xii. 41, xiii. 21, xiv. 25, xv. 11, 17, xvi. 1, 25, 33, xvii. 1, xviii. 1, XX. 14 (for μerà тaîτa, see 2006).

(^)

οὗτος, ταύτην, ταῦτα etc. in agreement, ii. II, viii. 20, Χ. 18, x. 6, χν. 12 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ ἐμή.

[2006] Forms of ouros with Prepositions :

(a) dià TOUTO Vii. 22, viii. 47, ix. 23, x. 17, xii. 39, xiii. 11, xvi. 15, xix. II.

(B) ἐκ τούτου vi. 66, xix. 12.

(y) év TOUT xiii. 35, xv. 8, xvi. 30.

(8) μετὰ τοῦτο ii. 12, xix. 28.

(ε) μετὰ ταῦτα iii. 22, V. I, 14, vi. I, xxi. I.

[2007] (10) With Relative clauses introduced by o, oñoν, ws, ote: i. 4, iii. 32, viii. 21, xii. 36, xvii. 12.

(11) With the Subject:

(a) Subject followed immediately (or with intervening Adverb or Adverbial Clause) by Verb', i. 15, iii. 8, 35, iv. 20, vi. 49, 63, viii. 13, 35, 52, 56, ix. 41, x. 10, 11, xviii. 35, xix. 29. (In xvii. 17 the verb is ἀλήθειά ἐστιν.)

(B) Subject qualified by Relative Clause or by Participle, i. 18, vi. 37, 63, x. 8, 12, 25, xii. 483.

[2008] (12) With the Verb (not including deкρíðŋ, eite, or λέγει) :

(a) Verb absolute, or followed by Adverbial Phrase, iv. 30, xiv. 1, xvi. 28 (bis, the second time preceded by máλw), xxi. 3.

(B) Verb followed immediately by Subject or Predicate, i. 6, 9, 40, 41, 45, 47, ii. 17, iv. 7, 50, v. 15, vii. 32, viii. 50, 54, ix. 4, 35, xi. 35, 44, xii. 22, xiii. 23, xvi. 25, xviii. 25, xx. 18, 26, xxi. 13.

(y) Verb followed thus, but with Adverb or Adverbial Phrase intervening, x. 22, xiii. 22 ἔβλεπον εἰς ἀλλήλους οἱ μ., χχί. 2.

(8) Verb followed immediately by Object (with or without intervening Adverb or Possessive Genitive), i. 42, vii. 34, ix. 13, x. 30, xiii. 33, xvii. 6.

() Verb followed by or, viii. 37, ix. 31, olda and oïdaμev, χίν. 28 ἠκούσατε.

(5) To these add vi. 45 ἔστιν γεγραμμένον, ix. 40 ἤκουσαν ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων ταῦτα, where ἐκ τῶν Φ. is the Subject.

1 In xvi. 21 ǹ yvvǹ őтav tíktŋ, a conjunction intervenes.

2 Asyndeton is also found in i. 39, iv. 7, xix. 14 ŵpa v, and x. 22 xeiμwv yv.

3 Asyndeton with these initial verbs is too frequent to permit or need a collection of all the references.

[2009] This occurs in Jn vi. 10 тòv åpiðμóv, viii. 25 tηv ȧpxýv, on which see 2154-6, xv. 25 dwpeáv (from Ps. lxix. 4) which needs no comment. The present section will deal only with vi. 10 (R.V.) "Make the people (τoùs ávěpúπovs) sit down...So the men (oi avôpes) sat down in number about five thousand (τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὡς πενταKixíλ).” A distinction is probably intended by R.V. between "the people," i.e. the whole number, including women and children, and the "men," who are described by Matthew as (xiv. 21) "about five thousand men (ävdpes) beside women and children." But, if this distinction were insisted on in the R.V. of John, the meaning would be that although the Lord commanded that all the "people" should be made to sit down, including the women and children, yet, for some reason or other, only "the men" sat down. We can however retain a distinction between avoрwо and avopes by dropping of with W.H. marg. "they sat down therefore, [being] men [exclusive of women] to the number of five thousand'."

[2010] "In number" is not inserted by the Three Synoptists in the Five Thousand narrative, nor by the Two in the Four Thousand. Cramer quotes a Greek commentator, "He numbers the men alone, following the customs of the Law2"; and it is probable that John means this. John may have considered that Matthew was right in inferring, from some ancient phrase about the "numbering," that 66 women and children" were not included: but if the old Tradition did not mention " women and children," and Mark and Luke did not mention them, John may have preferred to return to the exact words, while suggesting the truth of Matthew's interpretation by the contrast between "men" and "people."

