I. The New Testament Chiefly in the Vernacular Koinh,. Observe "chiefly," for not quite all the N. T. is wholly in the vernacular koinh, as will be shown.1 But the new point, now obvious to every one, is just this, that the N. T. is in the normal koinh, of the period. That is what one would have looked for, when you come to think of it. And yet that is a recent discovery, for the Purists held that the N. T. was in pure Attic, while the Hebraists, explained every peculiarity as a Hebraism. The Purists felt that revelation could only come in the "best" Greek, and hence it had to be in the Attic. This, as we now know, could only have been true if the N. T. writers had been Atticistic and artificial stylists. So the Hebraists got the better of the argument and then overdid it. The most popular language in the N. T. is found in the Synoptic Gospels. Even Luke preserves the words of Jesus in colloquial form. The Epistle of James and the Johannine writings reflect the vernacular style very distinctly. We see this also in the Epistles of Peter (Second Peter is very colloquial) and Jude. The colloquial tone is less manifest in Acts, some of Paul's Epistles and Hebrews. Cf. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 63f. Wellhausen (Einl., p. 9) stresses the fact that in the Gospels the Greek spoken by the people makes its entry into literature.2

(a) NOT A BIBLICAL GREEK. As late as 1893 Viteau3 says: "Le grec du N. T. est une variete du grec hebraisant." Again: "C'est par le grec des LXX qu'il faudrait expliquer, le plus souvent, le grec du N. T."4 Viteau is aware of the inscriptions and the papyri and even says: "The Greek of the N. T. must be compared continually with the post-classical Greek in its various branches: with the Greek of the profane writers, the Greek of the inscrip-


tions of the Alexandrian and Graeco-Roman periods, the Hebraizing Greek, finally the Christian Greek."5 But he labours under Hatch's false idea of a distinct biblical Greek of which the N. T. is a variety; both of these ideas are erroneous. There is no distinct biblical Greek, and the N. T. is not a variety of the LXX Greek. Jowett6 over forty years ago said: "There seem to be reasons for doubting whether any considerable light can be thrown on the N. T. from inquiry into language." That prophecy is now almost amusing in the light of modern research. Simcox7 admitted that "the half-Hebraized Greek of the N. T. is neither a very elegant nor a very expressive language," but he found consolation in the idea that "it is a many-sided language, an eminently translatable language." Dr. Hatch8 felt a reaction against the modern Atticistic attitude toward the N. T. language: "In almost every lexicon, grammar and commentary the words and idioms of the N. T. are explained, not indeed exclusively, but chiefly, by a reference to the words and idioms of Attic historians and philosophers." In this protest he was partly right, but he went too far when he insisted that9 "biblical Greek is thus a language which stands by itself. What we have to find in studying it is what meaning certain Greek words conveyed to a Semitic mind."

Dr. Hatch's error arose from his failure to apply the Greek influence in Palestine to the language of Christianity as he had done to Christian study. Judea was not an oasis in the desert, but was merged into the Graeco-Roman world. Rothe10 had spoken "of a language of the Holy Ghost. For in the Bible it is evident that the Holy Spirit has been at work, moulding for itself a distinctively religious mode of expression out of the language of the country." Cremer,11 in quoting the above, says; "We have a very clear and striking proof of this in N. T. Greek:" Winer12 had indeed seen that "the grammatical character of the N. T. language has a very slight Hebrew colouring," but exactly how slight he could not tell. Winer felt that N. T. Greek was "a species of a species," "a variety of later Greek," in a word, a sort of dialect. In this he was wrong, but his notion (op. cit., p. 3) that a grammar of the N. T. should thus presuppose a grammar of the later


Greek or koinh, is quite right, only we have no such grammar even yet. Winer made little use of the papyri and inscriptions (p. 21 ft. n.). We still sigh for a grammar of the koinh, though Thumb has related the koinh, to the Greek language as a whole. Kennedy13 contended that there was "some general characteristic" about the LXX and N. T. books, which distinctly marked them off from the other Greek books; but "they are both children of the same parent, namely, the colloquial Greek of the time. This is the secret of their striking resemblance." Even in the Hastings' Dictionary Thayer14 contends for the name "Hellenistic Greek" as the proper term for N. T. Greek. That is better than "biblical" or "Jewish" Greek, etc. But in simple truth we had better just call it N. T. Greek, or the Greek of the N. T., and let it go at that. It is the Greek of a group of books on a common theme, as we would speak of the Greek of the Attic orators, the Platonic Greek, etc. It is not a peculiar type of Greek except so far as that is due the historical conditions, the message of Christianity, and the peculiarities of the writers. Deissmann,15 however, is the man who has proven from the papyri and inscriptions that the N. T. Greek is not a separate variety of the Greek language. He denies that the N. T. is like the LXX Greek, which was "a written Semitic-Greek which no one ever spoke, far less used for literary purposes, either before or after."16 Blass17 at first stood out against this view and held that "the N. T. books form a special group-one to be primarily explained by study," but in his Grammar of N. T. Greek he changed his mind and admitted that "a grammar of the popular language of that period written on the basis of all these various authorities and remains" was better than limiting oneself "to the language of the N. T."18 So Moulton19 concludes: "The disappearance of that word 'Hebraic' from its prominent place in our delineation of N. T. language marks a change in our conceptions of the subject nothing less than revolutionary." The new knowledge of the koinh, has buried forever the old controversy; between Purists and Hebraists.20 The men who wrote the N. T.


were not aloof from the life of their time. "It embodied the lofty conceptions of the Hebrew and Christian faith in a language which brought them home to men's business and bosoms."21 Wackernagel understates the matter: "As little as the LXX does the N. T. need to be isolated linguistically."22

(b) PROOF THAT N. T. GREEK IS IN THE VERNACULAR Koinh,. The proof is now at hand. We have it in the numerous contemporary Greek inscriptions already published and in the ever-increasing volumes of papyri, many of which are also contemporary. As early, as 1887 a start had already been made in using the inscriptions to explain the N. T. by E. L. Hicks.23 He was followed by W. M. Ramsay,24 but it is Deissmann who has given us most of the proof that we now possess, and he has been ably seconded by J. Hope Moulton. Deissmann25 indeed insists: "If we are ever in this matter to reach certainty at all, then it is the inscriptions and the papyri which will give us the nearest approximation to the truth." Hear Deissmann26 more at length: "Until the papyri were discovered there were practically no other contemporary documents to illustrate that phase of the Greek language which comes before us in the LXX and N. T. In those writings, broadly, what we have, both as regards vocabulary and morphology, and not seldom as regards syntax as well, is the Greek of ordinary intercourse as spoken in the countries bordering on the Mediterranean, not the artificial Greek of the rhetoricians and litterateurs, strictly bound as it was by technical rules. This language of ordinary life, this cosmopolitan Greek, shows unmistakable traces of a process of development that was still going on, and in many respects differs from the older dialects as from the classical


Attic." As Moulton27 puts it, "the Holy Ghost spoke absolutely in the language of the people."

The evidence that the N. T. Greek is in the vernacular koinh, is partly lexical and partly grammatical, though in the nature of the case chiefly lexical. The evidence is constantly growing. See Deissmann, Bible Studies, Light from the Ancient East; Moulton and Milligan's "Lexical Notes on the Papyri" (The Expositor, 1908). We give first some examples of words, previously supposed to be purely "biblical," now shown to be merely popular Greek because of their presence in the papyri or inscriptions: avga,ph├ avkata,gnwstoj├ avnaza,w├ avnastato,w├ avntilh,mptwr├ avllogenh,j├ avfila,rguroj├ auvqente,w├ broch,├ e;nanti├ evndidu,skw├ evnw,pion├ evpikata,ratoj├ evpisunagwgh,├ euva,restoj├ euvproswpe,w├ i`erateu,w├ i`mati,zw├ katape,tasma├ kataggeleu,j├ kath,gwr├ kaqari,zw├ ko,kkinoj├ kuriako,j├ leitourgiko,j├ logei,a├ neo,futoj├ ovfeilh,├ paraboleu,omai├ perissei,a├ plhrofore,w├ proskarte,rhsij├ proskunhth,j├ proseuch,├ prwto,tokoj├ sitome,trion├ sunantilamba,nomai├ filoprwteu,w├ frenapa,thj├ etc. For a lively discussion of these words see Deissmann (Bible Studies, pp. 198-247; Light, etc., pp. 69-107). The recovery of the inscription on the marble slab that warned the gentiles from the i`ero,n is very impressive. Mhqe,na avllogonh/ eivsporeu,esqai evnto.j tou/ peri. to. i`ero.n trufa,ktou kai. peribo,lou) oa}j d v a'n lhfqh|/ e`autw/i ai;tioj e;stin dia. to. evxakolouqei/n qa,naton. The words above are no longer biblical a[pax lego,mena. But this is not all. Many words which were thought to have a peculiar meaning in the LXX or the N. T. have been found in that very sense in the inscriptions or papyri, such as avdelfo,j in the sense of 'common brotherhood,' avqe,thsij├ avmetano,htoj├ avmfo,teroi╩ pa,ntej├ avna─ stre,fomai├ avnafe,rw├ avnti,lhmyij├ avpe,cw├ avpo,krima├ avpota,ssomai├ avreth,├ avrketo,j├ vAsia,rchj├ a;shmoj├ avpa,zomai├ a;topoj├ basta,zw├ bebai,wsij├ bia,zomai├ bou,lomai├ ge,nhma├ goggu,zw├ grammateu,j├ gra,fw├ deipne,w├ de,on evsti,├ diaba,llw├ diasei,w├ di,kaioj├ dio,ti ╩ o[ti├ dicotome,w├ doki,mioj├ do,ki─ moj├ dw/ma├ eva,n ╩ a;n├ eiv mh,n├ eivdoj├ eivj├ evkte,neia├ evkto,j├ evktina,ssw├ evn├ evnedreu,w├ e;nocoj├ evntugca,nw├ evpibalw,n evpi,skopoj├ evrwta,w├ euvsch,mwn├ evpiou,sioj├ euvcariste,w├ e[wj├ h`gou/mai├ h`liki,a├ h`suci,a├ qeme,lion├ qewre,w├ i;dioj├ i`lasth,rion├ i[lewj├ i`store,w├ kaqari,zw├ kaqaro,j├ kaino,j├ kakopa,qeia├ kata,├ kata,krima├ katanta,w├ kli,nh├ kola,zomai├ kolla,w├ kolafi,zw├ ko,poj├ kora,sin├ kta,omai├ ku,rioj├ likma,w├ li,y├ lou,omai├ menou/nge├ marturou/mai├ meizo,teroj├ mikro,j├ mogila,loj├ monh,├ nau/j├ nekroi,├ nh,├ nomo,j├ oivki,aj├ o`mo─ loge,w├ o;noma├ ovyw,nion├ para,├ para,deisoj├ paraqh,kh├ paraku,ptw├ parei─ sfe,rw├ parepi,dhmoj├ pa,resij├ pa,roikoj├ paroxu,nomai├ patropara,dotoj├ perispa,w├ perite,mnw├ ph/cuj├ pleonekte,w├ plh/qoj├ plhrofore,w├ pra,gma├


pra,ktwr├ presbu,teroj├ pro,qesij├ prose,cw├ proskartere,w├ profh,thj├ sapro,j├ sku,llw├ sko,loy├ smara,gdinoj├ souda,rion├ spekoula,twr├ stra,sij├ strateu,omai├ sfragi,zw├ sfuri,j├ suggenh,j├ sumbou,lion├ sunei,dhsij├ sun─ e,cw├ suneudoke,w├ suneuwce,omai├ suni,sthmi├ sw/ma├ swth,r├ th,rhsij├ to,poj├ ui`o,j├ ui`o.j qeou/├ ui`oqesi,a├ u`pozu,gion├ u`popo,dion├ u`po,stasij├ fa,sij├ fe,rw├ fqa,nw├ fi,loj├ filostorgi,a├ filotime,omai├ ca,ragma├ ca,rij tw|/ qew|/ crei,a├ cro,noj├ ywmi,on├ yuch.n sw/sai) This seems like a very long list, but it will do mere than pages of argument to convince the reader that the vocabulary of the N. T. is practically the same as that of the vernacular koinh, in the Roman Empire in the first century A.D.28 This is not a complete list, for new words will be added from time to time, and all that are known are not here included. Besides neither Deissmann nor Moulton has put together such a single list of words, and Kenyon's in Hastings' D. B. (Papyri) is very incomplete. After compiling this list of words I turned to the list in the Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible by Thayer (art. "Language of the N. T.") where are found some thirty new words common to the N. T. and the vernacular koinh,, words not common in the classic Greek. Thayer's list is entirely different save a half-dozen In his list are comprised such interesting words as avllhgore,w├ avntofqalme,w├ avpokaradoki,a├ deisidaimoni,a├ evgcri,w├ evggi,zw├ evpicorhce,w├ euvdoke,w├ euvkaire,w├ qriambeu,w, etc. This list can be largely increased also by the comparison between words that are common to the N. T. and the comic poets (Aristophanes, Menander, etc.) who used the language of the people. See Kennedy's lists in Sources of N. T. Greek (ch. VI). Many of these, as Kennedy shows, are theological terms, like aivsqhth,rion├ avrrabw,n├ bap─ ti,zw├ euvcaristi,a├ kuri,a├ musth,rion├ filadelfi,a. The Christians found in common use in the Roman Empire terms like avdelfo,j├ evpifa,neia├ evpifanh,j├ ku,rioj├ leitourgi,a├ parousi,a├ presbu,teroj├ progra,fw├ swth,r├ swthri,a├ ui`o.j qeou/. They took these words with the new popular connotation and gave them " the deeper and more spiritual


sense with which the N. T. writings have made us familiar" (Milligan, Greek Papyri, p. xxx). They could even find tou/ mega,lou qeou/ euverge,tou kai. swth/roj (GH 15, ii/B.C.). Cf. Tit. 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1.29 The papyri often show us how we have misunderstood a word. So avpografh, (Lu. 2:2) is not "taxing," but "enrolling" for the census (very common in the papyri). But this is not all, for the modern Greek vernacular will also augment the list of N. T. words known to belong to the oral speech. When this much is done, we are ready to admit the vernacular character of all the words not known to be otherwise. The N. T. Greek is like the koinh, also in using many compounded ("sesquipedalian") words like avnekdih,ghtoj├ avnexerau,nhtoj├ avllotriepi,skopoj├ u`perentug─ ca,nw, etc. There is also the same frequency of diminutives, some of which have lost that significance, as ploia,rion├ wvta,rion├ wvti,on, etc. The new meanings to old words are well illustrated in the list from the papyri, to which may be added avnlu,w├ evntroph,├ zwopoie,w├ scolh,├ corta,zw, etc.

As to the forms we need say less, but the evidence is to the same effect. The papyri show examples of vAku,la (and - ou) for genitive, duw/n and dusi,, evgena,mhn├ e;laba├ e;legaj├ e;leiya├ hvlqa├ hvnoi,ghn├ h`rpa,ghn├ hvxa├ de,dwkej├ oivdej├ e;grayej├ tiqw/├ spei,rhj; the imperative has only the long forms - twsan, - sqwsan, etc. The various dialects are represented in the forms retained in the N. T., as the Attic in bou,lei├ dido,asi├ h;melle, etc.; the Ionic in macairhj├ gi,nomai├ ginw,skw├ etc.; the Doric in avfe,wntai├ h;tw, etc.; the AEolic in avpokte,nnw, 3d plural in - san, etc.; the Northwest Greek in accusative plural in - ej, perfect in - an (3d plural), confusion of - aw and -- ew verbs, etc.; the Arcadian-Cyprian group in accusative singular in - an├ avfe,wn─ tai (also). It is curious that Thayer in Hastings' D. B., follows Winer's error in giving evdi,dosan as an example of a form like ei;cosan, for the present stem is di,do-, and san is merely the usual mi ending. See Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 4-20.

Among the syntactical peculiarities of N. T. Greek which are less numerous, as in the koinh,, the following are worthy of note and are found in the koinh,: the non-final use of i[na; the frequent use of the personal pronoun; the decreased use of the possessive pronouns; disuse of the optative; increased use of o[ti; disuse of the future participle; use of participle with eivmi,; article with the infinitive (especially with evn and eivj); a;fej and ble,pe with subjunctive without conjunction; the absence of the dual; use of o;felon as conjunction; frequency of eva,n; o[tan, etc., with indicative;


interchange of eva,n and a;n; mh, increasing upon ouv; decreased use of indirect discourse; ei-j╩tij; disuse of some interrogative particles; use of i;dioj as possessive pronoun; para, and u`pe,r with comparatives; disappearance of the superlative; frequency of prepositions; vivid use of present tense (and perfect); laxer use of particles; growth of the passive over the middle, etc.

Various phrases are common both to the N. T. and to the papyri, like dexia.n di,dwmi├ evn toi/j = 'in house of,' avpo. tou/ nu/n├ eivj to. dihneke,j├ kaqw.j ge,graptai├ evk sumfw,nou├ e`pi. to. auvto,├ kat v o;nar├ kata. to. e;qoj├ ouvc o` tucw,n├ pare,comai evmauto,n├ to. auvto, fronei/n. "There is placed before us in the N. T. neither a specific speech-form nor a barbaric Jewish-Greek, but a natural phase of the Hellenistic speech-development."30 Deissmann (Exp. Times, 1906, p. 63) properly holds the N. T. to be the Book of Humanity because it "came from the unexhausted forces below, and not from the feeble, resigned culture of a worn-out upper class." Swete (0. T. in Gk., pp. 295 ff.) shows how the LXX is influenced by the vernacular koinh,. As early as 1843 B. Hase (Wellhausen, Einl., p. 14) explained the LXX as "Volkssprache." Thackeray (Grammar, pp. 22 ff.) gives a good summary of "the koinh, basis of LXX Greek."

II. Literary Elements in the New Testament Greek. It is true then, as Blass31 sums it up, that "the language employed in the N. T. on the whole, such as was spoken in the lower circles of society, not such as was written in works of literature." The N. T. writers were not Atticists with the artificial straining after the antique Attic idiom. But one must not imagine that they were mere purveyors of slang and vulgarisms. Freudenthal32 speaks of the Hellenistic Jews as "one of those societies without a mother-tongue which have never attained to any true excellence in literature." And even Mahaffy33 speaks of the Greek learned by the Jews as "the new and artificial idiom of the trading classes" which had neither "traditions nor literature nor those precious associations which give depth and poetry to words." That is a curious mistake, for it was the Atticistic revival that was artificial. The koinh, had all the memories of a


people's life. Instance Robert Burns in Scotland. It is to be said for Mahaffy, however, that he changed his mind, for he later34 wrote: "They write a dialect simple and rude in comparison with Attic Greek; they use forms which shock the purists who examine for Cambridge scholarships. But did any men ever tell a great story with more simplicity, with more directness, with more power? . . . Believe me against all the pedants of the world, the dialect that tells such a story is no poor language, but the outcome of a great and a fruitful education." The N. T. uses the language of the people, but with a dignity, restraint and pathos far beyond the trivial nonentities in much of the papyri remains. All the N. T. Greek is not so vernacular as parts of the LXX.35 The papyri often show the literary koinh, and all grades of variation, while the lengthy and official inscriptions36 "often approximate in style to the literary language." Long before many words are used in literature they belong to the diction of polite speech.37 In a word, the N. T. Greek "occupies apparently an intermediate position between the vulgarisms of the populace and the studied style of the litterateurs of the period. It affords a striking illustration of the divine policy of putting honour on what man calls common.'"38 It would indeed have been strange if men like Paul, Luke and the author of Hebrews had shown no literary affinities at all. Prof. J. C. Robertson (The Classical Weekly, March 9, 1912, 139) in an article entitled "Reasons for Teaching the Greek N. T. in Colleges" says: "Take the parable of the Prodigal Son, for instance. In literary excellence this piece of narrative is unsurpassed. Nothing more simple, more direct, more forceful can be adduced from among the famous passages of classical Greek literature. It is a moving tragedy of


reconciliation. Yet its literary excellence is not accidental. The elements of that excellence can be analyzed." In an age of unusual culture one would look for some touch with that culture. "I contend, therefore, that the peculiar modernness, the high intellectual standard of Christianity as we find it in the N. T., is caused by its contact with Greek culture."39 In his helpful article on N. T. Times Buhl40 underrates, as Schurer41 does, the amount of Greek known in Palestine. It is to be remembered also that great diversity of culture existed among the writers of the N. T. Besides, the educated men used much the same vernacular all over the Roman world and a grade of speech that approached the literary standard as in English to-day.42 One is not to stress Paul's language in 1 Cor. 2:1-4 into a denial that he could use the literary style. It is rather a rejection of the bombastic rhetoric that the Corinthians liked and the rhetorical art that was so common from Thucydides to Chrysostom.43 It is with this comparison in mind that Origen (c. Celsus, vii, 59 f.) speaks of Paul's literary inferiority. It is largely a matter of standpoint. Deissmann44 has done a good service in accenting the difference between letters and epistles. Personal letters not for the public eye are, of course, in the vernacular. Cicero's Letters are epistles written with an eye on posterity. "In letters one does not look for treatises, still less for treatises in rigid uniformity and proportion of parts."45 There may be several kinds of letters (private, family, pastoral or congregational, etc.). But when a letter is published consciously as literature, like Horace's Ars Poetica, for instance, it becomes a literary letter or epistle. Epistles may be either genuine or unauthentic. The unauthentic may be either merely


pseudonymous or real forgeries. If we examine the N. T. Letters or Epistles in the light of this distinction, we shall see that Philemon is a personal letter. The same is true of the Pastoral Epistles; but Ephesians is more like an epistle from its general nature. The Thessalonian, Corinthian, Galatian, Colossian, Philippian writings are all congregational and doctrinal letters. Romans partakes of the nature of a letter and an epistle. Jacquier, however (Histoire des Livres du N. T., 1906, tome 1er, p. 66), remarks that "The Pauline Epistles are often more discourse than letter." It will thus be seen that I do not agree with Deissmann (Bible Studies, p. 3 f.) in calling all the Pauline writings "letters" as opposed to "epistles." Milligan (Greek Papyri, p. xxxi) likewise protests against the sweeping statement of Deissmann. Deissmann gives a great variety of interesting letters from the papyri in his Light from the Ancient East, and argues here (pp. 224-234) with passion that even Romans is just "a long letter." "I have no hesitation in maintaining the thesis that all the letters of Paul are real, non-literary letters." Hebrews is more like an epistle, as are James, 1 John, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude while 2 and 3 John are again letters. The Letters to the Seven Churches again are epistles. This is a useful distinction and shows that the N. T. writers knew how to use one of the favourite literary methods of the Alexandrian period. Dr. Lock concludes: "Letters have more of historic and literary interest, epistles more of central teaching and practical guidance."46 That Paul could use the more literary style is apparent from the address on Mars Hill, the speech before Agrippa,47 and Ephesians and Romans. Paul quotes Aratus, Menander and Epimenides and may have been acquainted with other Greek authors. He seems also to have understood Stoic philosophy. We cannot tell how extensive his literary training was. But he had a real Hellenic feeling and outlook. The introduction to Luke's Gospel and the Acts show real literary skill. The Epistle to the Hebrews has oratorical flow and power with traces of Alexandrian culture. Viteau48 reminds


us that about 3000 of the 5420 words in the Greek N. T. are found in ancient Attic writers, while the syntax in general "obeys the ordinary laws of Greek grammar."49 These and other N. T. writers, as James, occasionally use classic forms like i;smen├ i;ste, i;sasi├ evxh|,esan, etc. Konig50 in his discussion of the Style of Scripture finds ample illustration in the N. T. of the various literary linguistic devices, though in varying degree. See "Figures of Speech" (ch. XXII). But the literary element in the N. T. is subordinate to the practical and is never artificial nor strained. We have the language of spirit and life. The difference between the old point of view and the new is well illustrated by Hort's remark (Notes on Orthography, p. 152 f.) when he speaks of "the popular Greek in which the N. T. is to a certain extent written." He conceives of it as literary koinh, with some popular elements. The new and the true view is that the N. T. is written in the popular koinh, with some literary elements, especially in Luke, Paul, Hebrews and James.

