§ 7. On adverbs there is little to say. Prof. Moulton (p. 105) alludes to the N.T. use of ἀνὰ and κατὰ distributively: Lxx. also use ἀνὰ with numerals, as l Kings xviii. 13, but these, being mostly inde- clinables, give no clue to the case. The double adverbial phrase, ταχὺ κούφως ἔρχονται, ν. 26, is noticeably awkward.

§ 8. Prepositions show more departure from classical standards. The niceties of Attic, as in other matters, are blurred. For instance, ἐπὶ τὸ ὅρος τοῦτο, XXV. 6, is much nearer in meaning to ἐπ’ ἄκρων τῶν ὀρέων, ii. 2, ἐπὶ κούφοις, xxx. 16, or the neighbouring ἐν τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ, xxv. 7, than to ἐπὶ τὸ ὅρος Σιών, xxix. 8 (leaving xxxi. 5 aside as ambiguous). Similarly πέποιθα is followed by ἐπὶ with acc. or with dat., and ἐν with dat., almost indifferently; see xxxi. 1, xxxii. 3 xxxiii. 2, &c. Ἐν and εἷς seldom (if ever) show signs of but the former has extended its uses, in the endeavour to do the work of Heb. ABBREVἈπὸ is inclined to encroach upon ὑπὸ, xiii. 19 Β, and to lose its shade of difference from ἐκ on some occasions; but readings sometimes vary, as in viii. 19, cf. xxix. 4. The dat. is seldom found after prepositions other than ἐν and ἐπί, though it might have seemed difficult to do without πρός (cf. Moulton, p. 104 foll.). Prof. Moulton shows that in the N.T. the dative would be the scarcest case after prepositions but for the predominant ἐν: in the Lxx. it might be said generally that certain uses of the dative are abundant, but the number of constructions in which the case is commonly used is smaller than in classical Greek.

§ 9. Conjunctions and particles have somewhat shifted their force and proportion. ὅτι often represents Heb. ABBREVand it is sometimes difficult to know whether it represents ‘that’ or ‘for’: μὲν and δέ, their regular antithesis, have all but disappeared; δέ alone is not very common, and μὲν occurs twice in the book, vi. 2, where δὲ following is doubtful, and xli. 7, where it is absent. On ὅτε, ὁπότε, ἡνίκα, see above, § 6. Relative particles or conjunctional phrases seem increasingly common: ἕως οὗ, ἀφ’ οὗ, with perf. xiv. 8, with aor. xliii. 4, διότι, ὃν τρόπον: cf. perhaps ἐφ’ ἅ(??), xxv. 11.

On εἷ μὴ ἤκουσας; xl. 28, see note there. It certainly seems simplest to take it as interrogative.

The apodosis is sometimes marked by καὶ, as in lviii. 13, 14, where it is uncertain which καὶ has this office; which perhaps comes from the use of Heb. ABBREVthough this is not found in either of these instances. I cannot recall an instance of δέ similarly used in the book, but its com- parative rarity in any sense makes this not surprising.