The use and signification of the particles in Greek, once a subject of little interest and attention among lexicographers and grammarians, has come at length, and very justly, to occupy a high and commanding place in criticism. One important ground of preference, which the great lexicon of Passow has over all other Greek lexicons, is the special attention that the author of it has paid to the development of the powers and uses of the Greek particles. The old work of Hoogeveen on this subject, which occupies many hundreds of quarto pages, contains a great mass of matter, and is the result of more than Herculean labour. But the critical student finds, after all, so little of order, method, philosophy of language, nice grammatical discrimination, and other qualities of this nature now so imperiously demanded by the present state of Greek criticism, that he is apt soon to grow weary of consulting this Thesaurus. Good use may be made of it, however, in the selection of examples, by a student who already possesses the power of discrimination; but Hoogeveen would hardly be a safe guide for one who has yet to acquire such a power.

Devarius on the Greek Particles, is a small work. It has, however, some claims to respectful mention. The larger work of Vigerus de Idiotismis Ling. Graecae, is well known even in this country, and has become common, particularly by means of the abridged form in which it has lately appeared in England. Hermann, in his German edition of the work, has made many important corrections, and supplied some new and important matter. But after all, the new patches will hardly suit well the old garment, in this case. The real fact is, that Vigerus, like Hoogeveen, has become in a measure antiquated. The old manner of dividing and subdividing the meaning of words, (until, by ramification which is almost, without measure or bounds, the sight of the original meaning of the word and the proper ground of its derived significations are wholly obscured or lost), is the one which Vigerus follows throughout. In this way, one might almost say, it is easy deducere aliquid ex aliquo. So has Schleusner often done, in his lexicon of the New Testament; which still is a work that contains much that is valuable. An erroneous taste in matters of this kind, was introduced by a few such works as Hoogeveen, Vigerus, and others of similar character, which greatly injured most of the later lexicographers and critics in regard to their method of treating the Greek particles, until within a few years. A very different

school is now rising up under the influence of such works as those of Passow, Hermann, Matthiae, Buttmann, Winer, and others; which bids fair to throw more light upon the long neglected subject of those little words, that have often and appropriately been named the joints and bands of discourse.

On the use of a particle very often depends the whole turn and mode of a writer or speaker's meaning or reasoning; yea, the main object of the discourse itself. For an example let us take the word "va; of which Tittmann has so copiously, ably, and satisfactorily discoursed, in the following pages.

The evangelist Matthew, in chap. 1: 18-21, gives an account of an angel's prediction in respect to the supernatural conception and the birth of Jesus, and also of the reason assigned by the angel why the Saviour's name should be called Jesus. At the close of this account the evangelist adds: "Now all this was done, iva ningœdy vò éŋđèv x. 7. h, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord, by the prophet, saying: Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son," etc. This is one form in which ïva ninowy may be translated, and is translated in our common version. But here, and in many other of the like passages, a serious and very important question arises, viz., whether the phrase iva ningwon x. t. 1, is not susceptible of another translation, and one which is justified both by the nature of the case and by the signification of the particle iva. On this question depends the whole tenor or aspect of the evangelist's assertion. As it stands translated above, (which is the form of our common version), the meaning seems to be, that the greatest events which ever happened in our lower world, viz., the birth of Christ and also the occurrences connected with it, all took place in order that, or for the purpose that, the prophecy of Isaiah (7:14) might be fulfilled. But here the reflecting reader will be constrained to pause and ask: What, then? Was it not to redeem a world in ruin, that the Saviour's miraculous birth and the events accompanying it took place, rather than merely to accomplish the prediction of Isaiah?" The proper answer to this question may undoubtedly be, that both of the purposes named were to be accomplished by the birth of Jesus. The world was to be redeemed, and prophecy was also to be fulfilled. But the great and ultimate end must be, THE REDEMPTION OF MANKIND. The other, viz., the fulfilment of the particular prophecy in question, was altogether subordinate and merely preparatory. It was indeed the design of heaven, that

when a prediction had been uttered respecting the birth of a Saviour and the manner of it, that nothing should be lacking in respect to the accomplishment of this prediction. But to suppose, that the great, the unspeakably important event of the incarnation of Jesus, was simply a fulfilment of a prophecy which designated the manner of his birth-would be a supposition which seems to cover with darkness the wise and benevolent purposes of Heaven in the redemption of man, and to limit them to the production of an event, which (although of high interest as a display of miraculous power) would be, or rather would thus be represented as being, of but little importance in other respects.

Yet if, as some critics strenuously maintain, a means and can mean only in order that, to the end that, for the sake or purpose of, we seem to be thrown into all the embarrassment which such a representation would occasion. If the telic use only of this particle is an invariable and necessary idiom of the Greek, it is difficult to see what escape there can be from the conclusion, that the evangelist has reasoned, or at any rate expressed himself, in such a way, that we must necessarily educe from him the sentiment which has already been stated above.