Josephus is interesting as a background to the N. T. He wrote his War in Aramaic and secured the help of Greek writers to translate it, but the Antiquities was composed in Greek, probably with the aid of similar collaborateurs) for parts of Books XVIIXIX copy the style of Thucydides and are really Atticistic.51 It is interesting to take a portion of 1 Maccabees as we have it translated from the Hebrew original and compare it with the corresponding portion of Josephus. The Greek of 1 Macc. is, like the LXX, translation Greek and intensely Hebraistic, while Josephus smooths out all the Hebraistic wrinkles and shifts it into the rolling periods of Thucydides. The N. T. has slight affinities in vocabulary, besides Josephus, with Philo, Plutarch, Polybius, Strabo, Diodorus and a few other writers in the literary koinh,.52

Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, p. 64) holds that Paul's "Greek never becomes literary." "It is never disciplined, say, by the canon of the Atticists, never tuned to the Asian rhythm:


it remains non-literary." But has not Deissmann given a too special sense to "literary"? If 1 Cor. 13 and 15, Ro. 8 and Eph. 3 do not rise to literary flavour and nobility of thought and expression, I confess my ignorance of what literature is. Harnack (Das hohe Lied des Apostels Paulus von der Liebe und seine religionsgeschichtliche Bedeutung, 1911) speaks of the rhythm, the poetic form, the real oratory, the literary grace of 1 Cor. 13. The best literature is not artificial nor pedantic like the work of the Atticists and Asian stylists. That is a caricature of literature. We must not forget that Paul was a man of culture as well as a man of the people. Deissmann (Light, p. 64 f.) does admit the literary quality of Hebrews. This epistle is more ornate as Origen saw (Eus., Eccl. Hist., VI, xxv, 11).

III. The Semitic Influence. This is still the subject of keen controversy, though not in the same way that the Purists and the Hebraists debated it. Now the point is whether the N. T. Greek is wholly in the koinh, or whether there is an appreciable Semitic colouring in addition. There is something to be said on both sides of the question.

(a) THE TRADITION. See I, (a), for proof of the error of this position. It is certain that the idea of a special Hebraic Greek for the N. T. is gone. Schaff53 said that the Greek spoken by the Grecian Jews "assumed a strongly Hebraizing character," and the N. T. Greek shared in this "sacred and Hebraizing character." According to Hatch54 " the great majority of N. T. words . . . express in their biblical use the conceptions of a Semitic race." Viteau55 calls it "Hebraizing Greek," while Simcox56 speaks of "the half-Hebraized Greek of the N. T." Reuss57 calls it "the JewishGreek idiom." Hadley58 considered the "Hellenistic dialect, largely intermixed with Semitic idioms." Westcott59 spoke of "the Hebraic style more or less pervading the whole N. T." But Westcott60 admitted that "a philosophical view of the N. T. language as a whole is yet to be desired," as Hatch61 lamented that the N. T. Greek "has not yet attracted the attention of any considerable scholar." That cannot now be said after the work of Blass, Deissmann, Moulton, Radermacher and others, and was an overstatement then. And yet the old view of "biblical Greek"


for both N. T. and LXX is still championed by Conybeare and Stock in their grammar of the Septuagint (Selections from the Sept., 1905,, p. 22 f.). They insist, against Deissmann, on the "linguistic unity" of the LXX and of the N. T. as opposed to the vernacular koinh,. They admit, of course, that the LXX is far more Hebraic than the N. T. This sturdy contention for the old view is interesting, to say the least. Wellhausen (Einl. in die drei ersten Evangelien) is rather disposed to accent the "Semiticisms" (Aramaisms) in the Synoptic Gospels in contrast with the Attic Greek. Nobody now, claims the N. T. Greek to be Attic in purity. "No one denies the existence of Semiticisms; opinions are only divided with reference to the relative proportion of these Semiticisms" (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 65). The old view is dead beyond recall.

(b) THE VIEW OF DEISSMANN AND MOULTON. Over against the old conceptio stands out in sharp outline the view of Deissmann62 who says: "The linguistic unity of the Greek Bible appears only against the background of classical, not of contemporary 'profane' Greek." Note the word "only." Once more63: "The few Hebraizing expressions in those parts of the N. T. which were in Greek from the first are but an accidens which does not essentially alter the fundamental character of its language." The portions of the Synoptic Gospels which were either in Aramaic or made use of Aramaic originals he considers on a par with the LXX. They use translation Greek. No one "ever really spoke as he may have translated the Logia-collection, blessed - and cramped - as he was by the timid consciousness of being permitted to convey the sacred words of the Son of God to the Greeks."64 Thumb65 accepts the view of Deissmann and admits "Hebraisms in a few cases" only and then principally the meaning of words. In 1879 Guillemard66 disclaimed any idea of being able to give "an exhaustive exhibition of all the Hebraisms," but he "put forward only a few specimens"! Moulton67 admits practically no Hebraisms nor Aramaisms outside of "translation Greek." "Between these two extremes the N. T. writers lie; and of them all


we may assert with some confidence that, where translation is not involved, we shall find hardly any Greek expression used which would sound strangely to speakers of the koinh, in Gentile lands." Once more68: "What we can assert with assurance is that the papyri have finally destroyed the figment of a N. T. Greek which in any material respect differed from that spoken by ordinary people in daily life." Moulton69 realizes "the danger of going too far" in summing up thus the issue of the long strife over N. T. Hebraisms. According to Moulton (p. 18) the matter is complicated only in Luke, who, though a gentile, used Aramaic sources in the opening chapters of the Gospel and Acts.' This new and revolutionary view as to Semitisms is still challenged by Dalman70 who finds many more Aramaisms in the Synoptic Gospels than Moulton is willing to admit. Deissmann indeed is not disposed in his later writings to be dogmatic on the subject. "The last word has not yet been said about the proportion of Semiticisms" (Expositor, Jan., 1908, p. 67). He is undoubtedly right in the idea that many so-called Semiticisms are really "international vulgarisms." Schurer, Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1908, p. 555, criticizes Deissmann (Licht vom Osten, 1908, p. 35) for running the parallel too close between the N. T. and the unliterary scriptions. Both the Purists and the Hebraists were wrong. The old view cannot stand in the light of the papyri and inpapyri. It is truer of the LXX than of the N. T.

Many words and idioms heretofore claimed as Hebraisms are shown to be current in the vernacular koinh,. As specimens71 one can mention evnw,pion ( ynep.li; according to Winer-LŘnemann, p. 201, and "biblical" according to Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, p. 90) as found in the papyri; presbu,teroj in the official sense occurs in the papyri of Egypt in combinations like presbu,teroi i`erei/j* evrwta,w= 'to beg' is in the papyri; ei-j in sense of prw/toj also;


proseuch, can no longer be regarded as a word of Jewish formation for a Jewish place of prayer, since it appears in that sense in a Ptolemaic inscription in Lower Egypt in the III cent. B.C.; o;noma occurs also in the sense of "person"; expressions like ui`o.j qana,tou are found in the papyri; ble,pein avpo, occurs in a papyrus letter; eivj o;noma is in inscriptions, ostraca, papyri; du,o du,o is matched in the papyri by tri,a tri,a (this idiom has been traced in Greek for 2500 years.); the instrumental use of evn as evn macai,rh| is common; the use of evn tw|/ and the infinitive so common in Luke appears in the papyri; and even eivj avpa,nthsin meets us in the papyri (Tebt. Pap. 43, II cent. B.c.). Certainly a full list of the words and phrases that can no longer be called Hebraisms would be very formidable. Besides, the list grows continually under the researches of Deissmann, Moulton, Mayser, Thumb, Kńlker, Witkowski, Milligan and other scholars. The presumption is now clearly against a Hebraism. The balance of evidence has gone over to the other side. But after all one has the conviction that the joy of new discovery has to some extent blurred the vision of Deissmann and Moulton to the remaining Hebraisms which do not indeed make Hebraic Greek or a peculiar dialect. But enough remain to be noticeable and appreciable. Some of these may vanish, like the rest, before the new knowledge. The LXX, though "translation Greek," was translated into the vernacular of Alexandria, and one can but wonder if the LXX did not have some slight resultant influence upon the Alexandrian koinh, itself. The Jews were very numerous in Alexandria. "Moreover, it remains to be considered how far the quasi-Semitic colloquialisms of the papyri are themselves due to the influence of the large Greekspeaking Jewish population of the Delta" (Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, 1906, p. cxx). Thackeray (Gr. of the O. T. in Gk., vol. I, p. 20) Uses the small number of Coptic words in the Greek papyri against the notion of Hebrew influence on the koinh, in Egypt. However, Thackeray (p. 27) notes that the papyri so far discovered tell us little of the private life of the Jews of Egypt and of the Greek used by them specifically. The marshes of the Delta were not favourable for the preservation of the papyri. The koinh, received other foreign influences we know. The Jews of the Dispersion spoke the vernacular koinh, everywhere, but they read the LXX, "a written Semitic Greek which no one ever spoke, far less used for literary purposes, either before or after."72 And yet


the Hellenistic Jews all over the world could not read continually the LXX and not to some extent feel the influence of its peculiar style. No one to-day speaks the English of the King James Version, or ever did for that matter, for, though like Shakespeare, it is the pure Anglo-Saxon, yet, unlike Shakespeare, it reproduces to a remarkable extent the spirit and language of the Bible. As Luther's German Bible largely made the German language, so the King James Version has greatly affected modern English (both vernacular and literary). The situation is not the same, but there is enough of truth to justify the comparison. There are fewer details that preserve the Semitic character, but what does not disappear is the Hebrew cast of thought in a writer like John, for instance. No papyrus is as much a parallel to John's Gospel as the Book of Job, for instance. Westcott73 has true insight when he says of N. T. Greek: "It combines the simple directness of Hebrew thought with the precision of Greek expression. In this way the subtle delicacy of Greek expression in some sense interprets Hebrew thought." What is true of John's Gospel is true also of James. The numerous quotations both from the LXX and the Hebrew in the N. T. put beyond controversy the constant use of the O. T. in Greek on the part of the N. T. writers. Besides, with the possible exception of Luke and the author of Hebrews, they all knew and used Aramaic as well as Greek. The point is that the N. T. writers were open to Semitic influence. How great that was must be settled by the facts in the case, not by presumptions for or against. Dr. George Milligan (Greek Papyri, p. xxix f.) says: "In the matter of language, we have now abundant proof that the so-called 'peculiarities' of biblical Greek are due simply to the fact that the writers of the N. T. for the most part made use of the ordinary colloquial Greek, the koinh, of their day. This is not to say that we are to disregard altogether the influence of 'translation Greek,' and the consequent presence of undoubted Hebraisms, both in language and grammar. An overtendency to minimize these last is probably the most pertinent


criticism that can be directed against Dr. J. H. Moulton's Prolegomena to his Grammar of N. T. Greek." So Dr. Swete "deprecates the induction which, as it seems to him, is being somewhat hastily based upon them (the papyri), that the Greek of the N. T. has been but slightly influenced by the familiarity of the writers with Hebrew and Aramaic" (Apocalypse of St. John, p. cxx).

Von Soden74 sums up the whole matter as follows: "It was unavoidable but that the primitive Christian writers often used compulsion with the Greek tongue and offended against its genius. They wished to bring to expression things which, up to that time, were foreign to the Greek spirit and only found expression in Semitic languages. And besides, it is only natural that the phraseology of the Greek translation of the 0. T., to which they were habituated from their youth, should unconsciously flow from their pens, and still more, that when their subject-matter brought them into close contact with the O. T. or when they translated from the Aramaic dialect of Palestine, their Greek should receive a foreign tinge." This by no means makes a special N. T. dialect or even Jewish-Greek, but it admits a real, though slight, Semitic influence even where it is not "translation Greek." This position is more nearly in accord with all the facts as we now know them. It is pleasing to find Deissmann (Expositor, Oct., 1907, "Philology of the Greek Bible," p. 292) rather reacting a bit from the first extreme position. He accents here strongly the influence of the LXX on the N. T. "It is one of the most painful deficiencies of biblical study at the present day that the reading of the LXX has been pushed into the background, while its exegesis has been scarcely even begun." (Ib., p. 293) : "A single hour lovingly devoted to the text of the Septuagint will further our exegetical knowledge of the Pauline Epistles more than a whole day spent over a commentary." (Ib., p. 294): "This restoration of the Greek Bible to its own epoch is really the distinctive feature of the work of modern scholarship." That hits the point. We cordially agree with his remark (Expositor, Nov., 1907, p. 435) that the Semiticisms of the Greek Bible do not place the N. T. outside of the scope of Greek philology, but are merely its birth-marks. In the Dec. (1907) Expositor (p. 520) Deissmann comments feelingly on the fact that the LXX "has served the Christian Church of Anatolia in unbroken continuity down to the present day."


(C) LITTLE DIRECT HEBREW INFLUENCE. The Hebrew was not a living language any longer. Less than half of the O. T. quotations75 in the N. T. are from the Hebrew text. It was still read in most of the synagogues of Palestine and it is possible that a modernized Hebrew was in use to some extent for literary purposes.76 Perhaps the Hebrew text was consulted by the N. T. writers who used it much as a modern minister refers to his Greek Testament. The reading of the Hebrew O. T. would give one dignity of style and simplicity of expression. The co-ordination of clauses so common in the Hebrew is not confined to the Hebrew, but is certainly in marked contrast with the highly developed system of subordinate sentences of the Greek. But this paratactic construction is partly Hebraic and partly colloquial. The total absence of extended indirect discourse is a case in point also. Compare the historical books of the N. T. with Xenophon and Thucydides. Likewise the frequent use of kai, and the sparing use of particles may be mentioned. The pleonastic use of pronouns like ha}n ouvdei.j du,natai klei/sai auvth,n (Rev. 3:8) finds an occasional parallel (Moulton) in the papyri, but none the less its frequency in the N. T. is due to the Hebrew. The same remark applies to the effort to express in Greek the Hebrew infinitive absolute by the participle, as ble,pontej ble,yete (Mt. 13:14), or the instrumental, as cara|/ cai,rei (Jo. 3:29). Both of these constructions are found in the Greek, but with far less frequency. The use of prosti,qhmi with an infinitive for repetition, as prose,qeto tri,ton pe,myai. (Lu. 20:12) is in evident imitation of the Hebrew Eiv= ~ai does not mean ouv as in eiv doqh,setai shmei/on (Mk. 8:12), but is aposiopesis, the apodosis not being expressed. This use is in the papyri. Ouv─pa/j in the sense of ouvdei,j is due to the LXX translation of lKo-alo though Moulton (p. 246) has found in the papyri a;neu and cwri,j so used with pa/j.

The use of r`h/ma, in the sense of rb'D' 'thing' is a Hebraism after the LXX. The classic Greek already has lo,goj in this sense. Pro,─ swpon lamba,nein, ~yniP' af'n' is a clear Hebraism. Proswpolhmpte,w first appears in the N. T. So also is avre,skein evnw,pion, tinoj rather than avre,skein tini, a Hebraism. Cf. the circumlocutions pro. prosw,pou th/j eivso,dou auvtou/ (Acts 13:24) rather than the simple pro. auvtou/. The frequent use of the article in address, though occasional in Greek,


is like the Hebrew and Aramaic vocative. The common use of hvn or evsti, and the participle suits both the Hebrew and the analytic tendency of the koinh,) Cf. the more frequent use of the instrumental evn the frequent construction eivnai eivj is due to l in Hebrew, though in itself not out of harmony with the Greek genius. It occurs in the papyri. vApo. prosw,pou╩ yneP.mi and pro. prosw,pou= ynep.li are both Hebraisms. The use of dido,nai in the sense of tiqe,nai, is due to !t;n' having both senses (Thackeray, Gr. of the O. T. in Gk., p. 39); cf. Deut. 28:1, dw,sei se u`pera,nw. So h`me,rai takes the flavour of the Hebrew ~ymiiy', and eivrh,nh is used in salutation like ~Alv'. The superfluous pronoun calls for notice also. The frequency of evn tw|/ with the infinitive is due to B.. So also ui`o,j occurs in some Hebraistic senses like !B,, but the papyri have some examples of ui`o,j for 'quality,' 'characteristic.' Thackeray (p. 42) notes the Hebrew fondness for "physiognomical expressions" like ovfqalmo,j├ pro,swpon├ sto,ma├ cei,r├ pou,j, etc. The increased use of avnh,r and a;nqrwpoj like vyai rather than ti.j├ pa/j├ e[kastoj must be observed. The very extensive use of prepositions is accented by the Hebrew. Kai. evge,neto translates yhiy.w;. The use of a question to express wish is like the Hebrew idiom (cf. 2 Kgs. 18:33). But these constructions are doubtless due to the LXX rather than to Hebrew itself. It is not possible to give in clear outline the influence of the Hebrew Bible on the N. T. apart from the LXX and the Aramaic, though there was a little of just that kind. Kennedy77 gives thirteen words common to the LXX and the N. T. (Thackeray, Gr., pp. 31 ff., gives a list of "Hebraisms in Vocabulary") and counts "twenty Hebrew and Aramaic words which do not occur in the LXX, e.g. ziza,nion├ mamwna/j├ r`aka,├ w`sanna,." The words in the N. T. known to be Hebrew and not Aramaic are as follows: avbaddw,n= !ADb;a]; avllhlouia,= Hy'-Wll.h;; avmh,n = !mea'; a`rmageddw,n= !ADgim. rh;; a`rrabw,n= !Akr'[e; ba,toj╩ tB;; beelzebou,b ╩ bWbz. l[;B; * boanhrge,j╩ vg,r, yn]b. (cf. Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 49); bu,ssoj╩ #WB (cf. also bu,ssinoj); evbrai?sti, from rb,[e * hvlei,╩ yliae (MSS. Mt. 27:46); ka,mhloj= lm'G'; ivoudi<zw├ ivoudai?smo,j├ ivoudai?ko,j├ ivoudai/oj╩ hd'Why. * korba/n╩ !B'r.q' * ku,minon╩ !AMKi; li,banoj╩ hn'Abl. * ma,nna ╩ !m'; mwre,╩ hr,Mo * pa,sca╩ xs;P, (LXX, but same for Aramaic ah'd.P;); r`abbi$ei,%╩ yBir; * sabaw,q= tAab'c.; sa,bbaton╩ tB'v;; satana/j╩ !j'f'; sa,p─ feiroj╩ ryPis;; w`sanna,╩ an' [v;Ah (Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 222). Some Of these were already in classical Greek ( bu,ssoj├


li,banoj├ sa,pfeiroj). Of doubtful origin are na,rdoj├ ni,tron (Jer. 2:22), suka,minoj. This is a fairly complete list of the Hebrew words in the N. T. The Aramaic words will be given later. There are to be added, however, the very numerous Hebrew proper names, only a few samples of which can be given, as Maria,m╩ ~y'r.mi; Melciseke,k= qd,c,-yKil.m;; Saou,l= lWav'; Samouh,l= laeWmv.; ktl) Deissmann is correct in saying ("Papyri," Encyc. Bibl.) that lexical Hebraisms "must be subjected to careful revision," but these remain.

