The Greek language of the New Testament in the light of modern linguistics

Contents I. History of the Greek language before κοινὴ 1. Dialects 2. Pre-Attic “language” 3. Attic dialect 4. Attic vernacular II. Κοινὴ 1. History 2. Essence of κοινὴ 3. Sources of κοινὴ III. Language of the New Testament 1. Semitisms 2. Language of the New Testament and κοινὴ a) Dictionary b) Phonetics of the New Testament c) Grammatical forms in the New Testament d) Syntax of the New Testament The sacred books of the New Testament were initially all (except for the Gospel of Matthew) written in Greek, which, being the chosen organ for expressing divinely inspired thoughts, also serves as the primary means of objective and correct understanding of them. Naturally, this requires perfect knowledge of this language in its essence and particular distinctive features. Hence the great importance of a special study of the Greek New Testament language for an accurate comprehension of the New Testament writings, or for exegetical purposes, is obvious. But this subject is also of great importance in purely philological interests. The Greek Bible is a precious monument of the language of the corresponding period and a rich source for information on this issue, helping to clearly and thoroughly restore the entire linguistic history of those times, and at the same time the entire spiritual culture, for for it it is language that is always the carrier and representative. In particular, the New Testament language serves for us as a vivid witness to an exceptional era, significant both in religious and linguistic terms, when the popular Greek speech, becoming an instrument for the dissemination of the gospel of Christ, becomes literary and legal, is enshrined in the authoritative written word and begins a new literary creativity, which in its entire course refers to its outcome and requires complete knowledge of it. For all these reasons, the study of biblical Greek should be an urgent and fruitful scientific task for theologians and philologists alike and with friendly mutual cooperation, alien to the sadly prevailing disunity. In this area, over the past decades, there has been a lively movement, yielding extremely valuable results, since the biblical Greek language is now depicted in a completely new form and is already receiving a different application in theological and philological use (for which see our translated articles “The current state and further tasks of studying the Greek Bible in philological terms”, “The Greek language of the Bible - especially in the New Testament - according to the current state of science” in “Christian Reading” 1898 g., No. 9, pp. 365, 400; 1902, No. 7, pp. 3–36; “Biblical Greek in the writings of the Old and New Testaments” in “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy” 1912, No. 2, pp. 191–209, No. 6, pp. 203–228; 1913, no. 2, pp. 213–226; 1914, no. 4, pp. 541–560 and in the ed. Kyiv 1914). In this direction, quite enough materials, observations and research have now accumulated, which require a summary generalization to clarify the current situation and to determine further scientific paths. This work is all the more useful and necessary for Russian literature because it hardly touches on this subject at all and even needs a simple reminder of its scientific importance. For these reasons, we offer an article by Pastor Hermann Stokes “Das neutestamentliche Griechisch im Lichte der modernen Sprachforschung” from the Leipzig magazine “Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift” XXIV. Jahrgang (1913), 8, pp. 633–653; 9, S. 681–700 in an exact translation with some minor changes and additions. The author has long been engaged in this field (see ibid. 1902, S. 278) and is known for the German edition of Robertson's English grammar of the Greek New Testament language (Kurzgefasste Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch mit Berücksichtigung der Ergebnisse der vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft und der Κοινὴ – Forschung von A. T. Robertson D. D., Professor der neutestamentlichen Exegese am Baptistischen Seminar in Louisville; deutsche Ausgabe von Hermann Stocks, Seminaroberlehrer in Leipzig, Henrichs 1911), which has earned authoritative approval (see, for example, the reviews of Prof. S. R. Gregory in "Theologische Literaturzeitung" 1913, 11, Sp. 329-330 and Prof. Albert Thumb in "Byzantinische Zeitschrift" 1913, S. 484), why his report can be considered a reliable summary of scientific acquisitions and views on the Greek New Testament language in connection with κοινὴ in general. It was already early that they began to claim a special position for the New Testament Greek language. In contrast to the ridicule of the pagans over the fishermen and artisans, who allegedly composed the books of the New Testament, some of the apologists noted the classical