The Expositor, 6th Series Vol. IX (1904) 215-25.
The digital form was graciously edited by Christopher Pfohl at Gordon College, 2006.
For Ted Hildebrandt at biblicalelearning.org
215
CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. (Pt. 2)
J.H. Moulton
II
IT will be necessary to deal more minutely with the two
classes of Semitisms which the negative evidence of the
papyri may compel us to recognize provisionally in the
Greek New Testament. But for the present we may be
content with the general thesis that the Greek Bible is
written in the common Greek vernacular, modified through-
out the Old Testament and some parts of the New by
conditions which are abundantly paralleled in the literal
translations of the English Bible. It is time now to pass on
to the description of Hellenistic Greek, apart from its special
use in the Bible. But before leaving the subject I should
like to mention two or three examples of the bearing of this
grammatical study upon literary criticism.
In dealing with the New Testament constructions with
ἐγένετο in the note appended to my last paper, I had
occasion to record that this notable Hebraism was in the
New Testament almost confined to the writings of the
Gentile Luke.1 It does not of course stand alone. There is
an instructive little point in Luke's report of the preaching
of
John the Baptist. In iii. 8, he has καὶ μὴ ἄρξησθε
λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. Dalman, Words
of Jesus, p. 27, shows
that in narrative "the Palestinian-Jewish literature
uses the meaningless 'he began,'" a conventional locution
which was evidently parallel with our Middle-English
auxiliary gan. It is very common in the Synoptists, and
occurs twice as often in Luke as in Matthew. Dalman
1 My suggestion (p. 75) that the construction of ἐγένετ with infin. was
Luke's own coinage is dispensed with by two papyrus quotations which
I noticed too late to include. In Papyrus Cattaoui, a Roman-named
soldier says ἅρτι ἐὰν γένηταί με ἀποδημεῖν; and in B. U. 970 we find ἐάν
γένηται μὴ εὐτονῦσαι αὐτόν. They are both dated 2nd cent. A.D. I fully
except that I have overlooked other examples.
216 CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
thinks that if this Aramaic שָׁרִי with participle had become
practically meaningless, we might well find the same use in
direct speech, though no example happens to be known.
Now in the otherwise verbal identical verse Matt. iii. 9
we find δόξητε for ἄρξησθε, “do not presume to say,” which
is thoroughly idiomatic Greek, and manifestly a deliberate
improvement of an original preserved more exactly by
Luke. It seems to follow that this original was a Greek
translation of the Aramaic logia-document, used in common
by both Evangelists, but with greater freedom by the first.
If Luke was ignorant of Aramaic, he would be led by his
keen desire for accuracy to incorporate with a minimum of
change translations he was able to secure, even when they
were executed by men whose Greek was not very idiomatic.
But ne staff ultra crepidam: these things belong to the
higher critics and not to the mere grammarian. I must,
however, venture to hammer on their last a little longer.
The grammarian necessarily claims his say on the Johannine
problem. We saw above (Expositor, January, p. 71), that
the author of the Apocalypse writes as a man whose Greek
education was not yet complete: like many of the farmers
of Egypt, he did not know the rules of concord for gender
and case. If then his date is to be 95 A.D., he cannot have
written the fourth Gospel only a short time after. Either,
therefore, we must take the earlier date for the Apocalypse,
which would allow the Apostle to improve his Greek by
constant use in a city like Ephesus where his Aramaic
would be useless; or we must suppose that the authors of
John xxi. 24 mended his grammar for him throughout
the Gospel. Otherwise, we must join the ranks of the
Χωρίζοντες.1 Here, of course, I am only putting the
question, leaving it to the experts to solve it.
