The Expositor 6th Series Vol. IX (1904): 67-75
The digital form was graciously edited by Christopher Pfohl at Gordon College, 2006.
For biblicalelearning.org and Ted Hildebrandt
67
CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT
GREEK
J.H. Moulton
I.
As recently as 1895, in the opening chapter of a beginner's
manual of New Testament Greek, the present writer defined
Hellenistic Greek as “Hebraic Greek, colloquial Greek, and
late Greek.” In a second edition, just published, the first
of these three elements has to disappear, and when
“common” has been substituted for “Hebraic,” it is soon
made clear that the addition of “late” makes little differ-
ence to the definition. The disappearance of that word
“Hebraic” from our definitions marks a revolution in the
conception of the language in which the New Testament is
written. It is not a revolution affecting theories only. It
touches exegesis at innumerable points. It demands large
modifications in our very latest grammars, and an over-
hauling of our best and most trusted commentaries. To
set forth the nature of these new lights, with reference to
the grammar of the sacred books, will be the aim of the
present series of papers.
It was of course the isolated position of Biblical Greek
which was responsible for the older view. That the Greek
Scriptures were written in the κοινή, the “common”
Greek which superseded the dialects of the classical period,
was well enough known. But it was most obviously
different from the κοινή of the later literature. It could not
be adequately paralleled from Plutarch or Arrian, as little
from the Jewish writers Philo and Josephus. Naturally
the peculiarities of Biblical Greek came to be explained
from its own conditions. The LXX. was “translation Greek,”
its syntax determined perpetually by that of its original
68 CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
Hebrew. The New Testament writers were so familiar
with the LXX. that its idiosyncrasies passed largely into
their own style. Moreover, they used Greek as foreigners,
in most cases thinking in Aramaic what they expressed in
Greek. Hence this “language of the Holy Ghost,” this
“Judaic” or “Biblical” Greek, a phenomenon perfectly
explicable by the laws of the science of language, and
evidenced by scores of usages which had Hebraism written
over their very face and denied every effort of the Purist to
dislodge them.
And now all this has vanished, for Biblical Greek is
isolated no more. Great collections of Egyptian papyri,
published with amazing rapidity by the busy explorers who
have restored to us so many lost literary treasures during
the last decade, have shown us that the farmer of the
Fayûm spoke a Greek essentially identical with that of the
Evangelists. The most convincing “Hebraisms” appear in
the private letters of men who could never have been in
contact with Semitic influences. And lest we should imagine
this vernacular peculiar to Egypt, the ever-growing corpus
of inscriptions from Asia Minor tells us that there was
practically no difference in colloquial Greek wherever it was
spoken, except, no doubt, in pronunciation, and in minute
points of usage which lie mostly beyond our reach. The
Holy Ghost spoke absolutely in the language of the people,
as we might surely have expected He would. The writings
inspired of Him were those
Which he may read that binds the sheaf,
Or builds the house, or digs the grave;
nor less—as the centenary of the Bible Society so vividly
reminds us just now—
those wild eyes that watch the wave,
In roarings round the coral reef.
The very grammar and dictionary cry aloud against those
CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 69
who would allow the Scriptures to appear in any other
style of speech than that understanded of the people.
The evidence for this new view starts from the lexical
researches of G. A. Deissmann in his now famous “Bible
Studies (1895, 1897; E.T. 1901).” It is needless to de-
scribe how he showed from the monuments of spoken Greek
that scores of words, hitherto assumed to be “Biblical”—
technical words, as it were, called into existence or minted
afresh by the language of Jewish religion—were, in reality,
normal first-century Greek, excluded from literature by the
nice canons of Atticizing taste. Some gleanings after
Deissmann, all tending to confirm his doctrine, have re-
cently appeared in the Expositor; 1 and the present
writer has also endeavoured to set forth, in the Classical
Review,2 the grammatical side of the case, only briefly
adumbrated by the pioneer. Every fresh volume of papyri
has exploded some old-established “Hebraism” or sec-
ularized some relic of a “Biblical” vocabulary. Let us
endeavour, before going further, to see how Hebraisms stand
now, and on what principles we are to interpret what
remains of this element in the language.
For this purpose we must endeavour to realize the condi-
tions of countries where the mass of the people are bilingual.
It would be difficult to find a better object lesson than that
which we have at our own doors in the people of Wales. If
some leading statesman were to visit a place in the heart of
Wales to address a meeting, the people would gather to
hear him, though they would take for granted he would
speak in English. If he did, they would understand him.
