A few additional notes are here collected; some overlooked until
the bulk of the notes were in print, some suggested by books which
have appeared while this volume was in the press. Among these must
be named Prof. ’s edition of Isaiah (i.-xxxix.) in the
Bible; Mr F. W. Mozley's Psalter of Me Church, containing numerous
notes on the Lxx. version of the Psalms; and Prof. J. H. ’s
very interesting Prolegomena, Vol. I. of a fresh Grammar of New
Testament Greek. These have come into my hands too late for me to
make as full use as I could have wished of the valuable hints and side-
lights they afford.

On i. 8. ὀπωροθυλάκιον] see Mozley's note on Ps. lxxix. 1.

i. 18. διελεγχθῶμεν] Cf. Acts xix. 38.

i. 24. Cf. also Prov. xxiii. 29, for use of οὐαί.

i. 27. More probably ἡ αἰχμαλωσία is intended to render ‘her
( ABBREV taken as ABBREV So Alexander, and Prof. Whitehouse
in Century Bible. In this case ἡ ἀποστροφὴ αὐτῆς, read by ℵ* 301, is a
duplicate.

iii. 6. For ‘ruin’ cf. Heb. of Zeph. i. 3 (Lxx. ἀσθενήσουσιν)

iii. 10. Cf. also Wisdom iv. 12, ῥεμβασμός, with Isai. xxiii. 16 (also
Prov. vii. 12).

iii. 12. Prof. Whitehouse considers ἀπαιτοῦντες due to a different
punctuation, ABBREV ‘women’ being taken as ABBREV ‘creditors.’
in ix. 4 ἀπαιτούτων clearly represents ABBREV

iii. 25. Cf. also Amos viii. IO, Zech. xii. 10

vi. 5. κατανένυγμαι] Mozley, on Ps. iv. 5, page 7, has an exhaustive
note on the meaning of this verb. I leave untouched what I have
written.

vii. 6. βασιλεῦσαι, in causal sense, ‘to make...king,’ is not
common in Lxx.: 1 Sam. viii. 22, 1 Kings xii. 1, 2 Kings xi. 12
xxiii. 30, 2 Chron. xxvi. 1, are instances. In 2 Kings xiv. 21 the
reading is doubtful.

viii. 19. The use of πρὸς, according to ’s text, is difficult
Perhaps it IS akin to that in John i. 1, 2, 1 John i. 2 (where see
Bp Westcott's notes).

ix. 1. Schlcusner on this verse explains ταχὺ ποιεῖν, “vili facere,
vuce ficta’

ix. 5. For the construction θελήσουσιν εἰ... cf. Luke xii. 49, τί
θέλω εἰ ἤδη ἀνήφθη: Ecclus. xxiii. 14, θελήσειε εἷ μὴ ἐγεννήθης. The
latter, especially, seems to support the alternative rendering in the
note, Vol. I. p. 97.

x. 14. σείσω seems due to reading ABBREV ‘Ι will make to tremble,
for ABBREV ‘I brought down.

x. 18. Is any light thrown on the use of ὁτοσβεσθήσεται by
Ecclus. xliil. 21? καταφάγεται ὅρη καὶ ἴρημον ἐκκαύσεις, καὶ ἀποσβέσει
χλόην ὡς πῦρ. In some, at any rate, of its compounds, σβεννύναι is
used in senses rather different from the quenching of fire: see
Aeschylus, Agata. 887,
 κλαυμάτων ἐπίσσυτοι 
 πηγαὶ κατεσβήκασιν, οὐδ’ ἔνι σταγών. 
And again, 958
 ἔστιν θάλασσα, τίς δέ νιν κατασβέσεις 
Also Septcm c. Thcbas 584
 μητρός τε πηγὴν τίς κατασβέσει δίκης 
Lxx. must, on this supposition, while rendering ABBREV by the pass. of
ἀποσβεννύναι, have used the verb with a secondary sense to help the
meaning.

