CHAPTER XVI

THE ARTICLE (TO )

I. Other Uses of , , . For the demonstrative and the relative see chapter on
Syntax of Pronouns. It is confusing to say with Seyffart1: Der Artikel hat die
ursprngliche demonstrative Bedeutung. It is then just the demonstrative, not the
article at all. Why call the demonstrative the article? Great confusion of idea has
resulted from this terminology. It is important to keep distinct the demonstrative, the
article and the relative.
II. Origin and Development of the Article.
(a) A GREEK CONTRIBUTION. The development of the Greek article is one of the
most interesting things in human speech.2 Among the Indo-Germanic languages it is a
new Greek departure.3 It is not found in Sanskrit nor in Latin. It does not appear to be
pro-ethnic4 and first shows itself in Homer. Indeed, the existence of the genuine article
in Homer is denied by some.5 But it seems an overrefinement to refuse to see the article
in such Homeric phrases as , , etc.6 And it is beyond dispute that it
is in the Attic prose, particularly in Plato, that the Greek article reaches its perfection.7
The article has shown remarkable persistency and survives with very little modification
in modern Greek.8 In the N. T. the usage is in all essentials in harmony with Attic, more
so than is true of the papyri.9 But Vlker10 finds the papyri in practical accord at most
points with Attic. Simcox11 points out that even the Hebrew article does not differ
radically in use from the Greek article.
1 Hauptr. der griech. Synt., p. 1.
2 Cf. Schneider, Vorles. ber griech. Gr.
3 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 41.
4 Delbrck, Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 507 ff. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 424.
5 Delbrck, op. cit. Cf. also Thompson, Synt., p. 41 f.
6 Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 178 ff.
7 Thompson, Synt., p. 41 f.
8 Cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 40 ff.; Jebb in V. and D.s Handb., p. 193 f.
9 Moulton, Prol., p. 80 f.
Vlker
VLKER, F., Papyrorum graecorum syntaxis specimen (1900).
, Syntax d. griech. Papyri. I, Der Artikel (1903).
10 Synt. d. griech. Pap., pp. 5 ff.
Simcox
SIMCOX, W. H., The Language of the N. T. (1890).
, The Writers of the N. T.

(b) DERIVED FROM THE DEMONSTRATIVE. The Greek article is the same form as the
demonstrative , , . Indeed the German der is used as demonstrative, article, relative.
So English the is related to the demonstrative that (also relative). Clyde (Greek Syntax,
p. 6) calls the article a mere enfeeblement of the demonstrative. So the French le, the
Italian il, the Spanish el, all come from the Latin demonstrative ille. But while this is
true, the demonstrative, relative and article should not be confused in idea. The Greek
grammarians applied to all three in truth, but distinguished them as
(dem.), (rel.), (art.). Some,
however, did not distinguish sharply between the demonstrative and the article. The
article always retained something of the demonstrative force (Gildersleeve, Syntax, Part
II, p. 215). It is an utter reversal of the facts to speak of the demonstrative use of the
article. It is only of recent years that a really scientific study of the article has been
made.1 Even Brugmann2 gives no separate treatment for the article. But Part II of
Gildersleeves Syntax (1911, pp. 215332) has a really scientific treatment of the article.
Professor Miller collected material for it. But even here I must demur against the
substantive use of the article (p. 216) instead of plain substantival demonstrative.
Gildersleeve uses article in two senses (form and idea). The Latin word articulus has
the same root as the Greek ( as seen in --, to fit, join). The

11 Lang. of the N. T., p. 45.

Clyde CLYDE, J., Greek Syntax (1876).
Gildersleeve
GILDERSLEEVE, B. L., Editions of Pindar and Justin Martyr.
, Latin Grammar. Many editions since 1867.
, Notes on Stahls Syntax of the Greek Verb (1910).
, Numerous articles in the American Journal of Philology.
1 Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 794.
Brugmann
BRUGMANN, K., Elements of Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages
(translation by Wright, 1895).
, Griechische Grammatik. 3. Aufl. (1900), the ed. quoted. Vierte vermehrte Aufl. of A.
Thumb (1913).
, Grundri der vergl. Gr. d. indog. Sprachen. 2. Aufl., Bde. I, II (18971913).
, Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen (1904).
2 Griech. Gr.
Miller MILLER, C. W. E., The Limitation of the Imperative in the Attic Orators (Am. J. Ph.,
1892, pp. 399436).

origin of the article from the demonstrative can probably be seen in Homer. Monro3
thinks it due to apposition of a substantive with the demonstrative . So Iliad, 4. 501,
. Here explains and wavers
between demonstrative and article and illustrates the transition. So with new proper
names anticipates the name which is loosely added later. In Attic the article shows
that a particular known person is spoken of; in Homer it marks the turning of attention
to a person.4 In Homer the article usually marks contrast and not mere definiteness. But
this contrast or singling out of the special object is in essence the real article which is
thus attributive.
III. Significance of the Article. The article, unlike the demonstrative, does not
point out the object as far or near. It is not deictic. There is either contrast in the
distinction drawn or allusion (anaphoric) to what is already mentioned or assumed as
well known. The article is therefore , the definite article. The
article is associated with gesture and aids in pointing out like an index finger. It is a
pointer. It is not essential to language, but certainly very convenient and useful and not
otiosum loquacissimae gentis instrumentum, as Scaliger1 called it. The Greek article is
not the only means of making words definite. Many words are definite from the nature
of the case.2 The word itself may be definite, like , , . The use of a
preposition with definite anarthrous nouns is old, as . Possessive pronouns also
make definite, as do genitives. The context itself often is clear enough. The
demonstrative may be used besides the article. Whenever the Greek article occurs, the
object is certainly definite. When it is not used, the object may or may not be. The
article is never meaningless in Greek, though it often fails to correspond with the
English idiom, as in , . It is not a matter of translation. The older
language and higher poetry are more anarthrous than Attic prose. Dialects vary in the
use of the article, as do authors. Plato is richer in the article than any one. Its free use
leads to exactness and finesse (Gildersleeve, Syntax, Part II, p. 215 f.).
IV. The Method Employed by the Article. The Greek article points out in one of
three ways.3 It distinguishes:
(a) INDIVIDUALS FROM INDIVIDUALS . The article does not give the reason for the
distinction drawn between individuals. That is usually apparent in the context. The
translators of the King James Version, under the influence of the Vulgate, handle the
Greek article loosely and inaccurately.4 A goodly list of such sins is given in The
Revision of the New Testament,5 such as a pinnacle for (Mt. 4:5). Here
the whole point lies in the article, the wing of the Temple overlooking the abyss. So in
Monro MONRO, D. B., Homeric Grammar (1882). 2d ed. (1891). First ed. used.
3 Hom. Gr., p. 178.
4 Ib.
1 Quoted by Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 57.
2 The old idea that the article was necessary to make a word definite is seen in Madvig,
Synt. of the Gk. Lang., p. 8.
3 Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 70.
4 Ib.
5 Lightfoot, Trench, Ellicott, p. XXX f.

Mt. 5:1 was the mountain right at hand, not a mountain. On the other hand, the
King James translators missed the point of (Jo. 4:27) when they said the
woman. It was a woman, any woman, not the particular woman in question. But the
Canterbury Revisers cannot be absolved from all blame, for they ignore the article in
Lu. 18:13, . The vital thing is to see the matter from the Greek point of
view and find the reason for the use of the article. In Mt. 13:55, , it
is the son of the (well known to us) carpenter. In 1 Cor. 4:5 means the praise
due to each one. Cf. in Ro. 4:4. In 1 Cor. 5:9, , Paul refers to a
previous letter which the Corinthians had received. In 15:8, , Paul speaks
thus of himself because he alone of the Apostles saw Jesus after His Ascension. The
examples of this use are very numerous in the N. T. Thus in Mt. 5:15, ,
, the article singles out the bushel, the lampstand present in the room. In 15:26,
, Jesus points to the little dogs by the table. In Lu. 4:20,
, the roll was the usual one and the attendant was there at his place.
So in Jo. 13:5, , the basin was there in the room. The
article in Jo. 7:17, , means the teaching concerning which
they were puzzled.
(b) CLASSES FROM OTHER CLASSES . The (generic) article is not always necessary
here any more than under (a). See (Mt. 5:45);
(1 Pet. 3:18). Cf. in particular 1 Cor. 12:13 , 12:29.
So also ; ; (1 Cor. 1:20). But it is quite common to use the
article with different classes. So in Mt. 8:20 note , . So
(Eph. 5:22), (5:25), (6:1), (6:4),
(6:5). In these examples the vocative often has the article. Cf. Col. 3:18 ff. A good
example of the use with classes is found in Mt. 5:310 (the Beatitudes), , etc.
Cf. , , etc., in 1 Cor. 1:27. So and in Ro.
2:13. Cf. Rev. 11:18; 22:14. It is very common to find the singular used with the article
in a representative sense for the whole class. So in (Mt. 8:20, and
often) Jesus calls himself the Son of Mankind. Cf. Lu. 10:7, , where the
labourer represents all labourers. In Mt. 18:17 note . The
Gospel of John is especially rich in examples of this kind (both ideals and types).1 Other
examples are Mt. 12:35 , 12:29 , Jas. 5:6 , 2
Cor. 12:12 , Gal. 4:1 , Mt. 13:3 . But even here
the article is not always needed. So (Ro. 2:9). Cf.
, Heb. 5:14. In examples like (Mt. 24:35), where
there is only one of the kind, the explanation is not far from the class from class idea. So
, like proper names, may use the article where we do not need it in English (Jo.
3:16). Vlker (Syntax, p. 19) notes in the papyri examples like ,
, , . For the generic article see further
Gildersleeve, Syntax, pp. 255 ff.
(c) QUALITIES FROM OTHER QUALITIES. The English does not use the article with
abstract qualities unless they have been previously mentioned. But French and German
are like the Greek in the use of the article here. It is not necessary to have the article
with qualities. So in 1 Cor. 12:911 the gifts mentioned have no article. So in chapter
13, in verses 13, but in 4, 8; but , , (verse 13). In 1
Jo. 4:18 is first without the article, then is repeated with the article, while
1 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 47. On literature upon the article see E. Schwartz in the Index to
Eusebius, p. 209.

 each time. There is much of the same freedom as to the use or non-use of the
article here as elsewhere. Cf. Ro. 12:7, 9; 13:9 f.; Col. 3:5. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p.
150) from the standpoint of the German sees more difficulty in the absence than in the
presence of such articles. But he is correct in saying that the relative in Col. 3:5 explains
the use of the article. It is interesting to observe that in the list of attributes of God in the
songs in Rev. 4:11; 5:13; 7:12, the article is expressed with each quality, while in 5:12
one article () is used with the whole list. In Ro. 13:7 the article is used with each
thing and quality. It is possible that here is the article also for which the participle
has to be supplied. But for the absence of and one might suspect to be the
demonstrative. In Ro. 16:17,
, note how neatly , , , come in and
illustrate the three uses of the article. Note also the neat classic idiom .
For the article with abstract nouns see further Gildersleeve, Syntax, pp. 257 ff.
V. Varied Usages of the Article.
(a) WITH SUBSTANTIVES.
1. Context. Whether the substantive is pointed out as an individual, class or quality,
the context makes clear. The English may or may not have need of the article in
translation. But that point cuts no figure in the Greek idiom. Thus in Ac. 27:23,
, the article points out the special God whose Paul is and is to be preserved
in English. In the very next verse, , we in English do not need the article, even if,
as is unlikely, the angel has the notion of the special God. Cf. also Jo. 1:1. In Mt.
23:2, , the two classes are distinguished as in English. In
Ro. 11:36, , it is the glory due to God. See , 1 Cor. 9:18 (cf. Ro. 4:4).
2. Gender of the Article. It will, of course, be that of the substantive. Cf.
in Lu. 2:16. But sometimes the construction is according to the sense. So in Mt. 4:13,
, because of the implied . Cf. also . But in Gal. 4:25,
, Paul purposely uses the grammatical gender of the word rather than the
natural feminine. Cf. also (Rev. 3:14), where Jesus is meant. But note the usual
in 1 Cor. 14:16. The N. T. does not have the neuter article with the plural of a
Hebrew word, as we occasionally see in the LXX (Thackeray, p. 34). Cf.
(Ezek. 27:4).
3. With Proper Names. This seems rather odd to us in English, since the proper
name itself is supposed to be definite enough. But at bottom the idiom is the same as
with other substantives. We do not use the article with home, husband, wife, church,
unless there is special reason to do so. The word itself is usually sufficient. We must rid
ourselves of the notion that any substantive requires the article. But, just because proper
names are so obviously definite, the article was frequently used where we in English
cannot handle it. But this is very far from saying that the article meant nothing to the
Greek. It meant definiteness to him. We often have the same difficulty with the article
with classes and qualities. Sometimes we can see the reason for the use of the article
with proper names. So , Ac. 19:13. But in most
instances the matter seems quite capricious to us. The writer may have in mind a
previous mention of the name or the fact of the person being well known. In 2 Tim. 4:9
Thackeray
THACKERAY, H. ST., A Grammar of the O. T. in Greek. Vol. I, Introduction, Orthography and
Accidence (1909).
, Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Thought (1900).

