for the old a]ga<llomai, is late koinh<; a]rotria<w is from Theophr. on, kopia<w is late in the sense of ‘toil.’ No new reduplicated verbs appear in the N. T.

(b) SUBSTANTIVES.

1. Primary or Primitive Substantives. Here the formative (stem-suffix) suffix is added to the root. It is important to seek the meaning not only of the root, but of this formative suffix also when possible. The root has in most cases the strong form, as in lo<g(leg)-o-j. These substantives are thus from the same root as the verb. With —mo<-j, --mh<, expressing action, are formed in the old Greek words like qu<-mo<j, -ti-mh<. With —ma, denoting result, we find a]nt-apo<do-ma (LXX, old Greek a]nt-apo<-do-sij, from a]nt-apo-di<dwmi); dia<-sth-ma (from di-i<sthmi Arist., Polyb., Philo); e@n-du-ma (from e]n-du<w, LXX, Strabo, Jos., Plut.); qe<lh-ma (from qe<lw, Arist. and LXX); kata<-kri-ma (from kata-kri<nw, Dion. Hal., pap.); kata<-lu-ma (from kata-lu<-w, literary koinh< for old kat-agwgei?on, and with idea of place); kata<-sth-ma (kaq-i<sth-mi, Plut. and the LXX); kti<s-ma (from kti<zw Strabo, Dion. Hal.); pro<s-kom-ma (from pros-ko<p-tw, in LXX and Plut.). The suffix —si-j, meaning action (abstract), appears in a]na<-bley-ij (Arist., LXX); a]na<-deic-ij (from a]na-dei<k-nu-mi-- Plut., Diod., Strabo, Sirach); qe<lh-sij in Heb. 2:4 (from qe<lw), a "vulgarism," according to Pollux); kata<-nuc-ij (from kata-nu<ss-w, LXX); kata<-krisij (from kata-kri<nw, Vettius Valens, eccl.); pe-poi<q-h-sij (from pe<-poiq-a, pei<qw, Josephus and Philo, condemned by the Atticists); pro<s-kli-sij (from pros-kli<n-w, Polyb. and Diod.); pro<s-xu-sij (from pros-xe<-w, Justin Martyr and later). The suffix —monh< is used with peis-monh< (from pei<qw, Ignatius and later) and epi-lhs-monh< (e]pi-lanq-a<nw, e]pi-lh<s-mwn, Sirach). Sag-h<nh (LXX, Plut., Lucian) has suffix —h<nh (cf. —ono, --onh, etc.). Diaspor- a< (dia-spei<rw, LXX, Plut.) and pros-eux-h< (pros-eu<x-omai, LXX, inscriptions) use the suffix —a (—h). Cf. a]po-graf-h< (N. T., papyri), a]po-doxh< (inscriptions), broxh< (papyri), e]mplokh< (e]mple<kw inscriptions), dia-tagh< (dia-ta<ssw, papyri, inscriptions, later writings). The agent is usually —thj (Blass, Gr., p. 62), not —twr or —thr as in diw<kthj (from diw<kw, earliest example) and do<-thj (from di<-dw-mi, classic doth<r. But cf. sw-th<r). See gnw<sthj (gi-nw<skw, LXX, Plut.), kti<s-thj (kti<zw, Arist., Plut., LXX), e]pi-sta<thj (only in Luke, e]fi<sthmi). See further under compound words for more examples. In modern Greek —thj is preserved, but —twr and thr become —torhj, —thraj. Jannaris, op. cit., p. 288; Thumb, Handbook, p. 49. I pass by words in –euj, —mhn, --tron, etc.

2. Secondary or Derivative Substantives. Only important words not in common use in the older Greek can be mentioned.

(a) Those from verbs. Words in —mo<j expressing action. From verbs in —a<zw come a[gias-mo<j (ancient Greek a[gi<zw, but later form common in LXX and N. T.); a[gnis-mo<j (from a[gni<zw, Dion. Hal., LXX, Plut.); a]partis-mo<j (Dion. Hal., Apoll. Dysc., papyri); a[rpag-mo<j (a[rpa<zw is from root a[rp, like Latin rapio. [Arpag-mo<j once in Plutarch, a[rpagh< common from AEschylus)35; goggus-mo<j (from goggu<zw, Antonin.); e]ntafias-mo<j (Plutarch and scholia to Eur. and Arist., e]ntafia<zw); i[matis-mo<j (from i[mati<zw, LXX, Theophr.,Polyb., Diod., Plut., Athen.); peiras-mo<j (from peira<zw and common in the LXX). From verbs in –i<zw have baptis-mo<j (Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 62) used by Josephus of John's baptism,36 but not in the N. T. of the ordinance of baptism, save in Col. 2:12, in x° BD*FG 47, 67**, 71, a Western reading rejected by W. H.; o]neidis-mo<j (Plutarch and Dion. Hal.); parorgis-mo<j (not found earlier than LXX nor in koinh< writers, Dion. uses parorgi<zw); porismo< j (Sap., Polyb., Jos., Plut., Test. XII Patr.); r[antis-mo<j (LXX); sabbatis-mo<j (Plut. and eccl. writers); swfronis-mo<j (Jos., Plut., etc.); yiquris-mo<j (from yiquri<zw, LXX, Clem. Rom., Plut., onomatopoetic word for the hissing of the snake). The ending –mo<j survives in literary modern Greek. Cf. Jannaris, op. cit., p. 288. The tendency to make new words in —mo<j decreased. The modern Greek vernacular dropped it (Thumb, Handbook, p. 62).

Abstract nouns in —sij are bi<w-sij (in Sirach, from bio<w); a]nakai< nw-sij (a]na-kaino<-w, Etym. M. Herm.); a]pa<nth-sij (a]p-anta<-w, LXX, Polyb., Diod., papyri); a]po-ka<luyij (LXX, Plut.); a]po-kata<- sta-sij (Poly ., Diod., papyri, etc.); a]po-sta-si<a (LXX); e]kzh<th-sij (e]k-zhte<w, true text in 1 Tim. 1:4, Basil Caes., Didym.); e]n-do<mh-sij (from e]ndome<w, Jos., also e]ndw<mhsij) e]pipo<qh-sij (LXX, from e]pipoqe< w); u[p-a<nth-sij (LXX, Jos., App.). Words in –sij, common in Hebrews, make few new formations in the later Greek. ]Aga<ph begins to displace a]ga<phsij (LXX, inscription in Pisidia, and papyrus in Herculaneum). Abstract nouns in —ei<a (W. H. –i<a) are chieiiy from verbs in –eu<w as a]reskei<a (from a]reskeu<w, Polyb., Diod., papyri, and usually in bad sense); e]pi-po<qeia (so W. H., not e]pi-poqi<a, in Ro. 15:23, from e]pipoqe<w probably by analogy like e]piqumi<a. Not found elsewhere). ]Eriqei<a (from e]riqeu<w, Arist pol. The verb from e@riqoj, 'working for hire'); i[eratei<a (from i[erateu<w, Arist. pol., Dion. Hal., LXX, inscriptions); logei<a (—i<a) is from logeu<w (‘collect’) and is found in inscriptions, ostraca, papyri (see Deissmann, Light, p. 105); meqodei<a (from meqodeu<w, which occurs in the koinh<, from me<qodoj, but not the abstract noun).

From o]fei<lw we have o]feilh< (common in the papyri), o]fei<lhma (Plato, Arist., LXX). Words in –ma (result) are more common in the later Greek and gradually take an abstract idea of –sij in modern Greek.37 The new formations appearing in the N. T. are a]-gno<h-ma (0. T. Apoc., from a]gnoe<w); ai]ti<w-ma (correct text in Ac. 25:7, and not ai]ti<ama, from ai]tia<omai). Cf. ai]ti<wsij in Eustathius, p. 1422, 21. This form as yet not found elsewhere); a@ntlhma (from a]ntle<w, Plut., what is drawn, and then strangely a thing to draw with, like a]ntlhth<r or a]ntlhth<rion); a]p-au<gas-ma (from a]pauga<zw, and this from a]po< and au]gh<, in Wisdom and Philo); a]po-ski<as-ma (from a]poskia<zw, and this from a]po< and skia<. Only in Jas. 1:17); a]sqe<nh-ma (from a]sqene<w, in physical sense in Arist. hist., papyri); ba<ptis-ma (from bapti<zw), "peculiar to N. T. and ecclesiastical writers," Thayer). In ba<ptis-ma, as distinct from baptis-mo<j, the result of the act is included (cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 62); e]ce<ra-ma (from e]cera<w, in Dioscor., example of the verb, cf. Lob., ad Phryn., p. 64); h!tth-ma (from h[tta<o-mai, LXX, in ecclesiastical writers); i[era<teu-ma (from i[erateu<w, LXX); kat-o<rqw-ma (from kat-orqo<w, literary as Polyb., Diod., Strabo, Jos., Plut., Lucian and 3 Macc.); r[a<pis-ma (from r[api<zw, Antiph., Anthol., Lucian); stere<w-ma (from stereo<w, Arist., LXX). Blass38 calls attention to the fact that in the later Greek words in –ma, like those in –sij, –thj, --toj often prefer stems with a short vowel, as do<ma (do<sij), qe<ma (qe<sij), though this form is already in the older Doric, kli<-ma, kri<-ma, po<ma (Attic pw?ma). Hence a]na<qe-ma in N. T., though a]na<qhma in Lu. 21:5 (W. H. acc. to BLQG, etc.), and in the papyri "nouns in –ma are constantly showing short penult."39 But a]na<qema, like qe<ma and do<ma, belongs to the list of primary substantives.

Words in --thj (agent) are fairly numerous, like baptis-th<j (from bapti<zw, Jos.); bias-thj (from bia<zw. Pind., Pyth. and others use biata<j); goggus-th<j (from goggu<zw, Theodotion and Symm. translation of the LXX); e[llhnis-th<j (from e[llhni<zw, not in Greek authors, though e[llhni<zw is, as in Xen., Anab., and Strabo, etc.); e]corkis- th<j (from e]c-orki<zw, Jos., Lucian, eccl. writers); eu]aggelis-th<j (from eu]aggeli<zw, eccl. writers); kermatis-th<j (from kermati<zw, Nicet., Max. Tyr.); kollubij-thj (found in Men. and Lys.) has no verb kollubi<zw, but only ko<lluboj, a small coin; lutrw-th<j (from lutro<w, LXX and Philo); meris-th<j (from meri<zw, Pollux); pros-kunh-th<j (from proskune<w, inscriptions, eccl. and Byz.); stasias-th<j (from stasia<zw, Diod., Dion. Hal., Jos., Ptol.); teleiw-th<j (from teleio<w, only in Heb. 12:2).