[2011] The noun "number," apart from Lk. xxii. 3 “Judas... being of the number of the twelve," and Rom. ix. 27 (Hos. i. 10) is

1 [2009 α] (W.H.) ἀνέπεσαν οὖν οἱ ἄνδρες τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὡς πεντακισχίλιοι (marg. ovv, avôpes). Less probably, ovv, ol ävôpes might be read, "they sat down therefore -the men [were, or, being] five thousand."

* [2010 α] Cramer ii. 242 Παρουσῶν δὲ γυναικῶν σὺν τέκνοις μόνους τοὺς ἄνδρας ἀριθμεῖ ταῖς κατὰ τὸν νόμον συνηθείαις ἀκολουθῶν.

used only in Acts and Revelation. In the former, it is always (with one exception) used to describe the growth of the Church1; and it is appropriate here in a narrative that is typical of that growth. In the Pentateuch, it is frequently used in connexion with numbering prescribed by the Law, and κar' ápμóv is frequent. But the adverbial ròv åpioμóv rarely or never occurs in canon. LXX.

(ii) Absolute, or suspensive

[2012] On vi. 39 ἵνα πᾶνμὴ ἀπολέσω ἐξ αὐτοῦ (where π. may possibly, but not probably, be accus., see 1921—2), and on xv. 2 πâv κλῆμα...αἴρει αὐτό...πᾶν τὸ καρπὸν φέρον καθαίρει αὐτό, see 1920-2.

(iii) Denoting time, but not duration

:

[2013] iv. 52-3 "Yesterday, [about] the seventh hour (pav ¿ẞdóμny) the fever left him.' The father, therefore, recognised that [it had left him] at that same hour (ẻkeivy Tŷ wpa)3." The accus. is freq. in LXX in the phrase τὴν ὥραν ταύτην αύριον, which was apparently intended by the translators to mean "about this time to-morrow" (but see Gesen. 453) representing the Hebrew “as the time" or "at the like of the time" and it occurs in Rev. iii. 3 "thou shalt not know what hour (Tоíav wρav) I will come against thee." It is perhaps vernacular, like our "what time did it happen?" If so, the servants speak in the vernacular, as well as loosely, not knowing that their master wanted to know the time exactly. Subsequently the dative is used to denote the exact point of time. The father, hearing the words "about the seventh hour," recognised the coincidence between "seventh" and the exact hour when Jesus pronounced the words "Thy son liveth."

1 Acts iv. 4, vi. 7, xi. 21, xvi. 5. The exception is v. 36.

2 [2011 a] It occurs in 2 Macc. viii. 16 övтas Tòv (A om.) ȧ. ¿žakioxiλlovs, 3 Macc. v. 2 τοὺς ἐλέφαντας ποτίσαι ὄντας τὸν ἀ. πεντακοσίους, also in Susan. 3o of the kinsfolk and attendants ὄντες τὸν ἀριθμὸν πεντακόσιοι παρεγένοντο (Theod. om.). In classical Gk it is freq. e.g. Aristoph. Av. 1251.

[2013 a] Strictly, the sense demands "The father, therefore, inquired further and ascertained that it was not only about, but precisely at, the time when....' But the text is according to nature. The father-fastening on the word "seventh" apart from its context-says "That was precisely the number." See 2025—6.

4 [2013] See Ex. ix. 18, 1 K. xix. 2, xx. 6. In Acts x. 3 woel Tepi wpav éváτηy т. hμépas, D is wanting, and W.H. follow the best MSS. in inserting repl. The accus. of duration in Jn is too frequent and regular to need comment. xiii. 35 μEσOVÝKTIOν is prob. an adverb (2678).

Mk

(iv) Cognate

[2014] Such a cognate accusative as vii. 24 Tv dikaíav kpíσiv KρívεTE requires no comment. But it is very unusual that this construction should accompany an accusative of the person as in xvii. 26 ý áуáη v nyánŋoás μe, and it is surprising that (according to Alford) no Greek uncial except D has substituted for v. It is probably more than a mere coincidence that the only other such combination of personal and cognate accusative is a similar phrase, Ephesians ii. 4 διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην αὐτοῦ ἣν ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς. But there the relative may have been attracted to the case of the antecedent. Here no such explanation is possible, and the dative might have been used as in iii. 29 xapậ xaípeɩ, “rejoiceth with joy.” Possibly the evangelist, in these last and most solemn words of the Son's Last Prayer, shrank from representing the love of God as instrumental ("wherewith "). God, he says elsewhere, "is love," and the love "wherewith " men would describe Him as loving, is really a part of Himself, emanating from Himself. Therefore a cognate accusative is preferred even though combined-uniquely in N.T.— with an accusative of the personal object'.