21 the proper names are all anarthrous. The same thing is true of Ro. 16, even when the
adjective is not anarthrous, as in (verse 10). So in the
ancient Greek for the most part the article was not used with proper names
(Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 229). Its use with persons is a mark of familiar style, but Plato
uses it for anaphora or for contrast. In some sections it is common to use the article with
titles, as The Reverend Doctor So-and-So. In South Germany der is used with the name
alone.1
It seems needless to make extended observations about the presence or absence of
the Greek article with names of countries, cities, rivers, persons. The usage among
Greek writers greatly varies about rivers, mountains, etc. Cf. Kallenberg, Stu. ber den
griech. Art., 1891). See exhaustive treatment by Gildersleeve (Syntax, pp. 236253) and
his paper in American Journal of Philol., XI, pp. 483487. Different words vary.
Names of cities most rarely have the article when connected with prepositions,1 but
that is true of other words also. does not have the article save when an
adjective is used (so Gal. 4:25 f.; Rev. 3:12) except in one instance (Ac. 5:28).
Curiously has the article (in the oblique cases) only2 in Jo. 2:23; 5:2; 10:22;
11:18. As instances of the article used with a city mentioned the second time
(anaphoric) see Ac. 17:10, , and 17:13, ; 17:15, ;
and 17:16, . For further details see Winer-Schmiedel, p. 152 f.
Substantives in apposition with proper names may have the article, as in
, Mt. 2:1; and , Mt. 2:3; or not, as , Lu.
1:5. In , Ac. 25:26, it is like our King George. So in Xenophon, when
the King of Persia is meant we find . In Mt. 3:6, , we have
the usual order, but see the order reversed and the article repeated in Rev. 9:14; 16:12.
Cf. (Ac. 7:30) and (Gal. 4:24), (Rev. 14:1) and
(Heb. 12:22). For the article with appositive proper names see Gildersleeve,
Syntax, p. 231. Cf. , Mt. 10:4; and
, 14:1 f.; , Mk. 10:47; Ac. 1:13, , etc.
Here the word in apposition has the article, but not the proper name.3 Cf. 1 Cor. 1:1.
In the Gospels as a rule has the article. in the Gospels usually has
the article=the Anointed One, the Messiah. In the Epistles it usually is like a proper
name and commonly without the article,4 illustrating the development of Christology in
the N. T. Indeclinable proper names usually have the article if the case would not
otherwise be clear. Cf. the list in Mt. 1:216, where the nominative has no article, but
the accusative does have it. So in Ro. 10:19, but in 1 Cor. 10:18.
See also Mt. 22:42; Mk. 15:45; Lu. 2:16; Ac. 7:8; 15:1 f.; Ro. 9:13; Heb. 11:17. The use
1 W.-Th., p. 113.
Kallenberg KALLENBERG, Stud. ber den griech. Artikel (1891).
1 W.-Th., p. 112.
2 Ib. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 153.
Winer-Schmiedel WINER-SCHMIEDEL, Winers Grammatik des neutest. Sprachidioms. 8.
Aufl. (1894).
3 See further W.-Sch., p. 153.
4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 152.

of in Lu. 23:18 is not abrupt. In Xenophons Anabasis the article is not

often used with proper names unless the person is previously mentioned.1 In Homer the
article appears only occasionally with a proper name when a new person is introduced,
and marks the turning of attention to a person,2 rather than pointing to a particular
person as in Attic. In short the Homeric article contrasts, the Attic article defines. But,
as a matter of fact, no satisfactory principle can be laid down for the use or non-use of
the article with proper names.3 For good discussion of the matter see Gildersleeve, Am.
Jour. of Philol., XI, pp. 483 ff. In modern Greek the article occurs with all kinds of
proper names (Thumb, Handb., p. 41). Moulton (Prol., p. 83) admits the inability of
1 Zucker, Beobachtungen ber den Gebr. des Artik. bei Personenn. in Xen. Anabasis, p. 6.
2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 179.
3 Cf. Schmidt, De Articulo in nominibus propriis apud Att. scriptores (1890); K.-G., I, pp.
602 ff.; Kallenberg, Stu. ber den griech. Artikel (1891).
Thumb
THUMB, A., Die Forsch. ber die hellen. Spr. in den Jahren 19021904 (Arch. f. Pap. 3, pp. 443
473).
, Die griech. Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus (1901).
, Die sprachgesch. Stell. des bibl. Griech. (Theol. Rund., 1902).
, Handbuch der griech. Dial. (1909).
, Handbuch d. neugriech. Volkssprache. 2. Aufl. (1910).
, Handbuch des Sanskrits. I, Grammatik (1905).
, Unters. ber d. Sp. Asper im Griech. (1889).
Moulton
MOULTON, J. H., A Grammar of N. T. Greek. Vol. I, Prolegomena (1906). 3d ed. (1908).
, Characteristics of N. T. Greek (The Expositor, 1904).
, Einleitung in die Sprache des N. T. (1911).
, Grammatical Notes from the Papyri (The Expositor, 1901, pp. 271282; 1903, pp.
104121, 423439. The Classical Review, 1901, pp. 3137, 434441; 1904, pp. 106
112, 151155).
, Introduction to N. T. Greek (1895). 2d ed. (1904).
, Language of Christ (Hastings One-vol. D. B., 1909).
, N. T. Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery (Cambr. Bibl. Essays, 1909, pp. 461
505).
, The Science of Language (1903).

scholars to solve completely the problem of the article with proper names. Abbott
(Joh. Gr., p. 57 f.) notes that John generally introduces a proper name without the article
and then uses it. The papyri also follow this classical idiom of using the article with
proper names when mentioned a second time. So when a mans father or mother is
given in the genitive, we usually have the article. Cf. Deissmann, Phil. Wochenschrift,
1902, p. 1467; Moulton, Prol., p. 83. The papyri throw no great light on the subject.
R
adermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 95), claims that the papyri confirm the N. T. usage. In the
papyri slaves regularly have the article, even when the master does not (Vlker, Syntax,
p. 9). For (Ac. 13:9) the papyri show numerous parallels. Cf.
Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 313 ff. Mayser (Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 310 f.), as already
shown, takes here as relative. See also Hatch, Journal of Bibl. Lit., Part II, 1908, p. 141
f. In Lukes list (Lu. 3:2338) has no article, while all the long line of genitives
MOULTON, W. F., and GEDEN, A. S., A Concordance to the Greek Testament (1897).
MOULTON and MILLIGAN, Lexical Notes from the Papyri (The Expos., 1908).
, The Vocabulary of the N. T. Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary
Sources. Part I (1914), II, III.
Abbott
ABBOTT, E. A., Clue. A Guide through Greek to Hebrew (1904).
, Johannine Grammar (1906).
, Johannine Vocabulary (1905).
Deissmann
DEISSMANN, A., Bible Studies (1901). Tr. by A. Grieve; cf. Bibelstudien (1895) and Neue
Bibelstudien (1897).
, Biblische Grcitt etc. (Theol. Rundschau, Okt. 1912).
, Die Hellenisierung des semitischen Monotheismus (N. Jahrb. f. d. kl. Alt., 1903).
, Die neut. Formel in Christo (1892).
, Die Sprache d. griech. Bibel (Theol. Rundschau, 1906, No. 116).
, Die Urgeschichte des Christentums im Lichte der Sprachforschung (Intern. Woch., 30.
Okt. 1909).
, Hellenistisches Griechisch (Herzog-Haucks Realencyc., VII, 1899).
, Licht vom Osten (1908).
, Light from the Ancient East (1910). Tr. by Strachan.
, New Light on the N. T. (1907). Tr. by Strachan.
, Papyri (Encyc. Bibl., III, 1902).
, St. Paul in the Light of Social and Religious History (1912).

have including . Among the ancient writers was used of the god of
absolute religion in distinction from the mythological gods.4 Gildersleeve (Syntax, pp.
232236) gives a full discussion of the subject. In the N. T., however, while we have
(Jo. 1:1, 2), it is far more common to find simply , especially in the
Epistles. But the word is treated like a proper name and may have it (Ro. 3:5) or not
have it (8:9). The same thing holds true about and , ,
. These words will come up for further discussion later.
4. Second Mention (Anaphoric). The use of the article with the second mention of a
word is very frequent. Thus in Jo. 6:9, , but in verse 11
. See Lu. 9:13, 16. Cf. in Jo. 4:10 and in verse 11.
So in Mt. 2:1, but in verse 7; in 13:25, but in
verse 26. Cf. Ac. 9:4, 7; 9:11, 17; Jas. 2:2, 3; Rev. 15:1, 6. In Jo. 4:43, ,
the article refers to verse 40. Cf. Jo. 20:1 with 19:41; 12:12 with 12:1; Heb. 5:4 with
5:1; 2 Cor. 5:4 with 5:1. In Ac. 19:13 we have , but in 19:15. Vlker
(Syntax, p. 21 f.) finds the anaphoric use of the article common enough in the papyri.
(b) WITH ADJECTIVES. The discussion of the adjective as attributive or predicate
comes up later. Thus (1 Tim. 1:8) is a different construction from
(Jo. 10:11).
1. The Resumptive Article. The use of the article and the adjective is perfectly
normal in (2 Pet. 3:2). Cf. (Jo. 6:40). See also
Lu. 1:70; Jas. 2:7. This repetition of the article with the adjective as in
above is quite common also. Abbott1 thinks that this reduplication of the article adds
weight and emphasis to the article. Cf. (Lu. 9:22) with
(18:33). Abbott2 considers that as a rule John reduplicates the article with the
adjective only in utterances of the Lord or in weighty sayings about him. Cf. Jo. 1:9, 41;
2:1; 3:16; 5:43; 7:18; 10:11, 14. But this is hardly true of Jo. 6:13; 18:10. He notes also
that in John the possessive adjective, when articular, nearly always has the reduplicated
article. Cf. (10:27). So in Jo. 1:41. In Homer
the substantive usually comes before the article and the adjective. The resumptive
article repeats the noun in order to add the qualifying word.3 Cf. Rev. 1:17; 3:7;
22:16, where the article is repeated, twice. Cf. also Ac. 12:10. So
(Jo. 1:40). In Lu. 6:45 both the article and adjective are repeated after the
Radermacher RADERMACHER, L., Neut. Grammatik. Das Griechisch des N. T. im
Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache (1911).
Mayser MAYSER, E., Grammatik der griech. Papyri aus der Ptolemerzeit. Laut- und
Wortlehre (1906).
Hatch HATCH, W. H. P., Some Illustrations of N. T. Usage from Greek Inscriptions of
Asia Minor (Journ. of Bibl. Lit., 1908, pp. 134146).
4 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 48. Cf. also B. Weiss, Der Gebr. des Artikels bei den
Gottesnamen, Th. Stu. Krit., 1911, pp. 319392.
1 Joh. Gr., p. 63.
2 Ib., p. 64.
3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 181.

form of the first part of the sentence, .