character of the New Testament Greek speech 1 . And this view lasted for a long time. Only from here can we understand the dispute between the Hebrewists and the purists in the 17th century: the former thought to attribute the highest honor to the New Testament Greek language precisely because they considered it a stereotypical copy of the Hebrew, and the latter argued that the inspiring divine spirit could only speak in a classical language, which is why the language of the New Testament is more classical than even the Attic language itself 2 . So Beza - contrary to Erasmus - recognized the Heuraisms as gemmae (precious books) 3 and R. Stefan treated the “subtle style” of N.Z. 4 At the end of this dispute, the Heuraistic direction triumphed, but the theory about the isolated position of the New Testament Greek language continued to be preserved by both theologians and philologists. Among the first, Richard Rothe wrote: “Indeed, it is quite possible to talk about the language of the Holy Spirit. According to the Bible, it is absolutely clear to everyone how the divine Spirit, acting in revelation, each time from the language of the people, which served as the sphere for its application, formed a completely special religious dialect, transforming both the found linguistic elements and existing concepts into its own type. This phenomenon is most obvious in the Greek language of the New Testament" 5 . If theologians are inclined to overestimate this language, then - on the other hand - it is tended to be humiliated and disdainfully turned away from such a “non-classical period” by philologists who, from the point of view of Attic “orthodoxy”, consider, in the words of Krumbacher 6, it is incomprehensible how one can deal with that era when the preposition ἀπό ruled the accusative case. But gradually new times came - the more ancient inscriptions were found on classical soil - and first of all Boeckh began to collect this material in his Corpus iniscriptionum aecarum. But even before him, Joh. Ernst Immanuel Walch tried to use Greek inscriptions to interpret Matthew's Gospel 7; however, this was then an isolated precedent that was left without successors. But as the repositories of classical antiquity opened up, philologists had to take up this subject, since more and more dialectical inscriptions accumulated, it soon became possible to outline the Greek dialects, which had previously been impossible to dare. Thus, little by little, we began to unlearn our disdain for everything “non-classical.” Then, a comparison of some post-classical forms in Polyvius, Plutarch and others with those in the inscriptions confirmed a new, hitherto unknown or unnoticed phase of the Greek language, and the common Greek folk language κοινὴ appeared as a new highly important phenomenon. Then, within the Greek language, a consistent historical development was clearly revealed, which connects the songs of Homer or whatever the most ancient monument of the Greek language is without interruption with the language of the Attic peasants or the Cappadocian or Pontic Greeks of the present time. I had to admit that “classical time” provides, of course, the best, but not the only and not at all the most interesting image of the Greek language, and for this, thanks in particular to the efforts of such scientists as Ad. Deissmann and Alb. Thumb, G. N. Hatzidakis and J. H. Moulton, the New Testament found favor in the eyes of philologists, so that it began to be accepted and valued as one of the most important sources of the Greek vernacular, and namely the non-literary κοινὴ. Compare, for example, Prof. Ed. Norden, Antike Kunstprosa II (Leipzig 1898), S. 586 ff. Regarding this dispute cp. in Winer Schmiedel, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms (Göttingen (1894), S. 4 ff.), and in Russian see about this in † prof. O. S.K. Smirnova, Philological remarks on the New Testament language in comparison with the classical one when reading the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Ephesians (Moscow 1873), pp. XXIV ff., as well as by prof. S.I. Sobolevsky in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia, edited by prof. N. N. Glubokovsky, vol. IX (St. Petersburg, 1908) column. 626 words Wed. u † o. S.K. Smirnova on pp. XXVII-XXVIII and S.I. Sobolevsky on the column. 627. Wed. u † o. S.K. Smirnova on pp. XXVIII-XXIX and S.I. Sobolevsky on the column. 627. Zur Dogmatik. (Gotha 2 1879), S. 233 f. These words (from the 1st edition of Gotha 1863. S. 238) are also cited by † Prof Hermann Cremer in the preface to his famous dictionary (S. VII): Biblisch theologisches Wörterbuch der neutestamenthchen Grazitat (Gotha 9 1902, S. VII-VIII). Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur (München 2 1897), S. V (in the preface). Observationes in Matthaeum ex graecis inscriptionibus, Ienae 1779. You might be interested in: