cases, where there is less certainty, are to be altogether given up.

Let us now adduce some examples, as a specimen of all. Numerous Atticisms are met with, owing both to the simple circumstance of the extent to which the Attic dialect was diffused, and to the critical studies of transcribers. Of this sort are años,P Apoc. xxi. 18, and piáλn, Apoc. v. 8, in which words the Ionians and Dorians had the letter, making sho and pin. Another instance is άsrós, Matth. xxiv. 28, for which the rest of the Greeks used

is right; for these MSS., which can scarcely be proved to be of earlier date than the sixth century, present an orthography and mode of writing, which, in many cases, was undoubtedly introduced by transcribers. As to the books of the New Testament, it is beyond question, that they should not be referred to the orthography of a single MS., since no one will doubt that the sacred writers did not follow one and the same way of writing, but that John wrote in one manner, Paul in another, Peter, James, and the rest, in a different way, according to the diversity of the places where they lived. Accordingly, I have thought it better that they should retain the orthography which, it can be rendered probable both by the agreement of the best MSS., and by the testimony of grammarians, belonged to the common language.

P Thom. Mag. p. 862, and there Hemsterhuis.

Moschopulus sgì x, p. 120. Moeris, p. 389, and there Interpret.

dierós. Many other instances where the vowels are shortened, are to be met with ; but these I must not enumerate.

We have the Doric reading á¿w, John vii. 30, for w3-zaμμe, Matth. xiii. 15, Acts xxviii. 27, for zaraμúent—xλíßavos, Matth. vi. 30, for κρίβανος, which form the κοινοί have often used." Without doubt, Tavdostov, Luke x. 34, is Doric. Grammarians would have Tavdonetov substituted; which latter reading passed from the Ionians to the Athenians.

Paul follows the Attic mode of writing in Báuos, 1 Tim. iii. 13, for which the other Greeks used βάσμος; also Luke, in αναβαθμός, Acts xxi. 35, instead of avaẞaguós. To the same Ionic usage may be referred the word

paw, Eph. v. 14, for iπpáw; which, so far as I know, is used only in the New Testament. In other forms, at least, it was very

* Moeris, p. 18. Etymol. p 51, 49. Eustath. on Il. «. p. 21, f.

S

t

Etymol. p. 671, 30.

Gregor. de Dialectis, p. 165. This author elsewhere states, p. 290, that this was the method of the Ionians also.

u

Phrynich. p. 76.

p. 110, C.

Thom. Mag. p. 554. Athen. iii.

* Phrynich. p. 134. Thom. M. p. 676. Hemsterh. on

Aristoph. Plut. p. 122.

Phrynich. p. 142.

z Thom. Mag. p. 46.

common to insert, after the vowel dg the letter υ, ας αύτας, δαυλός, ἰαύχε, for ἀτάς, δαλός, ἴαχε

There are many remains of the later orthography. I say nothing of the forms youar and γινώσκω, for γίγνομαι and γιγνώσκω, of which Fischer and others have taken notice; or of νοσσός, νοσσίον, for νεοσσός, νεοσσίον, which have also been noticed by Fischer, as well as by Sturzius. I add some other examples, not yet, so far as I know, observed in Holy Scripture. Of this kind are rò didgaymov, Matth. xvii. 24, according to the true reading, for τὸ δίδραχμον, in regard to which, we have already referred to the testimony of Thomas Magister-aTás, Apoc. xviii. 22, for λrns, which, the masters of the Attic speech have observed, was. used only by later authors- où év, 1 Cor. xiii. 2, for oudev, on which, see passages of grammarians already referred to. I omit other examples, which would call for a more ample review.

3. To the third class belong those cases

a Eustath, on Od. p. 1654, 27.

b Prolusiones de Vitiis Lex. p. 674. Valcken on Eurip. Phoen. 1396.

De dial. Alex. p. 185.

a Phrynich. p. 80. Moeris, p. 354. Thom. Mag. p. 789. Comp. Theophr. Charact. c. 25. Lucian, v. i. p. 720.

where the common speech seems to have introduced a change in the flection of nouns and verbs. As to nouns, no vestiges of any of the more ancient dialects except the Attic are observed in the New Testament-a circumstance which, in my opinion, is to be attributed, not to the later speech being free, in this respect, from confusion of dialect, but rather to the critical studies of transcribers, who have preferred retaining the Attic usage in this point, as in innumerable others. To the Attics belong, for instance, the genitive rou 'ATOλ= Aú, 1 Cor. i. 12, from the nominative 'Amoλλws ; the accusative τήν Κῶ, Acts xxi. 1; τὸν ̓Απόλλω, Acts xix. 1; rv vauv, Acts xxvii. 41, from the nominative ǹ vaus, for which the Ionians used vnus, the Dorians vas. The dative ví, for vw, 1 Cor. i. 10; xiv. 15; Rom. vii. 25, follows the later usage, taking the form of the third declension-examples of which word occur only in the Fathers and the New Testament; also the accusative vym, Acts v. 11, 15, Tit. ii. 8, from yea; for the Attics, when a vowel was sounded before the letters a, contracted them,

e

Comp. Matthiae Gram. Graec. f Herodian on Herm. p. 303. Weiler, ii. p. 181.

p.

91.

Fischer Animadv. ad

g

not into, but into a iya, not by. Of other instances, as, the accusative plural of nouns ending in ευς—τοὺς γονεῖς, γραμματείς, the dative plural dusí, for which the Attics used the dual duo, the contracted form of the genitive of the adjective ἥμισυς, (ἥμίσους for ἥμίσεος,) and other cases, Fischer, I observe, has already spoken."

There are several observable particulars in the flection of verbs. A very great deal was contributed by the Attic dialect, and some things were drawn from the Doric; but of the Ionic no traces appear. Many new additions also have been made. In the three verbs, βούλομαι, δύναμαι, μέλλω, the sacred writers, after the manner of the Attics, use a double augment, as ἠβούληθην, 2 John 12; ηδυνήθησαν, Matth. xvii. 16; λλ, Luke vii. 2; although in other places we find the common reading with the single augment, Matth. i. 19, Bouλn; xxii. 46, duvaro; Luke x. i. queλλ. The principles of this dialect are also followed in the second person of the present tense, Bouhouar, and of the future, oua, which the Attics contracted, not into Bother and or, but into Boun

Moeris, p. 375. Thom. M. p. 864. Eustath. on Od. d. p. 196, 11. Heindorf. on Plato's Charmid. p. 64.

h Prolusion. p. 666, sqq.

1 Thom. Mag. p. 258. Fischer, Animadv. ii. p. 599. sqq.