xi. 9. On ’opmu, see Vol. 1. pp. 26, 109. It represents ABBREV 
which is elsewhere in Lxx. οἰκουμένη, as in xiii. 11, xiv. 17, xxiv. 4, c.
with or without ὅλη: or simply γῆ, as in xiv. 21, xxvi. 9, 18, c. ABBREV 
is frequently parallel to ABBREV as in xxiv. 4. In classical Creek the
phrase is to be found, as it were, in the making, Aristoph.
Cloud: 203:
 ΜΑΘ. γῆν ἀναμετρεῖσθαι ΣΤΡ. πότερα τὴν κληρουχικὴν; 
 MAG. οὔκ. ἀλλὰ τὴν σύμπασαν. ΣΤΡ. ἀστεῖον λέγεις.

xi. 14. verso-Meow occurs also Ps. lv. 6.

xiv. 6. Many critics support the emendation ABBREV ‘rule’ ( ‘tramplings,’
Cheyne) for ABBREV ‘pursuit.’ See notes in various commentaries,
esp. Cheyne, Skinner, Alexander. I doubt whether ’s παίων can
be fairly quoted in support of this, their rendering being hardly exact
in any case. They do not support the converse change of n to ἢ pro-
posed in 2 Kings x. 32 (συνκόπτειν), ABBREV ‘to be angry’ for ABBREV 
cut short.

xiv. 19. νεκρὸς ἐβδελυγμένος. Cf. the addition to Ps. xxxviii. 21
found in R and other authorities. It is possible that met. confused
various clauses of ver. 19, 20 in translating.

xxiii. 2, 11. Φοινίκης, Χανάαν. To the note on ver. 11 it should be
added that Lxx. use Φοινίκη, Φοίνισσα, Φοῖνιξ, to represent ‘Canaan.
‘Canaanite,’ in Exod. vi. 15, xvi. 35, Job xli. 6 ‘merchants,’ A.V.,
R.V.); Prov. xxxi. 24 (xxix. 42 in LXX., again ‘merchants’) is
Χαναναίοις, and in Deut. iii. 9 Φοίνικες represents ‘Zidonians.

xxiii. 7. παραδοθῆναι. The various uses of this word in the Greek
Isaiah almost defy explanation. Here possibly ABBREV was misread,
and some of its letters mistaken for ABBREV παραδοῦναι, I Chr. xii. 17).

xxx. 11. If τὸ λόγιον is a corruption of τὸν ἅγιον, the converse
appears in Ps. cxxxviii. 2, where Mozley points out that τὸ ἅγιόν σου
corresponds to ‘thy word’ ( λόγιον often= ABBREV ).

xxxii. 6. νοήσει, due to reading ABBREV for ABBREV ‘will work.

xxxiii. 23. The word ABBREV ‘prey,’ here taken by LXX. as ‘until,’ has
caused confusion elsewhere. In Numb. xxiii. 24 it is rightly rendered,
οὐ κοιμηθήσεται ἕως φάγῃ θήραν. But in Gen. xlix. 27, in the morning
he shall devour the prey’ appears as τὸ πρωινὸν ἔδεται ἔτι (i.e.
Zeph. iii. 8, for ‘ until the day that I rise up to the prey,’ has εἷς
ἀναστάσεὼς μου εἷς μαρτύριον (i.e. ABBREV which some support. Other cases
of confusion are:
 Hosea ii. 12, ‘α forest’ ABBREV Lxx. μαρτύριον 
 Amos i. 11, ‘perpetually’ ABBREV εἷς μαρτύριον, and so Micah vii. 18 
Prov. xxix. 14 
Vulg. is more generally right (ultra in Amos and Micah), but has in
futurum in Zephaniah.

xli. 11. For ἀντίδικος cf. also 1 Pet. v. 8.

xlv. 23. The difficulty of εἰ μήν, which is somewhat hastily dismissed
in my note, is that if ‘if,’ the meaning of the clause is the opposite
of what is wanted, and of what is given by εἰ μὴ or ἦ μήν. Moreover,
μὴν does not seem to be used with εἰ conditional (or interrogative) in
classical authors or in Ν.T. The MSS. often show disagreement. The
latest view is to consider εἷ μὴν a variety of ἦ μὴν; Blass, in his N.T.
Grammar (Mr ’s translation) prints εἴ μήν, and so does Prof.
Moulton, whose words (p. 46) are: “The complete establishment of
εἴ μὴν by the papyri is an interesting confirmation of the best uncials.
Despite Hort (p. 151) we must make the difference between εἶ μήν and
ἦ μήν strictly orthographical after all, if the alternative is to suppose
any connection with εἰ, if.” I should. upon this view, which
almost certainly the right one, have said that εἷ μὴν “is hardly possible’

