1847.] Its Hebraistic Character. 193 which they often use, which is placed not at the beginning of the sentence but after other nouns-a construction which John in the Apocalypse has imitated, but perhaps no other New Testament writer. In such instances, an oblique case would naturally be employed in Greek, or the subsequent part of the sentence be recast in some way; but the Hebrew having no declension, properly so called, and adhering more rigidly to an unbroken, uniform structure, would be very apt to lead a Hellenistic writer to express himself in this irregular manner. The wide range of signification to which the genitive construction was appropriated in Hebrew, has occasioned an almost corresponding latitude in the application of the. genitive in the Greek style of the Seventy. The dialect of the New Testament, it is well known, abounds in illustrations of the tendency of the Hellenistic Greek to assimi. late itself to the Hebrew in this respect. The relation of the Greek dative the Hebrews represented, for the most part, by making use of Lamedh; and on the whole, the Greek translators have confined themselves to the legitimate province of this case. Their use of the accusative, on the contrary, deviates widely from its office in the classic Greek writers. It expresses often, after the manner of the Hebrews, the material out of which a thing is made or the manner in which it is done, where the Greeks would have employed a preposition or some different phraseology. The double accusative which the Greek and Latin languages so often place after verbs of a certain signification, the Seventy sometimes employ correctly in their version, but sometimes they hebraize, by translating the preposition which it was customary to insert under such circumstances in Hebrew.3 Some other verbs they con. strued, not with the accusative as the Greek custom demanded, but with prepositions in conformity with the Hebrew practice.4 In comparing the use which the authors of the Greek version have made, of the verb in its various forms, with that of the Hebrew verb, we have opened to us a wide field of observation, * This may be illustrated by Deut. 4: 11—καὶ τὸ ὄρος ἐκαίετο πυρὶ ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ· σκότος, γνόφος, θυέλλα. There are many bolder examples. Comp. Numb. 20: 5. Deut. 7: 8. 10: 7, etc. * Thus Ex. 24: 39τάλαντον χρυσίου καθαροῦ ποιήσεις πάντὰ τὰ σκεύη ταῦ 14. Comp. Gen. 6: 1. Ex. 26: 1, etc. 'For example, nonow σe eis ¿dvos péya, Ex. 44: 18, and often where els stands for The Hebrew said it, ἐπεκαλέσατο ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι. as the direct object of the verb. VOL. IV. No. 13. and the Hebrew translator in accordance with The accusative in regular Greek would follow 17 which has not yet been fully explored. It may be remarked in general as the result of our author's study, that the different voices or conjugations of the Hebrew verb are in the main correctly represented in the Pentateuch, by the corresponding separate verbs. in which the Greek language is so rich. The praeterite tenses in Greek they employed with propriety; but the use of the future like the New Testament writers, they extended to the expression of ideas for which the instinct of the native Grecian would have dictated a different form. This is seen particularly when there is occasion to speak of a thing as something that is wont to be, done, that ought to be done or ought not to be, that may be done or cannot be, and the like. Such conceptions the Greeks seldom present in the future tenses, but avail themselves rather of the present, of auxiliary verbs, or of the optative and imperative modes. In the Hebrew on the contrary, the future or imperfect form of the verb is the prevailing one for such purposes. It is worthy of notice also that where in Hebrew the past tense follows an imperative to which it is joined by Vav consecutive, our translators turn the former often into a future. The periphrasis of the participle with the verb of existence will scarcely ever be found to occur, unless it be justified by the nature of the thought which is to be conveyed. The infinitive absolute which is employed in so peculiar way as a qualifying or emphatic accompaniment of the simple verb, the Alexandrian interpreters express often by. prefixing to such verb a participle of the same meaning in such tense as the point of time to be designated requires.2 Several of the leading grammarians, as Matthiae, Kühner, Winer, have regarded this as a legitimate Greek construction; and in this point of view, it would be the frequency of it only in the Septuagint, which is singular. But from this opinion Thiersch dissents; and goes into an examination of the examples upon which these scholars have relied for the correctness of their statement. He maintains that in all the passages of this kind which have been brought forward, the participle performs in reality its ordinary office in Greek, and that in no case does it qualify the verb which it accompanies in a manner corresponding to that of the infinitive absolute in Hebrew. His conclusion is that this mode of representing the Hebrew idiom in question was peculiar to the Seventy, and was originated by them for this purpose. To this partic 1 Thus is the oft recurring formula-λάλησον τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ἐρεῖς αὐτ * Ας βλέποντες βλέψετε. 1847.] Use of the Infinitive. 195 ular mode of representation, however, they did not restrict themselves. The other most common method was that of connecting with the verb a noun of the same signification in the dative, as equivalent in Greek to the Hebrew infinitive. This mode of expressing intensity has its frequent parallels in Greek and could not properly be represented as a Hebraism. The infinitive with Lamedh prefixed which has so extensive an application in Hebrew, could not fail to have an influence on the use of the Greek infinitive in writers who had accustomed themselves to such different habits of expression. This effect proceeded so far that there was in fact scarcely any relation of one verb to another, which they did not sometimes express in the infinitive. It was appended to the verb with such latitude as to be epexegetical of it, whatever might be the logical relation which it sustained to it. The genitive of the article was usually prefixed as the sign of this connection. The article