express emphatic negation (He 45: 5, Mk 8!*).—A lax use of ἀποκρίνομαι (cf. 734) when no proper question has preceded.—poorl@nuc (ef. 923) with an infin. to express repetition (e.g. προσέθετο τρίτον πέμψαι Lk 2001) 12),A superfluous use of ὄνομα (Mt 1°, Lk 21; found in papyri as early as B.C. 260).—The repetition of a numeral to give it distributive force (e.g. δύο Sto Mk 67; cf. συμπόσια συμπόσια, πρασιαὶ ἱ πρασιαί Mk 6, (and probably) ἡμέρα καὶ 22 Co
| | |
80 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST.
4°.—o}. . . πᾶς equivalent to ofdels.—Such phrases as τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί (Mk 1%, Jn 2), περὶ ἁμαρτίας, 80. θυσία (Ro 85 ἢ.
The majority of these Hebraistic forms and con- structions appear in the LXX also, which as a tr. —in parts servile, and made by persons some of whom evidently had but an imperfect acquaintance with the Gr. language—is far more Hebraistic in its cast than the NT. But it would be a mistake to assume that this tr. in its peculiarities repre- sents a type of Gr. established and in actual currency at the time. Such an assumption would reverse the historical process. While its language reproduces fundamentally, no doubt, the popular Gr. of the Ptolemaic period, its distinctive char- acter is due rather to the translators’ exaggerated deference to the Heb. sacred text, and their mechanical reproduction of it. Yet beyond all question the idioms of this Gr. reproduction of the earlier Scriptures, made familiar as they were by the religious use of the version for generations among the Jews of the Dispersion, must have had great influence in forming the type of Gr. current among people of Jewish stock. Indeed, owing to the cosmopolitan relations of that race during the time intervening between the origin of the two bodies of literature, it need not surprise us to encounter idioms having a distinctly Hebraistic flavour even in native Gr. circles. Consequently our classifications here, as elsewhere, are more a matter of convenience than of rigorous historical accuracy. We must not forget the uncertainty arising from our present defective knowledge. We must not interpret the fact of prior occurrence into clear proof either of primary origin on the one hand, or direct derivation on the other. We must not overlook the truth that coincidences of popular expression are to be found in many widely separated and unrelated tongues. But, notwith- standing all uncertainties and abatements, the general influence of the LXX upon NT Greek was indubitably great. (See Schmiedel’s Winer, § 4. 1b. A good Lexicon and Grammar of the LXX are pressing needs of the student of Biblical Greek, and are now made possible by Swete’s edition of the text, and Hatch and Redpath’s Concordance. Help on one minor point may be found in C. W. Votaw’s comprehensive lists of The Use of the Infinitive in Biblical Greek, pp. 5, 9. Chicago, 1896. See Viteau as mentioned in the Bibliography, VII. below).
But not all the influence on the language of the NT writers came from Hebrew and Aramaic or from the LXX. Other languages foreign to the Gr. had left their traces on that language by the Ist cent. of our era, some of which can with tolerable assurance be pointed out.
Ill. OTHER FOREIGN ELEMENTS. — (A) The supremacy of Rome, and its multifarious official relations with the populations under its sway, in which relations it naturally employed its vernacular (see LATIN LANGUAGE), would prepare us to expect to find not a few traces of Latin in the popular language of the apostolic period.
a. The Lexical Latinisms in NT consist chiefly of judicial and military terms, names of coins, articles of apparel, utensils, etc.; as, ἀσσάριον, δηνάριον, ἔχω westimo, xevrupiwy, κῆνσος, κοδράντης, κολωνία, κουστωδία, λεγεών, λέντιον, λιβερτῖνος, λίτρα (Lat. libra?), μάκελλον, μεμβράνα, μίλιον, μόδιος, ξέστης, πραιτώριον, σικάριος, σιμικίνθιον, σουδάριον, σπεκουλάτωρ, αἱ ταβέρναι, τίτλος, φελόνης, φόρον, φραγέλλιον (-λόω), χάρτης ?, χῶρος.
More than two score Lat. names of persons and laces occur, as well as the technical terms 6 sig (Auqustus), and Kaicap.
atin phrases reappear in ἐργασίαν δοῦναι (operam dare), τὸ ixaviv λαμβάνειν (satis accipere), τὸ ἱκανὸν
LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST.
ποιεῖν (satis facere), συμβούλιον λαμβάνειν (consilvum capere). Notice also od ὄψῃ (Mt 27+ tu videris), ὄψεσθε αὐτοί (Ac 18").
b. The influence of the Lat. language upon the Grammar of NT Gr. is much more difficult to trace with confidence than in the case of the Heb., owing to the closer structural affinity between the Lat. language and the Greek. Traces of that influence, however, may be detected, it is thought, with more or less distinctness in the following constructions: —The preference for ὅτι and ἵνα over the accusative and infinitive (cf. the growing use of τ after impero, rogo, etc., equum est, mos est, ete.) ; the encroachment of the subjunctive on the optative after an historic tense; the tendency to obscure the distinction between the perfect and the aorist ; the use of ἀπό before the genitive after φυλάσσειν and other verbs of fearing (cf. cavere ab); the exclusive use of the infinitive (even of the inf. passive) after κελεύειν ; the use of the accusative after προέρχεσθαι (cf. preeire aliquem), of the dative after γαμέω (cf. nubere alicui), of ἐκ after νικάω (cf. victoriam ferre ex); the continuative és equivalent to καὶ οὗτος (ef. qui=et hic) in a co-ordinate clause ; the anticipatory position of ἀπό and πρό in speci- fications of time and place; the general omis- sion of the interjection (ὦ) before the vocative, the use of the preposition σύν as tantamount to καί.