See in the papyri , P.Tb. 421 (iii/A.D.).
2. With the Adjective Alone. It appears so with all genders and both numbers. Cf.
(Mk. 1:24), (Mt. 3:2), (Gal. 6:10), (Mt. 5:3),
(Tit. 2:4), (Col. 1:16), in Ro. 15:22, in 1 Cor. 1:27,
in Mt. 25:10, etc. All these examples are obvious enough. The ellipsis is simple
and usually supplied from the context. The three uses of the article occur with the
adjective alone. The individual use appears in such examples as (Jo.
6:69), (Ac. 22:14), (1 Jo. 5:20), (1 Jo. 5:18),
and (2 Cor. 8:15), (Phil. 14), (Ro.
8:3), (Mt. 23:15), (Ph. 1:1), (Eph. 1:3). The
generic or representative (class from class) is very common also, more frequent indeed.
So (1 Pet. 4:18), (Ro. 5:7), (Jas. 2:6),
(2:5), (5:1). So and (Ro. 3:8), (Lu. 6:45). Cf.
in particular Ro. 12:21 , . Cf. also Ro. 13:3 f.,
(Gal. 6:10), (Ac. 17:9), (2 Cor. 13:7), (Mt. 7:6),
(Mt. 19:1), (Mk. 2:23). The use of the neuter singular with the
article as the equivalent of an abstract substantive Blass1 notes as a peculiar usage of
Paul (and Hebrews) and considers that this is the most classical idiom in the language
of the N. T., and may be paralleled from the old heathen literature, from Thucydides in
particular. But he cautions us against thinking that Paul imitated Thucydides, since
Strabo2 and all other writers of the , not to mention the papyri,3 show the same
construction. Deissmann has made it plain from the papyri that
in Jas. 1:3 (cf. 1 Pet. 1:7) belongs here. See also (1 Cor.
1:25), (7:35), (2 Cor. 4:17),
(8:8), (Ro. 1:19),
(2:4), (3:1), (9:22), (Ph. 4:5),
(Heb. 6:17), (7:18). Examples of the plural in
this abstract sense occur in (Eph. 6:12), (Ro. 1:20),
(2:16), (1 Cor. 4:5), (Col. 1:16),
(ib.). The neuter adjective with the article sometimes appears in
the collective sense for persons. So (Heb. 7:7), (Ac.
26:7), (1 Cor. 1:27 f.). See further
Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 262.
3. The Article not Necessary with the Adjective. Blass,4 who has the best discussion
of the use of the article with adjectives, notes that it is not accidental that, while we have
(Text. Rec., Mt. 6:4), yet prevails (Mk. 4:22; Lu.
8:17), since the thing is not yet in existence. But it is a rather fine point, since both
(Jo. 7:4, 10) and (a subst. Lu. 11:33) occur as well as
(Mt. 6:4, Text. Rec.). In Ro. 2:28 is genuine. In Jas. 4:17 note
. The adjective alone may express class as in Mt. 5:45; Lu. 10:21; Ro.
1:14; 1 Cor. 1:20.
1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 155.
2 Cf. Schmid, Atticismus, IV, p. 608.
3 Deiss., B. S., p. 259.
4 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 156.

4. With Numerals. The article with numbers is more common in Greek than in
English and is a classic idiom (Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 228). Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p.
315) notes that with numerals the article points out a certain number now brought
forward. So (Rev. 17:10).
(c) WITH PARTICIPLES. In all essential respects the article is used with the participle
exactly as with the adjective. The article is not necessary to the participle when used as
an attribute (Jas. 4:17), though it is most commonly found (Heb. 12:1, 2). For the
predicate use see Jo. 10:12. The participle with the article is common without the
substantive, as (Mt. 5:4). The neuter for a person appears in
(Lu. 1:35). In (Lu. 19:10) we have the collective neuter
singular. The abstract singular is seen in (Ph. 3:8) and the
abstract plural in (Ro. 2:18). Cf. (my belongings) in
1 Cor. 13:3, for the more individual use. The representative or generic sense is found in
(Mt. 13:3). The article with the participle is very common as the equivalent
of a relative clause.1 In Mt. 5:32 and are parallel. See
also Col. 1:8. So (Tit. 3:8), (2 Cor. 4:6). Cf. Mt. 7:21. The
article is repeated with participles if they refer to different persons (Rev. 1:3) or even if
the same person is meant where different aspects are presented (Rev. 1:4, where
comes in between). But note (1:5).
W
iner2 makes a special point of the use of a definite participle with an indefinite
pronoun like (Gal. 1:7),
(Col. 2:8), (Jo. 5:32).3 He also notes the definite
subject where the German would have an indefinite one as in (Ro.
3:11). Cf. also the article and the future participle in (Ro. 8:34), Ac.
20:22 . Cf. Is. 1:31, . More of this when the
Participle is reached (ch. XX). For the repeated article see (1 Cor.
1:4). See further VI, Position with Attributives.
(d) WITH THE INFINITIVE. This idiom is so common that it must be merely touched
upon here and the discussion of it reserved for the Articular Infinitive. In general it may
be said that in the Attic and the the article is used with the infinitive in any case
(save vocative) and very much as with any abstract substantive. The Iliad does not have
the article and the infinitive, but it occurs once in the Odyssey1 and is in Pindar.
Examples of the articular infinitive may be seen in the nominative (Mt.
20:23), the accusative (1 Cor. 14:39; cf. Ac. 25:11), the genitive
(Ac. 27:20; cf. Lu. 24:29), the ablative
(Lu. 24:16; cf. 2 Cor. 1:8), the locative (Mt. 13:4), the instrumental
(2 Cor. 2:13). The dative does not occur in the N. T. with the article, but see
1 Cf. K.-G., I, p. 594.
Winer
WINER, G. B., De verborum cum praep. compos. in N. T. Usu (18341843).
, Gramm. d. neut. Sprachidioms (1822). 7. Aufl. von Lnemann (l867).
2 W.-M., p. 136.
3 More frequent in John than in the Synoptists. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 59 f.
1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 179.

 (Mt. 11:7). For the articular infinitive with prepositions see pp. 10681075.
The article is frequently missing with in the vernacular (papyri), as
Herodotus three times has .2 Cf. Clyde, Greek Syntax, p. 13 f. But enough for
the present. The articular infinitive is curiously rare in the Gospel of John, almost nonexistent.3 It occurs only four times and only with prepositions (Jo. 1:48; 2:24; 13:19;
17:5).
(e) WITH ADVERBS. This is no peculiarity of the , not to say of the N. T. It is
common in the older Greek with adverbs of place, time, quality, rank, manner.4 It is not
necessary to repeat what is said under Cases and Adverbs concerning the adverbial
expressions (really adjectives), like (Jo. 12:16), (Ph. 4:8),
(Ro. 15:22). The point to note is that the article is used somewhat freely with
adverbs as with substantives and adjectives. As examples observe and
(Jo. 8:23), (Mt. 6:34, ellipsis of ), (27:62), (Ac.
20:26), (Rev. 3:14), (1 Cor. 14:16), (Lu. 5:10), (Ac.
4:29), (Lu. 10:27) and note alone=neighbour in Lu. 10:29 and 36,
and (2 Cor. 1:17), (Mt. 23:25), (1 Tim. 3:7),
(Mk. 4:11, W. H. text), (Mt. 23:26), and (Ph. 3:13 f.),
etc. Note two adverbs in Heb. 12:27, (quotation). In some of these
examples there is the ellipsis of a word (note different genders), but not always. There
are besides the adjectival uses of the adverb, like (Eph. 3:16),
(2 Cor. 4:16), (Ro. 3:26). Clyde1 compares with Scotch
the noo.
(f) WITH PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES.2 Cf. (Heb. 13:24),
(Ro. 4:14), (Ac. 11:2), (Eph. 5:33), (1
Cor. 13:10), (Ph. 1:27), (Lu. 9:32), (Lu.
11:3), (Ph. 1:12; cf. Ro. 1:15), (Ro. 9:5), (12:18),
(Mt. 20:10, W. H. text), (Ac. 13:13, classic idiom),
(Mk. 1:36), (Mt. 5:15), (Lu. 2:39),
and (Eph. 1:10), . (1:15),
(Ro. 12:5), (2:28 f.), etc. In Ac. 18:15 note
, where the article occurs with the prepositional phrase, but not with the
substantive. On =a man and his followers see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 264.
(g) WITH SINGLE WORDS OR WHOLE SENTENCES. Here the word is used verbatim,
as (Plato, Crat., 405 d).3 Cf. above (Heb. 12:27) and
(the name Hagar, Gal. 4:25). So (Eph. 4:9). With sentences the article
sometimes marks the quotation as in (Mk. 9:23),
(Mt. 19:18 f.), (Gal. 5:14),
and . (Ro. 13:9), (Lu.
2 Moulton, Prol., pp. 81, 216.
3 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 69.
4 K.-G., I, p. 594 f.
1 Gk. Synt., p. 14.
2 Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 263.
3 Thompson, p. 45. Cf. Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 265.

22:37). In particular the article is fairly common in Luke and occurs a few times in Paul
with indirect questions. The modern Greek shows this essentially classical idiom.4
Blass5 remarks that the article makes no essential difference to the meaning of the
question. It does this at least: it makes clearer the substantival idea of the indirect
question and its relation to the principal clause. See 1 Th. 4:1
, Ro. 8:26 , Lu. 1:62
, 9:46 , 19:48
, 22:2 , 22:4 , 22:23
, 22:24 , Ac. 4:21
, 22:30 .
(h) WITH GENITIVE ALONE. This is also a common idiom in the ancient Greek.1 The
uses this idiom very often (Radermacher, N. T. Gk., p. 94), as seen both in the
inscriptions and the papyri. The article stands alone, but the ellipsis is usually very
plain, as is shown by the gender and number as well as the context. So
(Mt. 10:2), where is implied; (Jo. 19:25), where
is to be supplied; (Lu. 24:10), where is meant;
(1 Pet. 4:14), where is to be understood; (Jo. 21:2),
where is meant, etc. In 1 Cor. 15:23 is probably to be supplied (cf. Gal.
5:24), and in Lu. 6:16 (cf. Ju. 1). The neuter plural is common for the notion of
affairs or things. So and (Ph. 2:21), and
(Lu. 20:25), (marg. W. H., Jas. 4:14), (1 Cor.
7:33), and (Ro. 8:5), (14:19), etc. One
may note also here (Lu. 2:49) for house of my Father. Cf.
(), P.Oxy. 523 (ii/A.D.). See and (Jo. 1:11). The neuter
singular has an abstract use like (2 Pet. 2:22),
(Mt. 21:21).
(i) NOUNS IN THE PREDICATE. These may have the article also. As already
explained, the article is not essential to speech. It is, however, invaluable as a means of
gaining precision, e.g. .2 As a rule the predicate is without the article,
even when the subject uses it. Cf. Mk. 9:50; Lu. 7:8. This is in strict accord with the
ancient idiom.3 Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 324) notes that the predicate is usually
something new and therefore the article is not much used except in convertible
propositions. Winer,4 indeed, denies that the subject may be known from the predicate
by its having the article. But the rule holds wherever the subject has the article and the
predicate does not. The subject is then definite and distributed, the predicate indefinite
and undistributed. The word with the article is then the subject, whatever the order may
be. So in Jo. 1:1, , the subject is perfectly clear. Cf.
4 Jebb, V. and D.s Handb., p. 295 f.
5 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 158.
1 K.-G., I, p. 268 f.; Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 280 f. The neuter article with the gen. is
extremely common in Herod. Cf. Staura, ber den Gebr. d. Gen. bei Herod., p. 25.
2 Milden, The Limitations of the Pred. Position in Gk., p. 9 f.
3 Cf. Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 46; Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 325.
4 Winer-Moulton, p. 142.

 (Jo. 1:14). It is true also that (convertible terms) would have

been Sabellianism.1 See also (1 Jo. 4:16). God and love are not
convertible terms any more than God and Logos or Logos and flesh. Cf. also
(Mt. 13:39), (Jo. 17:17),
; (Ro. 7:7). The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the
true idea. Cf. also and (Jo. 8:44). In Eph. 5:23,
, the context makes it clear (W. H. marg. ) that is
subject even without the article. In Jo. 9:34, , the article
with is not needed, a neat use of the predicate adjective. But the article is quite
frequent with the predicate in the N. T. and in strict accord with old usage. It is not mere
haphazard, however, as Winer rather implied. Hence W. F. Moulton,2 in his note to
Winer, properly corrects this error. He finds that when the article is used in the predicate
the article is due to a previous mention of the noun (as well known or prominent) or to
the fact that subject and predicate are identical.3 The words that are identical are
convertible as in the older idiom.4 If he had added what is in Winer-Schmiedel,5 that the
article also occurs when it is the only one of its kind, he would have said all that is to be
said on the subject. But even here Moultons rule of identity and convertibility apply.
The overrefinement of Winer-Schmiedels many subdivisions here is hardly
commendable. In a word, then, when the article occurs with subject (or the subject is a
personal pronoun or proper name) and predicate, both are definite, treated as identical,
one and the same, and interchangeable. The usage applies to substantives, adjectives
and participles indifferently. Cf. (Mt. 6:22),
(Mt. 5:13), (13:38),
(16:16), (19:17), (24:45),
, (26:26, 28),
(27:11), (Mk. 1:11), (6:3),
(12:7), (13:11), (Jo. 1:4),
(1:21), (3:10), (6:14),
(6:50; cf. 51), (6:63),
(8:12), (9:8; cf. 19 f.), (10:7),
(10:11), (11:25, note both articles),
(14:6, note three separate articles),
(14:21), (Ac. 4:11), (8:10),
(9:21), (21:28),
(21:38), (1 Cor. 11:3),
(2 Cor. 3:17), (Eph. 2:14), (Ph. 3:3),
(3:3), (1 Jo. 3:4),
(Rev. 1:8), (1:17, note both articles),
1 See per contra, Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 48.
Moulton MOULTON, W. F., and GEDEN, A. S., A Concordance to the Greek Testament
(1897).
2 W.-M., p. 142.
3 Cf. Donaldson, New Crat., p. 522; Middleton, Gk. Art., p. 54.
4 Thompson, Synt., p. 46.
5 P. 159.

