Classical and Koine Greek

From: Edgar M. Krentz (emkrentz@mcs.com)
Date: Sat Dec 09 1995 - 17:26:21 EST


Carl Conrad sent you an excellent posting. To supplement, but not replace
or correct his, here is what I had out to junior seminarians in thke course
NT Methods of Interpretation:
================================================================================

hH KOINH DIALIKTOS: The Language of the New Testament

1. Older [rejected] Views
        Years ago scholars educated in classical Greek claimed that New
Testament Greek was "degenerate Attic." Athenian authors wrote most of the
greatest ancient Greek literature within a short period of time (about 150
years). [There is also great literature in Ionic (Herodotus) and Doric
(Pindar, lyric poets).] These scholars confused the quality of literature
with the quality of language; regarding Attic Greek as one cause of the
excellence of the literature rested on a false understanding of language.
Language, in and of itself, has very little to do with the production of
the literature. An extraordinary combination of many factors led to the
complex human situation out of which Athenian drama, history, and
philosophy arose. Structural [comparative] linguists remind us that the
idea of a "decaying language" is rational nonsense. "All languages are
functionally equivalent." (All human minds and experiences are not!)
Athenian authors used a highly inflected language; Shakespeare wrote in an
almost uninflected language. Yet, who would argue Shakespeare was a less
effective writer because of the language he used.

New Testament Greek is also not "Hebrew-Christian jargon or argot," ancient
"Yiddish," a "miraculous language created by divine providence for
revelation," not "Holy Ghost Greek," as it was occasionally called.

Georg Benedict Winer, _A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek
Regarded as a Sure Basis for New Testament Exegesis_ (Tr. W. F. Moulton.
9th Eng. ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1882), still discussed such ideas
(pp. 1-41). Today they are an intellectual curiosity.

2. Current Views
Most scholars view New Testament Greek as a particular form of the common
or universal Greek (hH KOINH DIALEKTOS, hH SUNHQEIA DIALEKYOS) spoken
throughout the Mediterranean world from ca 330 bce to 330 ce [Somewhat
arbitrary dates: Alexander to Constantine. Some scholars speak of
Byzantine, not Koine, Greek after Constantine. Others date Byzantine
Greek's beginning in the time of Justinian.] During this period the Greek
language was the lingua franca of the ancient Mediterranean world, used and
understood throughout the civilized world, spoken freely on the streets of
Lyon, Rome, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. Marcus Aurelius, the Roman emperor,
kept his diary in Greek!

The chief causes that brought about the development and expansion of the
Koine were (i) extensive colonization throughout the Mediterranean; (ii)
close political, commercial, and religious ties of the various Greek ethnic
branches; (iii) religious amphictyonies (Delphi, Delos, Olympia, etc.);
(iv) the conquests of Alexander the Great and the empires of the Diadochi.

3. Character of the Koine
a. Called "common Greek" because it was universally used throughout the
Hellenistic world.
b. It was not divided into dialects, as earlier Greek had been; nor was it
the development of a single dialect. While the dominant base was Attic
Greek, elements were also drawn from Doric and Ionic.
c. It is non-literary. There was a literary Greek, a mimetic Greek that
imitated good Attic Greek of the classical period. In general, the more
cultured an author was, the more Atticistic was his writing. This leads to
an amazing variety of styles and "Atticistic" ability. All writers were not
equally Atticistic in every detail. The historian Diodorus Siculus (usually
labelled a koine writer) interchanges EIS and EN, yet comes closer to Attic
usage in his employment of PRIN than does the contemporaneous Atticist
Dionysios of Halicarnassos.