 
(am-pt as an equivalent to ἦ μήν: and this, as written in the days of
our Mss. or their predecessors, and almost back to the days of the
Alexandrian translators, it apparently was.

hii. 5. Α reads ἐμαλακίσθη, but on general principles the reading of
the great body of MSS., μεμαλάκισται, must be preferred. We then have
a perf. and an aorist in parallel clauses. Above, in ver. 2, there are
ἔστιν and εἶχον, then the perf. ἀπέστραπται (Cf. Josh. v. 5, ἀνέστραπται),
two presents in ver. 4, and the rest of the surrounding verbs are
aorists. The parallel aorist and perfect can also be seen at x. 7
ἐνεθυμήθη...λ.ελόγισται, where possibly each tense has something of its
own force, but contrast ἐλογίσθησαν, ν. 28, Χλ. [7; xxi. 9, πέπτωκεν...
συνετρίβησαν, cf. ἔπεσεν, Rev. xiv. 8, xviii. 2; xlv. 19, Λελάληκα...εἶπα
In xlviii. 16 the text has variants: lvii. 18, ἑὠρακα...ἰασάμην, lix. 14, 15
ἀπιστήαμεν...ἀφέστηκεν, ἦρται...μετέστησαν; lxi. I, ἔχρισεν...ἀπέσταλκεν.
Also with temporal or causal connecting particles, ix. 4
xiv. 8, xl. 2; cf. xxiii. 1, xxviii. 7, xlviii. 10.

On this subject see Moulton, N.T. Grammar, Vol. 1. pp. 140146
Mozley, Psalter of the Church, p. 148. I return to the subject below,
Grammatical Note, § 6; meantime I venture on the provisional
opinion that, where each tense has not its own proper force, some
approximation or overlapping takes place: the perfect approaching the
aorist in meaning, but that aorist itself having in the Lxx. a somewhat
extended force, which renders the approach easier. In x. 7, λελόγισται
might be passive and impersonal (l have not however translated it so)
which seems to help the proper sense of the perfect.

lvii. 15, 16. It seems to me (and l have endeavoured to punctuate
so as to make this sense not impossible) that here, according to the
won, the meaning is somewhat like Exod. xxxiii. 19, xxxiv. 5-7,
Lord proclaiming His own attributes, and His words beginning at
Ἄγιος ἐν ἁγίοις, or even at ὁ ἐν ὑψηλοῖς.

lxiii. 8, 9. The punctuation might here be made to agree with Heb.,
beginning a fresh sentence with ἐκ πάσης θλίψεως. Various other
passages might be brought by similar means to show less discrepancy:
e.g. iii. 17, 18, xxii. 24, 25, and possibly xxxiv. 9, 10, lvi. 7, 8, lx. 5, 6.
But xxvi. 18, hi. 6, 7, would need alteration of text: lxiii. 2, 3 probably
requires a different division from the Heb.; and i. 11—13, xxvi. 8
xxviii. 27, 28, xxix. 5, 6, xxxii. 13, 14, and lix. 17, 18, seem to defy this
treatment.

lxvi. 14 σεβομένοις] For the variant φοβουμένοις (B) cf. Jonah i. 9
where for σέβομαι καὶ) has φοβοῦμαι, supported, according to H. and Ρ.,
by V 40 91 130 153 311.

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON THE GRAMMAR
AND STYLE OF THE LXX.

§ 1. There is not yet, so far as I know, any work in English which
deals mainly and directly with the grammar and style of the Greek
O.T. The student has still to depend principally upon such books
as deal with Hellenistic Greek generally, and with the lexicology and
grammar of the N .T. Beside Janaaris' Historical Greek Grammar,
whose range is too wide for our immediate purpose, and the N.T.
Grammars, whose period does not coincide, we can now turn to a
chapter in Prof. ’s Introduction to to O.T. in Greek (Part I l.
chap. IV.) ; very valuable so far as it goes, but reduced by the neces-
sities of space and proportion to an outline sketch. Selections from
tlze Septuagint, by F. C. Conybeare and St G. Stock, contains a short
practical survey of the grammar, which will meet some but hardly all
the ’s needs. When a grammar of the LXX. does appear it will
necessarily deal, for the sake of completeness, with many points which
are interesting, especially for the light thrown upon philology, comparative
and historical; but are not immediately important to readers
Whose desire is to use the Greek version continuously. To these, the
actual occurrence of a form or construction, however unclassical, is its
own explanation in practice, provided that they can grasp its meaning.
As a rule, the most pressing question is whether a doubtful sentence in
the Greek is to be interpreted by the guidance of the Hebrew, or by the
ascertained rules and practice of Greek, classical or Hellenistic. To
decide this, either every such sentence must be noticed, or very care-
fully reasoned principles must be collected and laid down. Neither of
these things can be done here, nor can even an outline be attempted.
Only a few roughly assorted remarks can be put together.

