ϑγθῸ 60770 ry €

itl

la

Ofer ΑΥ

PRINCIPAL W. R. TAYLOR COLLECTION 1951

eee ΤΩ ΠΩ ΤΩ oleate

τις ο δι ας δου αςποσις

ἡ.

see

ont ew KS Φ

Ce.

PAE Zi pesetsaks

PC

ΠΝ a ᾿ ἐν

ὍΝ

A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH

BOOKS BY PROF. A. T. ROBERTSON

CriticaL Notes Tro Broapus’ HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS

Lire AND LerTers oF JoHN A. Broapus TEACHING OF JESUS CONCERNING GoD THE FATHER Tue STUDENT’S CHRONOLOGICAL NEw TESTAMENT Sy.~uaBus ror New TESTAMENT StTupy KEYWORDS IN THE TEACHING OF JESUS

Epocus IN THE LIFE OF JESUS

A SxHort GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEw TESTA- MENT

Epocus IN THE Lire or PAu CoMMENTARY ON MatTrHEw JOHN THE LOYAL

Tre GLoryY OF THE MINISTRY

A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IN THE Licgnut oF HistoricaL RESEARCH

το νν ee ERAMMAR OF THE CREEK NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH

ἐν ΒΥ APT ROBERTSON, MA Ὁ... LL.D.

Professor of Interpretation of the New Testament in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Louisville, Ky.

"Ἔχομεν δὲ τὸν θησαυρὸν τοῦτον ἐν ὀστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν,

ἵνα ἡ ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμεως ἢ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἡμῶν. — 2 Cor. 4:7

HODDER & STOUGHTON NEW YORK GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY

Copyricut, 1914 BY

GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY

Composition, Electrotyping and Presswork: THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, CAMBRIDGE, U.S. A.

Το THE MEMORY OF

John A. Broadus

SCHOLAR TEACHER PREACHER

Ἄν,

ae ΤΠ} ἌΝ

PREFACE

Ir is with mingled feelings of gratitude and regret that I let ' this book go to the public. I am grateful for God’s sustaining grace through so many years of intense work and am fully con- scious of the inevitable imperfections that still remain. “For a dozen years this Grammar has been the chief task of my life. I have given to it sedulously what time was mine outside of my teaching. But it was twenty-six years ago that my great prede- cessor in the chair of New Testament Interpretation proposed to his young assistant that they together get out a revised edition of Winer. The manifest demand for a new grammar of the New Testament is voiced by Thayer, the translator of the American edition of Winer’s Grammar, in his article on “Language of the New Testament” in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible.

I actually began the work and prepared the sheets for the first hundred pages, but I soon became convinced that it was not possible to revise Winer’s Grammar as it ought to be done without making a new grammar on a new plan. So much progress had been made in comparative philology and historical grammar since Winer wrote his great book that it seemed useless to go on with it. Then Dr. Broadus said to me that he was out of it by reason of his age, and that it was my task. He reluctantly gave it up and pressed me to go on. From that day it was ἴῃ my thoughts and plans and I was gathering material for the great undertaking. If Schmiedel had pushed through his work, 1 might have stopped. By the time that Dr. James Hope Moulton announced his new grammar, I was too deep into the enterprise to draw back. And so I have held to the titanic task somehow till the end has come. There were many discouragements and I was often tempted to give it up at all costs. No one who has not done similar work can understand the amount of research, the mass of detail and the reflection required in a book of this nature. The mere physical effort of writing was a joy of expres- sion in comparison with the rest. The title of Cauer’s brilliant book, Grammatica Militans (now in the third edition), aptly describes the spirit of the grammarian who to-day attacks the

vu

Vill A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

problems of the language of the New Testament in the light of historical research.

From one point of view a grammar of the Greek New Testa- ment is an impossible task, if one has to be a specialist in the whole Greek language, in Latin, in Sanskrit, in Hebrew and the other Semitic tongues, in Church History, in the Talmud, in English, in psychology, in exegesis.!. I certainly lay no claim to omniscience. I am a linguist by profession and by love also, but I am not a specialist in the Semitic tongues, though I have a working knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, but not of Syriac and Arabic. The Coptic and the Sanskrit I can use. The Latin and the Greek, the French and German and Anglo-Saxon com- plete my modest linguistic equipment. I have, besides, a smat- tering of Assyrian, Dutch, Gothic and Italian.

I have explained how I inherited the task of this Grammar from Broadus. He was a disciple of Gessner Harrison, of the University of Virginia, who was the first scholar in America to make use of Bopp’s Vergleichende Grammatik. Broadus’ views of grammar were thus for long considered queer by the students who came to him trained in the traditional grammars and unused to the historical method; but he held to his position to the end.