If the reader is at any loss to know what the telic (redinń) use of iva means, he may at once be satisfied from such examples as the following : τί ποιήσω, ἵνα ἔχω ζωὴν αἰώνιον ; What shall I do, in order that, or to the end that, I may have eternal life ? ̓́Επεισαν τοὺς ὄχλους, ἵνα αἰτήσωνται Βαραββάν, They persuaded the multitude, in order that they should make request for [the release of] Barabbas.' Here, and so in most cases, iva is telic, i. e. it points to the end or object to be attained, viz., attained by that which is related as said or done in the context which precedes it. This use is so frequent, that the reader may every where find examples to the purpose.

But is va limited to this sense only? A question which is answered in a satisfactory and masterly way, in the following pages. I cannot but believe and trust, that this question is now put to final rest, by this effort of Tittmann.

The amount of what he has here done, is to shew that iva not unfrequently, even in the classics, bears the same sense as wore, viz., so that, quo fit, or as ws, that. If this be satisfactorily made out, then it follows, that we may translate iva ninpoon. T. λ, by the phrase so that there should or might be an accomplishment; so that [this or that prediction] might or should

be fulfilled, etc. Let the reader who wishes to consider this subject duly, consult and carefully examine and weigh the following passages, where such a formula is employed; viz. Matt. 2:15, (23.) 4:14. (8:17. 12: 17. 13:35.) 21: 4. 26:56. 27:35 (in the text. recept.) Mark 14:49. John 12:38. 13: 18. 15:25. 17: 12. 18:9. 19:24, 28, 36. The instances included in parentheses, have on∞s instead of iva, which is an equivalent. These and the like passages will shew, that the use of iva in the sense of so that, that, must almost of necessity be conceded. Tittmann, however, has done all which needs to be done, to show that this use may properly, and often must, be conceded.

This secondary use of iva in the sense of wote, is technically called ecbatic (ixfarian), i. e. that which designates the end or cvent which is actually accomplished; from ἐκβαίνω or έκβα ous). The difference between the telic and ecbatic sense of ïva, e. g. in the example taken from Matt. 1: 22 above, is so great, that an entirely different turn is given to the whole sentiment by means of it. If we say: All this took place, IN ORDER THAT what was spoken by Isaiah might be fulfilled, this is representing the events themselves that are spoken of, as taking place in subordination to the prophecy, and merely or principally in order to fulfil it. But if we say: All this took place, SO THAT the prediction by Isaiah was, or should be, fulfilled, then we merely affirm that the modus of the events was such, that a fulfilment of prophecy was accomplished by it; while at the same time, the events themselves might have an unspeakably higher end in view.

To such importance do some words, often reputed small and unimportant, frequently rise. This may serve, then, to cast strong light on the bad consequences which ensue, by negligence of lexicographers and critics with respect to such words; -a practice frequent indeed, but deeply to be lamented, and deserving of most serious disapprobation.

I must make one remark more on the formula ἵνα πληρωθῇ, in regard to its ecbatic use. It has been questioned, whether the Subjunctive mode after iva can be rendered in any other way than as having a future sense. The answer to this might be, that the Present and Aorists of the Subjunctive, as is now fully conceded by the best grammarians, do not of themselves mark any tense, but depend for their sense in this respect, on the Indicative which may precede them, or on the sense de

manded by the nature of the passage. Such, indeed, is the fact with all the derived or secondary modes, viz., the Opt., Imper., and Infinitive. See N. Test. Grammar, § 51. 2.

The student, then, who becomes satisfied of the ecbatic use of iva, might translate iva ringwon by the phrase, so that there was an accomplishment; so that it was fulfilled, which etc. This many have done. But although it seems to be grammatically lawful to do so, yet it is unnecessary, in this case, to depart so far from the more usual and classical sense of iva. Thus much can be safely averred, viz., that the accomplishment of prophecy, whether viewed as an event (i. e. viewed ecbatically), or as a purpose or end (i. e. in a telic way), was still something future-in the order of things and in the mind of the writer-to the events themselves which happened. Fulfilment, at least in the order of our conceptions respecting it, succeeded the events by which it was brought about. It is therefore nearer to the natural order of thought, in the present case, to translate iva лnown by the phrase, so that it might or should be fulfilled, which etc.

I apprehend, moreover, that such a mode of translation expresses, more nearly than the other proposed method, the true sense of the original Greek. The writer means to say, if I rightly understand him, that it was so ordered on the part of heaven, that the events of Jesus' birth should fulfil the prophecy of the old Testament. Design or purpose I cannot think to be wholly left out of sight or excluded. But to say that the telic use of iva here is exclusive, would be to affirm a position little short of monstrous. On the other hand, to affirm that the modus in quo of Jesus' birth was so arranged on the part of heaven, as that it fulfilled the prediction of Isaiah, is a very dif ferent thing, and is the very one, I apprehend, which the evangelist meant to assert. Accordingly, when we translate iva Tλnown by the phrase, so that it should be fulfilled, or so that it might be fulfilled, we give, as nearly as our language will permit, the true sense of the original.

If I have succeeded in making the reader understand the main object of Prof. Tittmann in the following dissertation, I trust he will have the patience to read or rather to study him through, with care and diligence. To speak of patience, indeed, when such efforts as this are presented to our examination, is almost to abuse the word. The spirit of a philologist will drink VOL. V. No. 17.

12