§ 2. Many points, both of accidence and syntax, can but be
registered; they will hardly perplex the reader, or, if they should,
he must turn for guidance to a translation—the Revised
represents standard opinions on many points—unless he can find

 
he wants in Liddell and Scott, Prof. Sophocles' Lexicon of Byzantine
Creek, or the N.T. lexicons and grammars. In any case, no trouble
need be caused by varieties of form: such as εὐθὴς for εὐθύς, τρανὸς for
τρανὴς, σωτήριον, ὅρκος, δυσίν (which serves to mark the death Of the
Dual), may, λήμψεται, ἐλάβοσαν, and the like: πλοῦτος neuter, the
plurals of οἱρανὸς (as xxxiv. 11, xliv. 23) and γῆ (as 2 Kings xviii. 35
xix. 11, Ps. xlix. 11): τοίνυν fist in the clause (iii. to, v. 13, xxvii. 4
xxxiii. 23), ἐὰν for ἂν after relatives: tense-forms such as φάγομα
(xxix. 1), with φάγεσαι (lit. 16), ἐκέκραξα (see on vi. 2), ’w’yxataav
(lxvi. 20), and even εἰλημμένος. xi. 5: κύκλῳ used almost as a
preposition, vi. 2, ix. 18, εἰ and μὴ as interrogative particles, the latter
extended by comparison with ’s Greek, while ποῖος interrogative
(l. 1 c.) scarcely goes beyond it: ὃς for ὅστις, as xlii. 23; πῶς ex-
clamatory, as xiv. 4, 2 Sam. i. 19, 25, 27, Ezek. xxvi. 17, Lam. i. 1, with
which compare Gen. xxviii. 17, Numb. xxiv. 5, Ps. lxxxiii. 1, cxix. 97
where the more classical ὡς appears.

§ 3. The article is generally used very much as in Attic: its
omission before βασιλεὺς Ἀσσυρίων, vii. 20, xxxvi. 15, c. might seem
anaIOgous to that of βασιλεὺς alone for the Persian king, in Herodotus
(v. 1, ἃς.) and Thucydides (1. 18, c.): but it is also omitted in the
case e.g. of Ahab and Benhadad in 1 Kings xxi. The tendency seems
to be decidedly towards omission; before nominatives used as voca-
tives, as i. to, and occasionally with the subject, as i. 21, though this is
more generally retained, as ix. 7, xi. 10, cf. xiv. 26; and particularly
before participles, as, apparently, in viii. 14, xxvi. 2, 3, xxx. 17
xxxiii. 15 : sometimes these participles have ἄνθρωπος in sing. or plur.,
as viii. 15, xxv. 3; contrast xxxii. 2. On its use with οὗτος and ὅδε see
below, 5. Other loosenesses may be noticed at v. 21, xxix. 20. The
article is often repeated in such arrangements as τὰ βδελύγματα αὐτοῦ
τὰ ἀργυρᾶ καὶ τὰ χρυσᾶ, ii. 20, cf. iii. 22, ν. 15, 16, xxviii. 1, 4, c.; but
on the other hand, phrases like ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ οἶκος, oi ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ ἐγκαθή-
μενοι, are rarely found (though see ix. 14, lix. 21); cf. ii. 2, ix. 9, but
almost any page will show instances.

