(4) The remaining sources for the Koine are of second-hand authority, but are not less important. Thus we have the references of the Atticizing grammarians of the Imperial period, as in the Ae^f'J 'ATTLKal of Moeris, extracts from the gram- marian Phrynichus, and the 'AvTiaTrLKiaTrjs. The object of these writings was to formulate rules for tiie correct use of classical Attic, and they contrast the latter with the ' common ' language. What they reject belongs to the Hellenistic vernacular, as e.g. the forms ^/jlv (for ?jv), Kpv^u ( = Kp(nrT(>}), ypaia (ypavs), <TLKXo.i-vo/j.ai (instead of ^deXvrTOfiai) ; what they defend and explain is alien to it, as e.g. rjv, icxTrfv, veoTTos (instead of voacros).
(5) ^ye have another source in the Greek elements which have found their waj' into Latin, Gothic, Ecclesiastical Slavonic, and Oriental languages. Tliese elements exhibit the features of the lan- guage current at the time of their adoption. The Greek words in Gothic, and especially in Old Slavic,:;: reflect certain phonetic characteristics of the Greek current in the North, while those in Armenian, Rabbinical Hebrew, and Coptic exhibit features of the Greek spoken in Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt. These foreign sources have contributed much to the Hellenistic vocabulary, which is en- riched not only by fresh meanings, but also by new words and new forms. The Greek elements preserved in the Oriental sources are, as we should expect, of special importance for the study of Biblical Greek ; but so far Armenian alone has been thoroughly studied in its bearings on the history of the Greek language.!
(6) The two foregoing sources are surpassed in the value of their contributions by Modern Greek. For the student of the Koine, and therefore also for the investigator of Biblical Greek, a knowledge of Modern Greek is as necessary as a knowledge of the Romance languages for the investigator of ver-
* Ed. Krumbacher, in the Festschrift fiir W. von Christ, Munich, 1891.
t Ed. G. Goetz, in the Corpus glossai-iorum, iii. [Leipzig, 1892] ; cf. J. David, in Comment, philologoe Ieneiises,x. [do. 1S94] 197 ff.
X Cf. Vasmer, G-rceco-Slavic Studies (Russ.), 2 pts., St. Peters- burg, 1906-07.
§ Cf. Thumb, 'Die griechische Elemente im Armenischen,' in Byzant. Zeitschrift, vs.. [1900] 388 ff. For the other languages, cf. S. Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehn- lobrter in Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, 2 vols., Berlin, 1898-99 ; also Thumb, Indngerm. Forsch. Anzeiger, vi. [1896] 56 ff., xi. [1900] 96 ff. ; Perles, in Byzant. Zeitsohrift, viii. [1899] 539 ff., X. [1901] 300 ff. ; A. Schlatter, ' Verkanntes Griechisch,' in Beitrdge zur Furderung christlicher Tkeologie, iv. 4 [1900], 49 ff. ; Fiebig, ' Das Griechische der Mischna,' in ZJNTH' ix. [1908] ; O. von Lemm, ' Griechische und lateinische Worter im Koptischen,' in Bulletin de I'Academiede St. Petersbourg, 5th ser. xiii. 1 [1900] 45 ff. ; Wessely, ' Die griechische Lehnworter der sahidischen und boheirischen Psalmenversion,' in Denkschriften der Wiener Akademie, liv. [1909]: Eahlfs,' Griechische Worter im Koptischen,' in SB A W, 1912, p. 1036 ff.
nacular Latin.* The more thorough the study of the modern tongue, the greater the gain for its earlier phase. For Modern Greek, with its dialects (exclu-sive, however, of the Tsaconic spoken in the Parnon Mts. , a descendant of the Laconian dialect), is a natural development of the Koine, and its origins are to be sought therein. The knowledge of Modern Greek, accordingly, enables us to under- stand many features of the Koine, and to put a proper estimate upon its recorded forms. With the help of the modern language we may reconstruct its Hellenistic basis and thereby supplement in many points the knowledge derived from the con- temporary Hellenistic texts. The character of the Koine as a whole is in fact to be inferred from the character of Modern Greek ; for, since the dialects of the latter are to be traced, not to the various types of the ancient language, such as Doric, /Eolic, and Ionic, but to the Koine, the Koine, the direct deposit of which we tind in the inscriptions and the papyri, must have supplanted the ancient dia- lects, and must have been a common language in the proper sense, i.e. a language spoken by all, as is affirmed by the ancient grammarians. And what holds good of the language as a whole, holds good also of its elements in detail. Thus certain forms in Hellenistic documents — as e.g. ?\e7aj', and the like, in MSS of the LXX and other texts — are proved to have belonged to the spoken Koine by the fact that they survive in Modern Greek. This is true also of words like aLKxo-'i-voixai (Mod. Gr. o-txa'»'OMttO> which is rejected by the Atticists, and of Lat. loan-words like KaXavdat (in inscrip- tions ; Mod. Gr. TO. KaXavra). Some Latin loan- words, as e.g. {d)cnrLTi (hos])itiiim), 'house,' may of course be regarded as having been introduced into the Koine not later than the close of the ancient period. The Hellenistic substitution of iva for the infinitive culminates in the Mod. Gr. loss of the infinitive, and it is therefore quite wrong to regard, e.g., every iVa in Biblical Greek as having the force of the classical final IVa — a fact which has a direct bearing upon biblical interpretation. Thus the study of Modem Greek may likewise be of con- siderable service to the biblical scholar, and may often enable him to decide a doubtful case. If, e.g., the form iJeXos is attested as Hellenistic by the ancients, while the NT has iiaXos, the Mod. Gr. 7i'aXt (pron. yali) shows that the NT form too be- longed to the Koine.