A few late words in –th<r-ion (from –thr and –ion) occur as a]kroath< rion (from a]kroa<omai, Plut. and other koinh< writers) where --th<rion means ‘place’; i[las-th<rion (from i[la<skomai, LXX, inscriptions, papyri, Dio Chrys.) is a substantive in the N. T., made probably from the adjective i[lasth<rioj (cf. swth<rioj) and means ‘propitiatory gift’ or 'means of propitiation' and does not allude to the mercy seat40 or covering. However, in Heb. 9:5 i[lasth<rion does have the meaning of 'place of propitiation' or 'mercy seat' (cf. qumia-th<rion). Deissmann passed this passage by, though he is correct in Ro. 3:25. Cf. fulakth<rion.

(b) Those from substantives. Several words expressing place are formed after the fashion of the older Greek as a]fedrw<n (probably from the Macedonian a@fedroj, and that from e@dra and a]po<) which may be compared with koprw<n; brabei?on (from brabeu<j, Menand. Mon., Opp„ Lycoph., Clem. Rom.); e]laiw<n (from e@laion, like a]mpel-w<n from a@mpeloj, in the LXX, Jos., inscriptions and papyri),41 with which compare mulw<n (--w?noj) in Mt. 24:41 according to DHM and most cursives instead of mu<loj. Moulton (The Expositor, 1903, p. 111) has found foikw<n (—w?noj), 'palm-grove,' in A. P. 31 (112 B.C.). Ei]dwlei?on (–ion W. H.), found first in 1 Macc. and 1 Esd., is formed after the analogy of mouse-i?o-n. Telw<nion (from telw<nhj) is found in Strabo. Tetra<dion (Philo) is from tetra<j, the usual guard in the prisons. Several new words in —thj (quality) appear, as a]delfo<thj (from a]delfo<j, 1 Macc., 4 Macc., Dio Chrys., eccl. writers); qeo<-thj (from qeo<j, Lucian, Plut.); kurio<-thj (from ku<rioj, originally adj., eccl. and Byz. writers). Suro-foini<kissa is the text of xAKL, etc., in Mk. 7:26 as against Su<ra Foini<kissa in BEFG, etc. In either case foini<kissa, not foi<nissa (Text. Rec.) which is the usual feminine of foi<nic, as Ki<lissa is of Ki<lic. Lucian has a masculine Surofoi<nic and Justin Martyr a feminine Surofoini<kh. From this last foini<kissa probably comes. Cf. the use of basi<lissa, the Atticists preferring basili<j or basi<leia.

[Hr&diano<j (from [Hr&<dhj) and Xrist-iano<j (from Xristo<j) first appear in the N. T., and are modelled after Latin patronymics like Caesarianus (Kaisar-iano<j, Arrian-Epictetus). Blass42 goes unnecessarily far in saying that the N. T. form was Xrhst-iano<j (from Xhrsto<j), though, of course, i and h at this time had little, if any, distinction in pronunciation. Megista<n is from me<gistoj (as nea<n from ne<oj). Cf. Latin megistanes. Megista<n is found in LXX, Jos., Maneth. Plhmmu<ra (LXX, Dion. Hal., Jos., Philo) is from plh<mmh. There was, of course, no "Christian" or "biblical" way of forming words.

Diminutives are not so common in the N. T. as in the Byzantine and modern Greek43 where diminutives are very numerous, losing often their original force. Biblari<dion (a new form, but compare liqari<dion) is read in Rev. 10:2 by xACP against biblida<rion (fragment of Aristoph.) according to C* and most of the cursives and bibli<on (by B). Variations occur also in the text of verses 8, 9, 10. Gunaika<rion (from gunh<) is used contemptuously in 2 Tim. 3:6 (also in Antonin. and Epict.). ]Ixqu<dion (from i]xqu<j), klini<dion and klina<rion (from kli<nh) occur from Aristoph. on. Kora<sion (from ko<rh, called Maced. by Blass) is used disparagingly in Diog. Laert. and Lucian, but in LXX and Epict. as in the N. T. that is not true, though it hardly has the endearing sense (sometimes found in the diminutive) in kuna<rion (ku<nej='street-dogs'), but that sense appears often in paidi<on as in Jo. 21:5. ]Ona<rion (from o@noj) is found in Machon and Epictetus. ]Oya<rion (from o@yon) is found in Alexis and Lucian, and oyw<nion (likewise from o@yon) is used by Dion., Polyb., Jos., Apocrypha and papyri. Pteru<gion (from pte<ruc) comes from Arist. down, but yixi<on (from yi<c) does not appear elsewhere. Both w]ta<rion (Anthol., Anax.) and w]ti<on (LXX) are from ou#j, but have lost the diminutive idea, just as ma<ti in modern Greek means merely 'eye' (o]mma<tion). Blass44 indeed accuses Luke of atticising when he uses ou#j in Lu. 22:50.

(g) Those from adjectives. The new substantives derived from adjectives in the later Greek found in the N. T. all have suffixes expressing quality. With –i<a we find a]po-tom-i<a (from a]po<-tomoj, Diod., Dion., pap.); e]lafri<a (from e]lafro<j., cf. Lob., ad Phryn., p. 343. Cf. ai]sxr-i<a from ai]sxro<j, Eust.); parafron-i<a (from para<- frwn. Greek writers use parafro-su<nh, but cf. eu]daimon-i<a from eu]- dai<mwn). So perissei<a (from perisso<j, LXX, inscriptions, Byz.). W. H. use the ending –i<a with kakopa<qe-ia (from kakopaqh<j). With –su<nh several new words occur from adjectives in -oj, with the lengthening of the preceding vowel, as a]gaqw-su<nh (from a]gaqo<j, eccl.); a[giw-su<nh (from a!gioj, not in earlier Greek writers); megalw-su<nh (from stem mege<lo of me<gaj, LXX and eccl.). These forms are like i[erw-su<nh from i[ero<j (also in N. T.) which is as old as Herod. and Plato. Still megalo-su<nh and i[ero-su<nh are both found in inscriptions or in Glycas.45 Most of the words in –su<nh belong to the later language.46 ]Elehmo-su<nh (from e]leh<mwn, Callim. in Del., Diog. Laert., LXX), like other words in –su<nh, loses the n. So tapeino-fro-su<nh (Jos., Epict.).

Rather more numerous are the new words in -thj,47 as a[gio<-thj (from a!gioj, 2 Macc.); a[gno<-thj (from a[gno<j, inscriptions); a]dhlo<- thj (from a@dhloj, Polyb., Dion. Hal., Philo); a]felo<thj (from a]felh<j, eccl. writers, ancient Greek a]fe<leia); gumno<-thj (from gumno< j, Deut., Antonin.); mataio<-thj (from ma<taioj, LXX and eccl. writers); megaleio<-thj (from megalei?oj, Athen., Jer.); pio<-thj (from Arist., Theophr., LXX). ]Akaqa<r-thj (Rev. 17:4) is not supported by any Greek MSS.

The neuter (and often the masculine and feminine) of any adjective can be used as a substantive with or without the article, as to> doki<mion (from doki<mioj, Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 259 f., Dion. Hal., Long., LXX, papyri). Like meqo<rion (the Syrian reading for o!ria in Mk. 7:24) is prosfa<gion, (pros-fa<gioj, —on from pros-fa-gei?n inscriptions), sfa<gion (sfa<gioj, --on, sfagh<, Am., Ezek.), u[polh< nion (u[polh<nioj, -on, from u[po> lhno<n, Demiopr. in Poll., Geop., LXX. Cf. u[po-zu<gion). As already seen, i[las-th<rion is probably the neuter of the adjective i[las-th<rioj, —a, —on (from i[la<skomai). So fulakth< rion is th neuter of the adjective (fulak-th<rioj, —a, —on (from fulakth<r, fula<ssw), Dem., Diosc., Plut., LXX).48 Swth<rion and swthri<a (from swth<rioj) are both common in the old Greek as is the case with u[per-&?on (from u[per&?oj, -wioj). Zeuk-thri<a (from zeuk-th<rioj, only in Ac. 27:40) reverts to the abstract form in —i<a.

(c) ADJECTIVES.

1. Primary or Primitive Adjectives. These, of course, come from verbal roots. [Amar-wlo<j (from root a[mart-a<nw, Arist., Plut., LX , inscriptions) is like fei<d-wloj (4 Macc. 2:9), from fei<d-omai. Peiq-o<j (W. H. piq-o<j from pei<qw, as feid-o<j from fei<domai) is not yet found elsewhere than in 1 Cor. 2:4, but Blass49 regards it as "a patent corruption," peiqoi?j for peiqoi?. The evidence is in favour of peiqoi?j (all the uncials, most cursives and versions). Fa<goj (from root fag--) is a substantive in the N. T. with paroxytone accent as in the grammarians, the adjective being fag-o<j. The other new adjectives from roots in the N. T. are verbals in -toj. There is only one verbal (gerundive) in —te<oj (Lu. 5:38, elsewhere only in Basil), and that is neuter (blhte<on), "a survival of the literary language in Luke."50 The sense of capability or possibility is only presented by the verbal paqh-to<j (from root paq--, pa<sxw, eccl. writers). But the weakened sense of the verbal in —toj, more like an ordinary adjective, is very common in the later Greek.51 But they are rare in the modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 151). These verbals correspond to the Latin participle in —tus,52 like gnwsto<j, or to adjectives in —bilis, like o[rato<j. They are common in the N. T., though not many new formations appear. They are usually passive like grap-to<j (from gra<fw, Georg. apd., LXX), though pros-h<lu-toj (pros-e<rx-omai, root -hluq-, LXX, Philo) is active in sense. The ancient form was e@phluj. A number of new verbals were formed on compound words which will be discussed later. For the syntactical aspects of the verbal adjectives see discussion of the participle (cf. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 221).

2. Secondary or Derivative Adjectives.

(a) Those from verbs. Sitis-to<j (from siti<zw, Jos., Athen.) is to be mentioned. It is equivalent to the Latin saginatus and is passive in meaning.

(b) Those from substantives. Some new words in --inoj occur as a]mara<ntinoj (from a]ma<rantoj, Philost., inscriptions); kaqhmer-ino<j (from kaq ] h[me<ran, Athen., Plut., Jos.) is for ancient kaqhme<rioj; ko<kk-inoj is from ko<kkoj (LXX, Plut., Epict., papyri); o]rqr-ino<j (from o@rqroj, LXX, older form o@rqrioj), with which compare e]sper-ino<j (from e[spe<ra, from Xen. on) in the minusc. 1, 118, 209 (Lu. 12:38); prwino<j (so W. H., from prwi<, for the older prw<ioj, LXX, Plut., Athen., etc.); pu<r-inoj (from pu?r, Arist., LXX, Polyb., Plut.); taxino<j (from ta<xa) from Theocritus on (LXX also).

There are several words in –iko<j, like e]qniko<j (from e@qnoj, Polyb., Diod.); keram-iko<j (from ke<ramoj, Hipp., Plat. pol., LXX) which supplanted the earlier kera<mioj, kerameou?j; kuri-ako<j (from ku<rioj, -ako<j instead of —iko<j after i, eccl. writers) is found in papyri of Faytim and in inscriptions of Phrygia and Lydia.53 So leitourgiko< j (from leitourgi<a, LXX, papyri) and o]niko<j (from o@noj, in a contract in the Fayum Papyri dated Feb. 8, A.D. 33).