§ 4. Nouns need cause little difficulty, apart from forms, spellings,
and vocabulary. The neuter plural is constantly used with a plural
verb, as well as with the singular, with seeming indifference: the MSS.
very often vary. On the other hand, xviii. 2, 3 contains what may be
suspected to be a case of the Schema ’ndarz’cum, and, if so, a very
strong one: cf. Moulton, Grammar of N.T. Greek, p. 58. Here we
may note the accusative of respect, still in force, as in xi. 15, xxxvi. 22
and the accus. with a passive verb, xxxvii. 2. We may wonder whether

 
the accusative can possibly be used instead of a genitive, x. 32, and in
apposition to a genitive (indeclinable) in xxxvii. 38! Both passages
can be construed as they stand, but still the doubt occurs. On ὃν
τρόπον, used commonly as a conjunction, see on vii. 2. τοῦτον τρόπον
is found in Attic, but less commonly than the dative.

Adjectives, being relatively scarce in Heb., are not very common in
the LXX.'s somewhat literal rendering. The indeclinable πλήρης
most probably to be found in lxiii. 2, where see note.

§ 5. Pronouns decidedly show some blunting of the classical
usage. Ἀὐτὸς in oblique cases is excessively frequent as 3rd pers.
pronoun, and this, corresponding to mere suffixes in Heb., has often
been noticed as a disfigurement of the LXX.'s style. Even in the
nominative, the emphatic force is sometimes hard to perceive, e.g. i. 2
xxxiv. 17, xlii. 17; xxxi. 2 seems more pointed, and lxiii. 9, 10 difficult
to determine. Ὅδε and its compounds have nearly retired in favour of
οὗτος, and the distinction between them is blurred: the phrase τάδε
λέγει... is common, and not to be distinguished from οὕτως λέγει (or
εἶπεν) in meaning, though Mr H. St J. Thackeray detects by its use a
different ’s hand in Jeremiah (journal of Theol. Studies,
Jan. 1903). A few instances of ὅδε occur in the Pentateuch, as
Numb. xvi. 42, Gen. xliii. 21, where it is used with the article, as οὗτος
is, e.g. in xxv. 7, xxvi. 1. The article is also regularly used with ἐκεῖνος·
in the phrase ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ, ii. 20, ἃς. The demonstrative usually
stands last in these cases, contrast ix. 14, 15, xiv. 26. Ὅδε occurs in
Isaiah at any rate once, lx. 8; also Jerem. xlviii. Xlviii. 33, xxv. 3c
(xxxii. 16). Τοιοῦτος occurs, lviii. 6, lxvi. 8: probably it was not often
needed.

§ 6. The verbs show many non-Attic forms. The 3rd pers. pl. in
σαν meets us frequently in second aorists, and sometimes in optatives,
such as ἐνέγκαισαν, lxvi. 20, already mentioned (cf. Moulton, Ν.Τ.
Grammar, p. 33): also an occasional perfect 3rd pl. in καν, as v. 29 B.
Εἶπα is common (εἶπαν in Ii. 23); ἐλθάτω in v. 19B, xxvi. 2 NA. The
second perfect πέποιθα has imperat. 2nd pl. in ατε, l. 10; cf. Jerem. ix. 4
Ps. cxlvi. 3, and Josh. x. 19 ἑστήκατε ( Cannaris).

On the use of the tenses generally. see Vol. 1., Introduction, “Or.
Methods of Rendering.” The aorist seems to be used with full
of meaning; there are comparatively few cases in which the
‘gnomic’ use, with those of the ‘immediate past’ and ‘indefinite
cannot be made to cover the ground; but sometimes even a liberal use
of these explanations hardly satisties Leaving aside the question how
best to render into English, such tenses as εἶδον, vi. 5; κατίσχυσεν,

 
xxiv. 20; ἐπένθησεν, xxxiii. 9; ἀπέστησαν, xxxiii. 14: ὑψώθη, lii. 8
ελάλησεν, lix. 3; εὗρεν, lix. 4; ἔγνω, lxiii. 16, present difficulties which
are seldom felt in reading the classical Attic authors. Many other
aorists are found which, though not in themselves impossible, are
difficult in consideration of their context and probable meaning.

In Isaiah, the future causes little difficulty: it may have sometimes
been wrongly chosen by the translator, but his intention is seldom
doubtful. ln clauses after ὃν τρόπον it is, however, awkward. The
idea seems not so much to represent the Heb. imperf., which is not
always found in the original, as to assimilate the tense to the corresponding
clause.