 (3:17), etc. This list is not exhaustive, but it is sufficient to illustrate the
points involved. Note (Mt. 27:11) and (Jo. 1:49). Even the
superlative adjective may have the article as in Rev. 1:17 above. But see
(Mt. 20:16) for the usual construction. Cf. (1
Jo. 2:18). See further , Jas. 5:3; 2 Tim. 3:1; , 1 Pet.
1:5, and , Jo. 6:39. For the common predicate accusative see chapter XI
(Cases), VII, (i). In the N. T. most examples are anarthrous (Jo. 5:11; 15:15), and note 1
Cor. 4:9 . Cf. Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 326.
(j) DISTRIBUTIVE. Cf. (Mt. 20:2), (Heb.
9:7), (Lu. 18:12), (Lu. 17:4). This is, to be sure,
an ancient idiom familiar also to the English (cf. our by the yard, by the pound,
etc.). It is found in the papyri.1 But is not used in the N. T. with the article. Cf.
(Eph. 5:33). We have once (Lu. 5:7), and
several times (Eph. 2:18), (2:14). Cf. in Eph. 2:15.
Cf. Thompson, Syntax of Attic Gk., p. 51.
(k) NOMINATIVE WITH THE ARTICLE=VOCATIVE. This matter was sufficiently
discussed in the chapter on Cases. It is an occasional Greek idiom repeated in the
Hebrew and Aramaic regularly and frequent in N. T. As examples see , (Mt.
11:26), (Mk. 9:25), (Lu. 8:54), (Jo.
19:3).
(l) AS THE EQUIVALENT OF A POSSESSIVE PRONOUN. The article does not indeed
mean possession. The nature of the case makes it plain that the word in question belongs
to the person mentioned. The French can say jai mal la tte, .2
The examples in the N. T. are rather numerous. See, for instance,
(Mt. 27:24; cf. Lu. 13:13). In Mt. 4:20 we have , while in verse 21 we find
. Cf. (Ac. 21:40; cf. Mk. 7:32),
(Jo. 3:16), (Ro. 7:25), (1 Cor. 5:1),
(2 Cor. 12:18; cf. also 8:18).1 Cf. Mt. 8:3; Jo. 1:41.
(m) WITH POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. The article is always used in the N. T. with these
pronouns unless the pronoun is predicate. So (Jo.
17:10) (Ac. 2:11) and (Jo. 7:6; cf. Lu. 6:20). The article is
frequently repeated as in (Jo. 7:6). It was usual with possessives in the
ancient Greek.2 The Gospel of John shows very frequently. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr.,
p. 65 f. With the article is customary, as in (Mt. 9:1). This
construction is very common in the N. T. A few times we meet without the article,
as in (1 Cor. 9:7), (1 Tim. 2:6). The anarthrous examples
may be only members of a class, not the particular individual in the case. See further ch.
XV, Pronouns.
1 Vlker, Synt. d. griech. Pap., p. 8. Vlker notes also the presence of or of ,
, , .
Thompson THOMPSON, F. E., A Syntax of Attic Greek. New ed. (1907).
2 Cf. Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 16. See K.-G., I, p. 556.
1 Cf. A. Souter, art. Luke, Hastings D.C.G., who takes =his, i.e. Luke. For pap.
exx. see Vlker, Synt. d. griech. Pap., p. 7.
2 Thompson, Gk. Synt., p. 51.

(n) WITH . It is only necessary to mention the order (Ro. 8:21),

and (1 Cor. 15:39), to set forth the distinction in the position of the article
with . So (Ro. 8:26), but (1 Cor. 12:8). See
Pronouns.
(o) WITH DEMONSTRATIVES. The essential facts have been already stated in the
chapter on Pronouns. Here a bare summary is sufficient. occurs in the N. T. once
with the article, (Jas. 4:13). The usual position of the demonstrative
with the article has already been discussed also. It may be repeated here that we must
not confuse this predicate (appositional) position of , with the ordinary
predicate position of adjectives. The construction may be paralleled to some extent by
the French la rpublique franaise. Still in Homer3 =this man,
, that he is. Here we probably see the origin of the idiom . So fixed did
the usage become that in the Attic inscriptions the construction is uniform.4 The
Botian inscriptions reveal the same thing.5 The order is immaterial, whether
(Lu. 2:25) or (14:30). In general it may be noted
that the absence of the article with the noun means that is a real predicate, as in
Jo. 2:11, . Cf. Lu. 24:21; Ac. 1:5. Even with
proper names the article occurs, as in (Ac. 1:11). For further details see
chapter on Pronouns. It may be remarked that the rigidity apparent in the use of the
article in connection with and does not exist in the case of the correlative
demonstratives. The article is wanting in the N. T. in connection with and
. occurs once only with the article, a true attributive,
(Rev. 18:16). , on the other hand, usually appears with the article and
in the attributive position, as in (Mk. 9:37), though once the
predicate position is found, (Mk. 6:2). Most of the examples have
no substantive, like (Ro. 16:18), (Gal. 5:21).
(p) WITH , (). is found chiefly in Luke and Acts. The MSS.
vary greatly between and . The text of W. H. now has in the margin (Lu.
9:15), now (15:13). Blass1 fails to find any satisfactory rule for the use of ,
the Attic distinction of after a consonant and after a vowel not holding (cf. Lu.
1:3), though in general does occur (when used at all) after a consonant (cf. Mt.
6:32). , when used with a substantive in the N. T., is always with the article. Once
only does it appear in the attributive position, (1 Tim. 1:16),
the total sum of his long-suffering. Elsewhere we have either the order
(Lu. 19:48) or (Lu. 3:21). If also is used, we have
(Lu. 4:6). Cf. (Ac. 16:33).
The construction of is varied and interesting. It is an exceedingly common
adjective in all parts of the N. T. In general it may be said that the idiom of the N. T. is
in harmony with the ancient Greek in the use of and the article.2 In the singular
may be used without the article in the sense of every. So (Lu. 4:13),
3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 181.
4 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 231.
5 Claflin, Synt. of B. D. Inscr., p. 42.
1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 161. Cf. Diels, Gtt. Gel.-Anz, 1894, pp. 298 ff.
2 Cf. K.-G., I, pp. 631 ff.

 (Ro. 3:19), (2 Cor. 4:2), (Mt.

3:10), etc. Blass3 distinguishes between =each individual and =any one
you please.
=all. So (Mt. 8:34)=all the city (die ganze Stadt).4 This is the
order and it is very common. Cf. (Mt. 27:45), (Ac. 10:2).
Even without the article may be all, if it is a proper noun, like
(Mt. 2:3), (Ro. 11:26). In Ac. 2:36, , there is only one
house of Israel, so that all is the idea. Winer1 says that it is treated as a proper name.
Abstract substantives also may be used with or without the article. There is very little
difference in idea between (1 Cor. 1:5) and (1 Cor.
13:2). With the abstract word every and all amount practically to the same thing.
There is an element of freedom in the matter. So (1 Cor. 13:2), but
(Ac. 7:22). There may indeed be occasionally the difference between a
specific instance like (2 Cor. 1:4) and a general situation like
(ib.).2 But see (2 Cor. 12:12), (1 Tim. 5:2),

(Ac. 4:29), etc. See also =)

) L ) L
) L (Lu. 3:6),
usually with (Mt. 24:22). But note again (Mt. 3:15)
and (Ac. 12:11). See (Mt. 28:18),
(Lu. 12:15). Cf. 2 Tim. 1:15. In Ph. 1:3, , the article is
pertinent as in (Ro. 8:22). But in Col. 1:15, 23; 1 Pet. 2:13
has its true idea of every created thing. But what about
(Col. 1:15)? See also Col. 1:9 ff. and (Jas. 1:2). Other examples somewhat
open to doubt are (Eph. 2:21) which is most probably every building
because of . So in Eph. 3:15 is every family, though all the
family is possible. In 2 Tim. 3:16 is every Scripture, if separate portions
are referred to. Cf. Jo. 19:37, . Usually in the singular in the N. T. we have
, but twice occurs alone as definite without the article, once in 1 Pet. 2:6,
, once in 2 Pet. 1:20, . Twice in the plural (Ro. 1:2; 16:26) the article is
absent. In Col. 4:12 it is every, whatever be the will of
God for you (Moffatt). In Jas. 1:17, , we have every, as in
(Ac. 17:26).3
and the participle is a very common construction in the N. T. Here the idea is
every, and and the participle are in apposition. Thus (Mt. 7:26) is
practically equivalent to (7:24). Cf. (Mt. 5:22),
(5:28), (5:32), (7:8), etc. But sometimes we find
without the article as in (Mt. 13:19), (Lu. 11:4),
where some MSS. read . See (Ro. 1:16). The abstract neuter
3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 161.
4 W.-Sch., p. 187.
1 W.-Th., p. 111. Cf. 1 Sam. 7:2 f. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 162) calls this imitation of
Hebrew.
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 162.
Moffatt MOFFATT, J., The New Testament. A New Translation (1913).
3 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 187.

 is regular. So (Mt. 15:17), (18:34). Cf.

in Jo. 6:37, 39.
The idiom =the whole, the totality, is not frequent in the singular. It occurs
twice.1 See (Ac. 20:18), (Gal. 5:14), das gesamte
Gesetz.2 Cf. also Barn. 4:9, . Here the whole is contrasted with a part.
=the entire law, the whole law. It was never so common a construction in
the ancient Greek3 as .
In the plural is used sometimes without the article. The article is not
necessary with proper names, like (Ac. 17:21). Cf.
(26:4). But the article is absent elsewhere also, as in (Lu.
13:27), (Ac. 22:15; cf. Ro. 5:12, 18), (Gal. 6:6; cf.
in 3:10), (Eph. 3:8), (Heb. 1:6). These
examples are not numerous, however. Cf. 1 Pet. 2:1; 2 Pet. 3:16. Blass4 considers it a
violation of classical usage not to have the article in Eph. 3:8 and 2 Pet. 3:16, because of
the adjectives, and in Lu. 4:20, , because of the adjunct. But
that objection applies chiefly to the literary style. See (2 Cor. 13:12).
The usual construction is (Mt. 1:17), (2:4), etc.
Sometimes we have the other order like (Mt. 9:35). Cf. 2 Cor. 13:12.
may be repeated with separate words (Mt. 3:5). For the use with the participle see
Mt. 8:16. A few examples of the attributive position are found, like
(Ac. 19:7)=the total number of the men, as in the ancient idiom. See, also,
(Ac. 27:37), (Ro. 16:15),
(Gal. 1:2), (2 Cor. 5:10). The last example=we the whole
number of us. Cf. Ac. 21:21.
But we also find without a substantive, as in 2 Cor. 5:15; 1 Cor. 9:22; Ro.
11:32; Eph. 4:13; Ph. 2:21. In 1 Cor. 10:17, ,
note the contrast with . Still more common is for the sum of things,
the all. Cf. Ro. 8:32; 11:36; 1 Cor. 11:12; 12:6, 19 (cf. here and ); 2 Cor.
5:18; Col. 1:17, etc. The use of alone (1 Cor. 12:29), or of (1 Cor. 13:7),
calls for no comment.
The story of is brief. It is never attributive in position in the N. T. It has also an
indefinite meaning which does not have. Thus (Ac. 11:26)=a whole
year. does not have this idea apart from the article. So Jo. 7:23,
, a whole man sound.1 Cf. Lu. 5:5; Ac. 28:30. In Mk. 12:30 compare
( , Mt. 22:37) with . In this sense the plural also
is found as in (Tit. 1:11). One may compare (Ac. 21:31),
with (Mt. 2:3). We usually have in the N. T. the order
(Mk. 1:33), but sometimes (Ac. 21:30). Sometimes we have and
in the same sentence as in 2 Cor. 1:1; 1 Th. 4:10. The word may be repeated several
1 Green, Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 192. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 189.
2 W.-Sch., p. 189.
3 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 52 f.
4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 161.
1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 190.