Certain it is that the bulk of the examples of Hebraisms given by Guillemard vanish in the light of the papyri and inscriptions. He feared indeed that his book was "a return to old exploded methods." It is indeed "exploded" now, for the N. T. is not "unlike any other Greek, with one single exception, and absolutely unique in its peculiarities."78 There are three ways of giving these Semitic words: mere transliteration and indeclinable, transliteration and declinable, Greek endings to Aramaic words.

(d) A DEEPER IMPRESS BY THE LXX. It is true that the N. T. at many points has affinities with the LXX, the "single exception" of Guillemard, but the LXX is not "the basis of the Christian Greek."79 In his second volume Viteau began to see that he had been too extreme in his notion that the N. T. was Hebraized Greek: "The language of the N. T. is not derived from that of the LXX; it is its sister. It is the same familiar Greek language which one finds employed in the one or the other. But the Greek of the LXX has exercised a considerable influence upon that of the N. T."80 But even in this volume Viteau overestimates the influence of the LXX on the N. T. Westcott81 had the old idea that the N. T. language, "both as to its lexicography and as to its grammar, is based on the language of the LXX." It is undoubtedly true82 that a very large proportion of the N. T.


words are found in the LXX, but there are very few words that are found in the N. T. and the LXX and nowhere else.83 Both the LXX and the N. T. use the current vocabulary. There are indeed numerous theological terms that have a new meaning in the LXX, and so in the N. T., like a`gia,zein├ a;fesij├ ge,enna├ evkklhsi,a├ ku,rioj├ lo,goj├ lutro,w├ monogenh,j├ pneu/ma├ swthri,a├ cristo,j├ ktl. (See longer list in Swete, Introduction to O. T. in Greek, p. 454.) So also many N. T. phrases are found in the LXX, like eivkw.n qeou/├ ovsmh. euvwdi,aj├ pro,swpon pro.j pro,swpon├ lamba,nein pro,swpon├ h` diaspora, ktl) (ib.). The O. T. apocryphal books also are of interest on this point. We have a splendid treatment of the LXX Greek by Thackeray. He shows "the koinh, basis of LXX Greek," as to vocabulary, orthography, accidence and syntax (pp. 16-25). He notes ss├ tessera,konta, finds n movable before consonants, nao,j├ nu,ktan├ plh,rhj indeclinable, avsebh/n, disappearance of mi-verbs, h;lqosan├ hvlqa├ avne,bainan├ e`w,rakan├ oa}j eva,n├ ouvqei,j, nominativus pendens, even in apposition with genitive (cf. Apocalypse), constructio ad sensum, le,gwn and le,gontej with construction like avphgge,lh le,gontej, recitative on, neuter plurals with plural verb, partial disappearance of the superlative and usually in elative sense, prw/toj instead of pro,teroj├ e`autou,j├ ─w/n├ ──oi/j, for all three persons, disappearance of the optative, great increase of tou/ and the infinitive, co-ordination of sentences with kai,, genitive absolute when noun in another case is present, blending of cases, increase of adverbial phrases and prepositions, eivmi, eivj, interchange between evn and eivj (increase of eivj), etc. See also Psichari (Revue des etudes juives, 1908, pp. 173-208) for a discussion of the Semitic influence on the N. T. Greek. The use of eivmi, occurs occasionally in the papyri, the inscriptions and koinh, writers, but it is extremely common in the LXX because of the Hebrew l. In the realm of syntax the LXX is far more Hebraistic than the N. T., for it is a translation by Jews who at many points slavishly follow the Hebrew either from ignorance of the Hebrew or the Greek, perhaps sometimes a little of both. B in Judges, Ruth, 2-4 Kings, has evgw, eivmi with indicative, as evgw, eivmi kaqi,somai (Judges 6: 18).84 BA in Tobit 5:15 have e;somai dido,nai. B in Eccl. 2:17 has evmi,shsa su.n th.n zwh,n╩ ~yYix;h;-ta,.


Swete85 finds this misunderstanding of ta, common, in A in Ecclesiastes and six times in 3 Kings. It is the characteristic of Aquila.86 No such barbarisms as these occur in the N. T., though the "wearisome iteration of the oblique cases of personal pronouns answering to the Hebrew suffixes" finds illustration to some extent in the N. T. books, and the pleonastic use of the pronoun after the Greek relative is due to the fact that the Hebrew relative is indeclinable.87 The N. T. does not have such a construction as h;rxato tou/ oivkodomei/n (2 Chron. 3:1), though tou/ eivsel─ qei/n with evge,neto (Ac. 10:25) is as awkward an imitation of the Hebrew infinitive construct. The LXX translators had great difficulty in rendering the Hebrew tenses into Greek and were often whimsical about it. It was indeed a difficult matter to put the two simple Hebrew timeless tenses into the complicated and highly developed Greek system, and "Vav conversive" added to the complexity of the problem. Conybeare and Stock, Selections from the LXX, p. 23, doubt if the LXX Greek always had a meaning to the translators, as in Num. 9:10; Deut. 33:10. The LXX Greek is indeed "abnormal Greek,"88 but it can be understood. Schurer89 is wrong when he calls it "quite a new language, swarming with such strong Hebraisms that a Greek could not understand it." It is indeed in places "barbarous Greek," but the people who spoke the vernacular koinh, could and did make it out. Many of the Hellenistic Jews knew no Hebrew or Aramaic but only the koinh,. The Greek proselyte, like the Ethiopian eunuch, could read it, if he did need a spiritual interpreter. SchŘrer,90 who credits the Palestinian Jews with very little knowledge of the current Greek, considers "the ancient anonymous Greek translation of the Scriptures" to be "the foundation of all Judae-Hellenistic culture." He is indeed right in contrasting the hardness of Palestinian Pharisaism with the pliable Hellenistic Judaism on the soil of Hellenism.91 But the Jews felt the Greek spirit (even if they could not handle easily oratio obliqua) not only in the Diaspora, but to a large extent in the cities of Palestine, especially along the coast, in Galilee and in the Decapolis.


On the spread of Greek in Palestine see Milligan, N. T. Documents, pp. 39 ff. The prohibition,92 about the time of the siege of Jerusalem, against a Jew teaching his son Greek, shows that it had previously been done. The quotations in the N. T. from the O. T. show the use of the LXX more frequently than the Hebrew, sometimes the text quoted in the Synoptics is more like that of A than B, sometimes more like Theodotion than the LXX.93 In the Synoptic Gospels the quotations, with the exception of five in Matthew which are more like the Hebrew, closely follow the LXX. In John the LXX is either quoted or a free rendering of the Hebrew is made. The Acts quotes from the LXX exclusively. The Catholic Epistles use the LXX. The Epistle to the Hebrews "is in great part a catena, of quotations from the LXX."94 In Paul's Epistles more than half of the direct quotations follow the LXX. Here also the text of A is followed more often than the text of B. Swete95 even thinks that the literary form of the N. T. would have been very different but for the LXX. The Apocalypse indeed does not formally quote the 0. T., but it is a mass of allusions to the LXX text. It is not certain96 that the LXX was used in the synagogues of Galilee and Judea, but it is clear that Peter, James, Matthew and Mark, Jewish writers, quote it, and that they represent Jesus as using it. In the Hellenistic synagogues of Jerusalem it would certainly be read. It would greatly facilitate a just conclusion on the general relation of the N. T. Greek to the LXX Greek if we had a complete grammar and a dictionary of the LXX, though we are grateful for the luminous chapter of Swete on the Greek of the Septuagint in his Introduction to the O. T. in Greek; to Kennedy for his Sources of N. T. Greek; to Hatch for his Essays in Biblical Greek; to Deissmann for his Bible Studies and his Philology of the Greek Bible (1908); to Helbing for his very useful Grammatik, and especially to Thack-


eray for vol. I of his Grammar. It is now possible to make intelligent and, to a degree, adequate use of the LXX in the study of N. T. Greek. The completion of Helbing's Syntax and of Thackeray's Syntax will further enrich N. T. students. The Oxford Concordance of Hatch and Redpath and the larger Cambridge Septuagint are of great value. Swete97 laments that the N. T. grammars have only "incidental references to the linguistic characteristics of the Alexandrian version."

The translation was not done all at once, and not by men of Jerusalem, but by Jews of Alexandria who knew "the patois of the Alexandrian streets and markets."98 One doubts, however, if these translators spoke this mixture of Egyptian koinh, and Hebrew. On this point Swete99 differs from most scholars and insists that " the translators write Greek largely as they doubtless spoke it." They could not shake off the Hebrew spell in translation. In free Greek like most of the N. T. the Semitic influence is far less. Mahaffy was quick to see the likeness between the papyri and the LXX.100 But one must not assume that a N. T. word necessarily has the same sense that it has either in the LXX or the koinh,. The N. T. has ideas of its own, a point to be considered later. We agree with Swete101 that the LXX is "indispensable to the study of the N. T." Nestle102 justly remarks that the Greek of the LXX enjoys now a much more favourable judgment from philologists than some twenty years ago. Conybeare and Stock (Sel. from the LXX, p. 22) observe that, while the vocabulary of the LXX is that of the market-place of Alexandria, the syntax is much more under the influence of the Hebrew original. The LXX does, of course, contain a few books like 4 Maccabees, written in Greek originally and in the Greek spirit, like Philo's works. Philo represents the Atticistic revival in Alexandria that was a real factor with a few. But the "genitivus hebraicus," like o` krith.j th/j avdiki,aj├ is paralleled in the papyri and the inscriptions, though not so often as in the LXX. Cf. Radermacher, N. T. Greek, p. 19. So also .(p. 21) toi/j evx evriqei,aj (Ro. 2:8) is like evk plh,rouj in the papyri and already in the tragic poets. Thumb103 properly takes the side of Deissmann against Viteau's exaggerated


idea of LXX influence (following Hatch). It is not always easy to decide what is due to the use of the LXX and what to the development of the koinh, vernacular. One must have an open mind to light from either direction. Deissmann104 is clearly right in calling for a scientific investigation of the Hebraisms of the LXX. Even the LXX and N. T. use of avreth, (Is. 42:8, 12; 1 Pet. 2: 9; 2 Pet. 1:3) is paralleled by an inscription in Caria.105 We are not then to think of the Jews or the Christians as ever using in, speech or literature the peculiar Greek used in the translation of the Hebrew 0. T., which in itself varied much in this respect in different parts. The same intense Hebraistic cast appears in the O. T. apocryphal books which were originally in Hebrew and then translated, as Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, etc. Contrast with these the Greek of the Wisdom of Solomon, 2 Maccabees and the Prologue to the Greek translation of Ecclesiasticus, and the difference is at once manifest.106 The Wisdom of Solomon is of special interest, for the author, who wrote in Greek and revealed knowledge of Greek culture, art, science and philosophy, was yet familiar with the LXX and imitated some of its Hebraisms, being a Jew himself. Cf. Siegfried, "Book of Wisdom," Hastings' D. B. It must never be forgotten that by far the greatest contribution of Alexandrian prose to the great literature of the world is this very translation of the 0. T."107 The name Christ ( Cristo,j) is found in the LXX "and so the very terms Christian and Christianity arose out of the language employed by the Alexandrian interpreters."108 The only Bible known to most of the Jews in the world in the first Christian century was the LXX. The first complete Bible was the Greek Bible. The LXX was the "first Apostle to the Gentiles" and was freely used for many centuries by the Christians. Conybeare and Stock (Sel. from the LXX, p. 24) go so far as to say that the N. T. itself would not have been but for the LXX. Certainly it would not


have been what it is. "The Bible whose God is Yahweh is the Bible of one people, the Bible whose God is Ku,rioj is the Bible of the world" (Deissmann, Die Hellen. des Semit. Mon., p. 174).

Thackeray (Grammar of the O. T. in Greek, pp. 25-55) gives a careful survey of the "Semitic Element in the LXX Greek." He admits that the papyri have greatly reduced the number of the Hebraisms heretofore noted in the LXX. He denies, however (p. 27), that the Greek of the LXX gives "a true picture of the language of ordinary intercourse between Jewish residents in the country." He denies also any influence of the Hebrew on the vernacular Greek of the Jews in Alexandria outside of the vocabulary of special Jewish words like avkrobusti,a. He thinks (p. 28) the Book of Tobit the best representative of the vernacular Greek of the Jews. There are more transliterations like geiw,raj for Aramaic ar'AYGi (Heb. rGe) in the later books where the early books had pa,roikoj or prosh,lutoj. The fact of a translation argues for a fading of the Hebrew from the thought of the people. In the early books the translation is better done and "the Hebraic character of these books consists in the accumulation of a number of just tolerable Greek phrases, which nearly correspond to what is normal and idiomatic in Hebrew" (p. 29). But in the later books the Hebraisms are more numerous and more marked, due to "a growing reverence for the letter of the Hebrew" (p. 30). We cannot follow in detail Thackeray's helpful sketch of the transliterations from the Hebrew, the Hellenized Semitic words, the use of words of like sound, Hebrew senses in Greek words like di,dwmi╩ ti,qhmi after !t;n', ui`o.j avdiki,aj├ ovfqalmo,j├ pro,swpon├ sto,ma├ cei,r, the pleonastic pronoun, extensive use of prepositions, kai. evge,neto├ evn accompaniment or instrument, etc.

(e) ARAMAISMS. N. T. grammars have usually blended the Aramaic with the Hebrew influence. Schmiedel109 complains that the Aramaisms have received too little attention. But Dalman110 retorts that Schmiedel himself did not do the matter justice, and still less did Blass. Moulton111 recognizes the distinction as just and shows that Aramaisms are found chiefly in Mark and Matthew, but does not point out the exact character of the Aramaisms in question. We take it as proved that Jesus and the Apostles, like most of their Jewish contemporaries in Palestine who moved in public life, spoke both Aramaic and Greek and read Hebrew


(cf. Lu. 4 : 17). Even Schurer112 admits that the educated classes used Greek without difficulty. There is no doubt about the Aramaic. Jerome says that all the Jews of his time knew the Hebrew O. T. The LXX disproves that, but Hebrew was used in the schools and synagogues of Palestine and was clearly read by many. The discourses of Jesus do not give the impression that he grew up in absolute seclusion, though he undoubtedly used the Aramaic in conversation and public address on many occasions if not as a rule.113 The Aramaic tongue is very old and its use as a diplomatic tongue (Is. 36:11) implies perhaps a previous Aramaic leadership.114 There was a literary as well as a vernacular Aramaic. The Aramaic portions of Daniel, Ezra, the Targum of Onkelos are in the literary Aramaic.115 Dalman116 suggests that Matthew wrote his Gospel originally in the Judean literary Aramaic rather than the Galilean vernacular, but the reason is not very apparent. Zahn117 doubts the validity of Dalman's distinction between a Judean and a Galilean Aramaic, but Peter was recognized in Jerusalem by the Galilean pronunciation (Mt. 26: 73). The Galileans118 had difficulty with the gutturals and v. This Aramaic is not to be confounded with the later Christian Aramaic or Syriac into which the N. T. was translated. The Aramaic spoken in Palestine was the West Aramaic,119 not the East Aramaic (Babylonia). So keenly does Dalman120 feel the difference between Hebraisms and Aramaisms that he avers that "the Jewish Aramaic current among the people was considerably freer from Hebrew influence than the Greek which the Synoptists write." Not many can go with him in that statement. But he is right in insisting on a real difference, though, as a matter of fact, no great point was made about it at the time. With Josephus h` pa,trioj glw/ssa was the Aramaic (B. J. pr. ž 1; v. 6, ž 3;


v. 9, ž 2). He wrote his War originally in the native tongue for toi/j a;nw barba,roij. John John(5:2; 19:13, 17, 20; Rev. 9:11; 16:16) uses vEbrai?sti, in the sense of the Aramaic. So Luke has vEbrai<j dia,lektoj (Ac. 21:40; 22:2; 26:14). The people understood Paul's Greek, but they gave the more heed when he dropped into Aramaic. 4 Macc. 4 Macc.(12:7; 16:15) likewise employs vEbrai<j fwnh,. The two kinds of Jewish Christians are even called (Ac. 6:1) `Ellhnistai, and vEbrai/oi, though `Ellhnistai, and Suristai, would have been a more exact distinction.121 It is beyond controversy that the gospel message was told largely in Aramaic, which to some extent withstood the influx of Greek as the vernacular did in Lycaonia122 (Ac. 14:11). One cannot at this point discuss the Synoptic problem. It is not certain that Luke, probably a gentile, knew either Aramaic or Hebrew, though there is a real Semitic influence on part of the Gospel and Acts, due, Dalman123 holds, to the LXX example and a possible Aramaic or Hebrew original for the opening chapters of the Gospel, already put into Greek. Mark was probably written in Rome; not Palestine. Hence the Aramaic original of Mark, Bousset argues, cannot be considered as proved.124 He rightly insists, as against Wellhausen,125 that the question is not between the classic Greek and Aramaic, but between the vernacular koinh, and Aramaic. But whatever is or is not true as to the original language of Mark and of Matthew, the gospel story was first told largely in Aramaic. The translation of the Aramaic expressions in Mark proves this beyond all doubt, as taleiqa,├ kou,m by to, kora,sion├ e;geire (Mk. 5:41). Dalman126 indeed claims that every Semitism in the N. T. should first be looked upon as an Aramaism unless it is clear that the Aramaic cannot explain it. The Mishna (Neo-Hebraic) was not itself unaffected by the Greek, for the Mishna has numerous


Greek words and phrases that were current in the Aramaic.127 The Aramaisms of vocabulary that one can certainly admit in the N. T. are the following words: avbba,= aB'a;; vAkeldama,c╩ am'D. lqex]; all words beginning with bar= rB; like Barna,baj* beezebou,l╩ ly[eb., lWbz.; Bhqesda,╩ aD's.x, tyBe; Bhzaqa,╩ at'r.z; tyBe; Gabbaqa,╩ at'B.G;; ge,enna╩ ~n■hi aGe; Golgoqa,╩ at'l.G'l.G'; evlwi< evlwi<├ lama. sabac─ qanei, (or probably Heb. yliae╩ hvlei,, and the rest Aramaic, Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 53 f.)= ynit;q.b;v. am'l. yhil'a, yhil'a,; evffaqa,╩ xt;P't.a,; korbana/j╩ an'B'r.Wq; mamwna/j╩ an'Amam'; marana,├ qa,╩ at' an'r'm'128; Messi,aj╩ ax'yvim.; pa,sca╩ ax's.P;; farisai/oi╩ ay'v;yriP.; r`abbo$ou%ni,$ei,%╩ yniABri; r`aka,╩ aq'yre; sa,bbata╩ at'B.v;; satana/j╩ an'['s'; sa,ton╩ at'as'; si,kera╩ ar'k.vi; taleiqa,├ kou,m= ymiWq at'ylij.; names of persons like Khfa/j╩ ap'yKe; Tabeiqa,╩ at'ybij., etc.

Aramaisms of syntax are seen in the following. The expression geu,esqai qana,tou seems to be in imitation of the Aramaic. Wellhausen (Einl. in die drei Evang., pp. 31 ff.) suggests that ei-j kaq v ei-j (Mk. 14: 19) is a hybrid between the Aramaic ei-j ei-j (but this is, an old Greek idiom) and the vernacular ( koinh,) kaq v ei-j) He suggests also that Aramaic meanings are found in such words as sw,zein├ poinei/n karpo,n├ sumbou,lion poinei/n $dido,nai%├ eivrh,nh├ eivrh,nhn dido,nai├ o`do.j qeou/├ plh,rwma├ etc. As already explained, apart from the question of a possible original Aramaic Mark and an original Aramaic Matthew and Aramaic sources for the early chapters of Luke and the first twelve chapters of Acts,129 many of the discourses of Christ were undoubtedly in Aramaic. There was translation then from this Aramaic spoken (or written) gospel story into the vernacular koinh, as we now have it in large portions of the Synoptic Gospels and possibly part of Acts. The conjectural efforts to restore this Aramaic original of the words of Jesus are suggestive, but not always convincing. On the whole subject of Semitic words in the Ptolemaic papyri see Mayser, Grammatik, pp. 40-42. The list includes avr( r) abw,n├ bu,ssoj├ ku,minon├ li,banoj├ suka,minoj├ citw,n. It is not a very long list indeed, but shows that the Orient did have some little influence on the Greek vocabulary. These words occur in older Greek writers.