But if he unexpectedly addressed them in Welsh, we may be
very sure they would be “the more quiet”; and a speaker
who was anxious to conciliate a hostile meeting would gain
a great initial advantage if he could surprise them with the
1See the issues for April 1901, February and December 1903.
2The first two papers appeared in February and December 1901.
70 CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
sound of their native tongue. Now this is exactly what
happened when Paul addressed the Jerusalem mob from the
stairs of Antonia. They took for granted he would speak
in Greek, and yet they made “a great silence” when he
faced them with the gesture which indicated a wish to
address them. Schurer nods, for once, when he calls Paul's
Aramaic speech as a witness of the people's ignorance of
Greek.1 It does not prove even the “inadequate” know-
ledge which he gives as the alternative possibility for the
lower classes, if by “inadequate knowledge” is implied that
the crowd would have been unable to follow a Greek speech.
They thought and spoke among themselves, like the Welsh,
exclusively in their native tongue, but we may well doubt if
there were many of them who could not understand the
world-language or even speak in it when necessary.2 We
may compare the situation at Lystra (Acts xiv. 11-18),
where the people obviously understood Paul and Barnabas,
but would probably have grasped their message much better
if they had been able to speak Λυκαονιστὶ. The imperfect
knowledge of Greek which may be assumed for the masses
in Jerusalem and Lystra is decidedly less probable for
Galilee and Peræa. Hellenist Jews, ignorant of Aramaic,
would be found there as in Jerusalem; and the proportion
of foreigners would be much larger. That Jesus Himself
and the Apostles regularly used Aramaic is beyond question,
but that Greek was also at command is almost equally
certain. There is not the slightest presumption against
the use of Greek in writings purporting to emanate from
the circle of the first believers. They would write as men
who had used the language from boyhood, not as foreigners
painfully expressing themselves in an imperfectly known
idiom. Their Greek would differ in quality according to
1 Jewish People, div. II. i. 48 (=vol. ii. p. 63 of the third German edition).
2 The evidence for the use of Greek in Palestine is very fully stated by
Zahn in the second. chapter of his Einleitung i. d. N.T.
CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 71
their education, like that of the private letters among the
Egyptian papyri. But even the Greek of the Apocalypse
itself does not seem to owe any of its blunders to “Hebra-
ism.” The author's obvious indifference to concord can be
abundantly paralleled from Egypt1. We do not suspect
foreign upbringing in an Englishman who says “between
you and I.” He would not say “between I and you,” any
more than the author of the Apocalypse would have said
ἀπὸ ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός (i.5); it is only that his grammatical
sense is satisfied when the governing word has affected the
case of one object.2 Close to the other end of the scale
stands the learned Rabbi of Tarsus. “A Hebrew, the son
of Hebrews,” he calls himself, and Zahn is no doubt right
in inferring that he always claimed Aramaic as his mother
tongue. But he manifestly used Greek from childhood with
entire freedom, and during the main part of his life probably
had very few opportunities of using Aramaic at all. It is
extremely risky to argue with Zahn from “Abba, Father”
(Rom. viii. 15, Gal. iv. 6), that Aramaic was the language
of Paul's prayers: the peculiar sacredness of association
belonging to the first word of the Lord's Prayer in its
original language supplies a far more probable account of
its liturgical use among Gentile Christians.3 Finally we have
the Gentile Luke, who may well have known no Aramaic
at all.4 Apart from what may be directly translated from
Semitic sources, we have accordingly no a priori reason to
expect in the New Testament any Greek which would
sound strangely to speakers of the κοινή in Gentile lands.
1 For examples cf. Tb. P. 41 (ii/), B.U. 1002 (ii) bis, 910 (1/), A.P. 78 (2/),
Letr. 149 (2/), etc. All these (abbreviations as in previous papers) are
examples of a nominative in apposition to a noun in another case. I
have several cases of false concord in gender. Ἀπὸ ὁ ὤν is, of course,
an intentional tour de force.
2 We find this sometimes in correct English: e.g. “Drive far away the
disastrous Keres, they who destroy” (Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of
Greek Religion, p. 168).
3 Cf. Chase, in Texts and Studies, I. iii. 23.
4 Cf. Dalman, Words of Jesus, 40 f.
72 CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
To what extent then should we expect to find Jewish
writers of Greek colouring their style from influences of
Aramaic or Hebrew? Here our Welsh analogy helps us.