Of special interest are several words in -inoj and –iko<j. ]Ostra<linoj (from o@strakon, Hipp., Anthol., LXX), 'made of clay,' ‘earthen’; sa<rk-inoj (from sa<rc, Aristoph., Plato, Arist.) is thus not a new word, but is used in Heb. 7:16 and by Paul in 1 Cor. 3:1; Ro. 7:14 (correct text in each instance), where many MSS. have sark-iko<j. Indeed sa<rkinoj in these two passages must mean more than made of flesh or consisting in flesh, perhaps "rooted in the flesh" (Thayer).54 Cf. relation of a]lhq-ino<j to a]lhqe< j. Still a real distinction seems to be observed between sa<rkinoj and sark-iko<j in 1 Cor. 3:1 and 3:3. Sark-iko<j (from sa<rc, Arist., Plut., LXX) is a man who lives according to the flesh and is here opposed to those who are pneumat-ikoi<. (from pneu?ma, from Arist. down, but not in LXX, pertaining to the wind). But o[ yux-iko<j (from yuxh<, Arist., Polyb., down) is the man possessed of mere natural life (1 Cor. 2:14) as opposed to regenerate (pneumat-iko<j) life (1 Cor. 2:15). Sark-iko<j can be applied to either of these two distinct classes.55 But in 1 Cor. 3:3 e@ti ga>r sarkikoi< e]ste Paul reproaches the Corinthians. Proper names also have -iko<j, as ]Ebra-i*ko<j. Note accent in Tux-iko<j. [Rwma-i*ko<j (from [Rw<mh) is read in Lu. 23:38 by the Western and Syrian MSS., common in the literary koinh< (Polyb., Diod., etc.).

Ai]w<nioj, though found in Plato and Diod., is not a common adjective. But cf. LXX, 0. T. Apoc., Philo, inscriptions, papyri. Cf. Moulton and Milligan, Expositor, 1908, p. 174. Doki<mioj is from dokimh< (Dion. Hal., Long., LXX, papyri). Mi<sqioj is from misqo<j (LXX, Plut.), while [Rwmai?oj is common in the literary koinh<. Meli<ssioj (from me<lissa, like qala<ssioj from qa<lassa) is read by the Syrian class of documents in Lu. 24:42. The word occurs nowhere else, though Nic. has melissai?oj and Eustath. meli<sseioj.

(g) Those from adjectives. There are only a few new adjectives of this character, but they present special difficulties. About e]piou<sioj (found only in Mt. 6:11 and Lu. 11:3 and used with a@rtoj) there has raged a long controversy. It has been derived successively from e]pi< and ou]si<a, 'bread for sustenance,' though ou]si<a only has the sense of u!parcij in philosophical language (another theory, 'bread of substance' in the spiritual sense); from e]pi< and w@n (e]po<ntioj, e]pou<sioj, like e[kw<n, e[kou<sioj, etc.), 'bread for the present,' though the i in e]pi< is not allowed to remain with a vowel save when a digamma existed as in e]pieikh<j; from e]p-iw<n (e@p-eimi, ‘approach’), like h[ e]piou?sa (h[me<ra), ‘the next day’ (Ac. 16:11), this last a common idiom. Lightfoot56 has settled the matter in favour of the last position. See also h@remoj (from h]remh<j, adv. h]re<ma, Lucian, Eustath., Hesych); newteriko<j (from new<teroj, 3 Macc., Polyb., Jos.). In periou<sioj (from peri-w<n, peri<eimi, LXX) no serious problem in etymology arises, for peri< retains the i in composition with vowels. It is used with lao<j, to express the idea that Israel belongs to God as his very own.57 Pist-iko<j (from pisto<j, Plato, Diog., Dion. Hal., in sense of persuading, but Artem., Cedrenus and other late writers in sense of 'genuine') is hardly to be derived from pipi<skw or pi<w and hence= drinkable.' ‘Genuine nard’ is a much more probable meaning. For curious details see Winer-Schmiedel, p. 138, n. 24. Potapo<j is from the older podapo<j and occurs in Dion. Hal., Philo, Jos., papyri.

(d) Those from adverbs. From a@nw come a]nw<teroj (Polyb., LXX, Arist.) and a]nw-teriko<j (Hippoc., Galen); e]cw<-teroj (LXX, Strabo, etc.). See also e]sw<-teroj (only N. T.); katw<-teroj (Theoc., Hippoc., Athen.). Cf. Hagen, Bildung d. griech. Adverbien.

(d) THE ADVERB. The adverb feidomenwj (from the participle feido<menoj, Plut., Mosch., Alex.) is a new word of this nature. Cf. o[mologoume<nwj in the older Greek. So tuxo<n, o@ntwj and u[perballo<ntwj. The neuter accusative singular and plural of adjectives continue to be used adverbially. Baqe<wj occurs also in Theoc. and AElian. ]Akmh<n (Theoc., Polyb., Strabo) is in the inscriptions also as well as e]n a]kma?i (cf. Ditt., Syll. 326, 12). ]Ebrai*sti< (Sirach) is properly formed (cf. [Ellhnisti<) from ]Ebrai j. ]Ioudai*kw?j is in Jos. See also e]qnikw?j (Apoll. Dysc., Diog. Laert.). Ei#ten (correct text Mk. 4:28) is a rare Ionic form for ei#ta (papyri also). Kenw?j is used from Arist. on. ]Oli<gwj occurs out of the N. T. only in Anthol. and Aquila. Prw<twj (correct text Ac. 11:26) occurs here for the first time. [Rhtw?j is found in Polyb., Strabo, Plut. [Rwmai*sti< is common in the literary koinh< (Plut., App., etc.) and in Epictetus. Swmatikw?j comes from Aristotle and Plutarch. Tupikw?j is in the ecclesiastical writers. Fusikw?j is in Aristotle, Philo, etc. Mayser (Gr., pp. 455-459) has a good list of derivative adverbs. See ch. VII for full discussion of the formation of the adverb.

IV. Words Formed by Composition (Composita). The Greek in the Ptolemaic papyri is not equal to modern German in the facility with which agglutinative compound words (dipla? Aristotle termed them) are formed, but it is a good second. The N. T. writers make use of many of the new compounds (some new kinds also), but not more than the literary koinh<, though more than the Atticists or Purists.58 The following lists will show how fond the N. T. is of double prepositional compounds like a]nt-ana-plhro<w, a]po-kat-alla<ssw, e]pi-sun-a<gw, sun-anti-lamba<nomai, etc. So also compound prepositional adverbs like e]nw<pion, katenw<pion, kate<nanti, etc. On the whole subject of compound words in the Ptolemaic papyri see Mayser, Gr., pp. 466-506. Compound words played an increasing role in the koinh<. Cf. Jannaris, op. cit., p. 310. See in particular F. Schubert, Zur mchrfachen preifixalen Zusammensetzung im Griechischen, Xenia Austriaca, 1893, pp. 191 ff.

(a) KINDS OF COMPOUND WORDS IN GREEK: proper composition (su<nqesij), copulative composition (para<qesij), derivative composition (parasu<nqesij). In the first class the principal idea is expressed by the second part of the word, while the first and qualifying part is not inflected, but coalesces with the second, using merely the stem with connective vowel. As an example take oi]ko-no<moj, 'manager of the house.' The second kind of composition, paratactic or copulative, is the mere union of two independent words like para<-klhtoj. It is not common in the old Greek save in the case of prepositions with verbs, and even this usage is far more frequent in the later Greek. It is seen in many late compound adverbs as in u[per-a<nw. The third or derivative composition is a new word made on a compound, whether proper or copulative, as ei]dwlo-latri<a (or –ei<a) from ei]dwlo-latreu<w. The above classification is a true grammatical distinction, but it will be more serviceable to follow a more practical division of the compound words into two classes. Modern linguists do not like the term "proper composition." In principle it is the same as copulative.

(b) INSEPARABLE PREFIXES. These make a cross-line in the study of compound words. They enter into the formation of verbs, substantives, adjectives and adverbs. By prefixes here is not meant the adverbs and prepositions so commonly used in composition, but the inseparable particles a]- (a]n–) privative, a]-- collective or intensive, a]rxi--, dus--, h[mi--, nh--. As examples of such new formations in the N. T. may be taken the following substantives and adjectives (chiefly verbals) with a]– privative: a]-barh<j (from Arist. down, papyri, in metaphysical sense); a]-genea-lo<ghtoj (LXX); a@-gnafoj (Thom. Mag.); a]-gno<hma (0. T. Apoc., papyri); a]gri-e<laioj (Arist., papyri); a]-gnoe<w (Apoc., papyri); a]-dhlo<thj (Polyb., Dion. Hal., Philo); a]-dia<-kritoj (from Hippocrates down); a]-dia<-leiptoj (Tim. Loer., Attic inscriptions, i/B.C.); a]-dia-=fqroi<a (not in ancient Greek); a]-dunate<w (LXX, ancient Greek means ‘to be weak’); a]-qe<mitoj (for earlier a]-qe<mistoj); a@-qesmoj (LXX, Diod., Philo, Jos., Plut.); a]-qete<w (LXX, Polyb.); a]-kaire<w (Diod.); a]-qe<thsij (Diog. Laert., eccl. writers, papyri); a]-kata<-gnwstoj (2 Macc., eccl. writers, inscriptions, papyri); a]-kata-ka<luptoj (Polyb., LXX, Philo); a]-kata<-kritoj (earliest example); a]-kata<- lutoj (4 Macc., Dion. Hal.); a]-kata<-pastoj (found only here. This is the reading of AB in 2 Pet. 2:14 rather than a]-kata<- paustoj, verbal of katapau<w, found in Polyb., Diod., Jos., Plut., cf. W. H., App., p. 170; Moulton, Prol., p. 47); a]-kata-stasi<a (Polyb., Dion. Hal., papyri); a]-kata<-statoj (Hippoc., Polyb., LXX); a]-kata<-sxetoj (LXX, Diod.); a]-kuro<w (Diod., Dion. Hal., Plut., 1 Esdr.); a]-la<lhtoj (Anth. Pal.); a]-me<qustoj (LXX, Dion. Hal., Plut.); a]-meta<-qetoj (Polyb., LXX, Diod., Plut., inscriptions); a]-meta-no<htoj (Lucian, Philo, papyri); a]n-a]nti<-rhtoj (from Polyb. down, inscriptions); a]n-apo-lo<ghtoj (Polyb., Dion. Hal., Plut.); a]n-ek-di-h<ghtoj (Clem. Horn., Athen.); a]n-e<k-leiptoj (Diod., Plut., papyri); a]n-e<n-dektoj (Artem., Diog. Laert., eccl., Byz.); a]n-ecereu< nhtoj (LXX, Symm., Dio Cass.); a]n-ec-ixni<astoj (LXX, eccl. writers); a]n-ep-ai<sxuntoj (Jos.); a]n-eu<-qetoj (Moschion); a]n-i<lewj (reading in Jas. 2:13 of L, other MSS. have a]n-e<leoj, old Greek a]n-hleh<j); a@-nomoj (LXX, a]-nomi<a from Thuc.); a]n-upo<-taktoj (Artem., Philb); a]-para<-batoj (Jos., Plut., papyri, etc.); a]-peirastoj (Jos., eccl., old Greek a]-pei<ratoj); a]-peri<-tmhtoj (LXX, Philo, Plut.); a]-pro<s-itoj (lit. koinh<); a]-pro<s-kopoj (Sir., Sext., inscriptions); a@-rafoj (LXX, Jos.); a@-spiloj (Anthol., eccl.); a]-state<w (Anthol.); a]-stoxe<w (Polyb., Plut., Lucian, papyri); a]-sth<riktoj (Anthol.); a]-felo<thj (eccl. writers); a@-fqartoj (Arist., Wisd., Plut., inscriptions); a]-fila< gaqoj (papyri and 2 Tim. 3:3); a]-fil-a<rguroj (Diod., Hippoc., inscriptions, papyri).59