Finally, as a transition to the next subject, let me note
1 May I, in passing, express the malicious satisfaction which a
grammarian feels in reading the words of a very cocksure critic,
Prof. B. M Bacon, in the current Hibbert Journal (p. 345)? “Jesus ‘is
CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK 217
one or two suggestions by the great modern Greek scholar,
Albert Thumb who has used dialectic differences in the
language of to-day in a way which promises to repay further
research. In an article in Theologische Literaturzeitung,
1903, p. 421, he calls attention to the prominence of ἐμός,
etc., in the fourth Gospel, as against mou, etc., elsewhere.
[Ἐμός occurs thirty-six times in John, once in 3 John,
once in Apocalypse, and thirty-four times in the rest of the
New Testament. I am bound to admit that the argument is
not strengthened by the figures for σός, ἡμέτερος and ὑμέτε-
ρος], which between them occur 11 times in John (Gospel
and Epistles), 12 times in Luke's two books, and 21
times in the rest of the New Testament.] He tells us that
ἐμός and the rest survive: in modern Pontic-Cappa-
docian Greek, while the genitive has replaced them else-
where. The inference is that the Fourth Gospel comes
from Asia Minor. I might add that on the same showing
Luke has his Macedonian origin encouraged, for he hardly
uses ἐμός; and the Apocalypse, which has only one occur-
rence between the four possessives, suits a recent immigrant
very well. In the same paper Thumb shows that the
infinitive still survives in Pontic, while in Greece proper it
yields entirely to the periphrasis. Now the syntactical
conditions under which the infinitive is still found in Pontic
answer very well to those which appear in the New
Testament, in uses where western Greek tended to enlarge
the use of ἵνα. Obviously this tells us little more than that
the New Testament has eastern provenance, which no one
is likely to deny. But the principle will be found useful later.
We proceed to examine the nature and history of the
vernacular Greek itself. It is a study which has almost
come into existence in the present generation. Classical
scholars have studied the Hellenistic literature for the sake
raised’— ἐγείρεται—not ‘rises’ — ἀνίστησι (sic !!)—from the dead” [in
John xxi]. If John's grammar was equal to this, the work of the
Ephesian revisers was no sinecure.
218 CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
of its matter: its language was never considered worth
noticing, except to chronicle contemptuously its deviations
from “good Greek.” There perhaps the authors were only
receiving the treatment they courted, for to write Attic was
the object of them all, pursued doubtless with varying
degrees of zeal, but in all cases removing them far from the
language they used in daily life. The study of the vernacular
itself was not possible, for the Biblical Greek was inter-
preted on lines of its own, and the papyri were mostly
reposing in the Egyptian tombs, the small collections that
were published receiving but little attention. And equally
unknown was the scientific study of modern Greek. To this
day, even great philologists like Hatzidakis decry as a mere
patois, utterly unfit for literary use, the living language
upon whose history they have spent their lives. The
translation of the Gospels into the Greek which descends
directly from their original idiom is treated as sacrilege by
the devotees of a “literary” dialect which no one ever
spoke. It is left to foreign students to recognize the value
of Pallis’ version to those who would study the original in
the light of the continuous development of the language
from the age of Alexander to our own time.
As has been hinted in the preceding paragraph, the
source of our present-day study of New Testament Greek
are threefold :—(1) the prose literature of the post-classical
period, from Polybius down through the Byzantine age;
(2) the Κοινή inscriptions, and the Egyptian non-literary
papyri; (3) modern vernacular Greek, with especial refer-
ence to its dialectic variations, so far as these are at present
registered. Before we discuss the part which each of these
must play in our investigations, it will be necessary to ask
what was the Κοινή and how it arose.