times (Mt. 22:37; Mk. 12:30, 33). It occurs alone also as a predicate (Jo. 9:34), or with
(Mt. 1:22).
(q) WITH . There is a peculiar use of the article with that calls for a
word. The regular construction with the article (attributive) like (1
Pet. 1:3) occurs in the singular (cf. , 2 Cor. 8:15) and much more frequently in
the plural. So alone (Ro. 5:15; 12:5; Heb. 12:15; 1 Cor. 10:17), (Ro.
15:22). With the substantive added note (Rev. 17:1),
(Lu. 7:47), (Ac. 26:24). This is all in harmony with classic
idiom2 as well as the frequent use of without the article in an indefinite sense. But
in (Jo. 12:9, 12) Moulton3 finds a curious misplacement of the article.
Moulton cites a piece of careless Greek from Par.P. 60,
. It is possible that came to be regarded as one idea. Gildersleeve
(Syntax, p. 284) cites a few rare attributive examples of the type from
Homer and schylus where the adjective is appositive rather than predicative. The
Homeric examples may be demonstrative. One may note also
(1 Pet. 1:18) and
(Eph. 2:11). See VI, (c), 5. We do find the usual order in
Mk. 12:37. But it is a fact that is the usual order in the N. T. (Mt. 26:47;
Mk. 5:24; Lu. 7:11; 9:37; Jo. 6:2, 5). The analogy of , , may have played
some part in the matter. For see Mt. 19:2; Lu. 14:25. In Mt. 21:8 (parallel
with Mk. 12:37, ) we have , but it is difficult to lay
much stress on this point of variation. One is reminded of the constant French idiom,
but that is merely an independent parallel. The idiom may be seen in 1 Cor.
9:19. See further ch. XIV.
(r) , , , . As to , it does not appear as an adjective
in the N. T. In Lu. 16:24 and Heb. 11:21 is a substantive. The same thing is
probably true of and in Mk. 13:27 and Mt. 24:31. This is in harmony with
the Septuagint (Ex. 29:20; Is. 5:26).1 The same situation is repeated in the case of
. Cf. (Mk. 6:23), (Rev. 12:14). Cf.
alone (Rev. 11:9, 11). But is used attributively as in
(Mt. 27:64), (Jo. 6:39, etc.), (Lu. 12:59), etc. The
construction alone (Rev. 2:8) and (Lu. 11:26) is
classical.2 So is indeed also (Mk. 9:35), (1 Pet. 1:5).
(Heb. 1:2) is probably a substantive use. But in 2 Pet. 3:3
we may have the partitive construction in the predicate position.
There is no doubt of it as to . Here also we find usually (like
above) absolutely (Mk. 3:3), or the various prepositional phrases like (Mk.
14:60), (Mk. 6:47), (Lu. 4:30), (Mk. 7:31),
(Ac. 27:27), (Mt. 13:49) or as preposition (Ph. 2:15). But the old
partitive construction occurs in (Mt. 25:6), (Ac. 26:13)
without the article. The true predicate is found in (Lu.
23:45). So in Ac. 1:18. Cf. also (Mt. 14:24, marg.
2 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 53.
3 Prol., p. 84.
1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 190.
2 Ib.

W. H.), where is probably a preposition. In Jo. 19:18, , we

have Jesus in the midst. There is, however, no example in the N. T. like the old classic
idiom which is seen in the LXX. Cf. (Ezek. 11:23).3 See also ch.
XIV.
(s) WITH AND . The article is frequent with but never in the
sense of the rest of, like ancient Greek. But (1 Cor. 14:29) is close to it. It is
used where only two are meant, as in (Jo. 20:3,
(Mt. 28:1). The order occurs (Jo. 18:16). Cf. also
(Jo. 19:32) where the article is repeated, like ,
etc. (Rev. 2:24). Blass4 says that no Attic writer would have said
=the remaining cities (Lu. 4:43). He considers (Mt. 10:23 B)
incorrect for the next city, as well as =the third in Lu. 19:20. But it is not
the use of the article here that displeases Blass, but the free interchange of and
in the . See ch. XV, Pronouns.
(t) . This need detain us but a moment. The essential facts are succinctly
given by Winer-Schmiedel.1 Without the article occurs usually even with proper
names, as (Lu. 9:36). So (Ro. 16:27; 1 Tim. 1:17). But the
predicate use occurs also. So Mt. 12:4 ; (24:36) (

BD); (Jo. 6:22); (Heb. 9:7). The articular

attributive use is found a few times, as in (Jo. 5:44). Cf. Jo. 17:3; 1
Tim. 6:15 f.; Ju. 4. See ch. XIV.
VI. Position with Attributives. The article does not make a word or phrase
attributive. It may be attributive without the article. It is necessary to go over much of
the same ground again (Adjectives and Participles, Genitives, Adverbs and Adjuncts) in
order to get the subject clearly before us.
(a) WITH ADJECTIVES. So (Ph. 1:6) is attributive=a good work,
though it is anarthrous. Cf. also (Eph. 2:10). Cf. (1 Cor. 5:6).
But when the article is used before a word or phrase there is no doubt about its being
attributive.
1. The Normal Position of the Adjective. It is between the article and the substantive,
as in (Jas. 2:7), (Mt. 12:35),
(18:20). In this normal attributive type the adjective receives greater emphasis than the
substantive.2 Cf. correct text Lu. 12:12; 1 Cor. 10:3 (correct text); 1 Jo. 5:20. So
(1 Tim. 1:11). There must be a special reason for the other construction.3
2. The Other Construction (Repetition of the Article). In the order4
(Jo. 10:11) both substantive and adjective receive emphasis and the adjective is added as
a sort of climax in apposition with a separate article.5 Cf. (Mt.
17:5), (Lu. 8:8), (Jo. 1:9),
3 Ib.; Thompson, Synt., p. 53.
4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 180.
1 P. 190.
2 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 158.
3 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 47.
4 For copious classical exx. of both positions see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 281 f.

(4:11), (7:6), (15:1), (Ac.

19:15). Cf. also Mt. 6:6; Lu. 7:47; Jo. 6:13; 1 Cor. 12:31; 2 Cor. 6:7; Eph. 6:13; Col.
1:21; Heb. 13:20; 1 Jo. 1:2; 2:25; 4:9. There is an apparent difficulty in Heb. 9:1,
, which may be compared with , p. 774 (Jo. 12:9).1
Perhaps both and were felt to be adjectives.
3. Article Repeated Several Times. So in Ac. 12:10,
. Cf. (Mt. 25:41),
(Jo. 18:16), (Rev. 2:12). In particular
note the repetition of the article in Heb. 11:12; Rev. 3:14; 17:1; 21:9. In Rev. 1:5 note
four articles, , . Cf. Rev. 12:9; 1 Pet. 4:14.
For this common classic idiom see Gildersleeve, Syntax, pp. 328 ff. In Ph. 1:29,
, the two infinitives following, each with , explain the first
.
4. One Article with Several Adjectives. When several adjectives are used we find an
article with each adjective if the adjectives accent different aspects sharply. So
(Rev. 1:17; cf. 22:13). Cf. also
(1:4, 8). But ordinarily the one article is sufficient for any number of adjectives
referring to the same substantive. So
(Rev. 3:17). In Mt. 24:45, , the carries
over the force of the article.2 So likewise the presence of another attribute may explain
the probable predicate position (1 Pet. 1:18) and (Eph.
2:11).3 See further (c), 5.
5. With Anarthrous Substantives. There is still another order.4 It is
(Jo. 14:27). Here the substantive is indefinite and general, while the attribute makes a
particular application. Cf. (Gal. 3:21). Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p.
93) finds this idiom frequent in the . So (I. G., XII, 7
N. 240, 13).
6. With Participles. The participle may come between the article and the substantive
like the attributive adjective, as in (Mt. 25:34). Cf. 1
Tim. 1:10; Ro. 8:18; 1 Cor. 12:22; 1 Pet. 1:13. On the other hand (cf. 5), all else may
come between the article and the participle, as in 1 Pet. 1:10, . A
long clause (including a relative clause) may come between the article and the
participle, as in Ro. 16:17, . Once more, the participle may come in the
midst of the attributive phrases, as in 1 Pet. 1:3, , or immediately after
the article, as in 2 Pet. 1:3. Either the participle or the modifier may occur outside of the
attributive complex (Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 289 f.). Gildersleeve gives copious
illustrations of the various constructions of the attributive participle. The article may be
repeated after the substantive, like above (Jo. 4:11),
(Mk. 3:22). Cf. Jo. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:54; 1 Pet. 1:25; 5:10; Ac. 7:37; Heb.
13:20. The article may occur with the participle when not with the substantive. This
5 In Jas. 3:7, , the repeated article makes for greater clearness.
1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 177.
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 160.
3 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 181.
4 It is common enough in classic Gk. Cf. Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 283.

supplementary addition of the article is more common with the participle than with
other adjectives.1 Cf. (Lu. 7:32),
(23:49), (Ac. 7:35),
(1 Pet. 1:7), and in particular
(Ac. 4:12). Cf. also Ac. 1:12; Gal. 3:21; Ro. 2:14 ( ). But in
(Gal. 1:1), (1:4), the proper names are definite
without the article. So (1 Th. 1:10), etc. Participles in apposition
with personal pronouns may also have the article. Cf. (Jo. 4:26),
(Ro. 7:21), (Jas. 4:12), (Ro. 8:4),
(Eph. 1:19), (Jo. 1:12), etc. Note two
articles in 1 Th. 4:15, 17, . Cf. Eph. 1:12; 1 Jo. 5:13
( .); 1 Cor. 8:10. The artic. part. may be in appos. with the verb, as in
(Heb. 6:18; cf. 4:3). Cf., on the other hand, ,
(1 Th. 2:17). The article and participle may follow , as in
(Lu. 18:9), (Gal. 1:7). If the substantive has
the article and the participle is anarthrous, the participle may be (cf. above) predicate.
So (2 Pet. 1:18), (1 Pet. 3:19 f.),
(2 Cor. 12:2), (Ac. 23:27).
Cf. Lu. 16:14; Jo. 4:6; Ro. 2:27; 1 Cor. 14:7; 2 Cor. 3:2; 11:9; Heb. 10:2; 1 Pet. 1:12.
The presence of the article with the participle here would radically change the sense.
The same article may be used with several participles, as in
(Gal. 2:20), (Rev. 1:5). The use of the article
with the participle in the predicate is illustrated by ;
(Ro. 8:33; cf. Jo. 5:45). In questions the pronoun, though coming first, may sometimes
be really predicate. Then again the article may be absent from both substantive and
participle (predicate or attributive), as in (Mk. 5:25), (1 Th. 1:9),
(Lu. 6:48).
(b) WITH GENITIVES. From the nature of the case the genitive as the genus-case is
usually attributive. In general the construction in the N. T. follows the ancient idiom.1
1. The Position between the Article and the Substantive. This is common enough,
and especially so in 1 and 2 Peter. So (1 Pet. 3:20); 1:17; 2:15,
3:1. See in particular demonstrative pronouns like (Tit. 3:7). Plato
(Soph., 254a) has . For a series of such genitives in
this position see (1 Pet. 3:3). For adjective and genitive see 3:4,
. Cf. Mt. 12:31; 1 Pet. 5:1. In 1 Pet. 4:14 the article is repeated,
. See also Jo. 1:40, .
2. Genitive after the Substantive without Repetition of the Article.2 This is even more
common. Thus (Jo. 20:19), (Ro. 8:39).
Cf. 2 Cor. 4:4; Ro. 8:2; 1 Th. 1:3. Sometimes the two types are combined, thus
(2 Cor. 5:1),
(2 Pet. 3:2). The personal pronouns illustrate either order except
that is nearly always outside (but see , Gal. 1:14,
and , 2 Tim. 4:16); either, as is usual, (Jo.
20:28) or (Jo. 9:11). We find (Ro. 3:24) and
1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 243.
1 Cf. K.-G., I, p. 597; Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 49.
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 159.