With a]rxi-- (from a@rxw) we have a]rx-a<ggeloj (eccl.); a]rx-ieratiko< j (inscr., Jos.); a]rx-iereu<j (LXX, inscr.); a]rxi-poimh<n (Test. of 12 Patr., wooden tablet from Egypt, Deissmann, Exp. Times, 1906, p. 61); a]rxi-sun-a<gwgoj (inscr., eccl.); a]rxi-telw<nhj (only in Lu. 19:2); a]rxi-tri<-klinoj (Heliod., cf. sumposi-a<rxhj in Sirach). Cf. a]rxi-fulaki<thj, P.Tb. 40 (B.C. 117), a]rxi-desmo-fu<lac (LXX).

With a]— connective or intensive are formed a]-neyio<j (for a]-neptio< j, LXX, cf. Lat. con-nepot-ius), a]-teni<zw (Polyb., Diod., Jos., Lucian).60

With dus-- we have dus-ba<staktoj (LXX, Philo, Plut.); dusente< rion (late form, correct text in Ac. 28:8, older form dus-enteri<a); dus-ermh<neutoj (Diod., Philo, Artem.); dus-no<htoj (Arist. Diog. Laert.); dus-fhmi<a (LXX, Dion. Hal., Plut.).

With h[mi-- (cf. Lat. semi) are found only h[mi-qanh<j (Dion. Hal., Diod., LXX, Strabo), h[mi<-wron, (so W. H., Strabo, Geop., xP have --w<rion). Cf. h!misuj.

For nh— note nhpia<zw (Hippoc., eccl.).

(c) AGGLUTINATIVE COMPOUNDS (Juxtaposition or Parathesis). This sort of composition includes the prepositions and the copulative composition (dvandva). This last is much more common in the koinh< than in the older Greek. Cf. Jannaris, op. cit., p. 310, and Mayser, Gr., p. 469.

1. Verbs. The new compound verbs are made either from compound substantives or adjectives or by combining adverbs with a verb-stem or noun-stem or by adding a preposition to the older verb. This last method is very frequent in the later Greek due to "a love for what is vivid and expressive."61 This embellishment of the speech by compounds is not absent from the simplest speech, as Blass62 shows in the case of Titus, where over thirty striking compound words are found, omitting verbals and other common ones. Moulton (Cl. Quarterly, April, 1908, p. 140) shows from the papyri that the compound verb is no mark of the literary style, but is common in the vernacular also. The preposition fills out the picture as in a]nti-metre<w (Lucian), and so a]nti-lamba<nw (Diod., Dio Cass., LXX). So also observe the realistic form of the preposition in e]c-astra<ptw (LXX, Tryphiod.) in Lu. 9:29; kata-liqa<zw (eccl. writings) in Lu. 20:6. The modern Greek even combines two verbs to make a compound, as paizw-gelw?. As examples of new compound verbs may be given a]gaqouge<w, a]gaqoerge<w, in 1 Tim. 6:18 (eccl.); a]gaqo-poie<w (LXX, later writers); a]ll-gore<w (Philo, Jos., Plut., grammatical writers); a]na-za<w (inscriptions, later writers); a]na-qewr-e<w (Diod., Plut., Lucian); a]nastato<- w (LXX, papyri); a]n-eta<zw (LXX, papyri); a]nti-dia-ti<qhmi (Philo, eccl. writers); a]nti-par-e<xro-mai (Anthol., Sap., eccl. writers, Byz.); a]nt-ofqalme<w (Sap., Polyb., eccl. writers); a]p-elpi<zw (LXX, Polyb., Diod., inscriptions); a]po-gra<fomai (papyri); a]po-qhsauri<zw (Sir., Diod., Jos., Epict.); a]po-kefali<zw (LXX, Epict., etc.); au]qente< w (Polyb., papyri); gonu-pete<w (Polyb., Heliod., eccl. writers); dia-gnwri<zw (Philo, schol. in Bekk.); dia-goggu<zw (LXX, Heliod., Byz.); dia-grhgore<w (Herod., Niceph.); di-auga<zw (Polyb., Plut.); dia-fhmi<zw (Aratus, Dion. Hal.); di-ermhneu<w (2 Macc. Pilyb., Philo); di-odeu<w (LXX, Polyb., Plut.); doul-agwge<w (Diod. Sic. and on); ei]rhno-poie<w (LXX, Hermes); e]k-dapana<w (Polyb.); e]k-dike<w (LXX, Apo11., Diod.); e]m-bateu<w (inscr.); e]n-kani<zw (LXX); e]nkake< w (Polyb., Symm. translation of LXX, Philo, Clem. Rom.); e]n-xri<w (Tob., Strabo, Anthol., Epict.); e]c-arti<zw (Jos., Hipp.); e]c-isxu<w (Sir., Strabo, Plut.); e[pi-skhno<w (Polyb.); e]pi-fau<skw (LXX, Acta Thom.); e]pi-xorhge<w (Dion. Hal., Phal., Diog. Laert., Alex. Aphr.); e[tero-didaskale<w (eccl. writers); e[tero-zuge<w (LXX); eu]-areste<w (LXX, Philo, Diod.); eu]doke<w (probably simply from eu# and doke<w, as there is no such form as do<koj or eu@dokoj and cf. kara-doke<w in Polyb., Diod., Dion. Hal.); eu]qu-drome<w (Philo); eu]-kaire<w (from Polybius on, papyri); eu]-pros-wpe<w (P. Tb., Chrys.); qhrio-maxe<w (Diod., Artem., Ign.); zwo-gone<w (Theophr., Diod., Lucian, Plut.); zwo-poie<w (Arist., Theophr., LXX); kak-ouxe<w (from obsolete kak-ou?xoj, i.e. kako<n, e@xw, LXX, Diod., Dio Cass., Plut.); kalo-poie<w (Etym. Magn., LXX, Philo); kata-bare<w (Polyb., Diod., App., Lucian papyri); kat-agwni<zwomai (Polyb., Jos., Lucian, Plut., AElian); kat-anta<w (Polyb., Diod., eccl. writers, papyri); kata-klhro-dote<w (LXX); kata-pone<w (2 and 3 Macc., Hipp., Polyb., Diod., Jos., AEl., etc.); kat-ec-ousia<zw (only N. T.); kat-optri<zw (Athen., Diog. Laert., Philo); if the conjectural ken-em-bateu<w in Col. 2:18 be correct (as is now no longer probable), ken-emba< thj has to be presupposed; la-tome<w (LXX, Diod., Dion. Hal., Strabo); liqo-bole<w (LXX, Diod., Plut.); logo-maxe<w (only instance in 2 Tim. 2:14); makro-qume<w (LXX, Plut.); meq-ermhneu<w (Polyb., Diod., Sir., Plut.); meta-morfo<w (Diod., Philo); metrio-paqe<w (Philo, Jos.); mosxo-poie<w (LXX and eccl. writers); mu-wpa<zw (Arist.); oi]kodespote< w (Lucian, Plut.); o[mei<romai is a puzzle (Fritzsche derives it from o[mou? and ei@rw, but other compounds with o[mou? have instrumental- associative, not genitive case, as o[mi-le<w, from o!miloj (o[mou?, i@lh) Photius and Theophr. get it from o[mou? h[rmo<sqai; but, as Nicander uses mei<romai i[mei<romai, modern editors print o[meiro< menoi in 1 Th. 2:8 (o]-- W. H., elsewhere only in Job and Symm., Ps. 62); o]rqo-pode<w (only instance); o]rqo-tome<w (LXX, eccl. writers); o]xlo-poie<w (only in Ac. 17:5); para-boleu<omai (inscr. ii,/A.D.); par-eis-e<rxomai (Polyb., Philo, Plut.); peri-la<pw (Diod., Jos., Plut.); plhro-fore<w (LXX, eccl. writers); pro-elpi<zw (Posid., Dexipp., Greg. N.); pros-eggi<zw (LXX, Polyb., Diod., Lucian); pros-klhro<w (Philo, Plut., Lucian); proswpo-lhmpte<w (N. T. word); sun-auca<nw (LXX, inscriptions); sun-aposte<llw (LXX, papyri, inscriptions); strato-loge<w (Diod., Dion. Hal., Jos., Plut., etc.); sun-upo-kri<nomai (Polyb., Plut.) and many other verbs with sun; tekto-gone<w (Anthol.); tekno-trofe<w (Arist.); tetra-arxe<w (Jos.); tropo-fore<w (LXX and eccl. writers, so W. H. with xBDHLP, etc., in Ac. 13:18); trofo-fore<w (LXX and eccl. writers, so ACE and some cursives in Ac. 13:18); u[per-pleona<zw (Ps. Sal, Herond., Herm.); u[po-limpa<nw (Themist., Dion. Hal., eccl. and Byz.); filo-prwteu<w (Artem., Plut.); fren-apata<w (eccl. and Byz. writers); xrono-tribe<w (Arist., Plut., Heliod., Byz. writers). Thus, it will be noticed, verbs compounded with nouns are very common in the koinh<.

Often two prepositions are used in composition with the same verb, where the proper meaning must be given to each. The use of double prepositional compounds grew rapidly in the koinh<; cf. Schmid, Att. IV, pp. 708 ff. Mayser gives a long list in the Ptol. papyri (Gr., pp. 497-504), some of which are old and some new. Of 162 examples 96 are new. The N. T. is in perfect accord with the koinh< here. So it is with a]nti-par-e<rxomai (Anthol., Wisdom, eccl. and Byz. writers) in Lu. 10:31; a]nt-ana-plhro<w Col. 1:24 (Dem., Dio Cass., Apoll. Dysc.); a]nti-dia-ti<qhmi (Philo, Diod.); a]po-kat-alla<ssw (not in old Greek), e]pi-dia-ta<ssomai (only in N. T.); e]pi-sun-a<gw (LXX, AEsop, Polyb.); kat-ec-ousia<zw (only in N. T.); par-eis-e<rxomai (Polyb., Philo, Plut.); pro-en-a<rxomai (only in N. T.); sun-ana-mi<gnumi (LXX, Plut.); sun-ana-pau<omai (LXX, Dion. Hal., Plut.); sun-anti-lamba<nomai (LXX, Diod., Jos., inscriptions, papyri); u[per-ek-xu<nw (LXX) u[per-en-tugxa<nw (eccl.). There is in the papyri (P. Th. I, 66) a triple prepositional compound, pro-ant-an-aire<w.

