.108

geographical notions of the Orientals, as well as of the Greeks and Romans, some modern interpreters have come to find and acknowledge mythic geographical ideas in the Old Testament ; so, on the other hand, the classic soil of the Bible has recently been repeatedly visited by several distinguished travellers; and especially, very much has been gained for the details of the topography of Palestine and Egypt.109

In regard to the mythology of the Aramaean nations, I have not scrupled, in the proper articles of the lexicon, to adopt the hypothesis which I have more fully explained in another place,* that it was originally connected with the worship of the stars, and more especially of the planets. I have ventured to do this, in the hope that it may meet the approbation of the distinguished scholar, who has recently poured so much light upon this branch of archaeology.

108 See the author's Comm. zu Jes. Th. II. 316 sq. Ersch and Gruber's Encyclop. I. c.

109 Much light has been thrown upon the ancient geography of Egypt in consequence of the French expedition, and through the study of Coptic writers; especially in the following works: Ed. Quatremère Mémoires géographiques et historiques sur l'Egypte, 2 vols. Paris 1811-12. Champollion l'Egypte sous les Pharaons, Tom. I. II. Description géographique, Paris, 1814.-For the geography of Palestine, the most important contributions are those of U. F. Seetzen in Zach's Monathl. Correspondenz, Vol. XII. sq. Burckhardt's Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, Lond. 1822. 4to. and Legh's Account of his Visit to Wady Mousa, etc. appended as a Supplement to the work of Mc Michael. All these, however, cast in general more light on the later geography of the New Testament, than on that of the Old.—The author of this article has long been making preparations for a critical Atlas of the Bible, and hopes soon to be able to come to the execution of his plan. In the mean time, he would refer the student, for the sacred geography both of Palestine and the adjacent lands, to Rosenmueller's Handbuch der biblischen Alterthumskunde, Bd. I.-III. Biblische Geographie, Leipz. 1823-28; in which the latest travels and discoveries have been noticed and introduced.

* Beylage zum Commentar über Jes. Th. II. p. 327 sq.

This sentence was written in 1823, and refers either to Creuzer, who published the second edition of his Symbolik in 1819—23; or more probably to Bishop Münter of Copenhagen, whose work entitled die Religion der Carthager, was also republished in 1821, and followed by an Appendix addressed to Creuzer in 1822.-ED.

ART. II. ON THE FORCE OF THE GREEK PREPOSITIONS.IN COMPOUND VERBS, AS EMPLOYED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

By J. A. H. Tittmann, Professor of Theology in the University of Leipsic. Translated from the Latin by the Editor.*

THE negligence and inconsideration, with which lexicographers and grammarians in general have proceeded in assigning the force and significancy of the Greek particles, cannot have escaped the notice of any correct Greek scholar; and in no species of particles, perhaps, have these faults been more frequently conspicuous, than in respect to the prepositions. This would seem, at first view, the more surprising; since it is doubtless more easy to perceive and express the relations in which different things stand toward each other, which is the office of the preposition, than it is to explain the way in which an object of thought, or the act itself of thinking, stands connected with the thinking mind, which is a principal use of the conjunction. There are, however, various causes, which have contributed to introduce confusion in respect to the force and use of the Greek prepositions. A principal one of these, no doubt, has been the circumstance, that where their power appeared to be somewhat uncertain, it has been customary to regard them as without any force, and pronounce them pleonastic. This has been very common among interpreters of the New Testament; who would seem almost to have been upon the watch for pleonasms, whenever any uncertainty or obscurity could be detected in the employment of prepositions. Hence the lexicons of the New Testament are filled with observations of this nature; and at the close of almost every article which treats of a preposition, we find the remark, "haud raro redundat."

In regard, especially, to those prepositions which are compounded with verbs, it is a common and indeed a very general opinion, that such prepositions often do not at all affect the force of the verbs; and that therefore the force and meaning of a

See the Introductory Notice in vol. I. p. 160, of this work. The Programm, of which this article is a translation, was first printed in 1814.-This article was prepared for the press in season for the preceding Number. The German journals received since that time, announce the decease of the distinguished author, on the 30th of December 1831, in the 59th year of his age. He was the Senior Professor of Theology in the University of Leipsic.-ED.

compound verb differs frequently in no respect from those of the simple verb. The source of this opinion is to be found, partly in a want of attention to the niceties of language, and partly in the desire of avoiding some particular interpretations. Thus, in former times, when it was the fashion to look for an emphatic meaning in many verbs where there is none, the most false interpretations were not unfrequently brought forward on no ground whatever, except a certain supposed emphasis imparted to the compound verb by the accession of the preposition. Hence too it was, that other interpreters were led more decidedly to deny, that the force of the verb was in all cases affected by the preposition; in many cases, at least, they affirmed, no emphasis was to be sought in compound verbs. This was doubtless Ernesti's meaning, when he says,* that in Greek verbs we must take care not to suppose that any accession of meaning is necessarily made by the accession of prepositions, especially άvá, ἀπό, πρό, σύν, ἐκ, περί, nor must we draw arguments from this supposed emphasis, as is done by many, and oftentimes very incongruously; inasmuch as use and observation sufficiently teach us, that these prepositions do not always affect the signification of the simple verbs, and indeed are very frequently redundant.' The learned writer is obviously here speaking of emphasis, which, it must be conceded, is not always produced by the prepositions. But still, the precept which he gives, is ambiguous; for it is one thing to impart an emphasis; another, to produce an accession to the force and meaning of the simple verb; and still another, to change the meaning of the simple verb. It is this ambiguity, which seems to have led astray those who have since written on this topic; especially Fischer, whose dissertation on the subject is devoid of every thing like fixed rule or settled principle.t