(f) VARYING RESULTS. It is natural that different writers in the N. T. should diverge in the amount of Semitic influence manifest in their writings. They all used the vernacular koinh, which in itself may have had a very faint trace of Semitic influence. But of the nine authors of the N. T. six were probably Palestinian Jews.130 Now these six writers (Mark, Matthew, James, Peter, Jude, John) are just the very ones who reveal the Semitic mould of thought. It is often merely the Hebrew and Aramaic spirit and background. In Mark the Aramaic influence appears; in Matthew131 the LXX is quoted along with the Hebrew, and Aramaisms occur also; in James there is the stately dignity of an O. T. prophet with Aramaic touches (cf. his address and letter in Ac. 15) but with many neat turns of Greek phrase and idiom; Peter's two letters present quite a problem and suggest at least an amanuensis in one case or a different one for each letter (cf. Biggs, Int. and Crit. Comm.); Jude is very brief, but is not distinctly Hebraic or Grecian; John in his Gospel is free from minor Semitisms beyond the frequent use of kai, like w., but the tone of the book is distinctly that of a noble Jew and the sum total of the impression from the book is Semitic, while the Apocalypse has minor Hebraisms and many grammatical idiosyncrasies to be discussed later, many of which remind one of the LXX. If the absence of the optative be taken as a test, even when compared with the vernacular koinh,, Matthew, James and John do not use it at all, while Mark has it only once and Jude twice. Peter indeed has it four times and Hebrews only once, but Luke uses the optative 28 times and Paul 31. The remaining three writers (Paul, Luke, author of Hebrews) were not Palestinian Jews. Paul was a Hellenistic Jew who knew his vernacular koinh, well and spoke Aramaic and read Hebrew. His Epistles are addressed. chiefly to gentile Christians and naturally show little Semitic flavour, for he did not have to translate his ideas from Aramaic into Greek. In some of his speeches, especially the one delivered in Aramaic, as reported by Luke in Ac. 22, , a trace of the Semitic point of view is retained. In contrast with Ac. 22 note Paul's address on the Areopagus in 17. The author of Hebrews makes abundant use of the LXX but exhibits possible Alexandrian origin or training, and it is not clear that he knew either


Addenda 3rd ed.

Hebrew or Aramaic.132 Luke presents something of a problem, for he seems to have had Aramaic sources in Lu. 1 and 2 (possibly also Ac. 1-12), ), while it is uncertain whether he was familiar with the Aramaic. There seems little evidence that he knew Hebrew. Blass133 thinks that he may have read his Aramaic sources or had them translated for him. Curiously enough, though a gentile and capable of writing almost classic Attic (Lu. 1:1-4), yet Luke uses Semitisms not common elsewhere in the N. T. Dalman134 shows that the genuine Hebraisms in Luke like lo,gouj in sense of things things(9:28 but classical authority for this exists), dia. sto,matojgrk grk(1:70) are due to the LXX, not the Hebrew. The use of evn tw|/ with the infinitive occurs 34 times in Luke, 8 in Acts, twice in Mark, thrice in Matthew, 4 in Paul, 4 in Heb.135 See evn tw|/ u`postre,fein to.n vIhsou/n (Lu. 8 : 40). Blass calls this an Aramaism.136 But it is not a peculiarity of the discourses of Jesus, as it is found there only in evn tw|/ spei,rein (common to all the Synoptics, Mk. 4:4; Mt. 13:4; Lu. 8:5), and in Lu. 10:35; 19:15. Hence the idiom is common137 in Luke from some other cause. The construction occurs in "classical historians, in Polybius and in papyri,"138 but is most common in the LXX, and the parallel is wanting in the spoken Aramaic. Luke also freely uses kai. evge,neto (almost peculiar to him in the N. T.), which at once suggests yhiy.w;. He doubtless got this from the LXX.139 He has three constructions, viz. kai. evge,neto kai. hvlqe├ kai. evge,neto hvlqe and kai. evge,neto evlqei/n. The first two140 are common in the LXX, while evge,neto evlqei/n is due to the Greek vernacular141 as the papyri testify. The superfluous avfei,j├ h;rxato, etc., are Aramaisms, while eivmi, and the participle is Aramaic, like the Hebrew, and also in harmony with the analytic vernacular koinh,. Nestle142


agrees with Blass (p. 131) in taking o`mologei/n evn in Mt. 10:32Lu. 12:8 as a Syrism. b. with hd'Ah is not in the Hebrew, nor o`mol) evn in the LXX, but yDiAa is used with b. in the Jewish-Aramaic and Christian-Syriac. Nestle refers to o`mologou,ntwn tw|/ ovno,─ mati (Heb. 13:15) as a Hebraism, for in such a case the Hebrew used l.. The LXX and the Aramaic explain all the Semitisms in Luke. Dalman143 ventures to call the LXX Hebraisms in Luke "Septuagint-Graecisms" and thinks that the same thing is true of the other Synoptists. Certainly it is proper to investigate144 the words of Jesus from the point of view of the peculiarities of style in each reporter of them. But, after all is said, the Semitisms in the N. T. Greek, while real and fairly numerous in bulk, cut a very small figure in comparison with the entire text. One can read whole pages in places with little suggestion of Semitic influence beyond the general impress of the Jewish genius and point of view.

IV. Latinisms and Other Foreign Words. Moulton145 considers it "hardly worth while" to discuss Latin influence on the koinh, of the N. T. Blass146 describes the Latin element as "clearly traceable." Swete147 indeed alleges that the vulgar Greek of the Empire "freely adopted Latin words and some Latin phraseology." Thumb148 thinks that they are "not noteworthy." In spite of the conservative character of the Greek language, it yet incorporated Latin civil and military terms with freedom. Inasmuch as Judea was a Roman province, some allusion to Roman customs and some use of Latin military and official terms was to be expected,149 though certainly not to the extent of Romanizing or Latinizing the language. Cicero150 himself described Latin as provincial in comparison with the Greek. Latin words are fairly common in the Mishna.151 Latin names were early naturalized into the Greek vernacular and in the N. T. we find such Roman names as Aquila, Cornelius, Claudia, Clemens, Crescens, Crispus, Fortunatus, Julia, Junia, Justus, Linus, Lucius, Luke, Mark,


Addenda 3rd ed.

Niger, Paul, Priscilla, Publius, Pudens, Rufus, Sergius, Silvanus (Silas), Tertius, Titus among the Christians themselves (Jewish and gentile), while Agrippa, Augustus (translated Sebasto,j), Caesar, Claudius, Gallio, Felix, Festus, Julius, Nero (Text. Rec.), Pilate, Tertullus are typical Roman names. Note the Roman cities mentioned in Ac. 28, , Caesarea and Tiberias in Palestine. More than forty Latin names of persons and places occur in the N. T. The other Latin words, thirty (or thirty-one), are military, judicial, monetary or domestic terms. They come into the N. T. through the vernacular koinh,, none of them appearing in the LXX and but two in Polybius. "Plutarch uses Latin words more frequently than Polybius, but for the most part not those employed in the N. T."152 Jannaris153 observes that "the Roman administration, notwithstanding its surrendering to Greek culture and education, did not fail to influence the Greek language." But in the N. T. only these Latin words are found: avssa,rion (as), dhna,rion (denarius), e;cw= aestimo ( e;ce me parh|thme,non, Lu. 14:18), euvraku,lwn├ qriambeu,ein├ kenturi,wn (centurio), kh/nsoj (census), kodra,n─ thj (quadrans), kolwni,a (colonia), koustwdi,a (custodia), legiw,n (legio), le,ntion, (linteum), liberti/noj (libertinus), li,tra (libra), ma,─ kellon (macellum), membra,na (membrana), mi,lion (mille), mo,dioj (modius), xe,sthj (sextarius), praitw,rion (praetorium), sika,rioj (sicaries), simiki,nqion (semicinctium), souda,rion (sudarium), spekou─ la,twr (speculator), ai` tabe,rnai (taberna), ti,tloj (titlus), felo,nhj (paenula), fo,ron (forum), frage,llion (flagellum), fragello,w (flagello), ca,rthj (? charta), cw/roj (corus). This is at most (31) not a formidable list. A few Latin phrases occur like evrgasi,an dou/nai (operam dare), to. i`kano.n lamba,nein (satis accipere), to. i`kano.n poiei/n (satis facere), sumbou,lion lamba,nein (consilium capere). But Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, p. 117 f.) notes the use of evrga,si,an di,dwmi, in an Oxyrhynchus papyrus letter of the vulgar type in 2d cent. B.C. and also in an inscription in Caria with a decree of the Senate. A lead tablet at Amorgus shows kri,nw to. di,kaion (cf. Lu. 12:57). So sunai,rw lo,gon (Mt. 18:23 f.) occurs in two papyri letters of 2d cent. A.D. (Moulton, The Expositor, April, 1901, p. 274 f.). Thayer154 calls attention also to su. o;yh| (Mt. 27:4) as


being like videris. So also o;yesqe auvtoi, (Ac. 18:15). Grimm155 considers lamba,nein in Jo. 5:34, 41 equal to capto ('to catch at'). The majority of these instances occur in Mark and Matthew, Mark using more Latinisms than any other N. T. writer. Too much, however, cannot be argued from this point.156 There are besides such adjectives as `Hrw|dianoi,├ Cristianoi,├ Filipph,sioi, which are made after the Latin model.

Blass157 thinks that the syntax shows a greater Latin influence, but admits that it is difficult to tell the difference between native development in the Greek and a possible Latin bent. It is indeed difficult to speak with decision on this point. Ultimately Greek and Latin had great influence on each other, but at this stage the matter is at least too doubtful to appeal to with confidence.158 Paul indeed may have spoken in Latin at Lystra, according to Prof. Ramsay.159 Thayer160 indeed gives a longer list of Latin syntactical influences on N. T. Greek, but not all of them are certain. The anticipatory position of avpo, and pro, in expressions of time and place, as pro. ea}x h`merw/n (Jo. 12:1), is a possible Latinism, though only of the secondary sort, since the Doric and the Ionic use this construction occasionally and the koinh, frequently (cf. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 101). Cf. also meta. polla.j tau,taj h`me,raj (Ac. 1:5).161 The increased use of the subjunctive rather than the optative after a past tense of the indicative is a necessary result of the disappearance of the optative rather than a Latinism. The alleged blending of present perfect and aorist might


be a Latinism, but it is at least doubtful if that is found in the N. T. The use of o[ti and i[na rather than the infinitive follows naturally as the infinitive vanishes, but it is parallel to the growing use of ut with rogo, etc. vApo, and the ablative after fula,ssein may be due to cavere ab or to the general analytic tendency to express the preposition with the case (cf. the Hebrew also). Other smaller details are the absence of wv with the vocative, su,n as equal to kai,├ o[j╩kai. ou-toj (qui = et hic), game,w with dative = nubere alicui, infinitive alone with keleu,w. There is no evidence that the absence of the article in Latin had any influence on the vernacular koinh,, though Schmid162 thinks he sees it in the irregular use of the article in AElian. It is interesting in this connection to note the development in the vernacular Latin as represented in the Old Latin and the Vulgate versions. Unusual cases are used with many verbs; prepositions are much more frequent; the indicative with final ut and in indirect questions; common use of quia and quoniam like quod with verb rather than the accusative and infinitive; ille, ipse, hic, is, more like the article, as the later Italian il, Spanish el, French le.163

Other foreign words had, of course, entered the koinh, or the earlier Greek, like bouno,j (Cyrenaic and Sicilian); r`e,dh (Gallic or Celtic); evggareu,w (even AEschylus), ga,za├ para,deisoj├ sanda,lion (Persian); citw,n (Oriental); kra,battoj (cf. Latin grabatus), parembolh,, r`u,mh (Macedonian); avrrabw,n├ kinna,mwmon├ ku,minon├ mna/ (Phoenician); bai<on├ bi,bloj├ bu,ssoj├ si,naPi├ sindw,n (Egyptian or Semitic?); ziza,─ nion (Arabic?). On the Egyptian words in the Ptolemaic papyri see Mayser, Grammatik, pp. 35-40; on the Persian words, ib., p. 42 f., including ga,za and para,deisoj. Si,napi is of uncertain origin. But Greek was known in all parts of the Roman Empire except parts of North Africa and the extreme west of Europe. There were great libraries in Alexandria, Pergamum and elsewhere. Schools were numerous and excellent. But none the less the mass of the people were ba,rbaroi to the real Greeks and inevitably brought laxities into the vernacular. Cf. Radermacher, N. T. Gr., pp. 9 ff., who gives a good discussion of the Latinisms in koinh, writers.


V. The Christian Addition. But was there a Christian addition if there was no separate biblical Greek, not to say a special Christian Greek? Winer164 admitted "religious technical terms" in the Christian sense, but thought that "the subject scarcely lies within the limits of philological inquiry." Blass has nothing to say on the subject. But even Deissmann165 insisted that "the language of the early Christians contained a series of religious terms peculiar to itself, some of which it formed for the first time," but he added that this enrichment did not extend to the "syntax." Once more hear Deissmann166: "Christianity, like any other new movement affecting civilization, must have produced an effect upon language by the formation of new ideas and the modification of old ones." Moulton167 sounds a note of warning when he says that "it does not follow that we must promptly obliterate every grammatical distinction that proves to have been unfamiliar to the daily conversation of the first century Egyptian farmer . . . The N. T. must still be studied largely by light drawn from itself." Westcott168 indeed thinks the subject calls for "the most careful handling" in order to avoid Jewish usage on the one hand and the later ecclesiastical ideas on the other. This is obviously true. Connect the discussion of the Semitic influence on the N. T. with this point and recall the revolutionary effect that Christianity had upon the Greek language in the ecclesiastical Greek of the Byzantine period, and the difficulty will be appreciated. Mahaffy169 does not hesitate to say that the main cause of the persistence of Greek studies to-day is due to the fact that the Gospels are written in Greek. "Greek conquered Jew and Jew conquered Greek and the world inherited the legacy of their struggle through Roman hands." Under the influence of Christianity some of the old heathen vocabulary vanished and the remaining stock "was now considerably reduced and modified in a Christian and modern spirit."170 The


N. T. Greek became the standard for ecclesiastical Greek as the Attic had been for the ancient world.

Winer171 indeed curtly says: "To attempt to explain such expressions of the apostolical terminology by quotations from Greek authors is highly absurd." Rutherford172 almost despairs of understanding N. T. Greek as well as "classical Greek," since it contains so many alien elements, "but it has at least begun to be studied from the proper point of view," though he overestimates the difficulty and the difference when he speaks of "the singular speech in which the oracles of God are enshrined." On the other hand173 we must not let the papyri make us swing so far away from the old "biblical" Greek idea as to imagine that we can find in the vernacular koinh, all that Christianity has to offer. The Christian spirit put a new flavour into this vernacular koinh, and lifted it to a new elevation of thought and dignity of style that unify and glorify the language. This new and victorious spirit, which seized the best in Jew and Greek, knew how to use the Greek language with freedom and power.174 If the beauty of the N. T. writings is different from the ancient standard, there is none the less undoubted charm. Matthew Arnold put the Gospels at the acme of simplicity and winsomeness, and Renan spoke of Luke's Gospel as the most beautiful book in the world. Norden175 admits that the N. T. style is less exclusive and more universal. There was indeed a compromise between the old and the new. The victory of the new brought rhythm (not the technical sort) and unity as the chief characteristics.176 In Christianity Hellenism becomes really cosmopolitan.177 If Christianity had merely used the Greek language and had been entirely alien to Hellenism, the


N. T. would not have belonged to Greek literature, but this sympathy with the best in the world must not be overworked.178 The N. T. language is real Greek, though with the Christian spirit supreme in it because Christianity seized the Hellenic spirit and transformed it. W. Christ179 rightly calls attention to the fact that Christianity brought "a renewal of the human race," "the moral worth of man and a purer view of God." So "this ethical new birth of mankind" found expression in the N. T. The touch of life is what distinguishes the N. T. writings from the philosophical, historical, religious and ethical writings of the time.180 In the Synoptic Gospels this quality reaches its height. "Far above these details is the spirit, the literary conception of a life to be written without ornament, without reflection, without the writer's personality."181 This fact constitutes a literary phenomenon amounting almost to a miracle. This vital spirit discloses itself on every page and baffles analysis. It is the essence of the N. T. language, but "is as pervasive as the atmosphere," "as intangible as a perfume."182 If some concentration and strength are lost, there is great adaptability.183 Thayer184 does not hesitate to speak of the fitness of N. T. Greek for its providential office. It is the language of men's business and bosoms. It is the language of life, not of the study nor the cloister. It is not the language of a bygone age, but the speech of the men of the time. "The Book of the people has become, in the course of centuries, the Book of all mankind" (Deissmann, Light, p. 142). Christianity "began without any written book at all" except the Old Testament." There was only the living word - the gospel, but no Gospels. Instead of the letter was the spirit. The beginning, in fact, was Jesus Himself" (ib., p. 245). The N. T. is in close sympathy with both Jew and Greek, in a sense has both languages to draw on, can reach both the Semitic and the gentile mind, becomes a bond of union, in a word (as Broadus used to say) it is better suited to be the vehicle of truth conveyed by Jewish minds than classical Greek would have been. And a grammarian must admit that, however necessary and fundamental grammat-


Addenda 3rd ed.

ical exegesis is, it forms only the basis for the spiritual exposition which should follow.

When one comes to details, he notes that the influence of Christianity is chiefly lexical, not grammatical.185 But a few points in syntax are to be observed, as in expressions like evn Cristw|//186; evn Kuri,w|* pisteu,w187 evn with locative, eivj with accusative, evpi, with the locative or the accusative, pisteu,w with the dative, with the accusative or absolutely. As to the lexical element the lists of a[pax euvrhme,na require severe sifting.188 It is too soon to pass a final verdict, but in the nature of the case the number would be small. Such words as avnti,cristoj├ e`terodidaskale,w├ euvaggelisth,j├ sunstauro,w├ yeu─ da,delfoj├ yeudapo,stoloj, etc., naturally spring out of the Christian enterprise. The vocabulary of the N. T. Greek is not very extensive, somewhere near 5600 words, including proper names.189 But the main point to note is the distinctive ideas given to words already in use, like avga,ph├ a`gia,zw├ a[gioj├ avdelfo,j├ avnti,tupoj├ avntimi─ sqi,a├ avpolu,trwsij├ avpwleia├ avpo,stoloj├ avpostolh,├ a;rtoj├ basilei,a├ bap─ ti,zw├ ba,ptisma $─mo,j%├ glw/ssa├ dia,konoj├ dikaio,w├ eivrh,nh├ evkklhsi,a├ evklekto,j├ evlpi,zw├ evlpi,j├ evpi,skopoj├ evpistre,fomai├ e;rga├ euvaggel,lion├ euvag─ geli,zw├ evxousi,a├ zwh,├ qa,natoj├ i`ereu,j├ kale,w├ katallagh,├ katalla,ssw├ khru,ssw├ klhto,j├ ko,smoj├ koinwni,a├ lu,tron├ lutro,w├ meta,noia├ o`do,j├ pa─ ra,klhtoj├ pi,stij├ pisto,j├ pisteu,w├ pneu/ma├ pneumatiko,j├ presbu,teroj├ pro,skomma├ sa,rx├ stauro,j├ sunei,dhsij├ sw,zw├ swth,r├ swthri,a├ tapeino,j├ tapeinofrosu,nh├ o` ui`o.j tou/ qeou/├ o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou├ ui`oqesi,a├ ca,rij├ Cri─ sto,j├ yuch,├ yuciko,j. When one considers the new connotations that these words bear in the N. T., it is not too much "to say that in the history of these and such like words lies the history of Christianity."190 The fact that these and other terms were used


in the popular language of the day gives a sharper point to the new turn in the gospel message. The deification of the emperor made Christians sensitive about the words qeo,j├ ui`o.j qeou/├ qei/oj├ ku,rioj├ kuriako,j├ swth,r├ ca,ragma├ basileu,j├ basilei,a) See the luminous discussion of Deissmann (Light, pp. 343-384). The papyri and the inscriptions throw almost a lurid light on these words. Cf. Ku,rioj Kai/sar and Ku,rioj vIhsou/j (Martyrium Polycarpi, viii, 2) with 1 Cor. 12:1-3. The Christians did not shrink from using these words in spite of the debased ideas due to the emperorcult, Mithraism, or other popular superstitions. Indeed, Paul (cf. Col. 2:1 f.) often took the very words of Gnostic or Mithra cult and filled them with the riches of Christ. Cf. The Expositor for April, 1912, "Paul and the Mystery Religions," by H. A. A. Kennedy. For the stimuli that Christianity derived from popular notions of law, religion and morality see Deissmann, Light, pp. 283-290. The mass of the N. T. vocabulary has been transfigured. The worshippers of a Caesar would indeed call him swth.r tou/ ko,smou or ui`o.j qeou/, but the words were empty flattery. Deissmann191 well shows that a LXX word, for instance, in the mouth of a citizen of Ephesus, did not mean what it did in the LXX, as avrciereu,j├ diaqh,kh├ qeo,j├ profh,thj├ swthri,a. Much more is this true of the N. T. The new message glorified the current koinh,, took the words from the street and made them bear a new content, linked heaven with earth in a new sense. In particular the N. T. writers took and greatly enriched the religious vocabulary of the LXX.