The history, geography and ethnology of Hellas are jointly
responsible for the remarkable phenomena which even the
literature of the classical period presents. The very school-
CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK 219
boy in his first two or three years at Greek has to realize
that “Greek” is anything but a unity. He has not thumbed
the Anabasis long before the merciful pedagogue takes him
on to Homer, and his painfully acquired irregular verbs de-
mand a great extension of their limits. When he develops
into a Tripos candidate he knows well that Homer, Pindar,
Sappho, Herodotus and Aristotle are all of them in their own
several ways defiant of the Attic grammar to which his own
composition must conform. And if his studies ultimately
invade the dialect inscriptions, he finds in Elis and Heraclea,
Lacedaemon and Thebes, Crete and Cyprus, forms of Greek
for which his literature has almost entirely failed to prepare
him. And the Theban who said F ίττω Δεύς and the
Athenian who said ἵστω Ζεύς lived in towns exactly as
far apart as Liverpool and Manchester! The bewildering
variety of dialects within that little country arises partly
from racial differences. Upon the primitive “Pelasgians,”
represented best by the Athenians of history, swept first
from Northern Europe1 the hordes of Homer's Achæans, and
then, in post-Homeric days, the Dorian invaders. Dialectic
conditions were as inevitably complex as they were in our
own country a thousand years ago, when successive waves
of Germanic invaders, of different races and dialects, had
settled in the several parts of an island in which a Keltic
population still maintained itself to greater or less extent.
Had the Norman Conquest come before the Saxon, which
determined the language of the country, the parallel would
have been singularly complete. The conditions which in
England were largely supplied by distance were supplied in
Greece by the mountain barriers which so effectively cut
off each little State from regular communication with its
neighbours—an effect and a cause at once of the passion for
1 I am assuming as proved the thesis of Professor Ridgeway, in his
Early Age of Greece, which seems to me a key that will unlock many of
the problems of Greek history, religion and language. Of course adhuc
sub iudice lis est.
220 CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
autonomy which made of Hellas a heptarchy of heptarchies.
Meanwhile a steady process was going on which deter-
mined finally the character of literary Greek. Sparta might
win the hegemony of Greece at Aegospotami, and Thebes
wrest it from them at Leuktra; but Sparta could not pro-
duce a man of letters, and Pindar, the lonely “Theban
eagle,” knew better than to try poetic flights in Bœotian.
The intellectual supremacy of Athens was beyond challenge
long before the political unification of Greece was accom-
plished; and Attic was firmly established as the only
possible dialect for prose composition. The post-classical
writers wrote Attic according to their lights, tempered
generally with a plentiful admixture of grammatical and
lexical elements drawn from the vernacular. Strenuous
efforts were made by precisians to improve the Attic quality
of this artificial literary dialect; and we still possess the
works of Atticists who cry out against the “bad Greek”
and “solecisms” of their contemporaries, thus incidentally
providing us with information concerning a Greek which
interests us more than the artificial Attic they prized so
highly. All their scrupulousness did not however prevent
their deviating from Attic in matters more important than
vocabulary. The optative in Lucian is perpetually misused,
and no Atticist successfully attempts to reproduce the
ancient use of οὐ and μή with the participle. Those writers
who are less particular in their purism write in a literary
Κοινή which admits without difficulty many features of
various origin, while generally recalling Attic. No doubt
the influence of Thucydides encouraged this freedom. The
true Attic, as spoken by educated people in Athens, was
hardly used in literature before the fourth century.1 the
Ionic dialect having large influence on the, to some extent,
artificial idiom, which the older writers at Athens used. It
1 Schwyzer, Die Weltsprachen des Altertums, p. 15 n., cites as the earliest
extant prose monument of genuine Attic in literature the pseudo-Xeno-
phon's De republics Atheniensi, which dates from before 413 B.C.
CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 221
was not strange therefore that the standard for most of the
post-classical writers should go back, for instance, to the
πράσσω of Thucydides rather than the πράττω of Plato and
Demosthenes.
Such, then, was the “Common Greek” of literature,
from which we have still to derive our illustrations for the
New Testament to a very large extent. Any lexicon will
show how important for our purpose is the vocabulary of
the Κοινή writers from Polybius down. And even the most
rigid Atticists found themselves unable to avoid words and
usages which Plato would not have recognized. But side
by side with this was a fondness for obsolete words with
literary associations. Take ναύς, for example, which is
freely found in Aelian, Josephus, and other Κοινή writers.