 (Mt. 1:21) and (Jo. 15:10. Cf. 9:6; 11:32),

(Lu. 11:21) and (Gal. 6:8), (Lu. 16:8)
and (Mt. 21:8). Cf. also (Mt. 6:9), (Mt.
5:30; but not 5:29. Cf. also 1 Tim. 5:23), (Mt. 6:17),
(6:11), (1 Th. 1:3), (Col. 1:8), etc. With the partitive
the usual (but see Jo. 6:70; 9:16, 40) position is this: (Rev. 8:7). Cf. 1
Cor. 15:9.
3. Repetition of Article with Genitive. The genitive may follow the other substantive
with a repeated article. Here the article closely resembles the original demonstrative. So
(1 Cor. 1:18), (Ac. 15:1),
(Tit. 2:10). This construction is not very common.1
4. The Article Only with Genitive. Cf.
(Ac. 26:12). Cf. Ac. 1:12, , with Lu. 19:29, . Here again the article
is almost pure demonstrative as in Jas. 1:25, =perfect
law, that of liberty. Vlker (Syntax, p. 16) finds abundant illustrations of these
positions in the papyri. So with proper names like (Mk. 15:40),
(Ac. 13:22), etc. Cf. Mt. 4:21.
5. Article Absent with Both. The genitive may still be attributive and both
substantives definite. Cf. (Mt. 16:18), (Ro. 4:11),
(3:27), etc. The context must decide whether the phrase is definite or not. Cf.
(Mt. 27:54), (Ac. 4:9).
6. The Correlation of the Article. In such cases, according to Middleton,2 if two
substantives are united by the genitive, the article occurs with both or is absent from
both.3 But note (H. Scott) that (1) the genitive may be anarthrous if it is a proper name,
(2) the governing noun may be anarthrous if it depends on a preposition. The normal
type may be well illustrated by (Ro. 7:23) and
(7:25). The genitive is an abstract noun which may or may not have the
article. But is definite in either instance in the law of sin. See again
(7:22) and (7:25). can be definite with or without the article.
So, again, (8:6) and , (8:9),
(8:3) and (8:6). Cf. also
(8:2), (8:21),
(Ac. 2:38), (Mt. 1:1). Cf.
1 Th. 1:3; Rev. 1:1. These examples could be multiplied indefinitely. If one member of
the group is a proper name, the article does not always appear. So
(1 Th. 1:1), but (Gal. 1:2). Note also
(Eph. 1:2) and (1:3). Cf. also
(Ph. 2:30), (1 Pet. 1:11; cf. Ac. 16:7). Such examples
1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 159.
Middleton
MIDDLETON, Analogy in Syntax (1892).
, The Doctrine of the Greek Article (1855).
2 The Doctrine of the Gk. Art., 1833. Cf. Mk. 10:25 W. H. text and marg.
3 Cf. W. F. Moultons remarks, W.-M., pp. 146, 174, 175.

as these with proper names are after all very rare.1 See Mt. 1:12; 16:13; Ac. 2:38;
Rev. 12:17. Then again other phrases otherwise definite do not require the article. So
the prepositional phrase (Ro. 8:34; cf. Heb. 1:3), but note
(Ac. 2:33). In general, where the word without the article is not otherwise
definite, it is indefinite even when the other one has the article. One is indefinite, the
other definite. So (Jo. 2:11)=a beginning of miracles. In Mk. 1:1,
, the notion may be the same, though here is
more absolute as the title of the book. In Ro. 3:25 it is possible to take
=for a showing of his righteousness, while in 3:26
may refer to the previous mention of it as a more
definite conception. Compare also (Ro. 10:3) and
(3:21), where, however, as in 1:17, the idea may be, probably is, a
righteousness of God, not the righteousness of God. In examples like this (cf.
, Mt. 27:54) only the context can decide. Sometimes the matter is wholly doubtful.
Cf. (Heb. 2:6) and (Mt. 16:13). In an example
like (Col. 1:7), therefore, the idea is a minister of the Christ, not
the minister of Christ. So (Ro. 4:11),
(2 Cor. 9:13). Hence (Mt. 4:3, 6; Lu. 4:3) and
(Jo. 1:49; Mt. 16:16; Jo. 11:27) do not mean the same thing. The devil is represented as
admitting that Jesus is a son of God, not the Son of God. In Jo. 5:25 Jesus claims
. In Jo. 10:36 Jesus uses argumentum
ad hominem and only claims to be . Cf. the sneer of the passers-by in Mt.
27:40 (W. H.), , and the demand of Caiaphas in 26:63, . In
Jo. 5:27 may be either the son of man or a son of man. Cf. a similar
ambiguity in the Aramaic barnasha. The point may become very fine indeed. Cf.
and (1 Cor. 11:3). At any
rate man is not affirmed to be womans head in quite the same sense that Christ is mans
head. But see also . In these examples the anarthrous
substantive is predicate as is the case with
(Eph. 5:23). Hence the matter is not to be stressed here,
as another principle comes into play. It is possible also that the qualitative force of
anarthrous nouns comes in here (Eph. 5:23, ,
, ). See VIII, (j). Cf.
(Eph. 2:12). So (Jo. 5:1)=a feast of the Jews,
(3:1). Cf. Ac. 6:1. Cf. (Mk. 1:4)
and (Ac. 2:38), (1 Cor. 1:9),
prepositional phrase. But enough of a somewhat thorny subject.1
(c) WITH ADJUNCTS OR ADVERBS. In general the same usage applies to adjuncts as
to adjectives.
1. Between the Article and the Noun. Thus (Ph. 3:14),
(Ro. 9:11), (11:27), (Lu. 16:10),
(Mt. 7:3), (Ac. 10:45),
(1 Pet. 1:14). Cf. Ro. 2:27.
2. Article Repeated.2 Thus (Mk. 4:31),
(13:25), (Ro.
1 W.-M., footnote, p. 146.
1 Cf. K.-G., I, p. 607 f.

3:24), (7:5), (7:10). See further Mt.

5:16; Lu. 20:35; Jo. 1:45; Ac. 8:1; 24:5; 26:4; Ro. 4:11; 8:39; 15:26; 16:1; 1 Cor. 2:11
f.; 4:17; 2 Cor. 2:6; 9:1; 11:3; Ph. 3:9; 1 Th. 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:14; Rev. 5:5; 11:2, 19, etc. In
Eph. 1:15 we find both constructions
. In Rev. 8:3 (9:13), , the
article is repeated with both adjective and adjunct.
3. Only with Adjunct. So (1 Tim. 1:4),
(Ro. 9:30), (2 Tim. 1:13). For numerous
classic illustrations of these three positions see Gildersleeve, Syntax, pp. 285 ff.
4. Only with the Noun. In such cases the adjunct may be either attributive or
predicate. Only the context can decide. In conversation the tone of voice, the manner,
the inflection make clear what in written speech is ambiguous. Still in most instances in
the N. T. the point is plain.3 The cases here dealt with are those that occur without other
defining phrases. In Eph. 6:5 some MSS. read . So in Lu. 16:10
we find both and . I see no point in Blass
remark1 that the closely connected predicative clause could not be severed by the
insertion of the article. The article could easily have been repeated or the same order
preserved in both clauses. It is much simpler and truer to say that the need of another
article was not felt. The same remark applies to (1 Tim.
6:17), (Ro. 15:31), (1 Cor.
10:18), (Eph. 2:11), (2:15),
(4:1), (1 Th. 4:16), (2 Cor. 9:13),
(Ro. 16:10), (1 Cor. 15:18). Cf. Ph.
1:1. In Col. 1:4, , and Ph. 4:19,
, more than one adjunct occurs outside the article. Cf. Eph. 3:4, 13. Blass2
considers this idiom peculiar to the N. T., but pertinent examples are cited3 from
Herodotus V, 108, , Thucydides, II, 52. 1, etc. The
vernacular character of the N. T. diction renders it more frequent. It is not common in
classic Greek.4
5. When Several Adjuncts Occur. It often becomes inconvenient and clumsy to
insert all of these between the article and the substantive.5 Even so, but at bottom the
matter does not differ in principle from the examples above. We have seen the same
freedom with a second attributive adjective (cf. Mt. 24:45). See a good example of two
adjuncts in Eph. 1:15, . The first attribute may
be adjective, genitive, adverb or adjunct. So
(Col. 2:14), (Ph. 1:26),
(3:9), (Gal. 1:13). Cf. Ph.
2 Cf. W.-Th., p. 133, for long list of exx.
3 Ib., pp. 135 ff.; W.-Sch., p. 179 f.; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 159 f.
1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 160.
2 Ib., p. 159.
3 W.-Sch., p. 180.
4 The three regular positions are common. Cf. Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 286.
5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 160.

1:5. The article and the participle readily yield examples like
(1 Pet. 1:3), (1:5). But
sometimes the several adjuncts (cf. adjectives and genitives) are inserted between the
article and the substantive. So (2 Pet. 1:4). Cf. Ac.
21:28. For similar position of several genitives and adjuncts see 2 Pet. 2:7; Lu. 1:70. In
particular note Ro. 16:17 for the various phrases between and . Note the
many adjuncts in Ro. 3:25 f. See further VI, (a), 6.
6. Phrases of Verbal Origin. Phrases that are consciously verbal in origin readily do
without the repeated article.1 So in Ro. 6:3 we have
and in the next verse we read
. It is plain, therefore, that here is to be construed with
, not with . In other examples the verbal construction appears
in other contexts. It is, however, possible that the usage with the verb renders the
anarthrous construction more frequent. So Ph. 1:26,
, may be compared with (Gal. 4:20). Cf. also
(Col. 1:24) with (1 Pet. 2:21), (Eph. 3:13) with
(2 Cor. 1:6). The classic idiom shows similar examples.2
7. Exegetical Questions. Sometimes it is quite important for doctrinal reasons to be
careful to note whether the adjunct is attributive or predicate. Thus in Ro. 8:3,
, if is attributive with , there
is a definite assertion of sin in the flesh of Jesus. But if the phrase is predicate and is to
be construed with , no such statement is made. Here the grammarian is
helpless to decide the point. The interpreter must step in and appeal to the context or
other passages for light. One conversant with Pauls theology will feel sure that
is here meant to be taken as predicate. The same ambiguity arises in verse 2,

. Here it is reasonably clear that is predicate with
. So in Ro. 3:25 probably , as well as is
predicate with . Another example from Romans is found in 5:8, where
belongs to , not . So in Jo. 15:11 is construed with ,
not . For further illustration see Ac. 22:18; 1 Cor. 2:7; 9:18; Eph. 2:7; 3:12; 5:26;
Ph. 1:14; 3:9; Col. 1:9; Phil. 20; Heb. 13:20.
8. Anarthrous Attributives. Examples occur also of attributives when the article is
absent from both substantive and adjunct. Thus (Jo. 9:1),
(Mk. 1:23), (Ro. 14:17),
(1 Cor. 12:31), etc. Note in particular 2 Cor. 11:23, 27. The older
Greek furnishes illustration of this idiom.3
(d) SEVERAL ATTRIBUTIVES WITH .
1. Several Epithets Applied to the Same Person or Thing. See already under VI, (a),
4. Usually only one article is then used. For classic examples see Gildersleeve, Syntax,
p. 330. So, for instance,
(Rev. 3:17). This is the normal idiom in accord with ancient usage. So Mk. 6:3
, Lu. 6:49 , Ac. 3:14
, Jas. 3:9 , 2 Pet. 2:20 (3:2)
1 W.-Th., p. 136; W.-Sch., p. 180.
2 W.-Sch., p. 180.
3 Ib. But Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 159) doubts it.

, 1 Tim. 4:3 . Cf. also Gal. 1:7; Eph. 6:21; 1 Tim.