VI. Individual Peculiarities. The language of Christianity was not stereotyped at first and there was more play for individualism. If the style is not all of the man, certainly each writer has his own style. But style varies with the same man also at different stages of his own development, with varying moods and when discussing different themes. Style is thus a function of the subject. All these points of view must be kept in mind with several of the N. T. writers, as Paul, Luke, Peter and John, whose writings show marked variations. Simcox192 notes that in the Thessalonian and Corinthian letters Paul uses evn panti, twelve


times, in the Pastoral Epistles evn pa/si five (or six) times, while in Ph. 4:12 he has both. In thus accenting the individuality of the N. T. writers one must not forget that each writer had access to the common religious terminology of early Christianity. There was a common substratum of ideas and expressions that reappear in them all, though in certain cases there may have been actual use of documents. But one can never be sure whether Peter had James, or the author of Hebrews Luke's writings. Peter probably had some of Paul's letters when he wrote 1 Peter, and 2 Peter 3:15f. expressly refers to them. The grammarian cannot be expected to settle questions of authorship and genuineness, but he has a right to call attention to the common facts of linguistic usage. Immer193 indeed complains that the linguistic peculiarities of the N. T. writers have been worked more in the interest of criticism than of exegesis. The modern method of biblical theology is designed to correct this fault, but there is a work here for the grammarian also. Winer194 declines to discuss this question and is horrified at the idea of grammars of each writer of the N. T.195 Language is rightly viewed from the point of view of the speaker or writer. The rapid and continued changes in the individual mind during the mental process of expressing thought find a parallel in the syntactical relations in the sentence.196 One cannot protest too strongly against the levelling process of an unsympathetic and unimaginative linguistic method that puts all the books of the N. T. through the same syntactical mill and tags this tense as "regular" and that one as "irregular." It is not too much to say that the characteristic of the Greek literature of this time was precisely that of individuality (cf. Plutarch's Lives).197 Viteau198 has a brief discussion of "The Psychological Character of the Syntax of the N. T.," for, added to all other things, there is "the influence of the moment." Differences in


Addenda 3rd ed.

culture, in environment, in gifts, in temperament inevitably affect style, but this fact is not to be stressed so as to make a new dialect for each writer.199 In the following discussions some lexical comments are given besides the grammatical to give a better idea of the writer's style as a whole.

(a) MARK. Certainly Blass' theory200 of an original Aramaic Mark is not proven, but Peter often spoke in Aramaic, and Mark was bilingual like Peter. For the Aramaisms and Hebraisms of Mark see previous discussion (Semitic Influence). The idea that Mark first wrote in Latin need not be seriously discussed. Matthew and Luke have also nearly as many Latinisms as Mark. It is not in his vocabulary that Mark is most distinctive, for of the 1270 words in Mark (besides 60 proper names) only 80 are peculiar to him among the N. T. writers.201 He has 150 in common with Matthew and Luke alone, while only 15 belong to Mark and John and nowhere else in the N. T.202 About 40 words belong only to Mark and the LXX in the Greek Bible, while Mark has 38 (besides proper names) occurring nowhere else in the N. T. or the LXX; but these are not all real a[pax lego,mena, for there are the papyri! Mark seems fond of diminutives like the vernacular koinh, in general ( quga,trion├ kora,sion├ kuna,rion, etc.); eivmi, and e;rcomai with the participle are common, as in Luke (cf. 1:6, hvn ) ) ) evk─ dedume,noj 1:39, hvlqen khru,sswn); in fact he multiplies pictorial participles (cf. 14:67, ivdou/sa ) ) ) evmble,yasa le,gei); a;n occurs with past tenses of the indicative indicative(3:11, o[tan auvto.n evqew,roun); he loves the double negative negative(1:44, mhdeni. mhde.n ei;ph|j); the article is common (as in N. T. generally) with the infinitive and sentences sentences sentences(9:23, to. eiv du,nh|); broken and parenthetic clauses are frequent (cf. 7:19, kaqari,zwn); at times he is pleonastic pleonastic(2:20, to,te evn evkei,nh| th|/ h`me,ra|); he uses euvqu,j (W. H. text) 41 times; he is emotional and vivid, as shown by descriptive adjectives, questions and exclamations (cf. 1:24; 2:7); the intermingling of tenses tenses tenses(9:33 ff., evphrw,ta ) ) ) le,gei) ) ) eivpen) is not due to ignorance of Greek or to artificiality, as Swete well says, but to "a keen sense


Addenda 3rd ed.

of the reality and living interest of the facts; there are 151 historic presents in the W. H. text against 78 in Matthew and 4 in Luke; there is frequent and discriminating use of prepositions prepositions prepositions(2:1, 2, 10, 13); the connective is usually kai, rather than de,├ seldom ouvn; there is little artistic effect, but much simplicity and great vividness of detail; the vernacular koinh, is dominant with little literary influence, though eivten├ paidio,qen and ovyi,a are held so by Norden.203 Peplh,rwtai (Mk. 1:15) is paralleled by evplhrw,qh in a Fayum papyrus and204 sumpo,sia sumpo,sia├ prasiai. prasiai, by ta,gmata ta,gmata in the "Shepherd of Hermas" (Goodspeed, Bibl. World, 1906, p. 311 f.). In general Mark is not to be considered illiterate, though more Semitic in his culture than Greek. Wellhausen has noted that D has more Aramaisms in Mark's text than B. But Mark's Semitisms are not really barbarous Greek, "though Mark's extremely vernacular language often makes us think so, until we read the less educated papyri" (Moulton, Camb. Bibl. Essays, p. 492). Even his fondness for compound (even double compound) verbs is like the vernacular koinh,. If the influence of Peter is seen in the Gospel of Mark, it was thoroughly congenial as to language and temperament.205 He gives an objective picture of Jesus and a realistic one.

(b) MATTHEW. The writer quotes both the Hebrew and the LXX and represents Jesus as doing the same. He has 65 allusions to the 0. T., 43 of them being verbal quotations. And yet the book is not intensely Hebraistic. He has the instinct for Hebrew parallelism and the Hebrew elaboration, and his thought and general outlook are Hebraistic, though his language is "colourless Hellenistic of the average type" (Moulton, Camb. Bibl. Essays, p. 484). We need not enter into the linguistic peculiarities of Q as distinct from our Greek Matthew if that hypothesis be correct. In Mt. 9:6 we see kli,nh rather than the vulgar kra,battoj of Mark. In 12:14 Matthew has sumbou,lion e;labon for s) evdi,doun of Mark (Moulton, op. cit., p. 485). He can use paronomasia as in kakou.j kakw/j avpo─ le,sei auvtou,j grk(21:41). He uses to,te 91 times against 6 in Mark and 14 in Luke; he has h` basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n 32 times, while he


has h` basilei,a tou/ qeou/ 4 times (Mk. 14; ; Lu. 32); ); he uses o` path.r o` ouvra,nioj 7 times and o` path.r o` evn toi/j ouvranoi/j 13 times; he 12 times quotes the O. T. with the formula i[na ( o[pwj) plhrwqh|/ to. r`hqe,n or to,te evplhrw,qh to. r`hqe,n, whereas Luke does not have it at all, Mark only once and John 7 times; kat v o;nar occurs 6 times and nowhere else in N. T.; like Luke he uses kai. ivdou, often (27 times) and ivdou, after the genitive absolute 11 times; he alone speaks of h` a`gi,a po,lij and po,lij tou/ mega,lou basile,wj; like Mark he uses vIeroso,luma always save once once(23:37), whereas Luke usually has vIerousalh,m* ovmnu,w evn or eivj, common in Matthew, does not occur in the other Gospels; ta,foj, not in the other Gospels, is found 6 times; sunte,leia tou/ aivw/noj occurs 5 times, and only once more in the N. T. (Heb.); note the pleonastic use of a;nqrwpoj as a;nqrw─ poj basileu,j; he twice uses eivj to. o;noma, but the other Gospels evn tw|/ ovno,mati or evpi,; the oriental particularity is seen in using prose,rcomai 51 times while Mark has it only 5 and Luke 10 times; suna,gein is used by Matthew 24 times; the vernacular koinh, is manifest in many ways as in the use of mono,fqalmoj (like Mark), kollubistai,. Thayer in his list (Lexicon, p. 698 f.) gives 137 words occurring in Matthew alone in the N. T., but 21 are doubtful readings. Matthew has fewer compound verbs than Mark. Matthew does not use adverbial polla,, while Mark has it 9 times. He has de, where Mark has kai, about 60 times. Matthew has o[ti after verbs of saying 38 times, while Mark has it 50 times. Of the 151 historic presents in Mark only 21 appear in Matthew, though Matthew has 93 historic presents in all. See Hawkins, Horae Synopt., p. 144 f. Matthew frequently has aorist when Mark has imperfect (see Allen, Matthew, p. xx f.). The periphrastic tenses are less common in Matthew than in Mark and Luke (op. cit., p. xxii). Matthew is less fond than Mark of redundant phrases (op. cit., p. xxvi). The Gospel is largely in the form of discourses with less narrative element than Mark. The style is more uniform and less graphic than either Mark or Luke and so less individual.206

(c) LUKE. Whether Luke knew Hebrew or Aramaic or both, cannot be stated with certainty. He did make use of Aramaic documents or sayings in Lu. 1 and 2, and in the early part of the Acts. He was also quite familiar with the LXX, as his quo-


tations from it show. The Semitic influence in his writings has already been discussed. "He consciously imitates the Greek Bible, and in the parts of his narrative which have their scene in Palestine he feels it congruous to retain the rough diction of his sources" (Moulton, Camb. Bibl. Essays, p. 479). One thing is certain about him. He had a good command of the vernacular koinh, and even attains the literary koinh, in Lu. 1:1-4 and Ac. 1:1-5; 17:16-34. The preface to his Gospel has often been compared to those of Thucydides and Herodotus, and it does not suffer by the comparison, for his modesty is an offset to their vainglory.207 Selwyn208 thinks that Luke was a Roman citizen, and he was a fit companion for Paul. He exhibits the spirit of Paul in his comprehensive sympathy and in his general doctrinal position.209 Renan210 calls Luke's Gospel the most literary of the Gospels. He writes more like an historian and makes skilful use of his materials211 and with minute accuracy.212 His pictures in the Gospel have given him the title of "the painter." Norden indeed thinks that Luke alone among the N. T. writers received Atticistic influence (Kunstprosa, II, pp. 485 ff. Cf. Blass, Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa, p. 42). But we need not go so far. His versatility is apparent in many ways, but withal he makes a faithful use of his materials.213 His vocabulary illustrates his breadth of culture, for he uses 750 (851 counting doubtful readings) words not occurring elsewhere in the N. T.214 Some of them are still a[pax lego,mena. One special item in his vocabulary is the large number of medical terms in his writings, as is natural, since he was a physician.215 His command of nautical phraseology is abun-


Addenda 3rd ed.

dantly shown in Ac. 27 and 28.216 The question of a double edition of the Gospel and Acts does not belong here.217 His language is that of a man of culture with a cosmopolite tone, who yet knows how to be popular also (Deissmann, Light, p. 241 f.). He not only has a rich vocabulary, but also fine command of the koinh, diction. In particular his style is more like that of Paul and the writer to the Hebrews. Among matters of detail in Luke one will note his use of the infinitives with evn tw|/ (34 times) and of tou/ with the infinitive (24 instances); su,n (23 times) is frequent, though seldom in the other Gospels; kai. auvto,j ( auvth,) he has 28 times, and often constructions like auvto.j o` cro,noj* kai. evge,neto or evge,neto de, he uses 43 times; he has de. kai. 29 times; he loves poreu,o─ mai (88 examples); he uses eiv like an interrogative 19 times; to, occurs often before a clause, especially an indirect question; he makes frequent use of kai. ivdou,* i`kano,j is common with him; hvn with present participle occurs 55 times; the descriptive genitive is common; pro,j with the accusative occurs 296 times with him and very often in the rest of the N.T.; he is fond of evnw,pion* te (and te kai,) is almost confined to him in the N.T.; the optative is alone used by Luke in indirect questions and more often otherwise than by any other N. T. writer save Paul. This is a literary touch but not Atticistic. He alone makes any special use of the future participle; he is fond pa/j and a[paj* w`j in temporal sense is common in Luke, once in Mark, not in Matthew; a good many anacolutha occur in Acts, and the change from direct to indirect discourse is frequent; the relative is often attracted to the case of the antecedent and often begins a sentence (Ac. 2:24); evpista,ta is used 7 times (peculiar to Luke) rather than ku,rie or r`abbei,; the syntax is throughout in general that of the koinh, of the time.218


Luke is also fond of o` me.n ouvn (Acts). The historic present is rare in Luke (4 or 6 times). Luke uses the conjunctions and subordinate clauses with more literary skill than the other N. T. writers. He makes choice use of words and idioms. Cf. his report of Paul's speech on Mars Hill. He accumulates participles, especially in the Acts, but not without stylistic refinement. In the Acts he is fond of eivj when evn, would ordinarily be used.

(d) JAMES. It is at first surprising that one recognized as such a thorough Jew as James, the brother of our Lord, and who used Aramaic, should have written in such idiomatic Greek. "In the skilful use of the Greek language its [Epistle of James] author is inferior to no N. T. writer."219 There are very few Hebraisms in the Epistle, though the tone is distinctly Jewish, perhaps the earliest Christian document in the N. T. But one cannot think that James wrote the book in Aramaic, for the indications of translation are not present, as Bishop John Wordsworth once argued.220 There is not, however, in James studied rhetoric or keen dialectics. The author of Hebrews, Luke and Paul far surpass him in formal rhetoric. "The Epistle of James is from the beginning a little work of literature," "a product of popular literature" (Deissmann, Light, p. 235). The writer uses asyndeton very often and many crisp aphorisms. Just as the Synoptic Gospels preserve the local colour of the countryside, so the Epistle of James is best understood in the open air of the harvest-field (ib., p. 241). The incongruity of such a smooth piece of Greek as this Epistle being written by a Palestinian Jew like James vanishes when we consider the bilingual character of the people of Palestine (cf. Moulton, Camb. Biblical Essays, p. 487). Nevertheless, the author has a Hebrew mould of thought reminiscent of O. T. phrases. The atmosphere is Jewish and "international vulgarisms" do not explain it all. The pleonasms are just those seen in the LXX, and the book has the fondness for assonance so common in the O. T. Cf. Oesterley, Exp. Gk. Test., p. 394. He uses many examples that re


mind one vividly of the parables of Jesus and many of the ideas and phrases of the Sermon on the Mount are here. There is also a marked similarity between this Epistle and the speech of James in Ac. 15 and the letter there given, which was probably written by him.221 He is fond of repeating the same word or root, as qrhsko,j├ qrhskei,agrk grk(1:26 f.)222; his sentences, though short, are rhythmical223; he is crisp, vivid, energetic; there is little in the forms or the syntax to mark it off from the current koinh, or the N. T. representatives of it, though his idiomatic use of the pronouns is worth mentioning, as is also that of a;ge as an interjection, the gnomic aorist, the possible nominative mesth, in apposition with glw/ssangrk grk(3:8). But it is in the vocabulary that James shows his individuality, for in this short epistle there are 73 (9 doubtful) words not appearing elsewhere in the N. T., some of which are found in the LXX,224 like parallagh,. The use of sunagwgh,grk grk(2:2) of a Christian assembly is noteworthy (cf. evkklhsi,a in 5:14 and evpisunagwgh, in Heb. 10:25). He has many compound words like avdia,kritoj, bookish words like e;mfutoj, philosophical terms like u[lh, picturesque words like ovlolu,zw, some of a technical nature like phda,lion, some strictly classical like e;oike├ crh,)

(e) JUDE. It is here assumed against Spitta225 and Biggs226 that Jude is prior to 2 Peter, the second chapter of which is so much like Jude. There is not in Jude the epigram of James, but he has a rugged rotundity of style that is impressive and vigorous, if a bit harsh. His style is marked by metaphor and the use of triplets. He cannot be said to be "steeped in the language of the LXX" with Chase,227 but there is a more Hebraistic flavour than is observed in James, his brother. He has literary affinities with some of the apocryphal books and with some of Paul's writings. If he shows a better command of Greek than 2 Peter, yet his


"Greek is a strong and weighty weapon over which, however, he has not a ready command."228 Per contra, there is little that is peculiar in his grammar, for he shows a normal use of the Greek idiom. The optative occurs twice ( plhqunqei,h, verse 2, and evpitimh,sai, in 9) and the article is used skilfully with the participle. Cases, pronouns, tenses, free use of participles, indicate a real mastery of current Greek. The true superlative occurs in th|/ a`giwta,th| pi,stei. The idiomatic use of e;bdomoj without article is seen in Jude 1:14. The adverbial accusative is seen in to. deu,teron 5 and to.n o[moion tro,pon 7. For further details see Mayor on "Grammar of Jude and of Peter" (Comm., pp. xxvi-lv). He has 20 words (one doubtful) not found elsewhere in the N. T.229 A few of them like planh,thj occur in the LXX. Some of them have a stately ring like ku,mata a;gria, and a number occur which are found in writers of the literary koinh,. He uses h` koiinh, swthri,a ("the safety of the state") in a Christian sense, and so oi` progegramme,noi ("the proscribed"). But he has also command of technical Christian terms like a[gioi├ klhtoi,├ pi,stij├ pneu/ma├ yuciko,j as Paul used them. The vividness of his style hardly justifies the term "poetic."230 Deissmann (Light, p. 235) considers Jude a literary epistle in popular style and "cosmopolite" in tone (p. 242), with a certain degree of artistic expression. The correctness of the Greek is quite consonant with the authorship of the brother of Jesus, since Palestine was a bilingual country (Moulton, Camb. Bibl. Essays, p. 488). Besides, the Epistle has only 25 verses.

(f) PETER. As Peter was full of impulses and emotions and apparent inconsistencies, the same heritage falls to his Epistles. The most outstanding difference between 1 Peter and 2 Peter is in the vocabulary. 1 Peter has 361 words not found in 2 Peter, while 2 Peter has 231 not in 1 Peter.231 Many in each case are common words like a`gia,zw├ evlpi,zw├ euvaggeli,zw, etc., in 1 Peter, and basilei,a├ evpaggeli,a├ evpiginw,skw, etc., in 2 Peter. 1 Peter has 63 words not in the rest of the N. T., while 2 Peter has 57 (5 doubtful); but of these 120 words only one ( avpo,qesij) occurs in both.232 This is surely a remarkable situation. But both of them have a


number of words in common that occur elsewhere also in the N. T., like avnastrofh,├ yuch,, etc.233 Both use the plural of abstract nouns; both have the habit, like James, of repeating words,234 while Jude avoids repetitions; both make idiomatic use of the article; both make scant use of particles, and there are very few Hebraisms; both use words only known from the vernacular koinh,; both use a number of classical words like avnagkastw/j (1 Peter, Plato), plasto,j (Her., Eur., Xen., 2 Peter)235; both use picture-words236; both seem to know the Apocrypha; both refer to events in the life of Christ; both show acquaintance with Paul's Epistles, and use many technical Christian terms. But, on the other hand, 1 Peter is deeply influenced by the LXX, while 2 Peter shows little use of it; 1 Peter is more stately and elevated without affectation, while 2 Peter has grandeur, though it is, perhaps, somewhat "grandiose" (Bigg) and uses a number of rare words like tartaro,w; 1 Peter makes clear distinctions between the tenses, prepositions, and uses smooth Greek generally, while 2 Peter has a certain roughness of style and even apparent solecisms like ble,mmagrk grk(2:8), though it is not "baboo Greek" (Abbott)237 nor like modern "pigeon English"; 1 Peter shows little originality and rhetorical power, while 2 Peter, though not so original as Jude, yet has more individuality than 1 Peter. Deissmann (Light, p. 235) says: "The Epistles of Peter and Jude have also quite unreal addresses; the letter-like touches are purely decorative. Here we have the beginnings of a Christian literature; the Epistles of Jude and Peter, though still possessing as a whole many popular features, already endeavour here and there after a certain degree of artistic expression." It is not for a grammarian to settle, if anybody can, the controversy about those two Epistles, but Simcox238 is not far wrong when he says of 2 Peter that "a superficial student is likelier than a thorough student to be certain that it is spurious." Spitta,239 Bigg240 and


Addenda 3rd ed.

Zahn241 among recent writers suggest that in 2 Peter we have Peter's own composition, while in 1 Peter we have the Greek of an amanuensis who either wrote out Peter's ideas, revised them or translated Peter's Aramaic into Greek. We know that Peter had interpreters (Mark, for instance), and Josephus used such literary help and Paul had amanuenses. On the other hand Chase (Hastings' D. B.) and others reject 2 Peter entirely. It is worth mentioning that 2 Peter and the Apocalypse, which are the two books that furnish most of the linguistic anomalies in the N. T., both have abundant parallels among the less well-educated papyri writers, and it is of Peter and John that the terms avgra,mmatoi and ivdiw/tai are used (Ac. 4:13). As we have a problem concerning 1 Peter and 2 Peter on the linguistic side, so we have one concerning John's Gospel and Epistles on the one hand and Revelation on the other. The use of the article in 1 Peter is quite Thucydidean in 3:3 (Bigg), and eight times he uses the idiom like to.n th/j paroiki,aj u`mw/n cro,nongrk grk(1:17) and once that seen in to. bou,lhma tw/n evqnw/n grk(4:3), the rule in the N. T. The article is generally absent with the attributive genitive and with prepositions as eivj r`antismo.n ai[matojgrk grk(1:2). There is a refined accuracy in 1 Peter's use of w`j (Bigg), cf. 1:19; 2:16, etc. A distinction is drawn between mh, and ouv with the participle in 1:8. Once i[na occurs with the future indicative indicative(3:1). The absence of a;n and the particles a;ra├ ge├ evpei,├ evpeidh,├ te├ dh,├ pou├ pwj is noticeable. 1 Peter makes idiomatic use of me,n, while 2 Peter does not have it. 2 Peter uses the "compact" structure of article, attributive and noun, like 1 Peter (cf. 2 Pet. 2:1, 10, 16, 21), but the "uncompact" occurs also (cf. 2 Pet. 1:3, 9, 11, 14). In Jude and 2 Peter the commonest order is the uncompact (Mayor, Jude and Second Peter, p. xxii). The single article in 2 Pet. 1:1, 11 is used of two names for the same object. Cf. also Jude 1:4. The article with the infinitive does not occur in 2 Peter (nor Jude). 2 Peter has some unusual uses of the infinitive after e;cw (2 Pet. 1:15) and as result (2 Pet. 3:1 f.). 1 Peter has the article and future participle once once(3:13) o` kakw,swn. Both 1 Pet. (1 : 2) and 2 Pet. 2 Pet.(1:2) have the optative plhqunqei,h (like Jude). 1 Peter twice twice(3:14, 17) has eiv and the optative. See further Mayor on "Grammar of Jude and 2 Peter" (Comm., pp. xxvi-lv).