2. Substantives. Here again the new compound substantive draws on verbs, substantives, adjectives, adverbs and prepositions for part or all of the word. There are also double compound substantives from compound substantives, adjectives, adverbs and prepositions like proswpolhyi<a, a]llotriepi<skopoj, diaparatribh<. The great majority have substantive or adjective for the second half of the word. These nouns are more often abstract than concrete. ]Agaqo-poii<a (from adjective and verb-stem, eccl. writers); a]gaqopoio<j (adjective and verb-stem, Sirach, Plut. and later papyri); a]rgi-e]laioj (from a@grioj and e@laioj, Arist.); ai[mat-ek-xusi<a (from substantive, preposition and verb xu<nw, eccl. writers); a]kro-busti<a (LXX); a]lektoro-fwni<a (AEsop, Strabo, eccl. writers); a]llotri-epi<- skopoj (from a]llo<trioj and e]pi<-skopoj, Dion. Areop., eccl. writers. Deissmann finds a synonym for the word in a]llotri<wn e]piqumhth> j, Fayum Papyri. See Bible Studies, p. 224); a@mf-odon (LXX, Aristoph., Hyper., papyri); a]na<-xusij (Sir., Polyb., Plut.); a]nau< patoj in the ethical sense (LXX, Polybius on, inscriptions in Pergamum and Magnesia); a]na<-deicij (Strabo, Philo, Plut.); a]nastrofh< (Polyb., Dion. Hal., Lucian, Plut., inscriptions); a]nti<-lutron (one translation of Ps. 48:9, Orph.); a]nti<-xristoj (probably formed by John, eccl.); a]rguro-ko<poj (Plut., LXX, papyri); a]rsenokoi< thj (Anthol., eccl.); a]po-kara-doki<a (verb –e<w in LXX, Jos., Plut.); a]si-a<rxhj (inscriptions, Polyc.); gazo-fula<kion (LXX, Jos., Strabo); glwsso<-komon (earlier glwssokoumei?on, LXX, Jos., Plut., Longin., inscriptions, papyri); deisi-daimoni<a (Polyb., Diod., Jos., Plut.); desmofu< lac (Jos., Lucian, Artem., a]rxi-desmo-fu<lac, LXX); di-ermh-ni<a (only in AD 1 Cor. 12:10; di-ermhneuth<j probably correct 1 Cor. 14:28, xAKL against e[rmhneuth<j by BDFG); dia-para-tribh< (not found elsewhere) is the correct text for 1 Tim. 6:5, not paradia- tribh<, which may be compared with para-kata-qh<-kh in 2 Tim. 1:12, but para-qh<-kh (Herod., LXX, inscriptions, papyri) is the true reading; dwdeka<-fulon (Clem. of Rome, N. T. Apoc.); dikaiokrisi< a (Test. xii Pat., eccl., papyri); dwro-fori<a is read by MSS. BDFG against diakoni<a in Ro. 15:31; e]qelo-qrhski<a (from verb e]qe<lw and qrhski<a, eccl., cf. e]qelo-doulei<a); ei]dwlo-latrei<a (W. H. –i<a, two substantives, eccl.) and ei]dwlo-la<trhj (eccl.); ei]li-kri<neia (LXX, Theophr. Sext., Stob.); e]k-plh<rwsij (2 Macc., Dion. Hal., Philo, Strabo); e]k-te<neia (2 Macc., Judith, inscriptions); e@n-edron (late form of e]ne<dra, LXX); e]c-ana<-sta-sij (double compound, Polyb.); e]pi-sun-agwgh< (double compound, 2 Macc., inscriptions, Artem., Ptol.); e]pi-su<-stasij (double compound, LXX, Philo, Sext.); e]pixorhgi< a (eccl.); eu]-doki<a (LXX, inscriptions); eu]r-aku<lwn (a hybrid from eu#roj and Lat. aquilo, like auto-mobile; so W. H. for Text. Rec. eu]ro-klu<dwn in Ac. 27:14, which is Etym. Magn. alone); h[du<-osmoj (Strabo, Theophr.); ]Iero-solumei<thj (Jos.); kalli-e<laioj (Arist.); kalo-dida<skaloj (only in Tit. 2:3); kardio-gnw<sthj (eccl. writers); kat-aggeleu<j (inscriptions); kata<-qema (only in Rev. 22:3); kata<-krima (Sir., Dion. Hal., papyri); kata<-leima (xaDEFGKLP in no. 9:27 for u[po<-l, LXX, Gal.); kat-h<gwr (papyri; cf. Deissmann, Light, p. 90; Radermacher, Gr., p. 15); kata<-luma (LXX, Polyb, Diod.); kata-pe<tasma (LXX, Jos., Aristeas, Philo, inscriptions); keno-doci<a (4 Macc., Polyb., Philo, Plut., Lucian); kosmokra< twr (Orph., eccl. writers, inscriptions); kwmo<-polij (Strabo, Ag. and Theod., eccl.); logo-maxi<a (only in 1 Tim. 6:4); mataio-logi<a (Plut., Porph.); meso-nu<k-tion (Arist., LXX, koinh< writers); meso<- toixon (Erat.); mes-oura<nhma (Manetho, Plut.); met-oikesi<a (LXX, Anthol.); misq-apo-dosi<a and -do<thj (eccl.); mwro-logi<a (Arist., Plut.); nomo-dida<skaloj (eccl.); nuxq-h<meron (Alex., App., Geop.); oi]ko-despo<thj (Alexis, Jos., Plut., Ign., etc.); oi]ko-domh< (possibly Arist., Theophr., certainly LXX, Diod., Philo, Jos., Plut., condemned by Phrynichus); oi]no-po<thj (Polyb., LXX, Anthol., Anacr.); o]ligo-pisti<a (eccl. and Byz.); o[lo-klhri<a (LXX, Diog. Laert., Plut.); o[rk-wmosi<a (LXX, Jos., ta> o[rk-wmo<sia in Attic); o[ro-qesi<a (eccl.); o]fqalmo-douli<a (only instance is in N. T.); palin-genesi<a (Philo, Longin., Lucian, Plut); panto-kra<twr (LXX, eccl., Anthol.); para<-klhtoj (Aq. Theod., Diog. Laert., Dio Cass., papyri, inscriptions); para-xeimasi<a (Polyb., Diod.); parti-a<rxhj (LXX); peri<-qesij (Arr., Gal., Sext.); peri-ka<q-arma (LXX, Epict., Curt.); peri-oxh< (Theophr., Diod., Plut., etc.); peri-tomh< (LXX, Jos., papyri); peri-yhma (Tob., Ign.); prau-paqi<a (Philo, Ign.); proau< lion (Pollux); pro-sa<bbaton (LXX, eccl.); pros-ai<thj (lit. koinh<); pro<s-komma (LXX, Plut.); pro-sa<bbaton (inscriptions, 81 A.D.); pros-kunhth<j (inscriptions, eccl., Byz.); pros-fa<gion (inscriptions, o@yon ]Attikw?j, pros-fa<gion [Ellhhnikw?j, Moeris); proswpo-lh<mpthj (Chrys.); proswpo-lhmyi<a (eccl.); prwto-kaqedri<a (eccl.; prwto-klisi<a (eccl. writers); prwto-to<kia (LXX, Philo, Byz.); r[abd-ou?xoj (r[a<bdoj, e@xw, literary koinh<); r[adi-ou<rghma (literary koinh<), eccl.); sard-o<nuc (Jos., Plut., Ptol.); sito-me<trion (Polyb., Diod., Jos., inscriptions); skhno-phgi<a (Arist., LXX, Philo, inscriptions); skhno-poio<j (AElian, eccl.); sklhro-kardi<a (LXX); strato-pe<d-arxoj, --a<rxhj (reading of Syrian class in Ac. 28:16), though critical text rejects both (Dion. Hal., Jos., Lucian); suko-more<a (Geop.); various new words with su<n, like sun-aixma<lwtoj, sun-kata<-qes-ij, sun-klhrono<moj (Philo, inscriptions); sun-koinwno<j, sun-odi<a (LXX, Strabo, Jos., Epict., Plut.); sun-pres-bu<teroj, su<n-trofoj (LXX), etc.; tapeino-frosu<nh (Jos., Epict.); tekno-goni<a (Arist.); tetra-a<rxhj (Strabo, Jos.); ui[oqesi< a (Diod., Diog. Laert., inscriptions); u[per-e<keina (Byz. and eccl.); u[po-grammo<j (2 Macc., Philo, eccl.); u[po<-leimma (from u[po-lei<pw, LXX, Arist., Theoph., Plut., Galen); u[po<-lh<nion (LXX, Demioph.); u[po-po<dion (LXX, Lucian, Att.); in u[po-stolh< (Jos., Plut.); u[po-tagh< (Dion. Hal.); u[po-tu<pwsij (Sext. Emp., Diog. Laert.); fren-a[pa<thj (papyri, eccl. writers); xalko-li<banon (LXX); xeiro<-grafon (Polyb.; Dion. Hal., Tob., Plut., Artem., papyri); xre-ofeile<thj (from xre<oj or xre<wj and o]feile<thj, LXX, AEsop, Plut., Dion. Hal.); xrhsto-logi<a (Eust., eccl. writers); xruso<-liqoj (Diod., LXX, Jos.); xruso<-prasoj (only in Rev. 21:20); yeud-adelfo<j, yeud-apo<stoloj yeudo-dida<skaloj, yeudo<-xristoj are all compounds of yeudh<j and are N.T. words; yeudo-profh<thj (ancient Greek yeudo<mantij) is found in LXX, Philo, Jos.; yeudo<-martuj (LXX) and yeudo-marturi<a both go back to Plato and Aristotle. The papyri show many examples of such compounds. Cf. kwmo-grammateu<j, P. Tb 40 (B.C. 117).