New Testament writers differ widely in their ability to write a literary
Greek with some rhetorical competence. They vary in the complexity of
vocabulary, the mastery of Greek syntax, and other refinements of Greek.
The author of the Apocalypse writes some of the most "common" Greek in the
New Testament; yet he clearly distinguishes EIS and EN. Luke writes some of
the most cultured Greek in the NT, but appears to disregard the distinction
between the two prepositions. Hebrews alone seems to strive to avoid
hiatus, uses NUN DE in the literary sense "but as the case actually is,"
and writes sentences in good periodic style.
It is thus difficult to make a clear division between literary and
non-literary Greek; it is possible to start with the language of the
masses, preserved in the non-literary papyri, and then proceed to authors
who are close to such vernacular language, such as the translators of the
LXX, Strabo, Epiktetos, Musonius Rufus, and the like, and to rule out of
consideration all self-avowed Atticists. On this basis one can describe
some common features of the language.

        d. The non-literary character of the Koine is reflected in the
following characteristics:
        1. It is vigorous, lively, and fresh with the tang of everyday
living, the language of the market place and not the lecture hall: the use
of the historic present; the vivid present tense for a future; the frequent
use of comparitives where superlatives are anticipated; the preference for
direct speech over indirect speech.
        2. Clarity: pronouns used as subjects of verbs when they are not
really necessary; frequent parenthetical statements extend sentences;
prepositions are repeated after compound verbs; much use of adverbs;
preference for compound verbs; prepositions used with cases when not really
needed.
        3. Simplicity. The subtleties of expression used in Attic Greek are
no longer there: the dual is lost; the optative recedes in frequency; the
rich resources of particles and conjunctions are limited to a relatively
small number of connectives.

To sum it up, one may say that the language of the koinhv was robust, but
limited; vulgar, but exalted by simplicity; bare, but colorful; and so
varied as to make most generalizations inaccurate.

e. Variations from classical Attic Greek:
(1) The dual number disappears.
(2) The periphrastic imperfect is common.
(3) The second (strong) aorist begins to take first (weak) aorist suffixes.
(4) The comparative serves for the superlative in growing frequency.
(5) The superlative often has elative sense.
(6) The personal pronoun is more and the possessive pronoun less frequent.
(7) There is increased occurrence of diminutives.
(8) Compound words are more frequent.
(9) The "hanging nominative" is more common.
(10) The accusative grows in usage at the expense of the dative (e.g.,
adverbial accusative over dative of manner).
(11) Prepositional phrases displace simple cases; prepositions are more
fluid in meaning and show a wide variation in use.
(12) The use of instrumental EN is common; in fact, the preposition is used
for many constructions (a kind of universal servant).
(13) The passive grows at the expense of the middle voice. In deponents the
aorist and future passive are more frequent than the middle.
(14) The optative is disappearing.
(15) There is an extension in the use of hINA, which has begun to displace
the imperative and is an alternative for the infinitive in practically
every construction. [It has displaced the infinitive completely in modern
demotic Greek].
(16) The neuter plural is used with either singular or plural verbs (a
tendency to change by analogy).
(17) The *-MI verbs tend to take on the forms of the *-W verbs; again,
analogy is at work.
(18) Old suffixes are dropped; new suffixes are coined.
(19) The genitive absolute is used more.
(20) The number of loan words from Latin, Hebrew, etc. increases radically.

4. Rise of the Modern View
Johann Winer first enunciated the modern view in his 1824 grammar. F.
Schleiermacher in _Hermeneutik und Kritik_ (1838) said that the writers of
the NT wrote in the language of the people and expressed regret that
grammarians did not adequately take this into consideration (55-59). In
1863 Joseph Barber Lightfoot, Cambridge Professor [later Bishop of Durham],
declared: "If we could only recover letters that ordinary people wrote to
each other without any thought of being literature, we should have the
greatest possible help for the understanding of the language of the New
Testament generally." The discovery of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (and
thousands more) proved him correct.

The study of papyri, datable inscriptions of the Hellenistic-Roman eras,
and ostraca within relatively recent times, coupled with the use of
Byzantine and modern Greek by comparative linguistics, has established the
view now generally held that the books of the New Testament are written in
Koine. G. Adolf Deissmann made the case most persuasively in his writings.
The names of G. Adolf Deissmann, James Hope Moulton, and Archibald T.
Robertson are forever linked to this advance.