(g) PAUL. There was a Christian terminology apart from Paul, but many of the terms most familiar to us received their


interpretation from him. He was a pathfinder, but had inexhaustible resources for such a task. Resech242 has done good service in putting together the words of Paul and the words of Jesus. Paul's rabbinical training and Jewish cast of mind led Farrar243 to call him a Haggadist. Simcox244 says that "there is hardly a line in his writings that a non-Jewish author of his day would have written." Harnack245 points out that Paul was wholly unintelligible to such a Hellenist as Porphyry, but Ramsay246 replies that Porphyry resented Paul's use of Hellenism in favour of Christianity. But Hicks247 is certainly right in seeing a Hellenistic side to Paul, though Pfieiderer248 goes too far in finding in Paul merely "a Christianized Pharisaism" and a "Christianized Hellenism." Paul and Seneca have often been compared as to style and ideas, but a more pertinent linguistic parallel is Arrian's report of the lectures of Epictetus. Here we have the vernacular koinh, of an educated man in the second century A.D. The style of Paul, like his theology, has challenged the attention of the greatest minds.249 Farrar250 calls his language "the style of genius, if not the genius of style." There is no doubt about its individuality. While in the four groups of his letters each group has a style and to some extent a vocabulary of its own, yet, as in Shakespeare's plays, there is the stamp of the same tremendous mind. These differences of language lead some to doubt the genuineness of certain of the Pauline Epistles, especially the Pastoral Group, but criticism is coming more to the acceptance of all of them as genuine. Longinus ranks Paul as master of the dogmatic style ( Pau/loj o` Tarseu.j o[ntina kai. prw/to,n fhmi proista,menon


do,gmatoj avnupodei,ktou). Baur251 says that he has "the true ring of Thucydides." Erasmus (ad Col. 4:16) says: " Tonat, fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paulus." Hausrath252 correctly says that "it is hard to characterize this individuality in whom Christian fulness of love, rabbinic keenness of perception and ancient willpower so wonderfully mingle." It is indeed the most personal253 and the most powerful writing of antiquity. He disclaims classic elegance and calls himself ivdiw,thj tw|/ lo,gw| (2 Cor. 11:6), yet this was in contrast with the false taste of the Corinthians. But Deissmann (St. Paul, p. 6) goes too far in making Paul a mere tentmaker, devoid of culture. He is abrupt, paradoxical, bold, antithetical, now like a torrent, now like a summer brook. But it is passion, not ignorance nor carelessness. He was indeed no Atticist. He used the vernacular koinh, of the time with some touch of the literary flavour, though his quotation of three heathen poets does not show an extended acquaintance with Greek literature.254 The difference between the vernacular and the literary koinh, is often a vanishing point. Paul's style is unhellenic in arrangement, but in Ro. 8 and 1 Cor. 13 he reaches the elevation and dignity of Plato.255 Certainly his ethical teaching has quite a Hellenic ring, being both philosophical and logical.256 Hatch257 considers Paul to be the foremost representative of the Hellenic influence on early Christianity. He shows some knowledge of Roman legal terms258 and uses arguments calling for educated minds of a high order.259 The grammar shows little Semitic influence. He uses many rhetorical figures such as paronomasia, paradox, etc., which will be discussed in the chapter on that sub-


ject, some thirty kinds occurring in his writings. Farrar260 suggests that Paul had a teacher of rhetoric in Tarsus. He is noted for his varied use of the particles and writes with freedom and accuracy, though his anacolutha are numerous, as in Gal. 2:6-9. He uses prepositions with great frequency and discrimination. The genitive is employed by Paul with every variety of application. The participle appears with great luxuriance and in all sorts of ways, as imperative or indicative or genitive absolute, articular, anarthrous, etc. He is vEbrai/oj evx vEbraiwn, but he handles his Greek with all the freedom of a Hellenist. He thinks in Greek and it is the vernacular koinh, of a brilliant and well-educated man in touch with the Greek culture of his time, though remaining thoroughly Jewish in his mental fibre. The peculiar turns in Paul's language are not due to Hebraisms, but to the passion of his nature which occasionally (cf. 2 Cor.) bursts all bounds and piles parenthesis and anacoluthon on each other in a heap. But even in a riot of language his thought is clear, and Paul often draws a fine point on the turn of a word or a tense or a case. To go into detail with Paul's writings would be largely to give the grammar of the N. T. In Phil. 1:2:1 we have a solecism in ei; tij spla,gcna. His vocabulary is very rich and expressive. Thayer (Lexicon, pp. 704 ff.) gives 895 (44 doubtful) words that are found nowhere else in the N. T., 168 of them being in the Pastoral Epistles. Nageli261 has published the first part of a Pauline lexicon (from a to e) which is very helpful and makes use of the papyri and inscriptions. The most striking thing in this study is the cosmopolitan character of Paul's vocabulary. There are very few words which are found only in the Attic writers, like aivscro,thj, and no cases of Atticism, though even in the letters a to e he finds some 85 that belong to the literary koinh, as shown by books, papyri and inscriptions, words like avqanasi,a├ avqete,w, etc. In some 50 more the meaning corresponds to that of the literary koinh,, as in avnalu,w (Ph. 1:23). To these he adds words which appear in the literary koinh,, papyri and inscriptions after Paul's time, words like a`rpagmo,j├ avnazh/n, etc. Then there are words that, so far as known, occur first in the N. T. in the Christian sense, like evkklhsi,a. But the vernacular koinh, as set


forth in the papyri and inscriptions furnishes the ground-work of his vocabulary, when to this is added the use of the LXX (including the Apocrypha) as in avntilamba,nomai├ a`gia,zw. Especially noteworthy are some nice Greek points that are wanting in Paul (as well as in the rest of the N. T.) and in the papyri and inscriptions, as oi-o,j te, eivmi├ aivsqa,nomai├ pa,nu├ ma,la├ e[pomai (seldom in the inscriptions), etc. Nageli sums up by saying that no one would think that Paul made direct use of Plato or Demosthenes and that his diligent use of the LXX explains all his Hebraisms besides a few Hebrew words like avmh,n or when he translated Hebrew. His Aramaisms (like avbba,) are few, as are his Latinisms (like praitw,rion). "The Apostle writes in the style natural to a Greek of Asia Minor adopting the current Greek of the time, borrowing more or less consciously from the ethical writers of the time, framing new words or giving a new meaning to old words . . . His choice of vocabulary is therefore much like that of Epictetus save that his intimate knowledge of the LXX has modified it."262 Paul's Greek, in a word, "has to do with no school, with no model, but streams unhindered with overflowing bubbling right out of the heart, but it is real Greek" (Wilamowitz-Mollendorff, Die griechische Literatur des Altertums, 2. Aufl., p. 159. Cf. Die Kultur der Gegenwart, Tl. I, Abt. 8, 1905). Deissmann (Light, p. 234) sees Paul wholly as "a non-literary man of the non-literary class in the Imperial Age, but prophet-like rising above his class and surveying the contemporary educated world with the conof superior strength."


(h) WRITER OF HEBREWS. Bruce263 is certain that the author was not a disciple of Paul, while Simcox264 is willing to admit that he may have belonged once to the school of Philo, as Paul did to that of Gamaliel. Harnack suggests Priscilla as the author. If Paul had "imperial disregard for niceties of construction," Hebrews shows "a studied rhetorical periodicity."265 Von Soden266 considers that in the N. T. Hebrews is "the best Greek, scarcely different in any point from that of contemporary writers." This is the more surprising when one observes the constant quotation of the LXX. The grammatical peculiarities are few, like the frequent use of para, in comparison, evpei, with apodosis (protasis suppressed), the perfect tense to emphasize the permanence of the Scripture record which sometimes verges close to the aorist aorist(4:3), the frequent participles, the varied use of particles, periphrases, the absence of the harsher kinds of hiatus, the presence of rhythm more than in any of the N. T. books, and in general the quality of literary style more than in any other N. T. writing. Westcott notes "the parenthetical involutions." "The calculated force of the periods is sharply distinguished from the impetuous eloquence of St. Paul." The writer does not use Paul's rhetorical expressions ti, ouvn* ti, ga,r; Moulton (Camb. Bibl. Essays, p. 483) notes the paradox that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by one who apparently knew no Hebrew and read only the LXX. The use of subordinate sentences is common and the position of words is carefully chosen. There is frequent use of me,n, and te as well as o[qen and dio,. The optative occurs only once and illustrates the true koinh,. The studied style appears particularly in ch. 11 in the use of pi,stei. The style is hortatory, noble and eloquent, and has points of contact with Paul, Luke and Peter. The vocabulary, like the style, is less like the vernacular than any book in the N. T. Of 87 words which are found in the LXX and in this book alone in the N. T., 74 belong to the ancient literary works and only 13 to the vernacular. 18 other words peculiar to this Epistle are found in the literary koinh,. There are 168 (10 doubtful) words in Hebrews that appear nowhere else in the N. T. (cf. Thayer, Lexicon, p. 708). These 168 words are quite characteristic also, like avfora/n├ aivsqhth,rion├ panh,gurij├ prwtoto,kia. West-


cott267 considers the absence of words like euvagge,lion├ musth,rion├ plhro,w remarkable. The chief bond of contact in the vocabulary of Hebrews with the koinh, is in the use of "sonorous" words like avntikaqi,sthmi├ euvperi,statoj, but the author is by no means an Atticist, though he does approach the literary koinh,. Deissmann268 indeed considers Hebrews as alone belonging "to another sphere: as in subject-matter it is more of a learned theological work, so in form it is more artistic than the other books of the N. T." He even feels that it "seems to hang in the background like an intruder among the N. T. company of popular books" (Light, p. 243).

(i) JOHN. The Johannine question at once confronts the modern grammarian who approaches the books in the N. T. that are accredited to John. It is indeed a difficult problem.269 There is a triple difficulty: the Gospel presents a problem of its own (with the Epistles), the Apocalypse also has its burden, and there is the serious matter of the relation of the Gospel and Apocalypse on the linguistic side. Assuming that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel, Epistles and Apocalypse, we have the following situation. The Gospel of John has a well-defined character. There are few Hebraisms in detail beyond the use of ui`oi. fwto,jgrk grk(12:36), kai, in the sense of "and yet" or "but" (cf. Hebrew w. and kai, in LXX) as in 20:14, the absence of the particles save ouvn, and the constant co-ordination of the sentences with rhythmical parallelism. In the formal grammar the Greek is much like the vernacular (and literary) koinh, but the cast of thought is wholly Hebrew. Ewald270 rightly calls its spirit "genuinely Hebrew," while Renan271 even says that the Gospel "has nothing Hebrew" in its style. Godet272 calls the Gospel a Hebrew body with a Greek dress and quotes Luthardt as saying that it "has a Hebrew soul in the Greek language." Schaff273 compares Paul to an Alpine torrent and John to an Alpine lake. There is indeed in this Gospel great simplicity and profundity. John's vocabulary is somewhat limited, some 114 words (12 doubtful, Thayer, Lexicon, p. 704) be-


longing to the Gospel alone in the N. T. But the characteristic words are repeated many times, such as avlh,qeia├ a`marti,a├ ginw,skw├ do,xa├ zwh,├ ko,smoj├ kri,sij├ lo,goj├ marture,w├ pisteu,w├ sko,toj├ fw/j├ etc. "He rings the changes on a small number of elementary words and their synonyms."274 But words like evkklhsi,a├ euvagge,lion├ meta,─ noia├ parabolh,├ pi,stij├ sofi,a do not occur at all. However, too much must not be inferred from this fact, for pisteu,w and euvagge─ li,zw do appear very often.275 Other characteristics of the Gospel are the common use of i[na in the non-final sense, the distinctive force of the pronouns (especially evkei/noj├ evmo,j├ i;dioj), the vivid use of the tenses (like Mark), the unusual use of ouvn,276 zwh. aivw,nioj is frequent (21 times, and more than all the rest of the N. T.), frequent repetition, favourite synonyms.277 The Johannine use of kai,├ de,├ avlla,├ ga,r├ eiv├ o[ti├ mh,├ ouv, etc., is all interesting (see Abbott). The prepositions, the cases, the voices, the modes all yield good results in Abbott's hands. The Epistles of John possess the same general traits as the Gospel save that ouvn does not occur at all save in 3 Jo. 1:8 while o[ti is very common. Kai, is the usual connective. Only eight words are common alone to the Gospel and the Epistles in the N. T., while eleven are found in the Epistles and not in the Gospel. Westcott,278 however, gives parallel sentences which show how common phrases and idioms recur in the Gospel and the First Epistle. The Apocalypse has much in common with the Gospel, as, for instance, no optative is found in either; o[pwj is not in either save in Jo. 11:57; i[na is very common in Gospel, 1 John and Apocalypse, more so than in any other book of the N. T. save Mark, and i[na mh, is very common in Gospel and Apocalypse; ouvn is almost absent from the Apocalypse


as in Epistles and the discourses of Jesus, being common as transitional particle in narrative portion of Gospel279; a;ra, common in other Evangelists and Paul, is not found in Gospel, Epistles or Apocalypse; me,n, so common in Matthew, Luke (Gospel and Acts), Paul and Hebrews, is not found at all in Apocalypse and John's Epistles and only eight times in his Gospel; w[ste, which appears 95 times elsewhere in the N. T., is not found in Gospel, Epistles or Apocalypse save once in Jo. 3:16; mh, pote, fairly common in Matthew, Luke and Hebrews, does not occur in John's writings save in Jo. 7:26 (Paul uses it also once only, 2 Tim. 2:25, preferring mh, pwj, which he alone uses, 13 exx.); marture,w is more frequent in Gospel than in 1 John and Apocalypse, but marturi,a is as common in Apocalypse as Gospel; o;noma is frequent in Gospel and Apocalypse as applied to God; oivda is found less often in Apocalypse than in Gospel; avlhqino,j is common in Gospel, Epistle and Apocalypse, though avlhqh,j and avlh,qeia do not appear in the Apocalypse; nika,w occurs only once in Gospel Gospel(16:33), but is common in 1 John and Apocalypse; di,dwmi is more frequent in Gospel and Apocalypse than in any other N. T. book (even Matt.); dei,─ knumi appears about the same number of times in Gospel and Apocalypse; lo,goj is applied to Christ in Jo. 1:1 and Rev. 19:13; the peculiar expression kai. nu/n evsti,n which occurs in John 5:25 is similar to the kai, evsmen of 1 Jo. 3:1, and the kai. ouvk eivsi, of Rev. 2:2, 3:9; all are fond of antithesis and parenthesis and repeat the article often. Over against these is to be placed the fact that the Apocalypse has 156 (33 doubtful) words not in the Gospel or Epistles, and only nine common alone to them. Certainly the subject-matter and spirit are different, for the Son of Thunder speaks in the Apocalypse. Dionysius280 of Alexandria called the language Of the Apocalypse barbaric and ungrammatical because of the numerous departures from usual Greek assonance. The solecisms in the Apocalypse are not in the realm of accidence, for forms like avfh/kej├ pe,ptwkan├ didw/, etc., are common in the vernacular koinh,. The syntactical peculiarities are due partly to constructio ad sensum and variatio structurae. Some ("idiotisms" according to Dionysius) are designed, as the expression of the unchangeableness of God by avpo. o` w;ngrk grk(1:4). As to o` hvn the relative use of o` in Homer may be recalled. See also h` ouvai, in 11:14, o[moion ui`o,n in 14:14, ouvai. tou.j k) in 8:13. Benson


(Apocalypse) speaks of "a grammar of Ungrammar," which is a bold way of putting it. But the "solecisms" in the Apocalypse are chiefly cases of anacolutha. Concord is treated lightly in the free use of the nominative nominative(1:5; 2:20; 3:12), in particular the participles le,gwn, and e;cwngrk grk(4:1; 14:14); in the addition of a pronoun as in 3:8; in gender and number as in 7:9; in the use of parenthesis as in 1:5 f. Cf. Swete, Apocalypse, p. cxviii

The accusative, as in the vernacular koinh, (cf. modern Greek) has encroached upon other cases as with kathgorei/ngrk grk(12:10). The participle is used freely and often absolutely in the nominative as o` nikw/ngrk grk(2:26). Most of the variations in case are with the participle or in apposition, as o` ma,rtuj after Cristou/grk grk(1:5). Moulton281 has called attention to the numerous examples of nominative apposition in the papyri, especially of the less educated kind. The old explanation of these grammatical variations was that they were Hebraisms, but Winer282 long ago showed the absurdity of that idea. It is the frequency of these phenomena that calls for remark, not any isolated solecism in the Apocalypse. Moulton283 denies that the Apocalypse has any Hebraisms. That is possibly going too far the other way, for the book is saturated with the apocalyptic images and phrases of Ezekiel and Daniel and is very much like the other Jewish apocalypses. It is not so much particular Hebraisms that meet us in the Apocalypse as the flavour of the LXX whose words are interwoven in the text at every turn. It is possible that in the Apocalypse we have the early style of John before he had lived in Ephesus, if the Apocalypse was written early. On the other hand the Apocalypse, as Bigg holds true


of 2 Peter, may represent John's real style, while the Gospel and Epistles may have been revised as to Greek idioms by a friend or friends of John in Ephesus (cf. Jo. 21:24). With this theory compare Josephus' War and Antiquities. One is slow (despite Moffatt's positiveness in the Exp. Gk. Test.), in the light of Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, to say that John could not have written the Apocalypse, though it be the last of his books. Besides what has been said one must recall that the Apocalypse was composed on the Isle of Patmos, in some excitement, and possibly without careful revision, while the Gospel and First Epistle probably had care and the assistance of cultured friends. At any rate the vernacular koinh, is far more in evidence in the Apocalypse than in the Gospel and Epistles. "As Dante had the choice between the accepted language of education, Latin, and the vulgar tongue, so St. John had to choose between a more artificial kind of Greek, as perpetuated from past teaching, and the common vulgar speech, often emancipated from strict grammatical rules, but nervous and vigorous, a true living speech."284

VII. N. T. Greek Illustrated by the Modern Greek Vernacular. Constant use will be made of the modern Greek in the course of the Grammar. Here a brief survey is given merely to show how the colloquial koinh, survives in present-day Greek vernacular. Caution is necessary in such a comparison. The literary modern Greek has its affinities with the literary koinh, or even with the Atticists, while the vernacular of to-day often shows affinities with the less educated writers of papyri of the N. T. time. The N. T. did indeed have a great effect upon the later koinh, when theological questions were uppermost at Alexandria and Constantinople.285 The cleavage between the literary and the vernacular became wider also. But apart from ecclesiastical terms there is a striking likeness at many points between the Vernacular koinh, and modern Greek vernacular, though modern Greek has, of course, Germanic and other elements286 not in the koinh,. The diminutive287 is more common in the modern Greek than in


Addenda 2nd ed.

the koinh, and usually in i, as to. avrni,. The optative is rare in the N. T.; in the modern Greek it has disappeared. The infinitive is vanishing before i[na in the N. T.; in the modern Greek na, has displaced it completely save with auxiliary verbs.288 The accusative289 in modern Greek has made still further headway and is used even with avpo, and all prepositions. The mi verb has entirely vanished in modern Greek vernacular except eivnai. The forms in - osan├ - ousan are very common, as are the a forms in aorist and imperfect. The forms in - ej (- aj) for perfect and first aorist are also frequent. The middle voice has almost vanished as a separate voice (cf. Latin). Prepositions in the vernacular (chiefly eivj) have displaced the dative. The superlative is usually expressed by the article and the comparative. Kennedy290 gives an interesting list of words that appear either for the first time or with a new sense in the LXX or the N. T. (or the papyri) that preserve that meaning in the modern Greek, as dw/ma ('roof'), qusiasth,rin ('altar'), kaqhghth,j ('professor,' in N. T. 'master'), xenodocei/on ('hotel,' in N. T. xenodoce,w = 'entertain strangers'), paideu,w ('chastise,' from pai/j), fqa,nw ('arrive'), corta,zw ('feed'), etc. The list could be greatly extended, but let these suffice.291 A specimen of modern Greek vernacular is given from Pallis' translation of Jo. 1:6-8: Bgh/ke e[naj a;nqrwpoj stalme,noj avpo. to. qeo,\ t v o;noma, tou vIwa,nhj) Auoto.j hvrqe gia. kh,rugma, gia. na. khru,xei to. fw/j├ pou. na. ka,nei ki v o[loi na. piste,youn) De.n eivtan evkei/noj to. fw/j para. gia. na. khru,xei to. fw/j. The literary modern Greek in these verses differs very little from the original N. T. text, only in the use of u`ph/rxen├ ovnomazo,menoj├ dia. na,├ de,n├ hvto) Moulton292 in an interesting note gives some early illustrations of modern Greek vernacular. In the second century A.D. evsou/; is


found in OP 528. He quotes Thumb (BZ ix, 234) who cites from an inscription of the first century A.D. e;cousej as nominative and accusative plural. And Ramsay (Cities and Bish., II, p. 537) gives evpithdeu,soun as third plural form on a Phrygian inscription of the third century A.D. As one illustration note Paul's use of kate,cw (Ro. 1:18). In modern Greek dialects kate,cw╩hvxeu,rw, 'I know.'