3. Adjectives. It will not be necessary to repeat the adjectives formed with inseparable prefixes (a]--, etc. The method of many grammars in dividing the compounds according to the element in the first or second part has not been followed here. It is believed that the plan adopted is a simpler and more rational exposition of the facts. These adjectives are compounded of two adjectives like o]ligo<-yuxoj, an adjective and substantive like a]kro-gwniai?oj or vice versa a]nqrwp-a<reskoj; a substantive and a verbal like xeiro-poih<toj; a preposition and a verb like sum-paqh<j, with two prepositions and verbal like par-ei<j-aktoj; an adverb and a preposition and a verbal like eu]-pro<s-dektoj, etc. The adjective compounds used in the N. T. characteristic of the koinh< are somewhat numerous. ]Agaqo-poio<j (Sirach, Plut.); a]gri-e<laioj (Anthol.); a]kro-gwniai?oj (eccl.); a]llo-genh<j (LXX and Temple inscriptions meant for gentiles to read); a]n-eci<-kakoj (from a]na<, e@xomai and kako<j, Lucian, Justin M., Poll., papyri); a]nqrwp-a<reskoj (LXX, eccl.); a]po<-dektoj (Sext. Emp., Plut., inscriptions); a]po-suna< gwgoj (2 Esclr.); a]rti-ge<nnhtoj (Lucian, Long.); au]to<-kata<-kritoj (eccl. writers); baru<-timoj (Strabo); gra-w<dhj (from grau?j, ei#doj, Strabo, Galen); decio-la<boj (true reading in Ac. 23:23, late eccl. writers); deutero-prw?toj (cf. deuter-e<sxatoj, only MSS. in Lu. 6:1); di-qa<lassoj (Strabo, Dio Chrys., eccl.); di<-yuxoj (eccl.); e@k-qamboj (Polyb., eccl.); e]k-tenh<j (Polyb., Philo); e@k-tromoj (only in xD Heb. 12:21, other MSS., e@n-tromoj, LXX, Plut.); e@k-foboj (Arist., Plut.); e]pi-qana<tioj (Dion. Hal.); e]pi-po<qhtoj (eccl.); e[tero<-glwssoj (LXX, Strabo, Philo); eu]-a<restoj (Wisd., eccl., inscr., but Xen. has eu]are<stewj) eu@-kopoj (Polyb., LXX); eu]-loghto<j (LXX, Philo); eu]-meta<-dotoj (Anton.); eu]-pa<r-edroj (for Text. Rec. eu]-pro<sedroj, Hesych.); eu]-peri<-statoj (only in Heb. 12:1); eu]-pro<s-dektoj Plut., eccl.); eu]ru<-xwroj (Arist., LXX, Diod., Jos.); eu@-splagxnoj (Hippoc., LXX, eccl. writers); qeo-di<daktoj (eccl.); qeo<pneustoj (Plut., Phoc., eccl. writers, inscriptions); i]s-a<ggeloj (cf. i]so<-qeoj, Philo, eccl.); i]so<-timoj (cf. i]so<yuxoj, Philo, Jos., Plut., Lucian, AElia, etc.); kaqhmerino<j (from kaq ] h[me<ran, Judith, Theophr., Athen., Plut., Alciph., Jos.); kat-ei-dwloj (only in Ac. 17:16); keno<-docoj (Polyb., Diod., Philo, Anton., eccl. writers); la-ceuto<j (LXX); leti-ourgiko<j (LXX, eccl. writers); makro-xro<nioj (LXX, Hipp., Agath.); mataio-lo<goj (Telest.); mogi-la<loj (LXX, schol. to Lucian); neo<-futoj (LXX, papyri, Aristophanes?); o]kta-h<meroj (eccl. writers); o]ligo<-pistoj (only in N. T.); o]ligo<-yuxoj (LXX, Artem.); o[lo-telh<j (Plut., Hexapla, eccl. writers); pan-ou?rgoj (Arist., koinh<, LXX); para-lutiko<j (eccl. writers); par-ei]j-aktoj (Strabo); par-epi<-dhmoj (Polyb., Athen., LXX); patro-para<-dotoj (Diod., Dion. Hal., eccl. writers); pente-kai-de<katoj (Diod., Plut., etc.); polla-plasi<wn (Polyb., Plut., etc.); polu<-splagxnoj (LXX, Theod. Stud.); polu<-timoj (Plut., Herodian, Anatol.); potomofo< rhtoj (only in Rev. 12:15 and Hesyeh.); pro-batiko<j (from pro<-baton, LXX, Jo. 5:2); pro<s--kairoj (4 Macc., Jos., Dio Cass., Dion. Hal., Strabo, Plut., Herodian); pro-fhtiko<j (Philo, Lucian, eccl.); prwto<-tokoj (LXX, Philo, Anatol., inscriptions, eccl.); shto<- brwtoj (LXX, Sibyll. Or.); sklhro-tra<xhloj (LXX); skwlhko<-brwtoj (Theophr.); su<m-morfoj (Lucian, Nicand.); sum-paqh<j (LXX); su<nyuxoj (eccl. writers); sun-ek-lekto<j (only in 1 Pet. 5:13); su<n-swmoj (eccl. writers); su-statiko<j (Ding. Laert.); tapeino<-frwn (from tapeino< j, frh<n, LXX, Plut.); tri<-stegoj (Dion. Hal., Jos., Symm.); fqin-opwrino<j (Arist., Polyb., Strabo, Plut.); fil-agaqo<j (Arist., Polyb., Wisd., Plut., Philo); fi<l-autoj (Arist., Philo, Plut., Jos., Sext.); fil-h<donoj (Polyb., Plut., Lucian, etc.); filo<-qeoj (Arist., Philo, Lucian, etc.); fren-apa<thj (eccl. writers); xeir-agwgo<j (Artem., Plut., etc.); xeiro-poi<htoj (LXX, Polyb., Dion. Hal., papyri); xruso-daktu<lioj (Jas. 2:2, elsewhere only in Hesych.). It will be apparent from this list how many words used in the N. T. appear first in Aristotle or the literary koinh<. Aristotle was no Atticist and broke away from the narrow vocabulary of his contemporaries. Many of these late words are found in the papyri and inscriptions also, as is pointed out. But we must remember that we have not learned all that the papyri and inscriptions have to teach us. Cf. also the numeral adjective deka-tessarej (LXX, Polyb., papyri).63 See further chapter VII, Declensions.

4. Adverbs. The late Greek uses many new adverbs and new kinds of adverbs (especially compounds and prepositional adverbs). For list of the new prepositional adverbs see chapter on prepositions. These are usually formed either from adjectives like e]n-w<pion (neuter of e]n-w<pioj) or by composition of preposition and adverb as in u[per-a<nw, or preposition and adjective as in e]k-peris- sou?), or two or more prepositions (prepositional adverbs as in a]p-e<n-anti), or a preposition and a noun-root as in a]po-to<mwj, or a substantive and a verb as in noun-exw?j, or an adjective and a substantive as in pan-plhqei<, or an adjective and an adverb as in pa<n-tote, or a preposition and a pronoun as in e]c-auth?j. In a word, the compound adverb is made from compound adjectives, substantives, verbs with all sorts of combinations. The koinh< shows a distinct turn for new adverbial combinations and the N. T. illustrates it very clearly. Paul, especially, doubles his adverbs as in u[perek- perissou?. These adverbs are generally formed by parathetic composition and are used as prepositions in the later Greek, incorrectly so according to Blass.64 But it must be remembered that the koinh< developed according to its own genius and that even the Atticists could not check it. In Luke pan-plhqei<, (Lu. 23:18) and pan-oikei< (Ac. 16:34) are not derived from adjectives or previous adverbs, but from substantives (perhaps assoc. instr.). As to the use of adverbs as prepositions, all prepositions were originally adverbs (cf. e]n-anti<on). In the later language we simply can see the process of development in a better state of preservation. No magical change has come over an adverb used with a case. It is merely a helper of the case-idea and is part of the analytic linguistic development.

The chief compound adverbs used in the N. T. characteristic of the koinh< are here given. As the list of adverbs is much smaller than those of verbs, substantives and adjectives, compounds with a]-- privative are included here. ]A-dia-lei<ptwj (Polyb., Diod., Strabo, 1 Macc., papyri); a]na<-meson and a]na<-meroj is the Text. Rec. in Rev. 7:17 and 1 Cor. 14:27, but this is not the modern editing, rather a]na> me<son, etc.; a]n-anti-rh<twj (Polyb., etc.); a]nti-pe<ra (Xen. a]nti-pe<ran, Polyb., etc.); a]p-e<nanti (Polyb., LXX, papyri and inscriptions); a]-peri-spa<stwj (Polyb., Plut.); a]po-to<mwj (Polyb., Diod., Wisd., Longin.); dhl-augw?j (so xCLD in Mk. 8:25 for thl-augw?j); dia-panto<j is the way Griesbach and Tisch. print dia> panto<j; e@k-palai (Philo and on, inscriptions); e]n-tenw?j (Polyb., LXX, inscriptions); e!n-anti (LXX, inscriptions); e]n-w<pion (Theoc., LXX, papyri); e]c-a<pina (LXX, Jamb., Byz.); e]c-auth?j (Theogn., Arat., Polyb., Jos., etc.); e]f-a<pac (Lucian, Dio Cass., etc.); kaq-ech?j (AElian, Plut.); kat-e<n-anti (LXX, Hermas); katen- w<pion (LXX); noun-exw?j (Arist., Polyb.); pan-plhqei< (Dio Cass.); pan-oikei< (rejected by the Atticists for panoiki<% [LXX], Plato Eryx., Philo, Jos.); pa<n-tote (Sap., Menand., Dion. Hal., condemned by the Atticists for e[ka<stote); par-ekto<j (LXX); pros-fa<twj (LXX, Polyb., Alciph.); u[per-a<nw (Arist., LXX, Polyb., Jos., Plut., etc.); u[per-e<keina (Byz. and eccl.); u[per-ek-perissou? (Dan. 2:22, Ald., Compl.); u[per-ek-perissw?j (T, W. H. marg. 1 Th. 5 : 13, Clem. Rom.); u[per-li<an (Eust.); u[per-perissw?j (only Mk. 7:37). There are two ways of writing some of these compound adverbs, either as single words or as two or more words. The editors differ as to dia> pantoj, e]f ] a!pac, e]k-pa<lai, kaq ] h[me<ran, kaq ] o@lou, u[pe>r e]kei?na etc. The editors do as they wish about it. These compound adverbs were still more numerous in the Byzantine writers.65 For further list of verbs compounded with prepositions see "Language of the N. T." by Thayer, in Hastings' D. B. The koinh< was fond of compound words, some of which deserve the term sesquipedalian, like katadunasteu<w, sunantilamba<nomai, etc. We must not forget that after all these modern words from Aristotle onwards are only a small portion of the whole. Kennedy (Sources of N. T. Greek, p. 62) claims that only about 20 per cent. of the words in the N. T. are post-Aristotelian. Many of this 20 per cent. reach back into the past, though we have no record as yet to observe. The bulk of the words in the N. T. are the old words of the ancients, some of which have a distinct classic flavour, literary and even poetic, like ai]sqhth<rion, polupoi<kiloj. See list in Thayer's article in Hastings' D. B., III, p. 37.

These lists seem long, but will repay study. They are reasonably complete save in the case of verbs compounded with prepositions and substantives so compounded. As a rule only words used by Aristotle and later writers are given, while Demosthenes is not usually considered, since he was more purely Attic.