The scholar who wishes to understand the basic character of NT Greek in
order to interpret it with confidence must take this point of view
seriously. S/he must inform him- herself about the character of the
language by studying these scholars, using the grammar of Mayser and the
lexica of Moulton-Milligan and F. Preisicke. S/he will familiarize him/
herself with _New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity_ (6 vols in
print), and in general will become familiar with the writers and documents
of non-Atticistic Greek of the Hellenistic-Roman era.

Linguistic Character of NT Greek
         Those interested in language and literary analysis might want to
read one or another of the discussions of NT Greek in the history of the
Greek language.
E. C. Colwell, "Greek Language, The," IDB 2. 479- 487 [bibliography].

* Gerard Mussies, "Languages (Greek)," ABD 4.195-203.

N. Turner, "The Language of the New Testament," PCB 659-662 [bibliography].

--------. _Grammatical Insights into the New Testament_. Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1965.

Also useful are the first and fourth volumes of MHT, the "Foreword" [pp.
v-viii] and "An Introduction" [pp. ix-xxv] to BAGD, and Deissmann's LAE.

Historical grammarians illuminate this history.
E. Mayser and H. Schmoll. _Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der
PtolemŠerzeit_. 2. Aufl. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1970.

L. R. Palmer, _The Greek Language_. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities
Press, Inc., 1980. [Difficult reading for a neophyte in the Greek Language]

Albert DeBrunner, _Geschichte der griechischen Sprache_ II: Grundfragen und
GrundzŸge des nachklassischen Griechisch. (Sammlung Gšschen Band 114)
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1954. [vol. I treats classical Greek]

Ludwig Radermacher, _Neutestamentliche Grammatik. Das Griechisch des Neuen
Testaments im Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache_. (Handbuch zum Neuen
Testament 1, 2. Aufl.) TŸbingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1925. [Outstanding;
delightful, if the German is not a barrier. Pp. 1-49 are a synthetic
description.]

--------. _Koine. (Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien,
Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 224. Band, 5.
Abhandlung) Wien: Rudolf M. Rohrer, 1947. [Good description of the
linguistic character of the Greek of the Early Roman Empire; goes far
beyond the NT.]

        There is one other area of linguistic study that deserves mention:
Stylistics. It stands on the borderline between linguistic analysis and
rhetorical analysis. MHT 4 is devoted entirely to this, while every good
commentary on a New Testament book pays some attention to this in its
introduction.

5. The Semitic character of the New Testament
All the writers of New Testament books whom we can name as individuals were
Jewish--with the possible exception of the author of Luke/Acts. Therefore
one should expect that the language of the NT will reflect some Semitic
background. Luther already emphasized this point when he wrote: "One cannot
fully understand the New Testament books without a knowledge of the Hebrew
language. For the New Testament, although it is written in Greek, is full
of Hebraisms and betrays the Hebrew style of writing" (WA 1.525).

Recent scholarship agrees with Luther, though there is immense debate as to
the nature and extent of the Semitisms. The "ideal" student of the NT knows
Hebrew and Aramaic. In any case, the LXX becomes a familiar friend.
Vocabulary and syntax show Semitic influence: paratactic writing,
predicate nominative replaced by eij" + accusative (reflecting Hebrew le ,
l]), etc.

One should read a relatively modern discussion of the subject at some time,
e.g. the discussion in MHT 2 or Nigel Turner's views in MHT 4 (though he
overstresses the Semitic character). C. H. Dodd's study, _The Bible and the
Greeks_, balances well the Semitic and hellenistic influences on NT
language.

29 September 1986 [rev. 1990, 1993] Based on material inherited from Paul
M. Bretscher
Edgar Krentz

Edgar Krentz, New Testament
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Tel.: 312-256-0752; (H) 312-947-8105



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:34 EDT