The radical clement of the Greek article vacil lates between ho and to; and a general survey of all the kindred languages makes it probable that these are mere varieties of the same root. In Latin and in Zend the h maintains its place throughout ; in Sanscrit 'he Greek ha and to exist as sa and ta, this relation of h to s being notoriously common. In Lithuanian only to is found ; and the seo, dha, of the Anglo-Saxon, sufficiently establish the con nection of sa with to ; for the sound th, by mere lisping, naturally degenerates into either s or t, and dh into z or d. We are thus nearly brought to a conviction that the two elements ho and dha of the Syro-Arabian languages were, at a much earlier stage, variations of but one root. Nor is this opinion absurd ; so many are the proofs of the extreme antiquity of the material which is so differently worked up in extant languages. In fact, the root ha (this) shews itself likewise in the Welsh tongue.
The Chaldee branch of the Syro-Arabian has a peculiarity of its own, in compensation for the definite article. This consists in the annexation of the vowel t-Z at the end of nouns, to product what is called the emphatic state ; which is practically, it seems, equivalent in sense to the English the. Whether this termination has any etymological relation to the Hebrew article is un certain. In Arabic, especially in its modern Syrian dialect, a very similar elongation of nouns is common, with a view of giving specification or individuality to that which was collective : as cit• (tin), fig or figs; (tina), A fig; (semn), butter; (sauna), A piece of butter. This, however, agrees more nearly to the indefinite than to the definite article; nor does its construct form indicate relationship to the Chaldee termination.
It belongs to grammars of the special languages to discuss the uses of the article, and only a few general remarks can find place here. The chief peculiarity in Hebrew occurs with words joined in what is technically called 'regimen' or 'construc tion ;' in which case a single article between the two nouns serves to define both of them. Thus, iz (ben hant-melek) means, the son of the king. If the Hebrews wish to join two nouns in this relation, so as to define the latter and leave the former undefined, they are forced to abandon the construct form, and to employ the preposition which in this case is to be rendered of not for.
Thus, 'A Psalm of David' is `1116 nInrn le David). This remark, we believe, was made first by Ewald.
A rule which some have sought to establish is, that when a noun is followed by another noun in the genitive, the latter must take the article, if the former has it. But this is not universally true; for instance, Heb. ix. 13, el ^yap rd arp.a raipwv Ka! rpdywv, 'for if the blood of bulls and goats,' etc.
It seems to be a general result of the history of the article, that in elevated style there is a tendency to drop it, because such style generally savours of the antique and the poetical. Thus, oilpavas Kat rapeNeticerat, 'Heaven and earth shall pass away,' is more elevated than ' The heaven and the earth,' etc. But beside and in contrast to this, every language possesses numerous familiar formulas or special words, from which the article is dropped; and to become acquainted with these is always very difficult. In daily life they abound, not only after prepositions,but as nominative cases : thus, to sit at table; to travel by ship; 'No fear least dinner cool.' A dim perception of this fact seems
to have led to the rule (as some have wished to make it), that the article may always be omitted after a preposition.
In the above, we have naturally said little of the indefinite article, because it occurs but a few times in the New Testament (,ala, one, put for A), and never in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. Though of less importance to language, its use appears to be governed by the same general laws which regulate that of the definite article.—F. W. N.
Addendum — An induction from the widest field leads to the conclusion that it is a law of Greek con struction, that when the article is prefixed only to the first of several words joined by conjunctions, they are together descriptive either of a single subject, or of several subjects forming parts of one whole, concomitants in one series, co-agents in one work, coefficients to one result. Thus expressed, the canon will be found to enunciate a law exemplified by all writers of Greek who use the article. A few apparent exceptions may be adduced; but, as reasons can be assigned for them, they cease to be really exceptions. As illustrative of the rule, the following instances may be given :—Eph. i. 3, eNtanabos 6 Bear Kat zrar!ip, where Ocbs and ircers)p refer to the same subject ; Heb. ix. 19, Tb eacz. rt4iv Cal rpci-ywv, where the goats and bulls form parts of one whole ; Thuc. i. t, TOP OXEAOP lIacrovvncriwv Kai 'AO-quaiwp, where the Peloponnesians and the Athenians were actors in one series of transactions ; Matt. xi. t, Tor,' eel Kriptircr e LP y where the teaching and preaching are coefficients to one result, or two parts of one official act, etc. On the other hand, we have, Acts xxvi. 30, 6 pacrtXds !Cal 6 oirycacbv, because different subjects are mentioned; Heb. xi. 20, 7-bv Kal 'Era.3, where we have different subjects receiving different kinds of bless ing; Acts xiii. so, Tas Kat robs rpebrovs rfps rams, not only different persons, but different genders ; Arist. Pol. i. 1, ra KIX?) cal SoiIXov, etc. This canon becomes important in connection with such passages as the follow ing :—Eph. v. 5 ; 2 Thess. i. 12 ; I Tim. V. 21; Tit. ii. 13 ; 2 Pet. i. t ; where it may be disputed whether there is only one subject or more. Now it would be incompetent, in the case of the majority of these passages, to apply this canon so as to make them directly attest the essential unity of Christ and God; for it may be that they only intimate a unity of action between them. But indirectly they sustain the doctrine of our Lord's deity ; for how could a mere creature be thus put on a par with God ? and where is it taught in Scripture that we are to expect a simultaneous appearing of God and of Christ as distinct beings ? In the case of 2 Pet. i. 1, it seems hardly possible to give the passage any other rendering than such as shall express the personal unity of God and Christ: iv roil Bea; v Kai I. X. can hardly be translated otherwise than ' in [the] righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.' (Middleton, Doctr. of the Gr. Art. ; Green, Gram. of the N. T., p. 2o5 ff; Winer, Gram. of the N. T. Diction, by Masson, p. 139.)—W. L. A.
ARUBOTH Sept. 'Apa(36e), properly Arubboth, the seat of one of the twelve officers ap pointed by Solomon to provide for his household. It was probably in Judah.—W. L. A.