* Cf. Thumb, Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalterdes Hellen- ismus, p. ISl. t Ilelbing, Grammatik der LXX, p. 4. i Cf. also Moulton, EinUitung, pp. 26, 31. § tjber einige antike Anrede/ormen, Gottingen, 1912.
HELLENISTIC & BIBLICAL GREEK HELLENISTIC & BIBLICAL GREEK 557
d8iKias, 'the unjust judge,' have likewise certain points of contact with Greek, and therefore cannot riglitly be described as non-Greek Hebraisms or barbarisms.
In the NT, the phenomenon just explained, viz. that relatively rarer forms of expression occur more frequently in Biblical Greek, is one that may be expected with special frequency in those parts that rest on an Aramaic original. But the ques- tion whether certain parts of the NT go back to an Aramaic original is one in which the Hebraisms necessarily play a leading part, and which cannot be effectively solved until the full complement of the Hebraisms has been established beyond dis- pute. Thus, e.g., the monotonous sequence of nar- rative by means of Kai clauses in no sense proves the presence of the Semitic genius of language — often as that assertion has been made. Exact statistical investigations, such as alone could avail us here, are still lacking. Probablj- the best foundation for such investigations would be the arrange- ment of words, and especially the position of the verb ; and, as a matter of fact, the frequent occur- rence of the verb at the beginning of clauses in the Gospel narrative seems to be at variance with ordinary Greek usage, and to have been influenced by the Hebrew diction, though at the same time it is not unknown in Greek.*
The influence of Hebrew upon the phraseology of Biblical Greek is clearly manifest only in the LXX, though there also every particular instance demands the most careful scrutiny.! In the NT the formation of new words to represent special Christian ideas is quite an imimportant element. Deissmann estimates the number of ' biblical words' in the NT as no more than one per cent. Chris- tianity was able to formulate its distinctive con- ceptions (e.g. ffioTTjp, evayyeXiov) in the spirit and with the linguistic resources of the Koine ; as Deissmann rightly observes, it had not so much a word-forming as a word-transforming power. But such alteration in the meaning of existent words takes place in all cases where a profound change occui's in the civilization — including, of course, also the concepts and ideas — of a peojile. The discussion of such phenomena forms a chapter of ordinary semasiology, for Biblical Greek does not differ in this respect from Gr. in general. In many cases the NT merely carries forward in Christian con- cepts the religious signification which had already been fully developed in the extra-Christian Koine, as e.g. in a-uirrip, ' saviour ' ; :!: for other examples see the works of Deissmann.
How the study of the Koine texts furthers our knowledge in this field is shown also by G. Thieme, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Miiander un'd das ST, Gottingen, 1906, and J. Eouffiac, Recherches sur les caracteres du grec dans le 2iT d'apris les inscriptions de Prihne, Paris, 1911.
Biblical Greek, then, corresponds to the Hellen- istic Greek of the age in phonetics, morphology, syntax, and vocabulary. As, however, the LXX took form in Egypt and the NT on Asiatic soil, it is of course conceivable that the pronunciation and idiom of the Egyptian and Asiatic Greeks would now and again assert themselves, just as, e.g., the literary German of the Austrians can be distin- guished from that of the Northern Germans. But, for one thing, the written text is too imperfect a representation of the actual pronunciation, and, for another, our knowledge of the finer provincial differences in the vocabulary and syntax of the Koine is too meagre, to enable us to trace abnor- malities in the biblical Koine with certainty. In
* Cf. E. Kieclcers, Die Stellung de-s Verbs im Grieckischen, Strasshurg-, 1911, p. 5.
t Cf., e.jr., Thackeray, A Grammar of the OT in Greek, i. [Cam- bridge, 1909], p. 31 fif.
X Cf. especiaUy Wendland, ZliTW v. [1904] 335 ff.
one respect, however, we may speak of a dialectical modification in biblical texts : the MS tradition of sounds and forms is not homogeneous. Each par- ticular MS betrays the influence of the language, the period, and the country of the writer ; while in certain phonetic features, such as the confusion of medise, tenues, and aspirates, or the confusion of i (ei, t) and i;, oi, and of e and rj, some of the older MSS of the NT (e.g. A and K) indicate their Egyptian or Asiatic origin. It should also be noted that in the LXX we find, e.g., the XeKavT] of B appearing as XaKavr] in A ; that accusatives like vvKTav and jSacriKeav are met with only in A and H, and that differences appear even in the selection of words, as where Kavovv and ivex^^v in A correspond to Kocpivov and ^^a\ev in B. To what extent the original text itself was affected by the local idiom of the writers (or translators) can be determined only by means of a detailed investigation of the MSS. Thus the accusative form vvKrav may quite possibly be due to the translators of the OT, or to some of them, but that they actually used it (as Psichari * believes) is meanwhile difficult to prove. In view of the fact that the linguistic form of the several MSS still awaits precise investigation, such apparent trifles as, e.g., the v i<pe\Kv<!TiK6v or the dropping of y between vowels, and such variants as eXa^Sav, iXd^aat, iXd^oaav, must not be overlooked.