<- Previous   First   Next ->

John 4:10 eij h[/dei"...su; a]n h[/thsa" .

John 11:21, 32 eij h\" ... oujk a]n ajpevqanen . John 18:30 eij mh; h\n ... oujk a]n paredwvkamen .

Acts 18:14 eij h\n...a]n ajnescovmhn .

And here also we must place: Matt. 12:7 eij ejgnwvkeite (real imp.)... oujk a]n katedikavsate .

Matt. 24:43 || Lk. 12:39 eij h[/dei (real imp.)... ejgrhgovrhsen a[n ...

Sometimes the a[n of the apodosis is omitted: Gal. 4:15 eij dunatovn ... ejdwvkate ...

(2) Eij with the aor. indic. in protasis followed by aor. in apodosis. The hypothetic unfulfilled condition and the result of its non-fulfilment are regarded as definite incidents wholly in the past.

1 Cor. 2:8 eij e[gnwsan ... oujk a]n ejstauvrwsan (if at the crisis of their trial they had known...they would not have crucified).

Matt. 11:21 eij ejgevnonto ... pavlai a]n metenovhsan || Lk. 10:13.

Matt. 24:22 || Mark 13:20 eij mh; ejkolovbwsen ... oujk a]n ejswvqh ...

So in LXX. Is. 1:9 eij mh; ... ejgkatevlipen ... a]n ejgenhvqhmen . Rom. 9:29.

Compare also: Matt. 25:27 || Lk. 19:23 dia; tiv oujk e[dwka" ... kajgw; ejlqw;n ... a[n ... e[praxa ...

John 14:2 eij de; mhv, ei\pon a]n uJmi'n ...

Heb. 10:2 ejpei; oujk a]n ejpauvsanto ...

In some passages there appears to be a combination of two forms of expression:

Luke 17:6 eij e[cete ... ejlevgete a[n ..., as if the sentence would naturally have continued levgete , but then the e[cete was mentally corrected to ei[cete to meet the actual case. Comp. Winer p. 383 with Dr Moulton's note.

John 8:39 eij ... e[ste ... ejpoiei'te (if this reading be adopted). It may be added that the construction is relatively more frequent in St John's Gospel than in any other Book of the N. T.

Additional Note on Hebrews 4:12. The origin and constitution of

man.

The great mystery of the origin of man is touched in two passages of the Epistle which severally suggest the two complementary theories which have been fashioned in a one-sided manner as Traducianism and Creationism: Heb. 7:10; 12:9.

In Heb. 7:10 (comp. 4:5) the force of the argument lies in the assumption that the descendants are included in the ancestor, in such a sense that his acts have force for them. So far as we keep within the region of


<- Previous   First   Next ->