6:15; Heb. 3:1; Rev. 1:9 (both and ). When a second article does occur, it accents
sharply a different aspect of the person or phase of the subject. So in Rev. 1:17
, , one article would have been sufficient, but would
have obscured the separate affirmations here made. Cf. also in 1:8;
21:6. In Jo. 21:24 W. H. read , but they
bracket . The second article is very doubtful. A similar superfluity of the second
article appears in the second (brackets W. H.) in Ac. 17:19, and in the second in 1
Pet. 4:14, (due probably to the second genitive to
emphasize each). So Jo. 1:40. See pp. 762, 782. Outside of special cases like these only
one article is found when several epithets are applied to the same person. The presence
of a genitive with the group of words does not materially alter the construction. The
genitive may occur with either substantive and apply to both.1 So
(1 Th. 3:11) and (2 Pet. 1:11). As a matter of fact such
genitives (see above) occur either inside or outside of the regimen of the article. Cf.
(Ph. 4:20), (1 Pet. 1:3; 2 Cor.
1:3; Eph. 1:3). The presence of with does not affect the construction any
more than the use of itself or above. In Ph. 3:3 one adjunct comes before
one participle, the other after the other participle, but only one article occurs. A most
important passage is 2 Pet. 1:1, . Curiously
enough Winer2 endeavours to draw a distinction between this passage, where there is
not even a pronoun with and the identical construction in 2 Pet. 1:11,
, which he cites3 as an example of merely
predicates of the same person. Stranger still, he bases his objection on doctrinal
grounds, a matter that does not per se concern the grammarian. The matter is handled in
Winer-Schmiedel,1 where it is frankly admitted that the construction in 2 Pet. 1:1 is the
same as that in 1:11 and also in 2:20; 3:2, 18. Schmiedel says also that grammar
demands that one person be meant. In Ju. 4,
, the same point holds, but the fact that is so often anarthrous
like a proper name slightly weakens it. The same remark applies also to 2 Th. 1:12,
, and Eph. 5:5,
(since often occurs without the article). One person may be described in these
three examples, but they are not so clear as the type (2
Pet. 1:1, 11). In Tit. 2:13, , it is
almost certain that one person is again described. Cf. also
, where the one article unites closely the two substantives.
Moulton2 quotes most pertinently papyri examples of vii/A.D., which show that among
Greek-speaking Christians our great God and Saviour was a current form of speech as
well as the Ptolemaic formula, (G. H. 15,

1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 155.

2 W.-Th., p. 130.
3 Ib., p. 126.
1 P. 158.
2 Prol., p. 84.

ii/B.C.). He cites also Wendlands argument3 that the rival rendering in Titus is as great
an exegetical mistake as to make two persons in 2 Pet. 1:1. Moultons conclusion4 is
clear enough to close the matter: Familiarity with the everlasting apotheosis that
flaunts itself in the papyri and inscriptions of Ptolemaic and Imperial times lends strong
support to Wendlands contention that Christians, from the latter part of i/A.D. onward,
deliberately annexed for their divine Master the phraseology that was impiously
arrogated to themselves by some of the worst of men.
2. When to be Distinguished. Then the article is repeated. So Mt. 23:2
, Mk. 2:18 , 6:21
, 11:9 ,
11:18 (cf. 14:43) , Mk. 12:13
, Lu. 11:39 , 15:6
, 23:4 , Jo. 4:37 , 1
Cor. 3:8 , Jas. 3:11 , Ac. 26:30
, Rev. 18:20 . Cf. Rev.
11:4; 13:16; 2 Th. 1:8. The list can be extended almost indefinitely. 1 But these are
examples of the same number, gender and case. Nor have I referred to abstract words of
quality like the list in Rev. 7:12, or examples like
(Lu. 12:11). It is not contended that these groups are all absolutely distinct (cf.
), but that they are treated as separate. Even with the
scribes and Pharisees they did not quite coincide. Cf. Mt. 21:45; Ac. 11:6. The use of
another attributive may sometimes be partly responsible for two articles. So Lu. 8:24
, Mk. 2:18 ,
11:15 . Cf. also Lu.
20:20; Ac. 25:15; 1 Cor. 11:27; Rev. 13:10.
3. Groups Treated as One. Sometimes groups more or less distinct are treated as one
for the purpose in hand, and hence use only one article. Cf. (Lu.
15:9), (14:3), (14:21),
(Mk. 15:1), (Ac. 17:18),
(Ac. 23:7), (Eph.
2:20), (Ph. 1:7),
(Eph. 3:18), (2 Pet. 1:10). Cf. in Tit. 2:13.
So in Mt. 17:1 (W. H. text) we have , where the
three are one group. This is probably more frequent in examples where a genitive occurs
also, or some other attribute.2 So Ph. 1:20 , 1:19
, 2:17
Wendland
WENDLAND, P., Christentum und Hellenismus (1907).
, Hellen.-rm. Kultur. 3. Aufl. (1912).
3 On in ZNTW, v. 335 f.
4 Prol., p. 84.
1 Cf. W.-Th., p. 128.
2 W.-Sch., p. 156 f.

. Cf. also 1 Th. 2:12; 3:7; Mt. 24:3; Ro. 1:20; Col. 2:8; Eph. 3:5; 2 Cor. 1:6; 1
Pet. 2:25; Ph. 1:25. These are all the simplest and clearest illustrations.
4. Point of View. Obviously, therefore, whether one or more articles are to be used
depends on the point of view of the speaker or writer. In geographical terms the matter
of freedom is well illustrated. Thus in 1 Th. 1:7 we have
, while in the very next verse we meet as in Ac.
19:21. These two Roman provinces are distinct, but adjacent. Cf. also
(Ac. 8:1; cf. 1:8), (9:31), where
these sections of Palestine are treated together. Cf. Ac. 27:5. In Ac. 15:3 note
, the two sections treated together are not even contiguous. In
Ac. 15:23, , we have a city grouped with
two countries (as in Lu. 5:17; Mt. 4:25), while in 15:41 we meet
(W. H. text). Hence no absolute conclusions can be drawn from the one article
in Ac. 16:6, (cf. reverse order in 18:23) as to the
separateness1 of the terms Phrygia and Galatic region. Cf. also Lu. 3:1,
. But the matter is not wholly whimsical. In Ac. 2:9
f. note the with , which stands alone, while we have also
, probably because the province of Asia (not Asia Minor as a whole) is meant.
Then again we meet , because of the details
stated. In Ac. 6:9 the use of twice divides the synagogues into two groups (men
from Cilicia and Asia on the one hand, men from Alexandria, Cyrene and Libertines (?)
on the other). The matter is simple geography but for , and may be after all
if we only knew what that term means. See Winer-Schmiedel, p. 158. Cf. also Rev.
14:7, where two words have articles and two do not, and Ac. 15:20, where three words
in the list have articles and one, , does not. So in Ac. 13:50 we have
, while in 15:2 we find . . Then (cf. 4) in Mt. 17:1 observe the
one article with Peter, James and John, while in Heb. 11:20 we see
. The articles here emphasize the distinction between subject
and object as in Mt. 1:216. Cf. also . . (Ac. 15:4) and . .
(15:6) with . . (16:4).
5. Difference in Number. If the words combined differ in number, usually each one
has its own article. The reason is that they generally fall into separate classes. So
(Rev. 1:3), (Eph. 2:3),
(Tit. 2:12). But one article may also be found,
as in (1 Cor. 4:9). Here, however, the anarthrous
words particularize the .2 Yet in 1 Jo. 2:16 is
particularized by three words each with the article.
6. Difference in Gender. So, if the gender is different, there is likewise usually the
repetition of the article. Cf. Ac. 17:18 , Mt. 22:4
, Lu. 10:21 , Ac. 13:50
, Ro. 8:2 , Col. 4:1
, Eph. 2:1 , Heb. 3:6
. Though usual, the repeated article is not necessary.1 See
1 Cf. W. M. Ramsay, Expos., 1895, July, pp. 2940.
2 W.-Th., p. 127.
1 Ib.

 (Lu. 14:23), (Mk. 12:33),

(Col. 2:22).
If indeed the words differ in both gender and number, in that case it is still more
customary to have separate articles. Cf., for instance, Lu. 14:26,
. So also
Ac. 15:4, 20; 26:30; Col. 2:13; 1 Tim. 5:23; Rev. 2:19. The papyri illustrate the N. T.
usage of the article with several substantives (cf. Vlker, Syntax, p. 20). So
, Pap. L, Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 195. 9.
7. With Disjunctive Particle. If a disjunctive preposition be used, there will naturally
be separate articles (even when is the connective), whatever be true about number
and gender. So (Mt. 23:35=Lu. 11:51). So when
the conjunction occurs as in (Mt. 5:17),
(15:5), (Jo. 3:19), (Mk.
4:21), (Ac. 28:17). Blass2 makes the point that outside of Ac. 14:5,
, we generally find the repeated article with . Even
here as a proper name does not need the article. Cf.
in 14:1, but (5:24) with difference in number
also.
VII. Position with Predicates. It is not the use of the article with the predicate
noun, like (Mk. 12:7), that is here before us. That point has
already been discussed under V, (i). When the article occurs with the substantive, but
not with the adjective, the result is the equivalent of a relative clause. Cf.
(Ac. 14:10) and (7:57)=with a loud voice, with
(26:24)=with the voice elevated. See also (2 Cor.
3:18)=with unveiled face and (1 Cor. 11:5)=with the head
unveiled. Cf. Mk. 3:1, . Other examples are
(Mk. 8:17), (Jo. 5:36),
(1 Pet. 4:8), (2:12), (Heb.
7:24), (5:14). In all these and similar examples the point
is quite different from that of the attributive position of the article. Most of the instances
occur with . Note the absence of the article with (Lu. 2:2) because
it is in the predicate. Cf. (Jo. 4:18). The position of
(Lu. 1:36) may be noted. D in Mk. 7:5 reads .1
Dieterich DIETERICH, K., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Sprache von der hellen. Zeit bis
zum 10. Jahrh. n. Chr. (1898).
Blass
BLASS, F., Grammatik d. neut. Griech. 2. Aufl. (1902).
, Hermeneutik und Kritik (1892).
, Philology of the Gospels (1898).
, Pronunciation of Ancient Greek (translation by Purton in 1890 of 3. Aufl. of ber die
Aussprache des Griech. 1888).
2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 163.
1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 315.

Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 292) considers this use of the predicate position a gnomon of
artificial style outside of the more simple combinations. See also Milden, The
Limitations of the Predicative Position in Greek (1900, p. 43). It is noticeable in
prepositional phrases, as in Xen., Anab., 1, 3, 14, .
VIII. The Absence of the Article. I do not care to use the term omission in
connection with the article. That word implies that the article ought to be present. As
has been already shown, the article is not the only means of showing that a word is
definite. This luxury in language did not become indispensable. The servant never
became master. There remained in the classic period many parallel phrases which were
intelligible without the article. Indeed, new phrases came into use by analogy without
the article. I do not think it is necessary to devote so much space to this phase of the
subject as is done in most grammars. Most of the cases have already come up for
discussion in one way or another. It is sufficient here to give a rsum of the chief
idioms in the N. T. which are without the article and are still definite. Much of the
modern difficulty about the absence of the Greek article is due to the effort to interpret it
by the standard of the English or German article. So Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 119)
speaks of appellatives, which as expressing definite objects should have the article!
Even Gildersleeve, in discussing the Absence of the Article (note the phrase, Syntax,
p. 259), says that prepositional phrases and other formul may dispense with the
article as in the earlier language, and he adds but anaphora or contrast may bring back
the article at any time and there is no pedantical uniformity. Admirably said, except
dispense with and bring back, dim ghosts of the old grammar. Moulton2 cites Jo.
6:68, , which should be translated words of eternal life (as marg.
of R. V.). There are indeed few of the finer points of Greek which need more constant
attention3 than the absence of the article. The word may be either definite or indefinite
when the article is absent. The context and history of the phrase in question must
decide. The translation of the expression into English or German is not determined by
the mere absence of the Greek article. If the word is indefinite, as in Jo. 4:27; 6:68, no
article, of course, occurs. But the article is absent in a good many definite phrases also.
It is about these that a few words further are needed. A brief summary of the various
types of anarthrous definite phrases is given.1 A sane treatment of the subject occurs in
Winer-Schmiedel.2
(a) WITH PROPER NAMES. Here the article is used or not at the will of the writer. So
(Ac. 19:13), but in verse 15. The reason is
apparent in these three examples. Words in apposition with proper names are usually
anarthrous. Cf. Mt. 3:6=Mk. 1:5. See further V, (a), 3.
(b) WITH GENITIVES. We have seen that the substantive may still be definite if
anarthrous, though not necessarily so. Cf. (Mt. 16:18),
(Ac. 23:6), (1 Cor. 15:10), (1 Th. 2:13), (1
Milden MILDEN, The Limitations of the Predicate Position in Greek.
Winer-Thayer WINER-THAYER, A Grammar of the Idiom of the N. T. (1869). Various eds.
2 Prol., p. 83.
3 Ib.
1 See on the whole subject K.-G., I, pp. 598 ff.
2 Pp. 162 ff.

Cor. 10:21), (Ac. 13:10), etc.3 In particular, personal pronouns in the

genitive were not always felt to need the article. Cf. (Lu. 13:19). See
further V, (h). The LXX uses this idiom freely (Blass-Debrunner, p. 151). English can
show the same construction.
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adders fork and blind worms sting,
Lizards leg and hornets wing.Macbeth.

