Along with these changes it is obvious that with the spread of the language into new parts of the world a mass of words would come in from the Egyptian, Persian, and Semitic tongues-names for animals, plants, and the commodities of public and private life. Political conditions brought about a blending of local pecul iarities of dialect in the common lingua franca, since neither Attic nor Doric nor Ionic were the norms of language in the new domain. Desire for learning this new speech which was on its way to become the bond of a new world-citizenship promoted its growth. And doubtless much that comes out as new in literature was really far older, having happened to come to light for the first time in the new documents. The old hypothesis that in the new tongue the Macedonian and Alexandrian dialect were predominant can no longer be held, if by "Macedonian" be meant the language of Macedonia.. That the vocabulary of Alexandria was influential in the Hellenistic world by reason of the centrality of Alexandria is of course correct. Byt the character of this new tongue is due to the welding in common intercourse of elements, especially but not exclusively Attic and Ionic, into a new and living vernacular, which in turn became a vehicle of literature. Hellenistic vernacular is not the vulgarizing of a literary language; the literary language is the ennobling of the vernacular.
It seemed quite natural to differentiate Hellenistic Greek according to local peculiarities, as when K. Dieterich divided it into that of Egypt, Asia Minor, and Greece. The old notion of an Alexandrian "dialect" as a separate philological quantity had a long-lived popularity and a certain specious basis, since most of the writers of note of the period were of Egypt. Naturally the peculiarities they showed were called "Egyptian" Greek. Warning must, however, be uttered against the conception that the local differences in the lingua franca hardened into "dialects." While there were local differences, they were not significant; the common speech was one, and Schmid rightly speaks of the " wonderful completeness " of this common tongue, and of the unity which pervaded its phonetic and morphological changes. So that the phrases" Jewish Greek," "Christian Greek," and the like are 11 fanciful 11
213 |
The most significant marks of the living Hellenistic Greek were its treatment of sounds and inflections, and upon these the conception of a special Biblical Greek is wrecked. Every one of the minute peculiarities distinguishing the text of the Bible from that of Plato and Xenophon is found in the contemporary Greek of the lingua franca as evidenced in the inscriptions, ostraca, and par- ticularly the papyri now in hand. That this quality inheres especially in the papyri is not a matter of accident, since they more g. Pronun- nearly concern private and common ciation life. The inscriptions, which are puband lic, are often, particularly when offi-
Inflection. cial, consciously made to approach the norms of literary style; while the papyri are often unpolished and express the many needs and varying situations of the daily life of the mass of the population. And this general situation is borne out by the formulas and usage of legal procedure. Schmiedel's edition of Winer's grammar of New Testament Greek, ap pearing though it did before the mass of newly found material was accessible, pointed the way to the newer conception of the language, and was fortified by K. Dieterich's Untersuckungen zur Geschichte der griechischen Sprache . . . his zum zehnten Jahrhundert (Leipsic, 1898): The works of Schmiedel, Blass, and Moulton on New Testament Greek, and the Neue Bxbelstudien of the undersigned make it unnecessary to recount here the peculiarities of Hellenistic Greek. It is suf ficient to say that the documents so often re ferred to, coming from the times of the Diadochoi and the emperors and often dated most precisely to the very day, afford rich material to illustrate Biblical Greek (cf. on this material U. Wileken, Griechische Papyri., Berlin, 1897, and TLZ, xxi., 1896, pp. 609 sqq., xxiii., 1898, pp. 628 sqq.).The vocabulary of the Greek Bible shows the characteristic additions of Hellenistic Greek. While the same evidence is not forthcoming
214 |
Jewish " or " Christian " Greek on the ground that they have created new words or given new meanings to words. So that from the lexicological point of view the Greek Bible is a document of the Hellenistic world-speech.