It does not appear in the indices of eight volumes of Gren-
fell and Hunt's papyri—except where literary fragments
come in—nor in those to vol. iii. of the Berlin collection
and the small volume from Chicago. (I am naming all the
collections that I happen to have by me.) We turn to the
New Testament, and find it once, in Luke's shipwreck
narrative, in a phrase which Blass (Philology of the
Gospels, p. 186), suspected to be a reminiscence of Homer.
In style and syntax the literary Common Greek diverges
more widely from the colloquial. The bearing of all this
on the subject of our study will come out frequently in the
course of our investigation. Here it will suffice to refer to
Blass's Grammar, p. 5, for an interesting summary of
phenomena which are practically restricted to Harnack's
Priscilla, and to parts of Luke and Paul,1 where sundry
logical and grammatical elements from the literary dialect
invade the colloquial style which is elsewhere universal in
the New Testament.
1 In quoting Blass here I should not like to accept too unreservedly his
opinion that Luke, in Acts xx. 29, misused the literary word ἄφιξις. The
suggestion that Paul meant “after my arrival, home-coming,” while not
without difficulty, at least deserves considering.
222 CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
The writers who figure in Dr. W. Schmid's well-known
book, Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern von Dio-
nysius von Halikarnass bis auf den zweiten Philostratus, were
not the last to found a literary language on the artificial
resuscitation of the ancient Attic. Essentially the same
thing is being tried to-day. The “mummy-language,” as
Krumbacher calls it, will not stand the test of use in
poetry, but in prose literature, in newspapers, and in
Biblical translation it has the dominion, which is vindi-
cated by Athenian undergraduates, with bloodshed if need
be.1 We have nothing to do with this curious phenomenon,
except to warn students that before citing modern Greek in
illustration of the New Testament they must make sure
whether their source is καθαρεύουσα or καθομιλουμένη, book
Greek or spoken Greek. The former may of course have bor-
rowed from ancient or modern sources—for it is a medley far
more mixed than we should get by compounding together
Cynewulf and Kipling—the particular feature for which it
is cited. But it obviously cannot stand in any line of his-
torical development, and it is just as valuable as Volapuk to
the student of linguistic evolution. The popular patois, on
the other hand, is a living language, and we shall soon see
that it takes a very important part in the discussions on
which we are entering.
We pass on then to the spoken dialect of the first century
Hellenists, its history and its peculiarities. Our sources are,
in order of importance, (1) non-literary papyri, (2) inscrip-
tions, (3) modern vernacular Greek. The literary sources
are almost confined to the Biblical Greek. A few general
words may be said on these sources before we examine the
origin of the Greek which they embody.
1 See Krumbacher's vigorous polemic, Das Problem d. neugr. Schrift-
sprache summarized by the present writer in Expository Times,1903, p. 550
Professor Hatziclakis replies with equal energy in Rev. des Etudes greques,
1903, p. 210 ff.
CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 223
The papyri have one very obvious disadvantage in that,
with the not very important exception of Herculaneum,
their provenance is limited to one country, Egypt. We shall
see, however, that the disadvantage does not practically
count. They date from the third century B.C. to the
seventh A.D. The monuments of the earliest period are
fairly abundant, and they give us specimens of the spoken
Κοινή from a time when the dialect was still a novelty.
The papyri are not of course to be treated as a unity.
