A FEW IDIOMATIC CASES

A FEW IDIOMATIC CASES

In such cases as to; o[ro”, I judge it is idiomatic, from the locality being objectively contrasted with to; pedivon. It is the same in French: “Il est � la montagne” is no particular mountain, but they go in summer there from the plain. We say it as to “the plain.” It is the whole tract in contrast with the plain. To; ploisee footnoteon — I believe also that is aboard. Middleton’s reference to a ship which was to attend him would be good grammatically. JO a[rto” is occasionally used technically for the bread at the Lord’s supper, when the subject is spoken of, though in Matthew 26: 26 to;n a[rton means the loaf on the table for the supper. These are questions of usage, not of grammar. Who would ask what particular loaf was meant, or what emphasis, if in a history of a family I should say, “The child said at the end of supper, ‘Give me the loaf, or the bread’”? The only emphasis is that it is the one they had to eat: that made it a particular object. So we should all feel the difference, if I said, “he spoke at breaking of bread,” or “at the breaking of the bread.” One refers to a common usage; the other gives a particular objective act. The Lord took bread, a[rton, or to;n a[rton — the bread that was there. Klavsa” a[rton is the fact given; thsee footnote/ klavsei tousee footnote a[rtou is the specific act of the Lord’s supper. (Acts 2: 42, 46.) jEn thsee footnote/ ejpistolhsee footnote/ (1 Corinthians 5) is clearly some letter known to them, to which he refers. The rest is matter of interpretation, whether the letter he was writing (which would perfectly answer to the words),⁺ or another letter, of which the Spirit of God has only preserved this.

⁺The aorist (”I have written”) is applied to a letter, and even to a part of it not yet come to, because the date referred to is the reception of it by the person addressed. So even in English.

I apprehend twsee footnote/ ejktrwvmati (1 Corinthians 15: 8) means the e[ktrwma of the set — like one in comparison with them, and then the article is required. We say “the foot” (as being of a body), “the eye.” He was to; e[ktrwma of those mentioned. In John 8: 7 to;n livqon is the stone supposed in the law spoken of. JO didavskalo” (John 3: 10) is equally simple; it is “teacher” in contrast with “scholar.” We should say, as thus laying emphasis, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and yet do not know that?” Such a contrast always leaves out any other individuals who teach, or absorbs them all into one. In the expression “The foot cannot say,” it would be feeble to say “a foot,” and yet equally good grammar; a mere proposition to state, and not an idea which ought to be evident to the hearer, and hence emphasis laid on what gives weight to that idea. It is viewed as a part of a particular body; and hence, as in every such instance, it is a positive object distinguished from another.