1 Cf. Deissmann, Light, pp. 55, 69.

2 Cf. Moulton, N. T. Gk. (Camb. Bibl. Ess., pp. 488 ff.) who notes a special deficiency in Gk. culture in Mark's Gospel and the Apocalypse.

3 Etude sur le Grec du N. T., Le Verbe, p. liv.

4 Ib., p. lv.

5 Ib., p.

6 Ess. and Rev., P. 477.

7 Lang. of the N. T., 1890, p. 20.

8 Ess. in Bibl. Gk., 1889, p. 2.

9 Ib., p. 11.

10 Dogmatik, 1863, p. 238.

11 Biblico-Theol. Let. of N. T. Gk., 1892, p. iv.

12 W.-M., 1877, p. 38. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 28.

13 Sour. of N. T. Gk., 1895, p. 146.

14 Art. Lang. of the N. T., Hast. D. B., 1900.

15 B. S., 1901; Hell. Griech., Hauck's Realencyc. etc.

16 B. S., p. 67.

17 Theol. Literaturzeit., 1895, p. 487.

18 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 2.

19 Prol., p. 1.

20 Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 120. It lasted "solange die biblische citat als etwas isoliertes betrachtet wurde." Thumb attacks the idea of N. T. dialect or a peculiar biblical variety of the koinh,, pp. 162-201. For history of the Purist controversy see W.-Th. ž 1, W.-Sch. ž 2.

21 Thayer, Hast. D.. BL, art. Lang. of the N. T., III, p. 366.

22 Die griech. Spr. (Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8), p. 309.

23 Cl. Rev., 1887.

24 Exp. Times, vol. X, pp. 9 ff.

25 B. S., p. 81. Deissmann calls attention also to a booklet by Walch, Observ. in Matthaeun graecis inscr., 1779. So in 1850, Robinson in the Pref. to his N. T. Lex. says: "It was, therefore, the spoken language of common life, and not that of books, with which they became acquainted"; cf. also the works of Schweizer, Nachmanson, Dittenberger, etc.

26 Encyc. Bibl., art. Papyri. "At the time when the ancient Greek culture was in conflict with Christianity, the assailants pointed sarcastically at the boatman's idiom of the N. T., while the defenders, glorying in the taunt, made this very homeliness their boast. Latin apologists were the first to make the hopeless attempt to prove that the literary form of the Bible as a whole, and of the N. T. in particular, was artistically perfect." Deissmann, Exp. Times, Nov., 1906, p. 59; cf. also Norden, Kunstpr., II, pp. 512 f., 526 f.

27 Prol., p. 5.

28 It is not meant, or course, that the bulk of the N. T. words are new as compared with the old Gk. Far from it. Of the 4829 words in the N. T. (not including proper names) 3933 belong to older classic language (literary and vernac.) while 996 are late or foreign words. See Jacquier, Hist. des Livres du N. T., tome ler, 1006, p. 25. Thayer's Lex. claimed 767 N. T. words, but Thayer considered 89 as doubtful and 76 as late. Kennedy (Sour. of N. T. Gk., p. 62) found about 550 "biblical" words. But now Deissmann admits only about 50, or one per cent. of the 5000 words in the N. T. (Light, etc., p. 72 f.). Findlay (Exp. Gk. T., 1 Cor., p. 748) gives 5594 Greek words in the N. T. (whole number), while Viteau (Syntaxe des Prop., p. xxx) gives 5420.

29 Moulton, Prol., p. 84; Wendland, Hell.-rom. Kult., p. 100.

30 Thumb, Die sprachgesch. Stell. des bibl. Griech., Theol. Runds., 1902, p. 93. Cf. also Arnaud, Essai sur le caractere de la langue grecque du N. T., 1899. Viteau (Et. sur le Grec du N. T., 2 vols., 1893, 1896) insists on the distinction between the lit. and the vernac. elements in the N. T.

31 Gr. of the N. T. Gk., p. 1.

32 Hell. Stud., 1875.

33 Gk. Life and Thought, 1896, p. 530.

34 Prog. of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., 1905, p. 114 f. Cf. Schurer, Jew. Peo. in Time of Jes. Ch., div. II, vol. I, pp. 11 ff., Hellen. in the Non-Jew. Regions, Hellen. in the Jew. Regions. He shows how Gk. and Lat. words were common in the Aram. and how thoroughly Gk. the Jews of the Dispersion were. On this point see Schurer, Diaspora, in ext. vol. of Hast. D. B. "Greek was the mother-tongue of the Jews" all over the gentile world. Susemihl holds that in Alexandria the Jews gave "quite a considerable Hebraic tinge" to the koinh,├ Gesch. der griech. Lit., Bd. II, 1892, p. 602. An excellent discussion of the literary elements in the Gk. N. T. is to be found in Heinrici's Der lit. Charakter der neutest. Schr. (1908). He shows also the differences between Palestinian and Alexandrian Judaism.

35 Cf. Geldart, Mod. Gk. in its Rela. to Anc. Gk., 1870, p. 180. Cf. also Kennedy, Sour. of N. T. Gk., p. 65; Frankel, Altert. von Perg., 1890, p. xvii.

36 Deissmann, B. S., p. 180.

37 Kennedy, Sour. of N. T. Gk., p. 77.

38 Thayer, art. Lang. of the N. T., Hast. D. B., III, 36b.

39 Mahaffy, Prog. of Hellen., p. 139.

40 Ext. vol. of Hast. D. B.

41 Jew. Peo. in Time of Jes. Ch., div. II, vol. I, p. 47 f. He admits a wide diffusion of a little knowledge of and easy use of Gk. among the educated classes in Palestine.

42 Cf. Norden, Ant. Kunstpr., Bd. II, pp. 482 ff., for discussion of literary elements in N. T. Gk. Deissmann makes "a protest against overestimating the literary evidence" (Theol. Runds., 1902, pp. 66 ff.; Exp. Times, 1906, p. 9) and points out how Norden has missed it in contrasting Paul and that ancient world, merely the contrast between non-literary prose and artistic lit. prose.

43 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 15.

44 B. pp. 16 ff. However, one must not think that the N. T. Epistles always fall wholly in one or the other category. Ramsay calls attention to the "new category" in the new conditions, viz., a general letter to a congregation Let. to the Seven Chur., p. 24).

45 Ib., p. 11. See also Walter Lock, The Epistles, pp. 114 ff., in The Bible and Chr. Life, 1905.

46 Bible and Chr. Life, p. 117. For the history and literature of ancient letters and epistles see Deissmann, B. S.; Susemihl, Gesch. der griech. Lit.; Overbeck, Uber die Anf. der patrist. Lit. The oldest known Gk. letter was written on a lead tablet and belongs to the iv/B.C. and comes from near Athens. It was discovered by Prof. Wunsch of Giessen. See art. by Dr. Wilhelm of Athens in Jahresh. des osterreich. archaeol. Inst. (1904, vii, pp. 94 ff.).

47 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 5.

48 Le Verbe: Synt. des Prop., p. xxx.

49 W.-M., p. 37. Kennedy indeed (Sour. of N. T. Gk., p. 134) says that 80 per cent. of the N. T. words date from before 322 B.C.

50 Hast. D. B., ext. vol.

51 See Thackeray, art. Josephus in ext. vol. of Hast. D. B.; cf. also Schmidt, De Flavii. Jos. Eloc., 1893. Thumb (Die griech. Spr., p. 125) and Moulton (Prol., p. 233) accent the fact that Josephus has only one Hebraism, prosti,─ qesqai with infinitive = l. @ysiho. Cf. also Raab, De Fl. Jos. Eloc. Quest., 1890.

52 Kennedy, Sour. of N. T. Gk., pp. 50 ff. Hoole, The Class. Elem. in the N. T., 1888, gives an interesting list of Gk. and Rom. proper names that occur in the N. T.

53 Comp. to the Gk. Test., 1885, pp. 22, 25.

54 Ess. in Bibl. Gk., p. 34.

55 Synt. des Prop., p. xxxvi.

56 Lang. of the N. T., p. 20.

57 list. of the N. T., 1885, p. 36.

58 Lang. of the N. T., Smith's B. D.

59 Art. N. T., Smith's B. D.

60 Ib.

61 Ess. in Bibl. Gk., p. 1.

62 B. S., 1901, p. 66.

63 Ib., p. 177.

64 Ib., p. 76. "What would we give if we could recover but one papyrus book with a few leaves containing genuine Aramaic sayings of Jesus! For those few leaves we would, I think, part willingly with the theological output of a whole century" (Deissmann, Light, p. 57).

65 Griech. Spr. etc., p. 121.

66 Hebraisms iii the Gk. Test., Pref.

67 Prol., p. 10.

68 Prol., p. 18.

69 Ib., p. 18. He quotes approvingly Deissmann's remark that "Semitisms which are in common use belong mostly to the technical language of religion" and they do not alter the scientific description of the language. Moulton (Interp., July, 1906, p. 380) says: "Suffice it to say that, except so far as the N. T. writers are quoting baldly literal translations from the LXX, or making equally literal translations from the Aramaic in which the Lord and His disciples usually spoke, we have no reason whatever to say that the N. T. was composed in a Greek distinguishable from that spoken all over the Roman Empire."

70 Wds. of Jes., 1902.

71 See Deissmann (B. S. and Light) and Moulton (Prol.).

72 Deissmann, B. S., p. 67. See also Angus, N. T. Philol., Harv. Theol. Rev., July, 1909, p. 453. The LXX, though translation Greek (see above), is in the vern. koinh,, and thus the N. T. writers had a double point of contact with the koinh,. Cf. Wackernagel, Theol. Lit., 1908, p. 38; Milligan, Epis. to the Th., p. lv.

73 Exp., 1887, p. 241. Thumb (Griech. Spr. etc., p. 132) denies any influence on the development of the Gk. But Thayer (Hast. D. B., Lang. of the N. T., III, 40a) is not surprised to find "idioms having a distinctly Hebraistic flavour even in native Greek circles." Cf. also Reuss, Hist. of the N. T., 1884, vol. I, p. 33.

74 Early Chr. Lit., 1906, p. 11 f.

75 Swete, Intr. to the 0. T. in Gk., 1900, pp. 381-405.

76 Schurer, Jew. Peo. in Times of Ch., div. II, vol. I, p. 10. "Hebrew also continued to be the language of the learned, in which even the legal discussions of the scribes were carried on."

77 Sour. of the N. T. Gk., p. 110 f. Cf. Gregory, Prol., etc., p. 102 f., for foreign words in the N. T.

78 Hebr. in the N. T., 1879, p. ix f.

79 Schaff, Comp. to the Gk. Test., p. 23.

80 Sujet, Compl. et Attr., 1896, p. ii.

81 Art. N. T., Smith's B. D. Helbing in his Gr. der LXX (1907) promises to investigate the Hebraisms in the second volume (p. iv). But he already sees that prostiqe,nai occurs in the papyri as well as constructions like evx wvn evx auvtw/n. In general (p. vii) the LXX shows the same tendency as the rest of the koinh, towards uniformity (the disappearance of the opt., the superl., the 2d aorist, the middle, etc.). Cf. also Sel. from the LXX by C. S. (1905) with a brief Gr. of the LXX; Deissmann, Die Anf. der Sept.-Gr., Intern. Wochenschr., Sept. 26, 1908.

82 Kennedy, Sour. of N. T. Gk., p. 142 f. Cf. Brockelmann, Grundr. der vergl. Gr. der semit. Spr. (1907).

83 The 150 words out of over (?) 4800 (not counting proper names) in the N. T. which Kennedy (Sour. of N. T. Gk., p. 88) gives as "strictly peculiar to the LXX and N. T." cut a much smaller figure now. New pap. may remove many from the list that are still left.

84 Cf. Swete, Intr. to 0. T. in Gk., p. 308.

85 Intr. to 0. T. in Gk., p. 308.

86 Use should be made of the transl..of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus, though they are of much less importance. Cf. Swete, p. 457 f.

87 Swete, ib., p. 307.

88 Moulton, Prol., p. 13.

89 Hist. of Jew. Peo. in Time of Ch., div. II, vol. III, p. 163.

90 Ib., vol. I, p. 47 f., and div. II, vol. III, p. 159.

91 Ib., p. 157.

92 Megilla, I, 8. Cf. Hamburger, Realencyc., art. Griechentum; R. Meister, Prol. zu einer Gr. der Sept., (Wiener Stud., xxix, 27).

93 Swete, Intr. to 0. T. in Gk., p. 395. Cf. Deissmann in Exp. Times, Mar., 1906, p. 254, who points out that Pap. Heid. (cf. Deissmann, Die Sept. Pap., 1905) "assimilates such passages as are cited in the N. T., or are capable of a Christian meaning, as far as possible, to their form in the N. T. text, or to the sphere of Christian thought." Heinrici shows the same thing to be true of Die Leip. Pap. frag. der Psalmen, 1903.

94 Swete, Intr., etc., p. 402. All these facts about LXX quotations come from Swete.

95 Ib., p. 404. See ib., p. 404 f., for bibliography on N. T. quotations.

96 Ib., pp. 29 ff.

97 Intr., p. 289.

98 BD., p. 9.

99 Ib., p. 299.

100 Exp. Times, iii, p. 291.

101 Intr. to 0. T. in Gk., p. 450 f. Hitzig, of Heidelberg, used to open his lectures on 0. T. by asking: "Gentlemen, have you a LXX? If not, sell whatever you have and buy a LXX." Nestle, LXX, in Hast. D. B., p. 438.

102 LXX, Hast. D. B., p. 451.

103 Griech. Spr. etc., pp. 128-132.

104 Hell.-Griech., Hauck's Realencyc., p. 638.

105 Deissmann, B. S., pp. 95 f., 360 ff. Cf. Gautzschius, Spec. Exercit. Gr., 1778, p. 23. H. Anz, Subs. ad cognos. Graec. Serm. etc., 1894, p. 385, points out that poetic words are in the LXX also through the common speech. Cf. Lipsius, Gr. Unters. Uber die bibl. Grac., 1863, p. vii.

106 Deissmann, B. S., p. 76 f. He rightly calls attention to the fact that many of the Ptolemaic pap. are contemporary with the LXX and bristle with proof that the LXX on the whole is in the vernac. koinh, of Egypt The Hebraisms came from the Hebrew itself in the act of translating.

107 Mahaffy, Prog. of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., p. 80.

108 Churton, Intl. of the LXX Vers., 1861, p. 1.

109 W.-Sch., Gr., ž 2, 1 c. And Dalman (Words of Jesus, p. 18 f.) criticizes Schmiedel for not distinguishing Aramaisms from Hebraisms.

110 Words of Jesus, p. 18.

111 Prol., p. 8.

112 Hist. of the Jew. Peo. in Time of Ch., div. II, vol. I., p. 48. On the Gk. of the Mishna see Fiebig, Zeitschr. fur neutest. Wiss., 190S, 4. Heft.

113 Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 9, 11; Ch. I, ž IV, (i) 4, for full discussion.

114 D. S. Margoliouth, Lang. of the 0. T., Hast. D. B.

115 Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 80.

116 Einl. in das N. T., I, 1897, p. 19.

117 Ib., p. 81.

118 See Neubauer, Stud. Bibl., 1885, p. 51.

119 Meyer, Jesu Mutterspr., 1896, p. 58 f. Some of the Lat. monks actually thought that Jesus spoke Lat. and that the N. T. was written in that tongue! But Meyer (ib., p. 63 f.) will not allow that Jesus knew Gk. Chase, on the other hand, shows that Peter necessarily spoke Gk. on the Day of Pentecost (Credibility of the Acts, 1902, p. 114).

120 Words of Jesus, p. 42.

121 Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 7.

122 Schwyzer, Weltspr. etc., p. 27.

123 Words of Jesus, p. 38. Dalman doubts the Heb. document, but admits a "wealth of Hebraisms" in Lu. Vogel (Zur Charac. des Lu., p. 32 f.) argues for a "special source" for these opening chapters. Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., p. 195, denies that Luke knew Hebrew.

124 Theol. Runds., Jan., 1906, pp. 2-4, 35 f.

125 Einl. in die drei Evang., žž 2-4.

126 Words of Jesus, p. 19; cf. also Schaff, Comp. to the Gk. N. T., p. 28. In 1877 Dr. John A. Broadus said in lecture (Sum. of the Leading Peculiarities of N. T. Gk. Gr., Immer's Hermen., p. 378) that the N. T. Gk. had a "Hebrew and Aramaic tinge which arises partly from reading Hebrew and chiefly (so his own correction) from speaking Aramaic." If instead of Hebrew he had said LXX, or had added LXX to Hebrew, he would not have missed it far.

127 Schurer, Hist. of the Jew. Peo., etc., div. II, vol. I, pp. 29-50. Cf. mod. Yiddish.

128 Cf. Bickel, Zeitschr. fur Cath. Theol., viii, 43. This would then mean, "Lord, come." Cf. Rev. 22:20. W. H. give it mara.n avqa,.

129 See Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., ch. XI; Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 1778; Wellhausen, Einl. in die drei Evang. (Die aram. Grundl. der Evang., pp. 14-43).

130 Swete, Intr. to the 0. T. in Gk., p. 381.

131 Dalman (Wds. of Jes., p. 42) thinks that the Heb. of Mt. are due to the LXX.

132 Biesenthal (Das Trostschreiben des Ap. Paulus an d. Heb., 1878) even thinks that the Ep. was written in Aram. or Heb.

133 Philol. of the Gosp., p. 205.

134 Wds. of Jes., p. 38 f. Cf. also Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., pp. 113 f., 118; Vogel, Zur Charac. des Lukas, p. 27.

135 Dalman, Wds. of Jes., p. 33.

136 Evang. sec. Lucam, p. xxii. But evn tw|/ with the inf. occurs with great frequency in the LXX, 555 times in the 0. T., Apoc. and N. T. (Votaw, Inf. in Bib. Gk., p. 20), chiefly in the LXX (455 times, only 55 in the N. T.). It occurs nearly as often in the LXX as all other prepositions with the infinitive together.

137 Dalman, Wds. of Jes., p. 34.

138 Moulton, Prol., p. 14 (1st ed.).

139 W.-M., p. 760 note.

140 Cf. Thackeray, yaGr., pp. 50 ff. We have the type evge,neto hvlqe 145 and evge,neto kai. hvlqe 269 times in the LXX, but evge,neto evlqei/n only once (1 Kgs 11:43 B).

141 Moulton, Prol., p. 17.

142 Zeitschr. fur neutest. Wiss., 1906, p. 279 f.

143 Wds. of Jes., p. 41.

144 Ib., p. 72.

145 Prol., p. 20.

146 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 4.

147 Comm. on Mk., 1898, p. xliv.

148 Griech. Spr. etc., p. 152.

149 Hoole, Class. Element in the N. T., p. 4.

150 Pro Archia 10. Cato lamented: avpolou/si `Rwmai/oi ta. pra,gmata gramma,twn `Ellhnikw/n avnaplhsqe,ntej (Plut., Cato Maj. 23. 3). Cf. Colin, Rome et la Grŕce de 200 a 146 avant Jesus-Christ (1905).

151 Schurer, Jew. Peo. in Time of Ch., div. II, vol. I, pp. 43 ff. Krauss (Griech. und Lehnw. im Tal., TI. I, p. xxi) says: "One speaks of the Language of the Romans with the greatest respect as the speech of the soldiers."

152 Burton, Notes on N. T. Gr., 1904, p. 15.

153 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 7.

154 Lang. of the N. T., Hast. D. B. Cf. also C. Wessely, Die lat. Elem. in der Grac. der agyp. Papyrusurk., Wien. Stud., 24 (1902). On the whole subject see L. Lafoscade, Infl. du Lat. sur le Grec, pp. 83-158. To. i`kano.n poiei/n is as old as Polybius (Moulton, Exp., Feb., 1903, p. 115).

155 Gk.-Eng. Lex. of the N. T.

156 Swete, Comm. on Mk., p. xliii. Cf. Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., p. 211 f.

157 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 4.

158 Viereck, Sermo Graecus, 1888, pp. 60, 66. Thumb (Griech. Spr., p. 152) considers the matter inconclusive, as does Moulton (Prol., p. 21). For the later Latinisms see Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 13 f. See also W. Schulze, Graeca Lat., 1891; Schwyzer, Weltspr. des Altert., p. 20. Cf. Sophocles, Lex., pp. 25-30 for Latinisms in Gk.

159 Exp., Sept., 1905, and March, 1906. "As his father, and possibly also his grandfather, had possessed the Roman citizenship, the use of Latin speech and names was an inheritance in the family" (Ramsay, Exp., Aug., 1906, p. 160). Cf. also Ramsay, Pauline and Othet Studies (1906, p. 65), where he says it is "certain" that he spoke the Latin language. So holds Alex. "Souter (Did Paul Speak Latin?, Exp., April, 1911). At Iconium "a certain affectation of speaking Latin was fashionable." Moulton also thinks that Paul preached in Lat. at Lystra, since the earliest inscriptions there are Lat. (Prol., p. 233).

160 Lang. of the N. T., Hast. D. B.

161 On this matter of time see Schulze, Graeca Lat., pp. 13 ff.

162 Atticismus etc., p. 64. Cf. Georgi, De Latinismis N. T., iii, Vita, 1733.

163 On this whole subject see Ronsch, Itala und Vulgata. Das Sprachid. der urchristl. Itala und der Lath. Vulg. unter Berucks. der ram. Volksspr., 1875, p. 480 f. Cf. also The Holy Lat. Tongue, W. Barry, in Dublin Rev., April, 1906, and Our Lat. Bible, ib., July, 1906. "The common dialect, spoken with local differences in every part of Italy, in Gaul, Spain and Africa, saw its happy moment arrive when Christianity spread over those shores" (Dublin Rev., April, 1906, p. 293).