Captain Fluellen is marked in Shakespeare not only by his
Welsh pronunciation of English, but also by his fondness
for the phrase “look you.” Now “look you” is English:
I am told it is common in the Dales, and if we could dis-
sociate it from Shakespeare's Welshman we should probably
not be struck by it as a bizarre expression. But why does
Fluellen use it so often? Because it translates two or
three Welsh phrases of nearly identical meaning, which
would be very much on his tongue when talking with his
own countrymen. In exactly the same way the good Attic
interjection ἰδού is used by the New Testament writers, with
a frequency quite un-Attic, simply because they were accus-
tomed to the constant use of an equivalent interjection in
their own tongue.1 Probably this is the furthest extent to
which Semitisms went in the ordinary Greek speech or
writing of men whose native language was Semitic. It
brought into prominence locutions, correct enough as Greek,
but which would have remained in comparatively rare use
but for the accident of their answering to Hebrew or
Aramaic phrases. And rarely a word with some special
metaphorical meaning might be translated into the literally
corresponding Greek and used with the same connotation,
as when the verb הלך, in the ethical sense, was represented
not by the exactly answering ἀναστρέφεσθαι, but by
περιπατεῖν.2 But these cases are very few, and may be
transferred any day to the other category, illustrated above
in the case of ἰδού, by the discovery of new papyrus texts.
1 Note that James
uses it six times in his short Epistle, Paul eight times
(and one quotation) in all his writings. In Acts i.-xii. it appears 16
times; in xiii.-xxviii., only seven, one of which is in narrative, the rest
in words of Paul.
2 Deissmann, Bible Studies, 194.
CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 73
It must not be forgotten that the instrumental ἐν in ἐν
μαχαίρῃ (Luke xxii. 49) and ἐν ῥάβδῳ (1 Cor. iv. 21) were
only rescued from the class of “Hebraisms” by the
publication of the Tebtunis Papyri (1902), which presented
us with half-a-dozen Ptolemaic citations for it.1
There remain Semitisms due to translation, from the
Hebrew of the Old Testament, or from Aramaic “sources,”
underlying parts of the Synoptists and Acts. The former
case covers all the usages which have been supposed to
arise from the over-literal phraseology of the LXX., the
constant reading of which by Hellenist Jews has uncon-
sciously affected their Greek. Here of course we have
abnormal Greek produced by the effect of Greek-speaking
men to translate the already obsolete and imperfectly
understood Hebrew. When the Hebrew puzzled them
they would take refuge in a barbarous literalness, like a
schoolboy translating Virgil. It was ignorance of אֶת, not
ignorance of σύν, which was responsible for Aquila's ἐν
κεφαλαίῳ ἔκτισεν ὁ θεὸς σὺν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ σὺν τὴν γῆν. It is
not antecedently probable that such “translation-Greek”
would influence free Greek except by supplying phrases for
conscious or unconscious quotation: these phrases would
not become models to be followed by men who wrote the
language as their own. The “pure Hebraisms” which
Dalman2 finds in Luke's writings are possibly exceptions;
but we may perhaps assume that Luke would intentionally
assimilate his style to that of the Greek Old Testament in
those parts of his story where a Hebraic colour was specially
appropriate. The construction of ἐγένετο impersonal3 is
markedly transformed in a classical direction in Acts, partly
(we may suppose) because the author wearied of what might
seem a mannerism, and partly because the Hebraic colour
1 Expositor, Feb. 1902, p. 112.
2 Words of Jesus, p. 37.
3 See detailed note at the end of this paper.
74 CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
was less appropriate in a book which moved so largely on a
wider stage. That the Greek Evangelist should exhibit the
capacity of varying his diction to suit the change of scene
is only what we should expect: no other New Testament
writer, except the author of Hebrews, betrays any conscious
attention to Greek ideas of style.
Such then is the issue of the long strife over the “Hebra-
isms” of New Testament Greek, so far as our present lights
enable us to apprehend it. We must not forget the danger
of going too far. The deeper knowledge of Palestinian
Aramaic, which Dalman’s researches have brought us, may
disclose traces of imperfectly translated phrases from
Aramaic documents; nor could the bald literalism of parts
of the LXX. remain wholly without influence on the style
of Evangelists and Apostles. We must allow for possible
Semitisms from these very different sources, and must be
more careful to distinguish them than scholars before Dal-
man were wont to be. But the papyri have finally disposed
of the assumption that the New Testament was written in
any other Greek than the language of the common people
throughout the Greek-speaking lands. With this fact as a
basis, we shall endeavour in the successive papers of this
series to describe the main features of the common Greek
of daily life, in so far as its grammatical structure bears
upon the unique literature which survives to glorify the
“degenerate” speech of provincial Hellenists in the first
century A.D.
