(B) But this brings to our attention the Gram- matical peculiarities which the language of the NT exhibits in common with later Greek. Pecu- liarities of this class, whether relating to form or to construction, are much less numerous than those which, agreeably to the general law of growth in language, affect its vocabulary.
a. The peculiarities of form are some of them common to the different dialects of the earlier Greek; as, βούλει, ὄψει, διδόασι, τιθέασι, ἐδαφιοῦσιν, ἠδυνάμην, ἤμελλε, ἠβουλήθην, to the Attic; dat. γήρει, gen. and dat. in -ys, -ἢ, from nouns in -pa (as μάχαιρα, πρῷρα, πλήμμυρα, σπεῖρα), the presents γίνομαι, γινώσκω, also εἶτεν (εἶτα), after the Ionic; ἀφέωνται (for ἀφεῖνται), ἤτω (for ἔστω), ὄρνιξ (ὄρνις), held to be Dorie; ἐδυνάσθην, collat. form of ἠδυνήθην, ἐκάμμυσα (καμμύω), ῥήσσω (ῥάσσω), Epic; ἀποκτέννω (-κτείνω), Eolic. Others may be traced to the popular pre- ference for regularity of inflection : ¢.g. the change of verbs in μὲ into verbs in ὦ ; the termination -cac in the 2nd pers. sing., as δύνασαι, καυχᾶσαι ; the in- flection οἶδα, -das, -dare, etc.; the aorists ἔδωσα, ἔζησα, ἡμάρτησα, ἧξα from ἄγω, Féa(?) from ἤκω, and the like. There is also a propensity to omit the augment of the plupertact, and especially to give the 2nd aor. the endings of the first, as εἴδαμεν, -αν, εἶπαν, ἔπεσα, -av, ἦλθαν, ἐλθάτω, etc. ; and in the imperfect of ἔχω we find εἶχαν and εἴχοσαν (so ἐδίδοσαν, ἐδολιοῦσαν), due doubtless to the love of assimilation in form. Sundry nouns have varying genders, as ὁ and ἡ βάτος, ληνύς, λιμός ; ὁ and τὸ ἔλεος, ζῆλος, ἦχος (72), θεμέλιος -λιον, πλοῦτος, σκότος ; ἡ νίκη and τὸ νῖκος ; and even a twofold declension, as δεσμός plur. -μοί and -μά, ἔλεος -ou and -ous, σκότος -ov and -ους, also nouns ending in -apxos, -dpxns (as ἑκατόνταρχος and éxarovrdpyns) ; others show a preference at times for the uncon- tracted forms, as ὀστέα, ὀστέων. The same tendency to assimilate explains, probably, the fondness for terminal ν :—both in nouns, as dpcevay, μῆναν, ἀσεβήν, ἀσφαλήν, συγγενῆν, xeipav; and in verbs, as 3rd pers. plur. of the perfect, γέγοναν, ἔγνωκαν, εἴρηκαν, ἑώρακαν (ἑόρακαν), πέπτωκαν (πέπωκαν). Here it was
LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST.
favoured by the gradual obscuration of the dis- tinction between the perfect and the aorist (see in b below), to which cause also may be due the oceasional appearance of the ending -xes for -xas in the 2nd pers. sing. of the perfect. The dual number has disappeared, and the word δύο itself tends to become indeclinable. Particles of rest (ποῦ, ὅπου, ete.) have superseded those of motion (ποῖ, ὅποι, etc.); εἷς has encroached largely upon the province of τις, and πότερος (-pov, except in Jn 717) has disappeared.
Negligent or variant pronunciation appears in irregularities of spelling ; such as the retention of uw in sundry forms and derivatives of λαμβάνω (as λήμψεσθαι, ἀνάλημψις, ete.); the neglect of assimi- lation in compounds of ἐν and ov; the doubling or non-doubling of ν, p, and some other letters, 6.0. γένημα ; inconsistency respecting » movable, elision, and the final sin ἄχρις, μέχρις, οὕτως. The interchange of sundry letters, as in μαστός and μασθύς, ζβέννυμι and σβέννυμι, σφυρίς and σπυρίς, οὐθείς and οὐδείς, ποταπός and ποδαπός ; and especially in the case of the vowels εἰ, ε, 7, 4, aS Well as a, ε, ἃ tendency to that obliteration of distinctions which culminated in itacism and the pronunciation of modern Greek.
Many of these irregularities, and others both of form and pronunciation, have been adopted by the
| editors of the text of the NT in conformity with
the usage of the oldest extant MSS; but how far, in any given case, they are to be set down to the account of the original authors or of later scribes, is a question to be settled ony after the other nearly contemporary writings have been edited with equal attention to such details, and in the light of the accumulating testimony of inserip- tions, papyri, and other relics.
b. The Syntactical peculiarities which the NT shares in common with later and spoken Greek, though less numerous than the formal, are not less noteworthy. They appear particularly in the constructions of the verb. Besides those alluded to in the opening paragraph of this article, may be mentioned :—the general disuse of the optative in dependent sentences; the weakening of con- structions with ta (a particle which had nearly supplanted ὅπως), which often have the force merely of the classic infinitive; the interchange of ἐάν and ἄν ; the use of ὅταν with the indicative (Rev 8}), and in dependent clauses to denote indefinite fre- quency ; an extended use of ὅτι, and also of the final infin., the genitival infin., and the infin. with ἐν and els; the scanty employment of interrogative particles, and the use of εἰ in direct questions (perhaps a Hebraism); the ordinary substitution of the present participle for the future, and in general a fondness for the present tense (especiall λέγει, ἔρχεται, ete.) aceesily to the love of vivid- ness and directness; a lax use of the aorist parti- ciple, in fact a tendency to blur the distinction between the aor. tense and the perfect; the use of ὄφελον as a particle of wishing; the prefixing of ἄφες to the hortatory subjunctive, and the pleo- nastic use of the imperatives of ὁρᾶν, βλέπειν (as ὁρᾶτε βλέπετε ἀπό, ete. Mk 8%); the tendency of μή to encroach on the province of οὐ, πεῖς with infinitives and participles, and to prevent a hiatus ; the use of the compound negative οὐ μή ; employ- ment of εἰμί with the participle as a periphrasis for the simple verb ; ed the freq. omission of the copula εἰμί; carelessness in placing particles (e.g. ἄρα Lk 11° 8, ye Lk 118, τοίνυν He 1313, ὅμως Gal 3").