(v) With special verbs

(α) Ακούω

[2015] 'Akow with accusative is sometimes to be distinguished from d. with genitive, the former meaning "perceive by hearing," "catch the sound of," while the latter means "understand by hearing," "catch the meaning of." See 1614.

(β) ΓΕΥΟΜΑΙ

[2016] Tevopal with accusative occurs in ii. 9 (R.V.) “And when the ruler of the feast tasted the water now become wine (ws dè ἐγεύσατο ὁ ἀ. τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον) and knew not whence it was (but the servants which had drawn the water knew) the ruler of the feast calleth the bridegroom...." A.V. has "the water that was made wine," which would require ró to be repeated after dwp. R.V. marg. has "tasted the water that it had become wine." This would explain the construction here as parallel with that of yevoua meaning

1 [2014 a] I have not found in classical Gk an instance of ȧyañâv тɩva with ἀγάπην. But comp. Odyss. XV. 245 δν...φίλει (i.ε. ἐφίλει) παντοίην φιλότητα, and Soph. Electra 1034 τοσοῦτον ἔχθος ἐχθαίρω σ' ἐγώ.

"taste and see that," in Hebrews "Having tasted [and seen that] the word of God [is] good'." But that construction is very rare. The writer is there quoting from the Psalms, and perhaps erroneously, as he differs both from the Greek and from the Hebrew.

[2017] In Jn viii. 52 "he shall not taste of death," the genitive is used, and the question in ii. 9 is, whether the accusative is used like the genitive to mean "taste of" or to mean "taste and perceive that." Outside LXX yevoμat is rarely used with accusative: but in LXX the accusative is fairly frequent. In N.T., yevoμar is never used with the accusative except in Hebrews as above mentioned and here. On the whole the grammatical evidence favours the view (of R.V. marg.) that John would not have used the accusative if he had not meant something different from "tasted of the water." But there is great difficulty in harmonizing with the context the marginal reading of R.V. "tasted the water that it had become wine." For this is the first indication in the narrative that the water has become wine, and we should expect-if the taster knew that the liquid had recently been water-" tasted the water and found to his astonishment that it had become wine." Besides, if John meant "taste and see that," why did he use the accusative and not or as in Proverbs (2016 a)? The context indicates that the taster knew nothing of the conversion of the water to wine but simply pronounced the wine unusually good.

1 [2016 α] Heb. vi. 5 καλὸν γευσαμένους θεοῦ ῥῆμα (the nearest approach to which is Herod. vii. 46 yλukùv yeúσas tòv aiŵra “having made us taste, i.e. perceive, life to be sweet”) is a free quotation from Ps. xxxiv. 8 “taste and see that (yeúσaobe Kai lôETE ŎTi) the Lord is good." In the context (Heb. vi. 4) yevoμaι occurs with the ordinary genitive ("having tasted of the heavenly gift"). Tevoμai means "taste [and see] that (örɩ)” “i.e. perceive that "in Prov. xxxi. 18. It also means "discriminate the taste of" and governs accus. in Job xii. 11 σîra (parall. to ōtakρivet), xxxiv. 3 ßpŵσw (parall. to dokiμášei), comp. Sir. xxxvi. 19 "As the palate discriminates (yeverai) the flesh of beasts of the chase (ẞpúμara Ońpas) so doth the understanding heart [discriminate] false words."

2 [2017 a] Steph. quotes only Antig. Caryst., Leonid., and the dictum of Suidas, yevoμal, airiariky. In LXX (besides the instances above mentioned) γεύομαι is found with (r S. xiv. 29-43) βραχὺ τ. μέλιτος τούτου...βραχὺ μέλι, (Tob. vii. 11) ovdév, (Jon. iii. 7) μŋdév: but always with aprov (1 S. xiv. 24, 2 S. iii. 35, 1 Esdr. ix. 2). In LXX, the accus. with yevoμai is always neuter, except where it is parall. (Job xxxiv. 3) to doкμášεi. See 2016 a.

3 [2017] The instances with genit. are Mk ix. 1, Mt. xvi. 28, Lk. ix. 27 θανάτου, Lk. xiv. 24 γ. μου τ. δείπνου, Jn viii. 52 θανάτου, Acts xxiii. 14 μηδενός, Heb. ii. 9 θανάτου, vi. 4 δωρεᾶς.