Most instances of the perfect in lsaiah are natural enough; and
the tense is fairly common: but see above on liii. 5 for cases where it
occurs in parallel clauses with the aorist. From Prof. Moulton's discussion
of the matter (Grammar of N.T. Greek, p. 140 foll.) we see
that the best modern authorities are inclined to recognize the possibility
of the aoristic use of the perfect in some N.T. writers, accepting them,
however, with extreme caution. Prof. Moulton himself limits them,
apparently, to a few in Revelation, and three instances of ἔσχηκα, as a
special form, in ’s Epistles. This ἔσχηκα, with ἀπέσταλκα—for
which see Acts vii. 35, 2 Cor. xii. 17, Exod. iii. 13—15, lsai.
certain forms not simply reduplicated, to which Mozley (p. 148) draws
attention, are suSpected of aoristic force. Mozley also points out the
use of the perf. in titles of Pss. xciiii., xcvi., after ὅτε, and a few others,
such as B's εἴρηκε in 2 Kings vi. 7. ὁπότε and ἡνίκα, rather than ὅτε,
seem to be used in titles of Psalms with unmistakable aorists: cf. in
Isaiah, xvi. 13, xx. 1, xxxviii. 9; but this is not invariable, see lxiii. 19.

As to aoristic perfects in the LXX., we have to remember ﬁrst, that
the translation Is not homogeneous: and Prof. Moulton says (p. 143),
“We are entirely at liberty to recognise such perfects in one writer
and deny them to another, or to allow them for certain verbs and
negative the class as a whole.” Secondly, the question may be
whether it is the form of the one tense or the meaning of the other that
prevailed; or rather, whether it was not made easier for the perfect to
be used where we might have expected an aorist, by the aorist having
already extended its limits, so as almost to encroach upon what was
the territory of the perfect. (The perfect form, that is, is perhaps
regaining for the tense some of the ground which the aorist had
previously extended its meaning to cover.) On the coupling of the
two, as in liii. 5, we may again quote Prof. Moulton, speaking (p. 143)
of “aorist and perfect joined with καί and with identical subject.

 
When the nexus is so close, we might fairly suppose it possible for the
tenses to be contaminated by the association, even where a perfect
would not have been used aoristically by itself.” Hence no
surprise need be felt at the coordinate aor. and perf. in our Isaiah
passages, while on the other hand there seems to be no instance of an
isolated aorist perfect in the book. There are, it is true, some where
the aorist, according to some of its uses in the book, would appear
equally possible. Compare e.g. ἤκουσεν, vai. 8, with ἀκηκόασιν below,
ver. 19, or ἠρήμωται, i. 7, with ἠρημώθη, xxiv. 10; also xlvii. 13 with
lvii. IO. According to my view, as expressed in Vol. I. “ On Methods
of Rendering,” the extended use of the aorist in Isaiah is largely
to its being the ’ choice as the normal tense to represent the
Heb. perfect. The rest of the prophetic, lyric, and poetic passages of
the Ο.Τ. are, so far as I can see, not unlike Isaiah in this respect.
Plain narrative, introducing the help of a continuous story or context,
stands on a different footing.

The rendering of the LXX. into English has of course difficulties of
its own, of which these tenses form not the least important. The
English translator has to determine what the Greek translator meant,
and to judge (see § 1) how far to render in the light of the original,
and how far by the ordinary rules of the Greek language. As a hostage
has been given to fortune in Vol. 1., no more need be said here. But
on the question of the aorist and perfect especiallynit must be remembered
that the use of tenses is not a fixed quantity, either as between
two languages (though with obviously corresponding forms) or between
two stages of one language. The English tenses themselves have
undergone much change in usage. Again, the French past tense
with avoir (I avoid the terms ‘definite’ and ‘indefinite’) corresponds,
evidently, in form to the English tense with ‘have,’ and jaimai on the
whole to I loved; but the usage often differs considerably. I choose,
almost at random, a quotation from MM. Erckhmann-Chatrian's
Waterloo, chap. ix.:
 ” Cette montre...je Lai regue du prince ène pour une action 
 éclat.’ 
And one from Racine (Athalie, Act II. Sc. V. l. 511 foll.)
 “Mais lorsque revenant de mon trouble funeste 
 J'admirais sa douceur, son air noble et modeste, 
 Ƒai senti tout à coup un homicide acier.’