At first sight the syntax of the Greek Bible may seem to warrant the designation of Biblical Greek. In the Psalms and in the Synoptic 7. Syntax. Gospels there are constructions, col- locations of words, and methods of sentence-building which can not be duplicated even in the papyri which proceed from the peasantry of Egypt. Here is a Greek which is full of Semitisms. Yet other parts of the Scripture do not contain these elements; IV Maccabees, the Pauline Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews differ in this respect from the books named above, and belong to the common Hellenistic speech. Syntactically these are to be disconnected from the works with so pronounced a Jewish flavor, and the reason is seen to be that they are original compositions while the others mentioned are translation.. from the Hebrew or Aramaic; thus for the latter a new measure is secured for their syntactical peculiarities, and we should speak not of Jewish Greek, but of translation-Greek. But a question arises whether this translation is in the every-day Greek of the translator or is simply a Greek fashioned upon the Semitic model. In the former case it would then be a part of the lingua franca; in the latter case it would be a Jewish Greek existing only on paper in which the original was not translated into Greek, but simply transferred word by word into Greek equivalents. Or, to put the matter in another form, are the "Semitisms" of the Bible normal or exceptional? Following out this distinction as made in H. Paul, Prinxipien der Sprachgeschichte (Halle, 1898), pp. 87 sqq., 145 sqq., translation-Greek is a variety which is seen to be artificial and existent only on paper; its numerous syntactic Semitisms are therefore exceptional. If there was a Jewish idiomatic Greek, how was it that the Greek Jew, Paul who wrote not books, but only letters, did not employ, it 7 and why did Philo and the author of the Aristeas letter write Greek that was so unJewish? Two Biblical authors make further argument unnecessary, Sirach and Luke. Both have prologues of which it can not be said that they are " Jewish-Greek " or that they " Hebraize." Yet both authors have made use of Semitisms, though not with the same frequency. For those who argue for a "Jewish Greek" the occurrence of these two kinds of Greek from the same pen is embarrassing. The explanation is, however, exceedingly simple. In the prologues these authors wrote as they spoke; in the body of the work they were more or less dependent, directly or indirectly, upon a Semitic basis. The Jewish Greek was, therefore, not a living speech, but an inferior method of translation. The Septuagint is more Jewish than the Synoptic Gospels because the former had a documentary basis; the latter came probably from the oral tradition of a bilingual people (cf. Merx, in Deutsche Literaturzeit-ung, xix. [1898] 989). That there are, so to speak, normal Semitisms along with the exceptional is to be recognized; they exist as a coloring of certain books, just as sermons and religious papers of the present are colored with Biblical terminology. An investigation, therefore, of the Semitisms of, say, the old Christian texts is an urgent need. A comparative view of the writers of the Hellenistic common speech would doubtless show that many of the so-called Semitisms are rather parts of the every-day language. Such cases are the use of anastrephesthai ("to walk") and anastrophe ("walk") in an ethical sense, onoma (" name ") in the sense of person, the numeral used distributively by doubling it, and so on. The number of real Semitisms would be greatly reduced and would appear due to the religious terminology. How much came into the common speech in pre-Christian times can hardly be estimated, but that technical words were introduced is certain, though only a single "Egypticism" is known, onos hypo oinou. So that from the point of view of syntax the Greek Bible belongs to the common Hellenistic speech. Its Semitisms are curiosities, but are not of linguistic importance any more than are the Latiniems or other linguistic booty which Greek took over in its conquest of the world of the Mediterranean lands.