V. Personal Names Abbreviated or Hypocoristic. The chapter on Orthography will discuss the peculiarities of N. T. proper names in general. Here we are concerned only with the short names formed either from longer names that are preserved or from names not preserved. This custom of giving short petnames is not a peculiarity of Greek alone. It belonged, moreover, to the early stages of the language and survives still.66 It was used not merely with Greek names, but also with foreign names brought into the Greek. It is proof of the vernacular koinh< in the N. T. Cf. English "Tom" and "Will." These abbreviated names are regularly from compounds, as Zhva?j for Zhno<-dwroj (Tit. 3:13). Of the various forms used in these abbreviated names only three occur in the N. T., —aj, —h?j, --w?j. The great majority belong to —aj or —a?j.67  ]Ampli<aj (or —ia?j) is the reading of the Western and Syrian classes in Ro. 16:8 for ]Amplia?toj (Latin Ampliatus); ]Andre<aj is, according to Blass,68 "a genuine old Greek form," while Schmiedel69 thinks it can come from ]Androme<dhj; ]Anti<paj is an abbreviation of ]Anti<patroj (Rev. 2:13) (found in inscription iii/A.D. at Pergamum70); ]Apollw<j, possibly71 an abbreviation for ]Apollw<nioj, is the reading of D in Ac. 18:24, though x 15, 180 read ]Apellh?j here, while ]Apellh?j is read by all MSS. in Ro. 16:10 (cf. Doric ]Apella?j in inscriptions, PAS, ii, 397); ]Artema?j (Tit. 3:12) is an abbreviation of ]Artemi<dwroj; Dhma?j (Col. 4:14; Phil. 24; 2 Tim. 4:10) is probably an abbreviation of Dhmh<trioj, though Dh<marxoj is possible (Dhme<aj also=Dhma?j) not to mention Dhma<ratoj, Dhmo<dokoj; ]Epafra?j (Col. 1:7; 4:12; Phil. 23) is (Ramsay so takes it, Expositor, Aug., 1906, p. 153. Cf. genitive ]Epafra?doj, PAS, iii, 375; Fick-Bechtel, p. 16) an abbreviation of ]Epafro<ditoj (Ph. 2:25; 4:18), but it does not follow that, if true, the same man is indicated in Ph. and Col.; [Erma?j (Ro. 16:14) is from the old Doric form abbreviated from [Ermo< dwroj; [Ermh?j (Ro. 16:14) may be merely the name of the god given to a man, though Blass doubts it.72 Likewise we may note that qeuda?j (Ac. 5:36) is possibly an abbreviation of qeo<dwroj; ]Iouni<aj (sometimes taken as feminine ]Iouni<a, Ro. 16:7) may be ]Iounia?j as abbreviation of ]Iouniano<j; Kleo<paj (Lu. 24:18) is apparently an abbreviation of Kleo<patroj; Louka?j (Col. 4:14; Phil. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11) is an abbreviation of Loukano<j and of Lou<kioj73; Numfa?j (Col. 4:15) is probably derived from Numfo<dwroj; ]Olumpa?j (Ro. 16:15) is apparently abbreviated from ]Olumpio<dwroj, though ]Olumpiano<j is possible; Parmena?j (Ac. 6:5) is probably an abbreviation of Parmeni<dhj, though Blass74 suggests Parme<nwn; Patro<baj (Ro. 16:14) is derived from Patro<bioj; Si<laj (Ac. 15:22, etc.) is the same man as Silouano<j (MSS. often Silbano<j), as Paul always calls him (1 Th. 1:1, etc. So Peter in 1 Pet. 5:12); Stefana?j (1 Cor. 1:16; 16:15, 17) may be either a modification of Ste<fanoj or an abbreviation of Stefanhfo<roj; Sw<patroj (Ac. 20:4) is read Swsi<patroj by a dozen of the cursives and the Sah. Cop. Arm. versions, while Swsi<patroj is the correct text in Ro. 16:21, but it is not certain that they represent the same man, for Sw<patroj is from Beroea and Swsi<patroj from Corinth, though it is possible. ]Arxe<laoj, Niko<laoj appear in the N. T. in the unabbreviated forms, though in the Doric the abbreviated forms in –aj were used. On the subject of the N. T. proper names one can consult also Thieme, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maander und das N. T., 1906, p. 39 f. He finds twenty of the N. T. names in the Magnesia inscriptions, such as ]Apfi<a, ]Artema?j ( ]Artemi<dwroj), etc. Kuri<a is a common proper name (cf. Hatch, Journal of Bibl. Lit., 1908, p. 145). For the papyri illustrations see Mayser, Gr. der griech. Papyri (Laut- und Wortlehre, 1906), p. 253 f. Cf. also Traube, Nomina Sacra (1907), who shows that in both B and x as well as D the abbreviation IHC XPC is found as well as the more usual IC XC. Cf. Nestle, Exp. Times, Jan., 1908, p. 189. Moulton (Cl. Quarterly, April, 1908, p. 140) finds ]Akousi<laoj in the body of a letter in a papyrus and ]Akou?ti, the abbreviated address, on the back. See also Burkitt, Syriac Forms of N. T. Proper Names (1912), and Lambertz, Die griech. Sklavennamen (1907).

VI. The History of Words. This subject concerns not merely the new words appearing in the N. T. but all words there used. This is the best place for a few remarks on it. It is not enough to know the etymology, the proper formation and the usage in a given writer. Before one has really learned a word, he must know its history up to the present time, certainly up to the period which he is studying. The resultant meaning of a word in any given instance will be determined by the etymology, the history and the immediate context.75 The etymology and the history belong to the lexicon, but the insistence on these principles is within the purview of grammar. The N. T. Greek on this point only calls for the same treatment granted all literature in all languages and ages.

Take ska<ndalon, for instance. It is a shorter form of the old Greek word skanda<lhqron, ‘trap-stick.’ The root skand is seen in the Sanskrit skandami, ‘to dart,’ ‘to leap.’ The Latin has it in scando, de-scendo. The termination –a<lhqron is possibly the suffix –tron, (–qron) for instrument and skand-a<la(n). The form skanda<lh occurs in Alciphro, of which ska<nd-alo-n is simply the neuter variation. Ska<nd-alo-n occurs first in the LXX as a translation for wqeOm or lOwk;mi, 'a noose,' ‘a snare,’ as in Ps. 69 (68):23. It was the trapstick, the trap, the impediment; then a stumbling-block or any person who was an occasion of stumbling, as in Josh. 23:13. So Peter became a stumbling-block to Jesus, ska<ndalon ei# e]mou? (Mt. 16:23). Christ crucified became a ska<ndalon to the Jews (1 Cor. 1:23). Take again e]k-klhsi<a (from e@k-klhtoj, e]kkale<w). The root kal appears in the Latin cal-endae, con-cil-ium, nomen-cha-tor; in the Old High German hal-on, 'to call.' Originally e]k-klhsi<a was a calling-out of the people from their homes, but that usage soon passed away. It became the constitutional assembly of Athens and "we must banish from our minds all remembrance of its etymology."76 In the LXX the word is used as the equivalent of lhAqA, the assembly of the Israelites as a whole. In the N. T. the word takes a further advance. It still appears in the sense of ‘assembly’ at times, as in 1 Cor. 11:18, but usually, as Thayer shows (Lexicon), the idea of the word is that of body or company of believers whether assembled or not, the body of Christ. This is true at times where the idea of assembly is impossible, as in Ac. 8:3. The word in this sense of body of Christians is used either in the local (Ac. 8:3) or the general sense (Mt. 16:18). In the general sense the word does not differ greatly from one aspect of the word basilei<a. These examples must suffice.

VII. The Kinship of Greek Words. The study of the family tree of a word is very suggestive. Dei<k-nu-mi is a good illustration in point. It has the root dik which appears in the Sanskrit dic-ami, ‘to show,’ Latin dic-o, Gothic teiho, German zeigen, etc. On the root dik a number of Greek words are built, as di<k-h, ‘the way pointed out,’ ‘right’ or ‘justice’; di<khn, 'after the way' or 'like'; dei?c-ij, 'a showing'; 'something shown'; di<k-aioj, ‘a man who seeks to go the right way,’ ‘righteous’; dik-aio<w, ‘to make or declare one to be righteous'; dik-ai<w-sij, 'the act of declaring one righteous'; dik-ai<w-ma, ‘the thing declared to be right’; dik-aio-su<nh, 'the quality of being right,' ‘righteousness’; dik-ai<wj, ‘righteously’ or ‘justly’; dik-as-th<rion or dik-0as-th?j, one who decides righteously'; dik-as-th<rion, 'the place for judging righteously.' Each of these words occurs in the N. T. save three, di<khn, dik-aiwth< j, dikas-th<rion. With these twelve words the difference in meaning is not so much due to historical development (like e]kklhsi<a) as to the idea of the various suffixes. It is, of course, true that the N. T. has a special doctrine of righteousness as the gift of God which colours most of these words. The point is that all these various points of view must be observed with each word. Another illustration that will not be followed up is lu<tron (Mt. 20:28), a]po-lu<trw-sij (Ro. 3:24). The ideas of action, agent, result, instrument, quality, plan, person, etc., as shown by the suffixes, differentiate words from each other.

Green in his Handbook to Grammar of N. T. Greek77 illustrates this point well with the root kri (krin), giving only the examples that occur in the N. T. They will be found interesting: first, the verb,; kri<n-w, a]na-kri<n-w, a]nt-apo-kri<n-omai, a]po-kri<n-omai, dia-kri<n-w, e]g-kri<n-w, e]pi-kri<n-w, kata-kri<n-w, sug-kri<n-w, sun-upo-kri<n-omai, u[pokri< n-w; second, the substantive, kri<sij, kri<-ma, kri-th?rion, kri-th<j, a]na<pkri-sij, a]po-kri-ma, a]po<-kri-sij, dia<kri-sij, ei]li-kri<n-eia, kata<-kri-ma, kata<-kri-sij, pro<-kri-ma, u[po<-kri-sij, u[po-kri-th<j; third, adjectives, kri-tiko<j, a]-dia<-kri-toj, a]-kata<-kri-toj, a]n-upo<-kri-toj, au]to-kata<-kri-toj, ei]li-kri-nh<j.

The development of this line of study will amply repay the N. T. student.

VIII. Contrasts in Greek Words or Synonyms. The Greek is rich in synonyms. In English one often has a choice between the Anglo-Saxon word or its Norman-French equivalent, as "to ask" or "to inquire."78 The Greeks made careful distinctions in words. Socrates tripped the Sophists on the exact meaning of words as often as anywhere. We are fortunate in N. T. study in the possession of two excellent treatises on this subject. Trench, Synonyms of the N. T., 1890, is valuable, though not exhaustive. But he gives enough to teach one how to use this method of investigation. Heine, Synon. des neatest. Griech., 1898, is more comprehensive and equally able. The matter can only be mentioned here and illustrated. With di<kaioj, for instance, one should compare a]gaqo<j, a!gioj, kaqaro<j, kalo<j, o!sioj, before he can obtain a complete idea of N. T. goodness or righteousness. We see Jesus himself insisting on the use of a]gaqo<j for the idea of absolute goodness in Mk. 10:18, ou]dei>j a]gaqo>j ei] mh> ei$j o[ qeo<j. Both a]gaqo<j and di<kaioj occur in Lu. 23:50. In Lu. 8:15 the phrase kardi<a a]gaqh> kai> kalh> approaches Socrates' common use of kalo>j k ] a]gaqo<j for "the beautiful and the good." It is also the Greek way of saying "gentleman" which no other language can translate. To go no further, te<raj, du<namij and shmei?on are all three used to describe the complete picture of a N. T. miracle. Ne<oj is 'young' and 'not yet old,' kaino<j is 'recent' and 'not ancient.'

