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.