When the question is raised whether the Greek Bible is a monument of the vernacular or of the
literary language, it must be borne in
8. The mind that the boundaries between the
Greek two are fluctuating. Moreover, dis-
Bible not tinction has to be made among the
Literary various books in this Bible. Blass says
Greek. of the Epistle to the Hebrews that it is
the only book in the New Testament
which in structure and style shows the care and
finish of an artistic writer. The Pauline letters, on
the contrary, are monuments of the vernacular; his
vocabulary
is of the sort that an Atticizing grammarian would have continually corrected in order
to get rid of thd words forbidden to literature. His
sublime combination in
215 |
Bibliography: Of first importance are the works of G. A. Deisam-n, Bibelatudien and News Bibelatudien, 2 vols., Marburg, 1898-97, Eng transl., 2d ed., Edinburgh, 1903; idem, Smnehgeschichtlirhe Beiträge . . zur Erkddrung des N. T., ib. 1897; idem, New Light on the O. T. from Grauo-Roman Records, Edinburgh, 1907; and other works named supra, § 4; and J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of N. T. Greek, Vol. i., Prolepwnena, 2d ed., Edinburgh, 1908 (essential for the student of the New Testament). Consult: U. von Wflamowits-Moeliendorf, Ueber die Ent etehung der priechischen Schrifteyrache, L eipsie, 1879; K. Foy, Lautayetem der priachuchen Vulpareprache, Leip sio, 1879; K. Krumbacher, in Zeitschrift für roerpleichende Sprachtorechung, vii (1885), 481-545; E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, Oxford, 1889; W. H. simoox, The Lan guage of the New Testament, New York, 1889; Apostolides, Du Grec alexandrin, Alexandria, 1892; idem, Essai sur 1'halUnisme 6 pyptien, vol. i., part i., Paris, 1898; G. N. Hatzidakie Einlaitung in die neupriechische Grammatik, Leipsic, 1892; E. D. Burton, Syntax of Moods and Tenses of N. T. Greek, Chicago, 1893; J Viteau, nude sur is pree du N. T., Paris, 1893; 0. Glass=, De rations qua, in teradit inter sermonem Polybdi et cum qui tieulis saculi iii.--L apparel, Giessen, 1894; P. Kreteehmer, Die attischen Vaseninschriffen, G fitersloh, 1894; W. Schmidt, De Plavii Josephi elocut%one obseruationes criticm, Leipsic, 1894; G. B. Winer, Grammatik des neutestamsntlichen S prach idioms, ed. P. W. Sahmiede1, Göttingen, 1894 sqq.; H. A. A. Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, Edinburgh, 1895; A. Thumb, Handburh der neupriwhischen Vodksepraeke, Strasburg, 1895; idem, Die prieebisrhe Syrache in Zeit altar des Helleniwnus, Strasburg, 1901; G. Meyer, Grie chiSche Grammatik, Leipsic, 1896; A. Theimer, Beiträge Sur` Kmntnis des Sprachpebrauchs im N. T., Horn, 1898; A. N. Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar, London, 1897; T. Vogel, Zur Charakterietik des Lukas nark Sprache and Stil, Leipsic, 1897; f3. Witkowski, Prodromus pram matica, Papyrorum Gr-um, Cracow, 1897; B. Dieter ich, Untersuchungen s ur Geschichte der priechischen Spracha, Leipsic, 1898; G. Heine, Synonymik des new
testamentlichen Griechiech, Leipsic, 1898; E. Mayeer, Grammatik der yriechischen Papyri, Leipsic, 1908: E. Schweizer, Grammaeik der parpamenischen Inachri/ten, Berlin, 1898; K. Meisterhans, Grammatik der attiechen 1nseltriften, Berlin, 1900; F. Blaas, Grammatik des neuWtamenUioken Grieehiech, Göttingen, 1902, Eng. tram., London, 1905; R. Helbing, Grammatik.derSeytuapinta Laut-and Wor"re. Göttingen, 1907; R Meister, Prolegomena su einer Grammatik der L%% Vienna, 1907; J. Psichari, Eeaai ear is prec de to Septante, in Revue des gtudw fuiroea, April, 1908.
Lexicons are: Wilke-Grimm, Lexicon Grmeo-Labinumin iibroe N. T., Leipsic, 1888; J. H. Thayer, A Greek Enplish Lexicon of the N. T., New York, 1898; H. Oremer, Bibliedrtkmlopieches Wdrterbuch der neutestamenaiehen Gr&itet, Gotha, 1895, Eng. transl. of earlier ed., BiblicoTheological Lexicon of Now Testament Greek Edinburgh, 1878; E. A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon o) the Roman and Bysanine Periods. New York. 1898. The Handw6rtar bull su den SchWten des N. T. of E. Preuschen (Giessen, 1908 sqq.) seems to be insufficient; of. Deutsche Literaturssitung, 1908, no. 80.
Calvin College. Last modified on 08/11/06. Contact the CCEL. |