thus used denoted not only design, purpose, as in the classic Greek writers, but consequence, result; so that the infinitive with the article as employed in the Septua. gint and the New Testament, occupies almost the entire province of the Hebrew infinitive. This extension of the same form of speech to represent such different relations of thought, will not appear on reflection to be so very surprising. The transition from the idea of intending a thing to that of doing it, from the object of an action to its performance, is one that is easily made, and in another form has been exemplified in the Greek language itself. In all the earlier writers iva was employed in a strict telic sense, but in the course of time it receded more and more from this rigid use and became at length ecbatic in its import. On the whole, few traces of the manner in which the Hebrews employed the preposition, appear in the style of the Alexandrian translators. Into one violation of Greek purity, however, they have been led through the force of their Hebrew associations in regard to the mode of expressing the comparative degree. This was done by means of the positive degree of the adjective and the preposition. To this idiom they have virtually adhered in using , vaq, nagà, in cases of comparison where the Greek language requires pallov or the comparative degree. We meet with the same peculiarity in the New Testament. A few instances occur, in which by a Hebraism si stands elliptically in the language, of oaths as equivalent to a strong negative declaration, precisely like Winer has pointed out three or four examples of 1 Thus ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα. the same usage in the New Testament. It was inevitable that the multiform uses of in binding together thoughts related to each other by every variety of logical connection, should not have led to applications of the Greek particle most nearly corresponding to it, which were unknown to regular Greek writers. Hence xai is found often where the obvious requisition of the context shows that the clauses which it unites, are not in any proper sense of the word, consecutive in their character, and where a writer, imbued fully with the spirit of the language, would have put some term of greater logical precision, instead of so vague a connective. The work of Prof. Thiersch, of which we have given this gen. eral sketch, places before us the most important facts in relation to the linguistic character of the Greek Pentateuch. There is some reason to hopel that he or M. Lipsius who has long occupied himself with this study, may soon communicate to the public the results of a similar investigation, extended to the remainder of this version. ARTICLE X.. PICKERING'S GREEK LEXICON. By Samuel H. Taylor, M. A., Principal of Phillips Academy, Andover. THE progress in the study of the Greek language in our country within the last twenty years, may be estimated with some degree of correctness, by the improvement in Greek lexicography during that period. Twenty years ago, almost the only Greek lexicon used in our schools, was that of Schrevelius, the definitions of which were in Latin, and the limited number of words which it contained, made it suitable for only a small circle of authors. In 1826, the same year that Donnegan's Greek lexicon appeared in England, the translation of Schrevelins by Messrs. Pickering and Oliver, was published in this country, with the addition of upwards of 2000 articles. The publication of this lexicon at once relieved the student of the awkward and weari some process of studying one dead language through the medium So we venture to understand the wish to this effect, which Winer has expressed in a note to the last edition of his New Testament Grammar. 1847.] Mr. Pickering's Attention to Philology. 197 of another; and we well recollect with what pleasure we first looked upon its pages, containing definitions in our good mother tongue. In 1829, the second edition of the same work appeared, with the addition of more than 10,000 entire articles, and other improvements by Mr. Pickering. About this time, Donnegan's Greek lexicon was published in this country. Although this work was sufficiently extensive for general use, yet the great want of order in the arrangement of the definitions, the almost entire absence of any logical connection between the primary and secondary or metaphorical meanings, rendered it a very unsafe guide to be put into the hands of students. But notwithstanding the acknowledged defects of Donnegan, it was used more generally than any other lexicon, from the time it was first published in this country until the present year, the small lexicon of Grove, republished from the English edition, being the only other one readily accessible. But in speaking of the progress of Greek lexicography in our country, mention should be made of the two New Testament lexicons of Dr. Robinson. The first of these, published in 1826, was mainly a translation of the Clavis Philologica of Wahl; the second published in 1936, was a wholly independent work, upon which he had spent several years of unwearied effort, and which reflects high honor on the literature of our country. The third edition of Mr. Pickering's Greek lexicon, the recent appearance of which has suggested these remarks, may be considered in many respects as an entirely new work. Mr. Pickering's attention was directed to the subject of Greek lexicography as early as the year 1814. Since that time until his death in May last, he was constantly increasing his knowledge of the Greek language, both by his own investigations and by the careful study of the best authors on Greek Philology. In addition to his accurate knowledge of the Greek, Mr. Pickering had a more or less. extensive acquaintance with at least twenty other languages, four of which, besides his native tongue, he was able to speak. These he did not study as distinct and independent languages, having no analogies or resemblances to each other; he looked upon them rather as branches springing from a common stock, with affinities more or less obvious. This study of comparative Philology is of invaluable service to the lexicographer. The true meaning of a word may be correctly traced only through another language, or the changes which take place, in its formation, may be best understood by the changes in similar words of different |