accustomed to say òós. In the New Testament, the noun is twice read, joined to adjectives of the feminine gender, Luke xv. 14, λιμὸς ἰσχυρά, and Acts xi. 28, λιμὸν μεγάλην, which reading has been already perceived by Valckenar and Fischer, to be greatly preferable to the printed one, in which the noun is joined with adjectives of the masculine gender. The Attics used Báros, a bramble, in the masculine ;h the writers of the New Testament agree with the rest of the Greeks, in making the word feminine, Mark xii. 26, Luke vi. 44, xx. 37, Acts vii. 35: and the same usage is found in the nowo Grammarians object to saying o doo, the Attic writers having previously used the neuter τὰ δεσμάκ That the former is an

e

Phrynich. p. 80. Etymol. M. p. 566. Ael. Dionysius in Eustath. on Od. a. p. 1390, 56. It is used in the feminine gender by Megarensis in Aristophanes, Acharnens, 743. So that Sextus Empiricus is not to be listened to, when, Adv. Grammat. p. 247, he says that the Athenians used στάμνος, θόλος, βῶλος, λιμός, in the feminine.

Specimen Annotation. Crit. in locos quosdam Novi Testamenti, p. 383, sq.

8 Prolusion. p. 672.

h Moeris, p. 99.

i. 132.

Thom. Mag. p. 148. Schol. to Theocr.

i Theophr. Hist. Plant. iii. 18. Dioscorid. iv. 37.

*Moer. p. 127. Thom. Mag. p. 204. Phavorin., word doua. Eustath. on Od. a, p. 1390, 56.

L

Ionic form, may, not unreasonably, perhaps, be inferred from Homer using the word in the masculine gender.' In the New Testament it is used in both forms; according to the Attic usage, in Luke viii. 29, Acts xvi. 26; and, according to the Ionic, in Philipp. i. 13. These uses of the gender are from the more ancient dialects; but the common speech also introduced a new use of the gender, not met with before. A remarkable example is the noun λeos, which, by all the Greek authors, is used in the masculine; but, in the New Testament, Luke i. 50, 78, 1 Pet. i. 3, Rom. ix. 23; in the Alexandr. Translat., Gen. xix. 9, Numb. xi. 15; and in the ecclesiastical writers, is neuter.

5. I pass on to a fifth class of instances where the New Testament shews traces of the later speech. It consists of words, some of which were transferred from the more ancient dialects into the common tongue, and others were newly coined, either according to an analogy previously afforded, or in other ways. Some cases of this kind have been taken notice of by grammarians, and a number of others should be learned from our own observation. To set out from the beginning, the language of the

sacred writers is distinguished by many forms, both of nouns and of verbs, which have been drawn from ancient dialects. Fischerm and Sturzius" have shown, that the nouns aλéx=wg for ἀλεκτρυών, σκοτία for σκότος, βασίλισσα for βασ is, were derived from the Doric into the common speech. To these I add n oixodou, instead of which, masters of this language observe, the Attics used oinodóunua. The former occurs in the New Testament, Matth. xxiv. 1, Rom. xiv. 19; in the Alexandrian version, Ezek. xvii. 17, 1 Chron. xxvi. 27. In foreign authors it seldom occurs, and never except in the zoo. I am disposed to consider it Doric, from the authority of Suidas, who adduces the following very ancient form of imprecation among the Lacedemonians, οἰκοδομά σε λάβοι. The noun oixodeo Tórns was a new compound, and unknown to the Attics; but we have the testimony of Pollux,' that this noun was used by Alexis, a poet of middle comedy, and a Thurian by country- Tagavrívors, and by Theano, a female disciple of Pythagoras, in

X

t

an epistle to Timareta. Hence, not without an appearance of probability, we infer, that this word was used by the Dorians. It occurs, Matth. xiii. 27, xx. 1, &c.; and also in Plutarch, Sextus Empiricus, and others. To the language of the Ionians may be traced the word ugaw, Acts xxi. 24, 1 Cor. xi. 5, which Thomas Magister" considers foreign to the Attic diction, and for which he would substitute Žugev. It is frequently used in Herodotus, and in the zoo. It is surely needless for me to suggest, that the Ionians often changed into the termination of words ending in aw. To this class belongs also grow, a form of the present, which the grammarians wish to have changed, after the manner of the Attics, into gy. The former occurs in the New Testament, Mark ii. 22, ix. 18; in the Alexandrian version, 1 Kings xi. 31; and in Homer," whence it may be inferred that it belonged to the language of the Ionians.

These examples can be traced to the more ancient dialects. What follow seem the in

'De placit Philos. v. 18. p. 908. B. Probl, Rom. 30. p. 271. D. *Physic. i. 122.

" Page 642.

* II. 65, 121. Palaephat. p. 84, 180. Ed. Toll. Lucian, Cynicus, iii

p. 547.

' Moer.

p. 337. Thomas Mag. p. 788.

a Il. a. 571.

vention of later times. No one will wonder how, as time advanced, new forms of words began to be employed, for this happens in all languages, provided they are habitually employed in the daily intercourse of life. But well may we wonder that, in the common speech, we see so many nouns and verbs follow an analogy which, in the different forms of the more ancient language, either is entirely wanting, or occurred but seldom, even at the time when other forms, with the same signification, were in use. Respecting the causes of this formation little is known. We may suppose that there had previously existed in the speech which the people used, forms similar to those which we now find in books written in this vulgar idiom. Many things that must now be left unnoticed, might be better explained, indeed, if we had any certain information respecting the genius and character of the more ancient speech which was ordinarily used by the communities of Greece. For from that, undoubtedly, the common language of later times drew more extensively than from the diction followed by authors, although it is only the latter that can be known from suitable monuments. Hence, in regard to the present class, we, for the most part, can only adduce the di