1. Riem. and Goelzer, Phonet. et Et. des Formes Grq. et Lat., 1901, p. 245.

2. Reitzenstein, Gesch. der griech. Etym., 1897, p. vi.

3. Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw. etc., 2. pp. 347 ff.

4. "o[ e!tumoj lo<goj heissit ja auch 'die wahre Bedeutung '; dass man hier e@tumoj sagte und nicht a]lhqh<j, liegt daran, dass ionische Sophisten, namentlich Prodikos, die Etymologie und Synonymik aufbrachten." F. Blass, Hermen. und Krit., Bd. I, Muller's Handb. d. klass. Alt., 1892, p. 183.

5. See Pott, Etym. Forsch., 1861; Curtius, Gk. Etym., vols. I, II, 1886; Prellwitz, Etym. Worterb. der griech. Spr., 1893; Brug. und Delb., Grundr. der vergl. Gr., 1897-1901; Skeat, Etym. Dict. of the Eng. Lang., etc.

6. Curtius, Gk. Etym., vol. I, p. 16.

7. The whole subject of N. T. lexicography calls for reworking. Deissmann is known to be at work on a N. T. Lex. in the light of the pap. and the inscr. Meanwhile reference can be made to his Bible Studies, Light, and his New Light on the N. T.; to J. H. Moulton's articles in the Exp. (1901, 1903, 1904, 1908); to Kennedy's Sour. of N. T. Gk. (for LXX and N. T.); to Thayer's N. T. Gk. Lex. and his art. on Lang., of N. T. in Hast. D. B.; to Cremer's Theol. Lex. of N. T.; to Mayser's Gr. d. griech. Pap. For the LXX phenomena see careful discussion of Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 112- 136. Nothing like an exhaustive discussion of N. T. word-formation can yet be attempted. But what is here given aims to follow the lines of historical and comparative grammar. We must wait in patience for Deissmann's Lex. George Milligan is at work with Moulton on his Vocabulary of the New Testament. Cf. also Nageli, Der Wortsch. des Apost. Paulus, a portion of which has appeared. Especially valuable is Abb. Joh. Vocab. (1905). For the LXX cf. also Swete, Intr. to 0. T. in Gk., pp. 302-304. The indices to the lists of inscr. and pap. can also be consulted with profit.

8. Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. 181.

9. Ib., p. 187.

10. MS. notes on Gk. Gr.

11. Cf. on slang, Wedgwood, Intr. to the Dict. of the Eng. Lang.; Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. 175.

12. Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 235.

13. Uber das relative Alter der einen oder der anderen Wortklasse sich nichts Sicheres ausmachen" (Vogrinz, Gr. des horn. Dial., 1889, p. 164).

14. Brug., Furze vergl. Gr., p. 281.

15. Cf. Rachel White, Cl. Rev., 1906, pp. 203 ff., for interesting study of e]piskh<ptw.

16. Blass, Hermen. und Krit, Bd. I, p. 191. Heine, Synon. des neutest. Griech., 1898, has a very helpful discussion of N. T. word-building (pp. 28-65), but does not distinguish the koinh< words.

17. Next to Sans. Gk. uses more inflections and so more affixes. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 45.

18. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 61. On the whole subject of word-building see Brug., Griech. Gr., 1900, pp. 160-362; K.-B1., Bd. II, Ausf. Gr., pp. 254-340.

19. Brug. op. cit. Hirt, Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenl., 1902, pp. 360-391.

20. Schmid, Der Atticis. etc., 4. Bd., p. 702.

21. On history of the mi verbs see Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 234. In the pap. verbs in -umi keep the non-thematic form in the middle, while in the active both appear. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 3S.

22. Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 300.

23. Harris, MS. Notes on Gk. Gr.

24. Thumb, Handb., p. 175; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 218, 300.

25. Sutterlin, Gesch. der Verba Denom. in Altgriech., 1891, p. 7. Cf. also Pfordten, Zur Gesch. der griech. Denom., 1886. Mayser (Gr., pp. 459-466) has an interesting list of derivative verbs in the Ptol. pap. Cf. Frankel, Gr. Den.

26. Thumb, Handb. of Mod. Gk., V., p. 135 f. There is frequent interchange between forms in –a<z&, --i<zw and –w?.

27. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 61.

28. W.-M., p. 115.

29. Cf. qri<ambon ei]sa<gin, triumphum agere. Goetzeler, Einfl. d. Dion. von Ital. auf d. Sprachgeb. d. Plut., 1891, p. 203. Deiss. (Light, p. 368) gives this word (with a]reth<, e]cousi<a, do<ca, i]sxu<j, kra<toj, megaleio<thj) as proof of a parallel between the language of the imperial cult and of Christianity.

30. Cf. W.-M., note, p. 114. Mayser (Gr., pp. 415-509) gives a very complete discussion of "Stammbildung" in the Ptol. pap.

31. Cf. Zur Gesch. der Verba Denom., p. 95.

32. Ib.

33. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 302; Thumb, Handb., p. 133.

34. Cf. Donaldson, New Crat., p. 615, for discussion of –skw verbs.

35. Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 407; Donaldson, New Crat., p. 451; Lightfoot on Ph. 2:6.

36. Ant. 18. 5, Cf. Sturtevant, Stud. in Gk. Noun-Formation (Cl. Philol., vii, 4, 1912). For long list of derivative substantives in the Ptol. pap. see Mayser, Gr., pp. 416-447.

37. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 289. Thumb, Handb., p. 65. On frequency in LXX see C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 28. Cf. Frankel, Griech. Denom., 1906.

38. Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 62 f. For same thing in LXX (a]na<qema, pro<sqema, do<ma, etc.) H C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 28.

39. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 108. He instances besides a]na<qema in the sense of 'curse,' qe<ma, e]pi<qema, pro<sqema, pro<doma. On a]na<qema, for exx. in iii/B.C. inscr., see Glaser, De Rat., quae interc. inter Berm. Polyb. etc., 1894, p. 82.

40. See Deiss., B. S., p. 131 f., where a lucid and conclusive discussion of the controversy over this word is given. See also Zeitschr. fur neutest. Wiss., 4 (1903), p. 193.

41. Blass is unduly sceptical (Gr., p. 64). Deiss. (B. S., p. 208 f.) finds nine examples of e]laiw<n= 'place of olives' or 'olive orchard' in vol. I of the Ber. Pap., and Moulton (Exp., 1903, p. 111; Prol., p. 49) has discovered over thirty in the first three centuries A.D. In Ac. 1:12 it is read by all MSS. and is correct in Lu. 19:29 (ag. W. H.) and 21:37 (ag. W. H.). ]Elaiw?n is right in Lu. 19:37, etc. In Lu. 19:29; 21:37, question of accent. Cf. also a]mpelw<n (from a@mpeloj, LXX, Diod., Plut.) which is now found in the pap.

42. Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 63. Cf. Lipsius, Ursp. des Christennamens, 1873. W.-Sch. (p. 135) suggests that these two words are not after the Lat. model, but after the type of ]Asiano<j, which was foreign to the European Greeks. But ]Asiano<j (from ]Asi<a) is in Thucyd. and besides is not parallel to Xristo<j, Xrist-iano<j. Cf. Eckinger, Die Orthog. lat. Worter in griech. Inschr., 1893, p. 27.

43. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 292; Thumb, Handb., p. 62.

44. Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 63.

45. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 124, n. 14. On the termination —sunh see Aufrecht, Ber. Zeitschr. fur vergl. Sprachf., 6. Heft.

46. W.-M., p. 118, n. 1.

47. On words in --thj see Lob. ad Pliryn., p. 350; Buhler, Das griech. Secundarsuffix thj, 1858; Frankel, d. Gr. Nom. Ag. (1910).

48. This termination became rather common in the later Gk., as, for instance, in a]nakaluph<rion, dehth<rion, qanath<rion, i]amath<rion. See also Stratton, hapters in the Hist. of Gk. Noun-Formation, 1889.

49. Gr. of N T. Ok., p. 64. So W.-Sch., p. 135.

50. Viteau, ss. sur la Synt. des Voix, Rev. de Philol., p. 38.

51. Jann., H st. Gk. Or., p. 297. [Ekw<n also is wholly adjective and me<llwn, sometimes so Cf. Brugmann, Grundr. d. vergl. Gr., p. 429.

52. W.-M., . 120. Cf. Viteau, Ess. sur le Synt. de Voix, Rev. de Philol., p. 41. For deriv. adj. in the Ptol. pap. see Mayser, Gr., pp. 447-455.

53. Deiss., B. S., p. 217 f.; Liget, p. 361; Thieme, Die Inschr. v. M., p. 15.

54. See comm. in loco. W.-M. (p. 123) held that sa<rkinoj was "hardly to be tolerated" in Heb. 7:16, but Schmiedel (p. 139) has modified that statement. Cf. on --inoj, Donaldson, New Crat., p. 45S.

55. See Trench, N. T. Synon., 1S90, pp. 268 ff.

56. See Rev. of the N. T., pp. 194-234. Deiss., B. S., p. 214, calls attention to Grimm's comment on 2 Macc. 1:8 about tou>j e]piousi<ouj being added to tou?j a@rtouj by "three codices Sergii." Cf. W.-Sch., p. 136 f., n. 23, for full details. Cf. Bischoff, ]Epiou<sioj, p. 266, Neutest. Wiss., 1906. Debrunner (Glotta, IV. Bd., 3. Heft, 1912) argues for e]pi> th>n ou#san hpme<ran, ‘for the day in question.’

57. Cf. Lightfoot, Rev. of the N. T., pp. 234-242, for full discussion of periou<sioj.

58. Schmid, Der Atticismus, Bd. IV, p. 730.

62. Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 70. Mostly adj., but peiq-arxei?n occurs in the list. Blass, ib., p. 65, even thinks that it is not the province of grammar to discuss the numerous compounds with prepositions. It belongs to the lexicon. The lists that I give are not complete for prepositional compounds because of lack of space. See Helbing (Gr. d. Sept., pp. 128-136) for good list of compound verbs in the LXX. Mayser (Gr., pp. 486-506) gives list of compound verbs in the Ptol. pap. The koinh< is fond of compound verbs made of noun and verb. Cf. ei] e]teknotro<fhsen, ei] e]cenodo<xhsen (1 Tim. 5:10). So u[yhlofronei?n (text of W. H. in 6:17).

63. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 70,

64. Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 65. Cf. Mayser's Gr., pp. 485 ff. Jannaris, § 1490.

75. Cf. Heine, Synon. des neutest. Griech., p. 29. Goodell, The Gk. in Eng., 1886, gives a popular exhibition of the influence of Gk. on Eng.

76. Hicks, Cl. Rev., 1887, p. 43. See also Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., pp. 57-60.