164 W.-M., p. 36.

165 B. S., p. 65 (note).

166 Encyc. Bib., art. Papyri, p. 3562.

167 Prol., p. 20. Cf. Thumb, Griech. Spr., p. 182 f.

168 Smith's D. B., art. N. T.

169 The Gk. World under Rom. Sway, 1890, p. 389 f. Butcher, Harv. Lect. on Gk. Subj., 1894, p. 2 f., calls the power of Jew and Gk. on modern life one of "the mysterious forces of the spirit." "Each entered on a career of world-wide empire, till at length the principles of Hellenism became those of civilization itself, and the religion of Judea that of civilized humanity."

170 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 10 f.

171 W.-M., p. 36, n. 3.

172 Epis. to the Rom., p. x f.

173 Cf. Zerschwitz, Profangriic. and bibl. Sprachg., 1859, p. 4, where he speaks of "dieses neue geistige Princip an der Sprache." Deissmann (Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, p. 8) accents the difference between the Christian ideas and the Gneco-Rom. heathen words that express them.

174 Ib., p. 12. Norden (Die griech. Kunstpr., Bd. II, pp. 453 ff.) indeed thinks that the N. T. wants the "freedom" (Freiheit) and "serenity" (Heiterkeit) of the ancient literature. This is true in part of Paul's writing, where passion rages fiercely, and in Rev. and other apocalyptic passages. But what can excel Lu. and Jo. in lucidity and beauty? " Heiterkeit blitheness or repose, and Allgemeinheit - generality or breadth, are the supreme characteristics of the Hellenic ideal." Walter Pater, The Renaissance, 1904, p. 225.

175 Die griech. Kunstpr., Bd. II, p. 456.

176 Ib., Bd. I, p. 290.

177 Ib., Bd. II, p. 463.

178 Cf. Hatch, Infl. of Hellen. on Christ.

179 Gesch. der griech. Lit., 1905, p. 912.

180 Hicks, Gk. Phil. and Rom. Law in the N. T., 1896, p. 12.

181 Mahaffy, Surv. of Gk. Civiliz., 1897, p. 309.

182 Thayer, Hast. D. B., art. Lang. of the N. T., p. 40b.

183 Rodwell, N. T. Gk., 1899, p. 2.

184 Hast. D. B., ib. Cf. Schaff, Comp. to the Gk. N. T., p. 26.

185 Cf. Thumb, griech. Spr., pp. 162-201.

186 Cf. Deiss., Die neutest. Formel "in Christo Jesu" untersucht, 1892.

187 Cf. Abb., Joh. Vocab., 1905, pp. 19-80. On the whole question see Buttmann, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 173 ff.; Moulton, Prol., p. 67 f.

188 Cf. Deiss., Hell.-Griech., Hauck's Realencyc., p. 636. Not 550 (as Kennedy, Sour. of N. T. Gk., p. 93) bibl. words, but only 50 N. T. formations (Deissmann, Exp., Jan., 1908; Light, p. 73).

189 Kennedy, Sour. of N. T. Gk., p. 88. The Eng. of the King James Vers. (0. T. and N. T.) contains only about 6000 words (Adey, The Eng. of the King James Vers.). Max Muller (Sci. of Lang., p. 16) says that we use only about 4000 words in ordinary Eng.

190 Westcott, Smith's B. D., N. T. Cf. also Hatch, Ess. in Bibl. Gk., p. 11. "Though Greek words were used they were the symbols of quite other than Greek ideas." That is, when the distinctively Christian ideas are given. On the influence of Gk. on other languages see Wack., Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, pp. 311 ff.

191 B. S., p. 83. Cf. Schleierm., Hermen., pp. 66 ff., 138 ff., who early called attention to the Christian element in the N. T. Cf. also Viteau, Le Verbe; Synt. des Prop., p. xl f.

192 Writers of the N. T., p. 37. A. Souter (The Exp., 1904, Some Thoughts on the Study of the Gk. N. T., p. 145) says: "We must take each writer's grammar by itself."

193 Hermen. of the N. T., 1877, p. 132. Thayer (Lex. of N. T. Gk., p. 689) speaks of "the monumental misjudgments committed by some who have made questions of authorship turn on vocabulary alone."

194 W.-M., p. 1 f., remands this whole matter to the realm of N. T. rhetoric (cf. Wilke, 1843, N. T. Rhet.; Schleierm., Hermen.; Gersdorf, Beitr. zur Sprachchar. d. N. T.), but some discussion is demanded here. Schmiedel abbreviates Winer's comments.

195 W.-M., p. 4. He did not live to see Dr. Abbott's two stout volumes, Joh. Vocab. (1905) and Joh. Gr. (1906).

196 Cf. Steinthal, Intr. to the Psych. and Sci. of Lang.

197 Cf. Norden, Die griech. Kunstpr., Bd. I, p. 243. Cf. also Blass, Hermen. and Krit., p. 206.

198 Le Verbe; Synt. des Prop., pp. xli ff.

199 As Simcox does in Writers of the N. T., p. 1.

200 Philol. of the Gosp., pp. 196 ff. Cf. Marshall, Exp., ser. 4, vi, pp. 81 ff.; Allen, ib., ser. 6, vi, pp..436-443.

201 Swete, Comm. on Mk., 1898, p. xl. Thayer (Lex. of N. T. Gk., App., p. 699) gives 102, but the text of some 32 is in dispute. Hawkins, Hor. Syn.', p. 200, gives 71. Swete gives interesting lists of Mark's vocabulary from various points of view. Cf. also Salmond, Mark (Gosp. of), in Hast. D. B.

202 Swete, Comm. on Mk., p. xliii. Thieme (Die Inschr. von Magn. am Maander and das N. T., 1906, p. 4) says: "Die Gruppe der sogenannten Hapaxlegomena ist bedenklich zusammengeschrumpft; es handelt sich im Neuen Testament meistens um a[pax eu`rhme,na├ nicht a[pax eivhrme,na."

203 Die Ant. Kunstpr., Bd. II, p. 488.

204 Mk. 6:39 f.

205 Schaff, Comp. to Gk. N. T., p. 51. Cf. on Mark, Schulze, Der schriftsteller. Charakter and Wert des Marcus (Keil and Tzschirner's Analecta, II, 2, 3). See Hawkins, Hor. Syn.2, pp. 114-153. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 203, 261, 276, 278, 302) has comments on the narrative style of Mark.

206 Cf. Dalman, Wds. of Jes., 1902; Gift, Die Originalspr. des Mt., 1887; See Hawkins, Hor. Syn.2, pp. 154-173; Allen, Mt., pp. xix-xxxi; Plummer, Mt., p. xiii f.; Zahn, Einl. in d. N. T., Bd. II, 1898. On Matthew's style see Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 203, 276, 278, 300, 302, 305.

207 Schaff, Comp. to Gk. N. T., p. 55. He calls attention to the fact that the intrs. of Herodotus and Luke are about equal in length. Cf. Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., pp. 7 ff.

208 St. Luke the Prophet, 1901, p. 81.

209 Davidson, Intr. to N. T., ii, p. 17.

210 Les Evang., pp. 232, 283.

211 Plummer, Comm. on Luke, 1896, p. xlvii.

212 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 1895; Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?; Chase, Credibility of Acts, 1902.

213 Vogel (Zur Charak. des Lukas, 1899, p. 19) calls attention Ito differences in the speeches of Stephen, Peter and Paul in the Acts.

214 See the lists of Thayer (Lex., pp. 699 ff.), Plummer (Comm., pp. lii Hawkins (Hon Syn.2, pp. 201-207). Of the 851 some 312 occur in the Gospel and 478 in the Acts.

215 Hobart, Medical Lang. of St. Luke, 1882. Many of these occur in the LXX also, but plenty remain to show his knowledge of the medical phraseology of the time.

216 Smith, Voy. and Shipw. of St. Paul, 1882.

217 Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., and Acta, Apostol. Bacon (Story of St. Paul, 1905, p. 156, note) actually urges kai. evge,neto in the "we" sections of Acts as a "pronounced Septuagintism improbable for a Greek"! Cf. Moulton, Prof, p. 16 f. On Luke's style see Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 1, 3, 5, 203, 250 f., 261, 276, 278, 280, 300, 305.

218 Cf. Vogel, Zur Charak. des Lukas, pp. 21-37, for criticism of the Syntax of Luke; Plummer, Comm. on Luke, has many sensible remarks; Wright, Gosp. ace. to Luke, 1900, p. xi, on Luke's literary habits, and see also Hawkins, Hor. Syn. 2, pp. 174-193. On relation of Luke to Josephus, cf. Bebb, Luke's Gosp. in Hast. D. B. On Luke's Hebraisms cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 13 f. Cf. Norden, Ant. Kunstpr., II, pp. 486 ff., for differences between Luke and Mark and Matthew. See also Harnack, Lukas der Arzt der Verfasser des dritten Evang. and der Apostelgesch. (1906). On p. 15 he gives a list of 84 words peculiar in the N. T. to Luke and Paul. On p. 15 of Luke the Physician (trans., 1907) Harnack considers the Gk. of Luke's Gospel "excellent." "It occupies a middle position between the koinh, and Attic Gk. (the language of literature)." This is not a very exact description, for Harnack here uses koinh, for vernac. koinh, and Attic was not the language of literature in Luke's time (save the Atticists), but the literary koinh,).

219 Thayer, Lang. of N. T., Hast. D. B.

220 First series of Stud. Bibl., pp. 144 ff. Cf. Mayor, Comm. on James, pp. ccv ff.

221 See this point well worked out by Mayor, James (Epis. of), Hast. D. B. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 279.

222 Cf. Mayor, Comm., pp. cxcv ff., for exx.

223 Ib., p. cci f. Mayor, ch. viii, has also a luminous discussion of the "Grammar of St. James," which shows conclusively that he has little that is distinctive in his grammar. Cf. Thayer (Lex., p. 708) for list of words peculiar to James.

224 Cf. Mayor, Comm., p. cxci f. On sunagwgh, cf. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, p. 150.

225 Der Zweite Brief des Petrus and der Brief des Judas, 1885.

226 Comm. on St. Peter and St. Jude, 1901.

227 Jude (Epis. of), Hast. D. B.

228 Chase, Jude (Epis. of), Hast. D. B.

229 See Thayer's list (Lex., p. 709). For fresh discussion of the gram. aspects of Jude and 2 Pet. see Mayor's Comm. (1908). He accepts the genuineness of Jude, but rejects 2 Peter.

230 Maier, Der Judasbrief, 1906, p. 169.

231 Bigg, Comm. on St. Peter and St. Jude, p. 225.

232 Thayer, Lang. of the N. T., Hast. D. B., p. 42a.

233 Cf. Zahn, Einl. in d. N. T:, Bd. II, p. 108; B. Weiss, Einl. in d. N. T., p. 445.

234 Bigg, Comm., p. 225 f. Cf. also Schulze, Der schriftsteller. Charakter und Wert des Petrus, Judas und Jacobus, 1802.

235 Cf. excellent lists by Chase, Hast. D. B., 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Many of these words are cleared up by the pap., like doki,mion and avreth,.

236 Vincent, Word-Studies, vol. I, p. 621.

237 Exp., ser. 2, v. III. Chase, Hast. D. B., p. 808a, finds needless difficulty with pareisfe,rein (2 Pet. 1:5), for para, is 'alongside,' 'in addition.'

238 Writers of the N. T., p. 64.

239 Der Zweite Brief des Petrus.

240 Comm. on St. Peter and Jude.

241 Einl. in d. N. T. Mayor in his Comm. on Jude and 2 Peter (1907) rejects 2 Peter partly on linguistic grounds.

242 Der Paulinismus und die Logia Jesu, 1904.

243 Life and Work of St. Paul, vol. I, p. 638.

244 Writers of the N. T., p. 27.

245 Miss. und Ausbr. des Christent., p. 354. Cf. Moffatt's transl., vol. II, p. 137.

246 Exp., 1906, p. 263.

247 St. Paul and Hellen., Stud. Bib., IV, i.

248 Urchristentum, pp. 174-478.

249 See Excursus I to vol. I of Farrar's Life of Paul.

250 Ib., p. 623. On Paul's style cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 1, 5, 251, 276, 279, 281 f., 284 f., 289, 300-305. As to the Pastoral Epistles it has been pointed out that there is nothing in Paul's vocabulary inconsistent with the time (James, Genuin. and Author. of the Past. Epis., 1906). It is natural for one's style to be enriched with age. The Church Quart. Rev. (Jan., 1907) shows that all the new words in the Past. Epis. come from the LXX, Aristotle, koinh, writers before or during Paul's time. Cf. Exp. Times, 1907, p. 245 f.

251 Paul, vol. II, p. 281. Cf. K. L. Bauer, Philol. Thucyd.-Paul., 1773; also his Rhet. Paul., 1782. Cf. Tzschirner, Observ. Pauli ap. epist., 1800; Lasonder, De ling. paul. idiom., 1866.

252 Der Apost. Paulus, p. 502.

253 Renan, St. Paul, p. 232. Cf. also Jacquier, Hist. des Livres du N. T., tome 1er, 1906, p. 37: "Son grec, nous le verrons, n'est pas le grec litteraire, mais celui de la conversation." Cf. also pp. 61-70 for discussion of "Langue de Saint Paul." Cf. also Adams, St. Paul's Vocab. St. Paul as a Former of Words, 1895.

254 Cf. Farrar, Exc. III, vol. I of Life of St. Paul.

255 orden, Die Ant. Kunstpr., Bd. II, 1898, pp. 499, 509.

256 Hicks, St. Paul and Hellen., 1896, p. 9.

257 Hibbert Lect. (Infl. of Hellen. on Chris., p. 12).

258 Ball, St. Paul and the Rom. Law (1901). Cf. Thack., Rela. of St. Paul to Contemp. Thought (1900). Paul's use of no,moj shows knowledge of the Roman lex as well the Jewish Torah.

259 Mahaffy, Surv. of Gk. Civiliz., p. 310.

260 Life of St. Paul, vol. I, p. 630.

261 Der Wortsch. des Apost. Paulus, 1905. He says (p. 86): "Es uberrascht uns nicht mehr, dass jeder paulinische Brief eine Reihe von Wortern enthalt, die den ubrigen unbekannt sind." This is well said. Each letter ought to have words not in the others.

262 Walter Lock, Jour. of Theol. Stud., 1906, p. 298. Athletic figures are almost confined to Paul (and Heb.), and Ramsay (Exp., 1906, pp. 283ff.) thinks Tarsus left this impress on him. A further discussion of Paul's rhetoric will be found in the chapter on Figures of Speech. Cf. J. Weiss, Beitr. zur paulin. Rhetorik, 1897; Blass, Die Rhyth. der asian. and rain. Kunstpr., 1905. Deiss. (Theol. Literaturzeit., 1906, pp. 231 ff.) strongly controverts Blass' idea that Paul used conscious rhythm. Cf. Howson, Metaph. of St. Paul. On Paul's Hellen. see Hicks, St. Paul and Hellen. (Stud. Bibl. et Feel., 1896); Curtius, Paulus in Athens (Gesarnm. Abhandl., 1894, pp. 527 ff.); Ramsay, Cities of St. Paul (pp. 9, 30-41); Heinrici, Zum Hellen. des Paulus (2 Cor. in Meyer); Wilamowitz-Moll., Die griech. Lit. des Altert. (p. 157); G. Milligan, Epis. to the Th. (1908, p. 1v). Paul had a full and free Gk. vocab., thought in Gk., wrote in Gk. as easily as in Aramaic. But his chief indebtedness seems to be to the LXX, the vernac. koinh, and the ethical Stoical writers. Milligan (see above, pp. lii-lv) has a very discriminating discussion of Paul's vocab. and style. Garvie (Stud. of Paul and His Gospel, p. 6 f.) opposes the notion that Paul had a decided Gk. influence.

263 D. B., Hebrews.

264 Writers of the N. T., p. 42.

265> Thayer, Lang. of the N. T., Hast. D. B.

266 Early Chris. Lit., 1906, p. 12. On the lang. of Heb. see the careful remarks of Jacquier (Hist. des Livres du N. T., tome 1er, 1906, pp. 457 ff.). Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 1, 5, 279, 280 f., 288 f., 296 ff., 303 f.

267 Comm. on Heb., p. xlvi.

268 Exp. Times, Nov., 1906, p. 59.

269 Cf. Drummond, Charac. and Author. of the Fourth Gosp., 1904; Sanday, Crit. of the Fourth Gosp., 1905; Bacon, The Fourth Gosp: in Res. and Debate, 1910.

270 Quoted in Schaff, Comp. to Gk. N. T., p. 67.

271 Ib. On p. 73 Schaff puts Jo. 1:18 side by side in Gk. and Heb The Heb. tone of the Gk. is clear.

272 Comm. sur l'Evang. de S. Jean, vol. I, pp. 226, 232.

273 Comp. to Gk. N. T., p. 66.

274 Abb., Joh. Vocab., p. 348.

275 Ib., p. 158. Abbott has luminous remarks on such words as pisteu,w├ evxousi,a, and all phases of John's vocabulary.

276 Occurs 195 times in the Gospel and only 8 of the instances in the discourses of Jesus. Nearly all of these are in the transitional sense. Cf. Abb., Joh. Gr., 1906, p. 165.

277 On Joh. Synon. (like qewre,w├ o`ra,w) see ch. III of Abbott's Joh. Vocab., 1905. In John o`ra,w is not used in present (though often e`w,raka), but ble,pw, and qewre,w. Luke uses it also in present only 3 times, Heb. 2, , Jas. 2, , Ac. 8, , Apoc. 18. On the whole subject of Joh. gr. see the same author's able work on Joh. Gr. (1906), which has a careful and exhaustive discussion of the most interesting points in the Gospel.

278 Comm. on Epis. of Jo., pp. xli The absence of ouvn, when so characteristic of the Gospel, shows how precarious mere verbal argument is. Baur, Die Evang., p. 380, calls the Gospel the Apocalypse "transfigured." Cf. Blass on John's style, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 261, 276, 278 f., 291, 302.

279 Similarly te, which occurs 160 times in the Acts, is found only 8 times in Luke's Gospel. Cf. Lee, Speaker's Comm., p. 457.

280 Apud Eus. H. E., VII, xxv.

281 Exp., 1904, p. 71. Cf. also Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 151; Reinhold, Graec. Patr. etc., p. 57 f.; Schlatter, Die Spr. and Heimat des vierten Evang. Schl. overemphasizes the Aramaic colour of the Gospel.

282 W.-M., p. 671.

283 Prol., p. 9. Cf. also Julicher, Intr. to N. T.; Bousset, Die Offenb. Joh., 1896; Lee, Speaker's Comm. on Rev. Swete (Apoc. of St. John, 1906, p. cxx) thinks that John's "eccentricities of syntax belong to more than one cause: some to the habit which he may have retained from early years of thinking in a Semitic language; some to the desire of giving movement and vivid reality to his visions, which leads him to report them after the manner of shorthand notes, jotted down at the time; some to the circumstances in which the book was written." The Apoc. "stands alone among Gk. literary writings in its disregard of the ordinary rules of syntax, and the success with which syntax is set aside without loss of perspicuity or even of literary power." Swete welcomes gladly the researches of Deissmann, Thumb and Moulton, but considers it precarious to compare a literary document like the Apoc. with slips in business letters, etc.

284 Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, 1905, p. 209. In general see Seeberg, Zur Charak. des Apost. Joh., Neue Kirch. Zeitschr., 1905, pp. 51-64.

285 Cf. Gregory Naz., II, 13, A; Gregory Nyssa, III, 557 B; Reinhold, De Graec. Patr. etc., 1898.

286 Thumb, Indoger. Forsch., 1903, p. 359 f. Boltz (Die hell. Spr., 1881, p. 10) quotes Rangabe as saying that the mod. Gk. is as far removed from that of the LXX as from that of Xenophon.

287 Cf. Hatz., Einl. in d. neugr. Gr., p. 37 f., for list.

288 It still persists in Pontic-Cappadocian Gk. according to Thumb, Theol. Literaturzeit., 1903, p. 421.

289 There is a riot of indifference as to case in the vernacular Byz. Gk., as su,n th/j gunaiko,j. Cf. Mullach, Gr. der griech. Vulgarspr., p. 27. Jean Psichari, `Ro,da kai. Mh/la (1906), has written a defence of the mod. Gk. vernac. and has shown its connection with the ancient vernac. The mod. Gk. has like freedom in the use of the genitive case (cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 32 ff.). Prepositions have displaced the partitive gen., the genitive of material and of comparison (abl.), in mod. Gk. The mod. Gk. shows the acc. displacing the gen. and dat. of the older Gk. (op. cit., p. 35 f.) after avkolouqw/├ avkou,w├ avpantw/├ etc. The double acc. goes beyond anc. Gk. usages (op. cit., p. 36) as o[la ro,dina ta. ble,pw, 'I see everything rosy.'

290 Sour. of N. T. Gk., pp. 153 ff.

291 Cf. Thumb's Handb. der neugr. Volksspr. (1895); V. and D., Handb. to Mod. Gk. (1887); Thumb-Angus, Handb. of Mod. Gk. Vernac. (1912).

292 Prol., p. 234.