Those which alone concern us are simply the waste paper of
Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, and their style has the same
degree of unity as we should see in the sacks of
waste paper brought to an English paper-mill from a
solicitor's office, a farm, a school, a shop, a manse, and a
house in Downing Street. Each contribution has to be
considered separately. Old wills, law reports, contracts,
census returns, marriage settlements, receipts, and official
orders largely ran along stereotyped lines and as formulæ
tend to be permanent we have a degree of conservatism in
the language which is not seen in documents which are
free from these trammels. Petitions, contain this element
in greater or less extent, but naturally show more freedom
in the recitation of the particular grievances for which
redress is claimed. Private letters are our most valuable
sources, and are of course all the better for the immense
differences that show themselves in the education of their
writers. The well worn epistolary formulæ show variety
mostly in their spelling, and their value for the student lies
primarily in their remarkable resemblances to the conven-
tional phraseology which even the letter-writers of the New
Testament were content to use. The part of the letter which
contains the point is perhaps most instructive when its
grammar is weakest, for it shows which way the language
was tending. Few papyri are more suggestive than the
letter of the lower-schoolboy to his father (Ο.P. 119, second
224 CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
or third century), already referred to in my papers here
more than once. It would have surprised paterfamilias,
when he applied the well merited cane, to learn that seven-
teen centuries afterwards there would be scholars who would
count that audacious missive greater treasure than a new
fragment of Sappho! But this is by the way. It must
not be inferred from this laudation of the ungrammatical
papyri that the N.T. writers are at all comparable in lack
of education. The indifference to concord which we noted
in the Apocalypse is almost isolated in this connexion. But
the illiterates show us by their exaggerations the tendencies
which the better schooled writers keep in restraint. With
writings from farmers and from Emperors, and every class
between, we can form a kind of “grammatometer” by
which to estimate how the language stands in the
development of any particular use we may wish to inves-
tigate.
Inscriptions come second to papyri mainly because their
very material shows that they were meant to last. The
Greek may not be of the purest, but such as it is we see it
in its best clothes, while that of the papyri is in corduroys.
The special value of the common Greek inscriptions lies in
their corroborating the papyri, and practically showing that
there was but little dialectic difference between the Greek of
Egypt and Asia Minor, Italy and Syria. There would pro-
bably be varieties of pronunciation, and we have already
seen that districts differed in their preferences among sundry
equivalent locutions, but a speaker of Greek would be
understood without the slightest difficulty wherever he
went throughout the immense area over which the Greek
world-speech reigned. With the caveat already implied,
that inscription-Greek may contain literary elements which
are absent from an unstudied private letter, we may use
without misgiving the immense and ever-growing collections
of later Greek epigraphy. How much may be made of
CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 225
them is well seen in the Preisschrift of Dr. E. Schwyzer,1
Grammatik der Pergamenischen Inschriften, an invaluable
guide to the accidence of the Κοινή.
Finally we have modern Greek to bring in. Dr. Albert
Thumb's Handbuch der neugriechischen, Volkssprache gives
us now the material for checking statements about modern
Greek, which are often based upon the artificial Greek of
the schools. The great work of Hatzidakis, Einleitung in,
die neugriechische Grammatik, with its perpetual references
to the New Testament, shows forcibly how many of the
developments of the modern vernacular had their roots in
the Koinh< of two thousand years ago. The gulf between the
ancient and the modern vernacular is bridged by the
material collected and arranged by Professor Jannaris in
his Historical Greek Grammar. It will soon be realized
that the illiterate papyri of the early Christian centuries are
far nearer to the common speech of Greece in our own time
than to that of Attica in the fourth century B.C.2 And even
the educated colloquial Greek in which St. Paul wrote finds
illustration constantly in the popular dialects of to-day.
We may leave for the present the enforcing of this thesis,
which will come out in practice at every step of our
inquiry.
James Hope Moulton.
1 He was Schweizer in 1898, when this book was published, but has
changed since, to our confusion. He has edited Meisterhans' Grammar of
the Attic Inscriptions, and written the interesting lecture on Die Weltsprache,
named above.
2 Cf. Hatzidakis in Rev. d. Et. gr. 1903, p. 220, who says, “The language
generally spoken to-day in the towns differs less from the common
language of Polybius than this last differs from the language of Homer.”
(To be continued.)
Please
send any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at ted.hildebrandt@gordon.edu
for biblicalelearning.org.