Note on the Hebraisms with ἐγένετο.
The impersonal ἐγένετο, answering to the narrative וַיְהִי, is in the
New Testament very rare outside Luke's writings, in which the supposi-
tion of a Hebrew original is seen to be impossible (Dalman, p. 33). There
are three constructions :—(a) ἐγένετο ἦλθε, (b) ἐγένετο καὶ ἦλθε, (c) ἐγένετο
(αὐτὸν) ἐλθεῖν. In the Gospel we find in W.H. text 22 cases of (a), 11 of (b),
and 5 of (c); in the Acts there are 17 of (c), but none of (a) or (b). (Blass
gives one of (a) from the b text, and finds (b) in v. 7; but since the
latter construction is isolated in Acts, it seems much better to make
CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 75
διάστημα subject of the verb.) It may be added that the construction
occurs predominantly in connexion with ἐν, and especially ε'ν τῷ c. inf.,
which is another of Dalman's Hebraisms. In the (a) passages 10 out of
22 have ἐν τῷ, and 4 have ἐν with a noun: in the (b) 8 have εν τῷ, 3 ἐν,
and there is no other occurrence (W.H. margin in ix. 28 being the only
exception); while in the (c), in the Gospel, only xvi. 22 is without ἐν. Mark
has the (a) construction twice, both times with ἐν, and Matthew five times,
in the phrase ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν κ.τ.λ. We have one case of (b) in Matthew
(ix. 10—a time clause and καὶ ἰδού), and one of (c) in Mark (ii. 23—also
ii. 15 with γίνεται). It seems to follow that the phrase originated in
temporal sentences like our phrase, so much beloved of novelists, "It was
in the days of . . . that . . .” This is the (c) form, but we could use the
paratactic (a), or even (b), without transgressing our idiom. Greek idiom
is affected by the substitution of ἐγένετο for συνέβη which in the (c) con-
struction would be normal. But I do not feel sure that (a) was foreign
to the vernacular. It is found in the modern speech: cf. Palli's version
Matt. xi. 1, καὶ συνέβηκε, σὰν τέλιωσε . . . , ἔφυγε . . ., etc. (In Athenian
vernacular συνέβη ὅτι ἦρθε is idiomatic: in the country districts, I am
told, ἔτυχε νὰ ἔλθῃ is more common.) At the same time it must be allowed
that the correspondence with Hebrew is exceedingly close in (a) and (b).
Driver (Tenses § 78) describes the וַיְהִי construction as occurring when
there is inserted “a clause specifying the circumstances under which an
action takes place,”—a description which will suit the Lucan usage every-
where, except sometimes in the (c) class (as xvi. 22), the only one of the
three which has no Hebrew parallel. We must infer that the LXX. trans-
lators used this locution as a just tolerable Greek which literally repre-
sented the original; and that Luke (and to a minute extent Matthew and
Mark) deliberately recalled the Greek Old Testament by using the phrase.
The (c) construction appears to be a fusion of this with the normal Greek
σθνέβη c. acc. et inf. Its rarity in Luke's Gospel and marked development
in Acts even suggests that it was his own coinage. The solitary LXX.
parallel (W.M. 760 n), 2 Macc. iii. 16, has ἦν which may be an indepen-
dent attempt to bring the Greek nearer to the familiar Hebrew. In Mark
ii. 23 we might explain its isolated occurrence as a primitive assimilation
to Luke vi. 1; note that so early a witness as the combination B C D does
assimilate the infinitive here (διαπορεύεσθαι for Mark's παραπορ.). There
only remains Mark ii. 15 γίνεται κατακεῖσθαι αὐτόν . . Here the parallel
Matt. ix. 10 has the (b) form, no doubt diverging from (a) only to bring in
the writer's favourite καὶ ἰδού. Is it possible that Mark originally had
simply καὶ κατάκειται αὐτός? If so, γίνεται will be due to a blending of
Matthew's ἐγένετο with the present tense of Mark: the later MSS. made the
assimilation more complete by changing the tense.
JAMES HOPE MOULTON.
(To be continued.)
Please
send any notice of errors to: Ted Hildebrandt at ted.hildebrandt@gordon.edu
for biblicalelearning.org.