Could an Englishman possibly use the tense I have... in sentences
such as either of these? We must therefore be prepared to ﬁnd even

 
the Greek aorist and perfect occasionally approximating in their
meanings, and frequently, at one or another stage of the language,
impossible to render into English each by a single tense-form of
our own.

The tenses in other moods than the indicative (as the perfects
κεκλήσθω, iv. 1, κεκακῶσθαι, liii. 7) need not detain US: on ’u’xpa’yov
see note on vi. 3, comparing Moulton, p. 147. The participles are for
the most part ordinary: the active perf. participle (in form) occurs
roughly speaking about forty times in Isaiah; but of these more than
half are instances of πεποιθώς, which is frequently used with tenses of
εἰμὶ to form equivalents for finite forms. ἰσχυκότες, viii. 9, is unexpected
and may be considered awkward, but cannot be fairly called irregular.
Apart from πέποιθα, βεβούλευμαι (iii. 9, xiv. 24., 26, 27, xlvi. 10, 11) and
πέπαυται (xxiv. 8, xxvi. to, xxxii. to, xxxiii. 8) are the commonest
ﬁnite perfects; the required meaning, of course, accounting for this.

τοῦ with infin. mostly stands for Heb. ABBREV with infin.; very occasionally
for D with infin. (privativc sense), which is oftener τοῦ μή. Notice the
doubt as to the insertion of μὴ in viii. 16, xxv. 2 (Heb. ABBREV and ABBREV with
nouns), and the variant τὸ with infin., apparently consecutive, in xxi. 3.

(In the phrases Ζῶ ἐγώ, xlix. 18, ᾖ κύριος, the verb is indicative; the
Latin is vivo ego, and this agrees with Heb. Contrast 2 Sam. xvi. 16
1 Kings i. 39, &c.)

Note the subj. following a future in x. 14, and the optatives in xi. 9
XXI. Ι.

§ 7. On adverbs there is little to say. Prof. Moulton (p. 105)
alludes to the N.T. use of ἀνὰ and κατὰ distributively: Lxx. also use
ἀνὰ with numerals, as l Kings xviii. 13, but these, being mostly inde-
clinables, give no clue to the case. The double adverbial phrase,
ταχὺ κούφως ἔρχονται, ν. 26, is noticeably awkward.

§ 8. Prepositions show more departure from classical standards.
The niceties of Attic, as in other matters, are blurred. For instance,
ἐπὶ τὸ ὅρος τοῦτο, XXV. 6, is much nearer in meaning to ἐπ’ ἄκρων τῶν
ὀρέων, ii. 2, ἐπὶ κούφοις, xxx. 16, or the neighbouring ἐν τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ,
xxv. 7, than to ἐπὶ τὸ ὅρος Σιών, xxix. 8 (leaving xxxi. 5 aside as
ambiguous). Similarly πέποιθα is followed by ἐπὶ with acc. or with
dat., and ἐν with dat., almost indifferently; see xxxi. 1, xxxii. 3
xxxiii. 2, &c. Ἐν and εἷς seldom (if ever) show signs of
but the former has extended its uses, in the endeavour to do the work
of Heb. ABBREV Ἀπὸ is inclined to encroach upon ὑπὸ, xiii. 19 Β, and to
lose its shade of difference from ἐκ on some occasions; but readings
sometimes vary, as in viii. 19, cf. xxix. 4. The dat. is seldom found

 
after prepositions other than ἐν and ἐπί, though it might have seemed
difficult to do without πρός (cf. Moulton, p. 104 foll.). Prof. Moulton
shows that in the N.T. the dative would be the scarcest case after
prepositions but for the predominant ἐν: in the Lxx. it might be said
generally that certain uses of the dative are abundant, but the number
of constructions in which the case is commonly used is smaller than in
classical Greek.

§ 9. Conjunctions and particles have somewhat shifted their force
and proportion. ὅτι often represents Heb. ABBREV and it is sometimes
difficult to know whether it represents ‘that’ or ‘for’: μὲν and δέ,
their regular antithesis, have all but disappeared; δέ alone is not very
common, and μὲν occurs twice in the book, vi. 2, where δὲ following is
doubtful, and xli. 7, where it is absent. On ὅτε, ὁπότε, ἡνίκα, see above,
§ 6. Relative particles or conjunctional phrases seem increasingly
common: ἕως οὗ, ἀφ’ οὗ, with perf. xiv. 8, with aor. xliii. 4, διότι, ὃν
τρόπον: cf. perhaps ἐφ’ ἅ(??), xxv. 11.