It does not indeed require much study, to demonstrate by numerous examples, that prepositions in themselves never produce emphasis, and that they do not always change the signification of the simple verbs; but it is more difficult to shew precisely what force such prepositions really have, either constantly or in certain circumstances. No one, so far as I know, has treated of this subject in such a manner, as to have reduced this part of grammar to certain and fixed laws; and although individual authors

* Institutio Interp. N. T. P. I. s. 2. c. 5. § 8. Stuart's Transl. § 168. Prolus. de Vitiis Lexicor. N. T. Prolus. V. 119 sq.

p.

have written on particular points with judgment and discrimination, still the subject of the Greek prepositions, as a whole, has not yet been properly discussed, especially with reference to the writers of the New Testament. Some interpreters indeed, having adopted the opinion that the New Testament writers scarcely spoke the Greek language, and were at least total strangers to all its grammatical principles and laws, have not thought it worth their while even to look at the force of the particles, and more particularly of the prepositions; and hence it has arisen, that in most of the lexicons of the New Testament, the prepositions are treated of so ineptly and unskilfully. Another class of interpreters, supposing it to be the safest course to avoid a nice explication of every thing which they did not understand, or which seemed to them unsettled and indefinite, took refuge in pleonasm, and taught, with great confidence, that prepositions in composition with verbs are often redundant. This they did the more earnestly, because they recollected that many false interpretations and heterodox opinions rested for support solely on the emphasis alleged to exist in certain compound verbs, e. g. in лooooisεw, лoоуivάoxε. Others again have admitted, that prepositions sometimes add no new signification to that of the simple verb, while yet they sometimes augment the latter; but they have given no certain rules by which to distinguish, when the signification is thus augmented or when it remains unaffected.

Among the writers of this latter class, who are thus wavering and uncertain in regard to these particles, we may rank most of the ancient grammarians and scholiasts; who, when the force of a construction was not obvious to them, have not hesitated to declare, περιττήν εἶναι τὴν πρόθεσιν, * the preposition is redundant;' while yet, in other places, they have developed the force and meaning of the prepositions with far more subtlety than correctness. Thus for instance,-to use the same examples which Fischer (1. c.) has adduced in support of his views,-the Scholiast on Aristophanes says of the verb naqairnowμeva, ad Equit. ν. 37, περιττὴ ἡ παρά· ἔστι γὰρ αιτησώμεθα, παρακαλέσωμεν. Πλεονάζουσι γὰρ καὶ ἐλλείπουσι ταῖς προθέσεσιν Αττικοί. The παρά is superfluous ; the verb is i. q. αἰτεσώμεθα oι παρακαλέ owμev. The Attics often make pleonasms and ellipses with the prepositions.' But surely the preposition is never wholly superfluous in παραιτεῖν, and least of all in this place. Αἰτεῖν is simply to ask for any thing; but nagareiv is so to ask as to deprecate the opposite; a meaning perfectly well adapted to this

passage. The same Scholiast further says, ad Plutum v. 499, to δὲ ἀνερώτα ἢ περιττὴν ἔχει τὴν πρόθεσιν ἢ δηλωτικόν ἐστι τοῦ πολλάκις ἐρωτᾷν. “In ἀνερώτα the preposition is either redundant, or else it indicates repeated questioning.' Fischer thought the first solution to be the true one, but incorrectly; for avεowrav is most appropriately employed in this place to mark repeated questioning, and not a simple interrogation (¿owrav); as indeed the Scholiast explains it in the sequel. The same indefiniteness and want of consistency occurs in other grammarians, and even in Eustathius.* This is certainly a grievous fault in the interpretation of any book; but ought to be more particularly avoided by an interpreter of the New Testament; inasmuch as the greatest care is here necessary, lest, by neglecting the real force and significancy of the prepositions, either the sense should be deprived of its full weight, or at least the same idea should not be apprehended in the same manner as it was by the writer himself. From considerations like these, I have thought it would not be labour lost, to give the subject a more careful discussion. But as the limits of this essay forbid a complete view, it will be proper to confine ourselves to a succinct exposition of the various ways, in which the force of the prepositions is manifested in connexion with verbs.

Prepositions are usually connected with verbs in a threefold manner. They are either subjoined to the simple verb as a complement, as douav ini ti, or they are compounded with the verb, as ¿qoquav, or they are subjoined to a verb already compounded with the same or another preposition, as ¿qoquav sis πόλεμον, ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας. The plan of this essay includes neither the first nor the last of these modes of expression; but only the second, in which the prepositions are so joined with the verbs, as to form with them one compound word.† It

* So p. 1009, 49. Προθέσεις παρέλκουσι ἐν παρενθέσει μηδὲν προστι θεῖσαι τῇ σημασίᾳ τῶν ἁπλῶν. Prepositions are redundant in composition, adding nothing to the significations of the simple words.' The contrary and more correct doctrine is given on p. 217, 18. 727, 19. 936, 48. 1553, 14.

One of the writers who has done most justice to the subject of prepositions in composition, is Abresch ad Cattieri Gazophyl. Graec. p. 60. But he appears not to have been sufficiently aware, that the different force which the same preposition exhibits when compounded with different verbs, arises out of the signification of the verb with which it is thus connected, while the preposition itself always retains