αὑτοῦ, αὑτῆς, αὑτοῦ, of himself, herself, itself, equivalent to ἑαυττου, which see It is very common in the editions of the N. T. by the Elzevirs, Griesbach, Knapp, others; but Bengel, Matthaei, Lachmann, Tdf., Trg. have everywhere substituted αὐτοῦ, αὐτῷ, etc. for αὑτοῦ, αὑτῷ, etc. "For I have observed that the former are used almost constantly (not always then? Grimm) not only in uncial manuscripts of the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries, but also in many others (and not N. T. manuscripts alone). That this is the correct mode of writing is proved also by numerous examples where the pronoun is joined to prepositions; for these last are often found written not ἐφ', ἀφ', μεθ', καθ', ἀνθ', etc., but ἐπ', ἀπ', μετ', κατ', ἀντ'." Tischendorf, Proleg. ad N. T., edition 2, p. 26 ( ed. 8 , p. 126); cf. his Proleg. ad Sept., edition 1, p. 70 ( ed. 4 , p. 33 (not in edition 6)). Bleek entertains the same opinion and sets it forth at length in his note on Heb_1:3, vol. ii. 1, p. 67ff The question is hard to decide, not only because the breathings and accents are lacking in the oldest manuscripts, but also because it often depends upon the mere preference of the writer or speaker whether he will speak in his own person, or according to the thought of the person spoken of. Certainly in the large majority of the passages in the N. T. αὐτοῦ is correctly restored; but apparently we ought to write δἰ αὑτοῦ (Rec. ἑαυυτου (so L marginal reading T WH)), Rom_14:14 (L text Tr δἰ αὐτοῦ); εἰς αὑτόν, Col_1:20 (others, εἰς αὐτόν); αὐτός περί αὑτοῦ (T Tr text WH ἑαυτοῦ), Joh_9:21. Cf. Winers Grammar, 151 (143); (Buttmann, 111f (97f); Lightfoot on Col. l. c, and see especially Hort in Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament, Appendix, p. 144f; these editors have introduced the aspirated form into their text nearly twenty times (e. g. Mat_6:34; Luk_12:17; Luk_12:21; Luk_23:12; Luk_24:12; Joh_2:24; Joh_13:32; Joh_19:17; Joh_20:10; Act_14:17; Rom_1:27; 2Co_3:5; Eph_2:15; Php_3:21; 1Jn_5:10; Rev_8:6, etc.). Cf. Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 432). STRONGS NT 848a: αὐτόφωροςαὐτόφωρος, ἀυτοφωρον (αὐτός and φώρ a thief, φωρά a theft) (from Sophocles down); properly, caught in the act of theft; then universally, caught in the act of perpetrating any other crime; very often in the phrases ἐπ' αὐτοφώρῳ (as one word ἐπαυτοφώρῳ) τινα λαμβάνειν, passive λαμβάνεσθαι, καταλαμβάνεσθαι, ἁλίσκεσθαι, (from Herodotus 6, 72 on), the crime being specified by a participle: μοιχευομένη, Joh_8:4 (R G), as in Aelian nat. an. 11, 15; Plutarch, mor. vi., p. 446, Tauchn. edition (x., p. 723, Reiske edition, cf. Nicias 4, 5; Eumen. 2, 2); Sextus Empiricus, adverb Rhet. 65 (p. 151, Fabric. edition).

G846, G847, G848 αὐτός autos 5,597x self, very; alone, Mar_6:31 ; 2Co_12:13 ; of one s self, of one s own motion, Joh_16:27 ; used also in the oblique cases independently as a personal pron. of the third person; ὁ αὐτός , the same; unchangeable, Heb_1:12 ; κατὰ τὸ αὐτό , at the same time, together, Act_14:1 ; ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό , in one and the same place, Mat_22:34 ; at the same time, together, Act_3:1 αὐτοῦ autou 4x here, Mat_26:36 ; Luk_9:27 ; there, Act_18:19 ; Act_21:4 * αὐτόφωρος autophōros 1x pr. caught in the act of theft, Joh_8:4

αὑτοῦ , -ῆς , -οῦ , = ἑαυτοῦ G1438 ( q.v. ), Mat_6:34 , Luk_12:17 , al. ( MM , s . v .).

αὑτοῦ [page 94] How far this form is to be recognized in the sense of ἑαυτοῦ has been much debated : see the older literature in Grimm-Thayer. It is not a priori likely to be common. Meisterhans, Gr. p. 154, estimates that between B.C. 300 and 30 ἑαυτοῦ outnumbers αὑτοῦ in Attica by 100 : 7. But Mayser, Gr. p. 305, makes αὑτοῦ three times as common as ἑαυτοῦ in iii/B.C. papyri (that is, those published before 1906, therefore excluding P Hib and many other Ptolemaic documents) : in ii/B.C. the proportion is reversed, and in i/B.C. ἑαυτοῦ stands alone. Mayser s analysis of the documents official, private letters, inscriptions, etc. may also be noted. The fact emerges very clearly that both σαυτοῦ and αὑτοῦ have a certain place during the earlier Ptolemaic period, αὑτοῦ being certified by syntactical necessity or by ἀφ᾽ , μεθ᾽ etc., preceding. That in Egypt αὑτοῦ passed out of use is seen from later papyri : Moulton Einleitung , p. 139, mentions P Tebt II. 303 .7 (A.D. 176 80) τῶν ϛ̄ δι᾽ αὑτῶν ἱερέων ( independent Edd.) as the only quotable instance up to date (1910). Outside Egypt, however, instances are not altogether wanting. Thus Syll 371 .15 (Magnesia, i/A.D.) ὑφ᾽ αὑτοῦ (see however Nachmanson, p. 84), 567 .6 (Lindos, ii/A.D.) μηδὲν αὑτοῖς δεινὸν συνειδότας . Dieterich, Untersuch. p. 46, gives some inscriptional exx. of the vulgar ἁτοῦ (see op. cit. p. 78, and above p. 69 [= Proleg. p. 47], which show the occasional survival of forms without ε . It may be added that some nine exx. of αὑτοῦ appear in the index of Priene , against about three times as many of ἑαυτοῦ . A good instance may be cited from Kaibel 716 .5 , the epitaph of a young man (Rome), φίλονς ὑπὲρ ἁτὸν ἐτίμα . The progressive weakening of h would make the clearer form preferable. It is further suggested that the existence of αὑτοῦ in LXX (Thackeray Gr. p. 190), though far less common than ἑαυτοῦ , might help to produce occasional revivals of the obsolete form. We certainly cannot do violence to the sense by forcing αὐτοῦ into places where a reflexive is needed : it would be less objectionable to read ἑαυτοῦ , assuming αὑτοῦ due to some would-be Atticist scribe. See further Kennedy s note, EGT III. p. 464, which sums up in favour of a minimum admittance of αὑτοῦ .

αὑτοῦ, -ῆς, -οῦ = ἑαυτοῦ (which see), Mat.6:34, Luk.12:17, al. (MM, see word) (AS)