On εἷ μὴ ἤκουσας; xl. 28, see note there. It certainly seems
simplest to take it as interrogative.

The apodosis is sometimes marked by καὶ, as in lviii. 13, 14, where
it is uncertain which καὶ has this office; which perhaps comes from the
use of Heb. ABBREV though this is not found in either of these instances. I
cannot recall an instance of δέ similarly used in the book, but its com-
parative rarity in any sense makes this not surprising.

ἀλλὰ and πρὶν are often followed by ἤ, MSS. varying much. The
meaning is hardly affected, unless some slight emphasis is to be under-
stood.

Οὐ and μὴ present no very marked peculiarities. Μὴ introducing a
hesitating assertion or suggestion may possibly occur xxviii. 17, where
see note. Οὐ may be seen used to negative a specitic phrase after ἵνα
c. subj. in viii. 20, and cf. x. 15, where however the phrase οὐχ οὕτως is
a special weakness of the Lxx. With participles οὐκ occurs, as in
xli. 11, 12, lvi. 11, lix. 10; μή, less frequently than might be expected,
as in xxix. 12.. In relative clauses, οὐκ, as in lxv. 20; μή, as in
lviii. 11.

Interjections, as a matter of usage, differ from Attic. φεῦ and αἰαῖ
are replaced generally by οὐαί, see on i. 24. Occasionally ὦ is used, as
in Habak. ii. 9, 15, 2 Kings vi. 5. See also such passages as Judg. xi. 35
Jerem. xxii. 18, with their variants.

§ 10. But the general colouring of the style remains the chief
peculiarity of the LXX.'s Greek. It is not so much that the constructions
are unclassical, as that most classical arrangements are rare or

 
absent. Owing to the short co-ordinate sentences, which follow the
original, the devices of Greek syntax have all but disappeared, while
most of the methods of expression recur so frequently as to be bald
and monotonous in any case, and, if not agreeable to classical usage,
to have the appearance and effect of mannerisms. Thus the optative
disappears in historic consecution, leaving its work to the subjunctive
and indit ative, as in lvii. 8; it also grows rare after εἷ, and, when it is
found, the potential clause does not match it; see xlix. 15, and cf.
Moulton, p. 196. On the other hand it is used with excessive frequency
to express Wishes, Job iii. 3—9, Ps. xx. 10ù4, c.;
e.g. in PS. cix. 7—15. There are, again, instances of anacoluthon,
beyond, or different from, the Attic practice, and probably mainly due
to the almost caseless Hebrew of the original: cf. Vol. I. p. 40. Thus
λέγων or λέγοντες is used to connect a ’s statement with the
narrative introducing it, though neither agreeing with the grammatical
subject nor even referring to it: see, e.g., I Kings i. 51, xviii. 1, in con-
trast to (Zen. xxxi. 1. Circumstances make this infrequent in Isaiah,
though see vii. 2, with the variants. Other instances of looseness in
the matter of cases may be seen at xvi. 6, xxviii. 1, xxxi. 1 pOSSIbly,
xxxii. 13, xxxiii. 20, ἃς. Α strange apposition, but of another kind, is
that in vii. 17, ἡμέρας...τὸν βασιλέα Ἀσσυρίων.

Special Hebraisms have been noted where they occur; their
combination with the features here briefly mentioned, with the
addition of a vocabulary and ideas not those of Attic Greek, produce
a marked difference in general effect. The scope ofa remark made by
Prof. Moulton (p. 76) might be extended: “The Greek translator,
endeavouring to be as literal as he could, nevertheless took care to
use Greek that was possible, however unidiomatic.” This, I
‘he’ or ‘they’ constantly did, both by choice and of necessity; thinking
it the paramount duty to be literal, and not caring for the usages of
literary Greek. But if they were not masters of Attic by inheritance or
acquirement, neither were they devoid of native gift of language, nor
of some conception of a ’s duty, nor of skill to carry it out.