(c) PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES . These were also often considered definite enough
without the article. So (1 Cor. 11:34. Cf. , in the house, Jo.
11:20)=at home. So we say go to bed, etc. Moulton4 pertinently cites English down
town, on change, in bed, from start to finish. This idiom is not therefore
peculiar to Greek. It is hardly necessary to mention all the N. T. examples, so common
is the matter.
Thus with observe (1 Cor. 14:27). With note (Mk.
15:21), (Mk. 7:4), (Lu. 17:29), (Heb. 12:25),
(Rev. 21:13), (Mt. 2:1), (1 Jo. 1:1),
(Mt. 13:35), (Ro. 11:25), (Lu. 16:30). Cf. Rev. 21:13,
, , . So (Lu. 4:13).
For note (Ac. 5:19), (Lu. 4:30), (17:11).
For see (Ac. 2:27), (1 Pet. 3:22), (Mk. 16:12),
(Mt. 17:27), (Mk. 3:20), (Mk. 12:14), (Mk.
14:60), (2 Jo. 10), (Mt. 10:22).
For may be noticed (Mt. 6:20), (Heb. 12:23),
(Lu. 2:14), (Heb. 1:3), (Col. 2:20), (Lu. 15:25),
(Lu. 7:32), (1 Cor. 14:35), =at church (1 Cor. 14:19),
(2 Cor. 5:12), (Ro. 13:13), (Mt. 24:45), (Jo. 1:1),
(2 Cor. 10:3), (Lu. 1:25), (Ac. 18:9).
Examples of are (1 Cor. 12:27), (Eph. 6:6), (Ac.
26:4), (Jo. 6:64), (Mt. 27:38), (Mt. 25:41),
(Lu. 23:33), (2 Th. 2:7), (Ro. 6:17), (Lu.
9:7), (Jo. 1:32).
For observe (Mt. 11:23), (Mt. 11:23), (Mt.
24:27), (Ac. 28:23), (1 Cor. 1:8).
Examples of are (Lu. 2:14), (Mt. 24:33), (Lu.
5:12).
For see (Gal. 3:1), (Ac. 27:12),
(Ac. 8:26), (Heb. 1:10), (Ac. 25:16),
(Heb. 9:5), (2 Cor. 10:3), (1 Pet. 4:6).
For observe (Ac. 20:7), (Heb. 3:6).
For note (Ac. 10:32), (Ac. 16:13).
For see (Ac. 22:6).
For see (Mt. 8:29).
3 See extensive list in W.-Sch., p. 166 f.
Blass-Debrunner BLASS-DEBRUNNER, Grammatik d. neut. Griech. 4. Aufl. (1913).
4 Prol., p. 82.

For observe (1 Cor. 13:12), (Lu.

24:29).
For see (Lu. 17:24).
It will be noted that this usage after all is confined to a rather narrow range of
words, some of which, like and , represent single objects. More of this a
little later. Most of these examples have articular parallels. See also V, (f). For classic
examples see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 259 f. The papyri furnish abundant parallels
(Vlker, Syntax, pp. 1517) as do the inscriptions (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 92).
(d) WITH BOTH PREPOSITION AND GENITIVE . It is not surprising to find no article
with phrases which use both preposition and genitive like (Ro.
1:1), (Lu. 19:42), (Mt. 20:23),
(Mt. 24:21), (Heb. 11:11), (Lu. 8:13),
(Mt. 25:34), (Lu. 1:51), etc.
(e) TITLES OF BOOKS OR SECTIONS. These may be without the article, being already
specific enough. So before the Gospel in many MSS.,
(Mk. 1:1), (Mt. 1:1),
(Rev. 1:1). A good example of anarthrous headings may be seen in 1
Pet. 1 f. (cf. Hort, 1 Peter, p. 15), where no article occurs in the whole opening sentence
of five lines. The article is used quite idiomatically in 1 Peter.
(f) WORDS IN PAIRS. These often do without the article. Very often, of course, the
article is used. Words for day and night (as in English) frequently occur together. Cf.
(Mk. 5:5), (Rev. 4:8). They occur singly also
without the article, as (Jo. 3:2), (Rev. 21:25), (Mt. 25:6).
See also other pairs like (1 Cor. 8:5; cf. 2 Pet. 3:5),
(Mk. 7:10), (1 Pet. 4:5). Indeed the anarthrous construction
is common in contrast with , , , , (cf. Ro. 6:14). For long lists of
anarthrous words (definite and indefinite together) see Ro. 8:35; 1 Cor. 3:22; 12:13, 28;
2 Cor. 11:25 f.; 1 Pet. 1:2; Heb. 12:18, 23; 1 Tim. 3:16.1 Cf. also (1
Cor. 11:8). Some of these usages belong to proverbs, formul and enumerations. See
Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 260. The (inscriptions and papyri) shows the idiom
(Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 94).
(g) ORDINAL NUMERALS. The article is usually absent in expressions of time. The
ancient idiom is here followed.2 The ordinal was often felt to be definite enough alone.
This was true of the predicate. Cf. (Lu. 2:2), (Mk.
15:25), (Jo. 19:14). Cf. Eph. 6:2; Ac. 2:15. But it was not confined to the
predicate by any means, nor even to prepositional phrases like (Ac.
20:18), (2 Cor. 12:2), (Ac. 10:30),
(Ac. 10:9), (Lu. 3:1), (Mk. 15:33), etc.
Cf. Ac. 23:23. The same construction occurs also in
(Ac. 12:10). Cf. Mk. 15:33, . Examples with the article
are not wanting. Cf. Mt. 27:64; Lu. 12:38; Ac. 10:40.
Hort HORT, F. J. A., Notes on Orthography (pp. 141173, vol. II of the N. T. in the
Original Greek, 1882).
1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 168; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 149.
2 Thompson, Synt., etc., p. 54; W.-Th., p. 126. See further J. Thompson, Cl. Rev.,
1906, p. 304; Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 261.

(h) IN THE PREDICATE. As already shown in V, (i), in the predicate the article is
often absent. See V, (i). Cf. (Jo. 1:1), (1 Jo. 4:8),
etc. This is the rule unless the terms be convertible or the predicate is singled out as
prominent. For the superlative without the article see also 1 Jo. 2:18. Cf. 1 Pet. 1:5,
.
(i) ABSTRACT WORDS. In English the presence, not the absence, of the article with
abstract words needs explanation. Hence the anarthrous lists in Gal. 5:20 f., 22 f., seem
to us much more in harmony with our idiom than the lists with the article in Rev. 5:12,
13; 7:12. In German,1 however, the opposite is often true. The article is often absent in
the Greek, where the German would have it. Cf. Ro. 1:29. See IV, (c), for discussion of
article with abstract nouns. No vital difference was felt between articular and anarthrous
abstract nouns (Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 259).
(j) QUALITATIVE FORCE. This is best brought out in anarthrous nouns. So
(Mk. 10:2; cf. 1 Cor. 7:10),
(13:12), (Jo.
1:14), (Ro. 1:30). Cf. also Eph. 5:23,
, and . In
(verse 24) note the generic article, class and class. See
(Heb. 12:7).2
(k) ONLY OBJECT OF KIND. These partake of the nature of proper names and often
occur without the article. They also often have the article. Some of these anarthrous
examples appear in prepositional phrases like (Lu. 23:33), (ib.),
etc. These may be passed by (already discussed). The point is best illustrated by such
words as and (2 Pet. 3:5). Cf. English heaven and earth. Cf. (f), Words in
Pairs. we find sometimes anarthrous with prepositions (Ac. 7:36; 10:32) and
in Lu. 21:25 . But it has the article in contrast with .3 See
also Lu. 21:25 , Mt. 13:6 , 1 Cor.
15:41 . So we can say sun, moon and stars, etc. should also be
noted. Cf. 1 Cor. 15:21; Mt. 16:28; 20:18; Lu. 23:15; Ph. 1:20, etc. It is anarthrous as
subject, object, with adjectives and with prepositions. Many of these examples occur
with prepositions like Lu. 21:25 above, or with a genitive like (Ac.
13:10).1 Cf. 1 Pet. 5:8. The word , like a proper name, is freely used with and
without the article. But it is beyond comparison the most frequently in the Epistles
without the article.2 I doubt that. As subject , but as a predicate,
(Jo. 1:1); as genitive, (Ro. 11:33); with prepositions, (Jo. 3:21);
with adjectives, (Ro. 9:5); with participles also,
(1 Th. 1:9); in conjunction with (Gal. 1:1). These illustrations can be greatly
multiplied. So also and may occur with and without the article.
Garvie3 quotes Bartlet on Acts as saying that when is anarthrous it
1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 150.
2 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 82 f.; W.-Sch., p. 170.
3 W.-Th., p. 121.
1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 148.
2 W.-Th., p. 122.
3 Expos., Oct., 1909, p. 327.

describes the human condition, not the divine agency. But it may be questioned if this is
not a purely artificial rule, as there are evident exceptions to it. The use of with
a genitive like (Ro. 8:9) and with a preposition, (Jo. 3:5),
accounts for some examples. An example like (Jo. 7:39) merely
illustrates the use of like as substantially a proper name. As for
Middletons rule that the article is present when the personality of the Holy Spirit is
taught,4 that is illustrated by Jo. 14:26, , where the Holy Spirit is
spoken of in distinction from the Father and the Son. Cf. also 15:26. See also
(Lu. 3:22), at the baptism of Jesus. , like and , is often
practically a proper name in the N. T. In the Gospels it usually refers to God, like the O.
T. Lord, while in the Epistles of Paul in particular it nearly always means the Lord
Jesus.5 It is not merely in a prepositional phrase like the common (1 Cor.
7:22), or the genitive like (1 Cor. 16:10), but especially
(Ph. 1:2; 2:11, etc.). In the Gospels is usually a verbal adjective=the
Anointed One, the Messiah (Mt. 2:4; Jo. 1:41). In Mt. 1:1; Mk. 1:1, we have as
a proper name and even in the words of Jesus as reported in Mk. 9:41, , and in
the address of Peter in Ac. 2:38, . It was a natural growth. In Pauls
Epistles is more frequent than .6 There is even a development in
Pauls use of and . In his earlier Epistles the former is
the rule (cf. 1 Th. 1:1), while in the later Epistles he prefers (2 Tim.
1:1). Other examples of this idiom are seen in , which even in the nominative is
anarthrous, (Gal. 6:14). Cf. Ro. 4:13. See also (Ro.
5:13) and (Lu. 11:50), etc. is a word that is used with a
deal of freedom by Paul. In general when is anarthrous in Paul it refers to the
Mosaic law, as in (Ro. 2:17). So (2:25), etc. It
occurs so with prepositions, as (2:23), and in the genitive, like
(Gal. 2:16). Cf. (2:19), (Ro.
6:14). In (7:23) =principle, and is here indeterminate. In 2:14,
, the Mosaic law is meant, but not in . It is
at least problematical whether in 2:13, , and
(note the article with the other words) means the Mosaic law and so really definite or
law as law (the hearers of law, the doers of law).1
IX. The Indefinite Article. The Greek had no indefinite article. It would have been
very easy if the absence of the article in Greek always meant that the noun was
indefinite, but we have seen that this is not the case. The anarthrous noun may per se be
either definite or indefinite. But the Greek made an approach to the modern indefinite
article in the use of and . The later writers show an increasing use of these words
as the practical equivalent of the present indefinite article. This matter has already been
discussed under these two words (ch. XV). An example of is seen in
4 Cf. W.-M., footnote, p. 151.
Paul PAUL, H., Principles of the History of Language (1888). Tr.
5 W.-Th., p. 124.
6 See Roses list for Pauls use of , , etc., in Middletons Doctrine of the
Gk. Art., pp. 486 ff. It is based on Textus Rec.
1 For a full and detailed discussion of the whole matter see W.-Sch., pp. 174 ff.

(Lu. 10:25). The tendency was constantly for to displace , so that in modern
Greek the process is complete,2 i.e. drives out in this sense. This use of is
seen in the papyri and need not be denied in the N. T.3 As a N. T. example of =a see
(Mt. 8:19).4 The indefinite article does not appear with predicates in the
modern Greek.5 Unus in the sense of the indefinite article is one of the peculiarities of
the Latin Vulgate (Jacquier, Le N. T. dans lgl. Chr., Tome II, p. 122).

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 96. See Thumb, Handb., p. 41.

3 Moulton, ib., p. 97. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 164 f.
4 Cf. for LXX use, C. and S., Sel., p. 25.
5 Thumb., Handb., p. 42.
Jacquier JACQUIER, E., Histoire des Livres du N. T. Tomes IIV. Ch. ii, Tome I, Langue du
N. T.