This Grammar aims to keep in touch at salient points with the results of comparative philology and historical grammar as the true linguistic science. In theory one should be allowed to as- sume all this in a grammar of the Greek N. T., but in fact that cannot be done unless the book is confined in use to a few tech- nical scholars. I have tried not to inject too much of general grammar into the work, but one hardly knows what is best when the demands are so varied. So many men now get no Greek except in the theological seminary that one has to interpret for them the language of modern philology. I have simply sought in a modest way to keep the Greek of the N. T. out in the middle of the linguistic stream as far as it is proper to do so. In actual class use some teachers will skip certain chapters.

Alfred Gudemann,? of Munich, says of American classical scholars: “Not a single contribution marking genuine progress, no work on an extensive scale, opening up a new perspective or breaking entirely new ground, nothing, in fact, of the slightest scientific value can be placed to their credit.” That is a serious charge, to be sure, but then originality is a relative matter. The

1 Cf. Dr. James Moffatt’s remarks in The Expositor, Oct., 1910, p. 383 f. 2 The Cl. Rev., June, 1909, p. 116.

PREFACE 1X

true scholar is only too glad to stand upon the shoulders of his predecessors and give full credit at every turn. Who could make any progress in human knowledge but for the ceaseless toil of those! who have gone before? Prof. Paul Shorey,” of the Uni- versity of Chicago, has a sharp answer to Prof. Gudemann. He speaks of “the need of rescuing scholarship itself from the German yoke.” He does not mean ‘German pedantry and superfluous accuracy in insignificant research — but . . . in all seriousness from German inaccuracy.”’ He continues about ‘the disease of German scholarship” that ‘insists on ‘sweat-boxing’ the evidence and straining after ‘vigorous and rigorous’ demon- stration of things that do not admit of proof.” There probably are German scholars guilty of this grammatical vice (are Amer- ican and British scholars wholly free?). But I wish to record my conviction that my own work, such as it is, would have been im- possible but for the painstaking and scientific investigation of the Germans at every turn. The republic of letters is cosmopolitan. In common with all modern linguists I have leaned upon Brug- mann and Delbriick as masters in linguistic learning.

I cannot here recite my indebtedness to all the scholars whose books and writings have helped me. But, besides Broadus, I must mention Gildersleeve as the American Hellenist whose wit and wisdom have helped me over many a hard place. Gilder- sleeve has spent much of his life in puncturing grammatical bubbles blown by other grammarians. He exercises a sort of grammatical censorship. ‘‘At least whole grammars have been constructed about one emptiness.’’* It is possible to be ‘grammar mad,” to use The Independent’s phrase.* It is easy to scout all grammar and say: ‘‘Grammar to the Wolves.”> Browning sings in A Grammarian’s Funeral:

“He settled Hoti’s business — let it be! — Properly based Oun —

Gave us the doctrine of the enclitic De, Dead from the waist down.”

1 ¥. H. Colson, in an article entitled ‘‘The Grammatical Chapters in Quin- tilian,” I, 4-8 (The Cl. Quarterly, Jan., 1914, p. 33), says: “‘The five chapters which Quintilian devotes to ‘Grammatica’ are in many ways the most valuable discussion of the subject which we possess,’”’ though he divides ‘‘ grammatica”’ into “grammar” and “literature,’’ and (p. 37) ‘the whole of this chapter is largely directed to meet the objection that grammar is ‘lenuis et jejuna.’”’

2 The Cl. Weekly, May 27, 1911, p. 229.

3 Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., July, 1909, p. 229. 41911, p. 717.

5 Article by F. A. W. Henderson, Blackwood for May, 1906.

Χ A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Perhaps those who pity the grammarian do not know that he finds joy in his task and is sustained by the conviction that his work is necessary. Prof. C. F. Smith (The Classical Weekly, 1912, p. 150) tells of the joy of the professor of Greek at Bonn when he received a copy of the first volume of Gildersleeve’s Syntax of Classical Greek. The professor brought it to the Sem7- nar and ‘‘clasped and hugged it as though it were a most precious darling (Liebling).”” Dr. A. M. Fairbairn! once said: “No man can be a theologian who is not a philologian. He who is no grammarian is no divine.”” Let Alexander McLaren serve as a good illustration of that dictum. His matchless discourses are the fruit of the most exact scholarship and spiritual enthusiasm. I venture to quote another defence of the study of Greek which will, I trust, yet come back to its true place in modern education. Prof. G. A. Williams, of Kalamazoo College, says”: “Greek yet remains the very best means we have for plowing up and wrink- ling the human brain and developing its gray matter, and wrinkles and gray matter are still the most valuable assets a student can set down on the credit side of his ledger.”’

Dr. J. H. Moulton has shown that it is possible to make gram- mar interesting, as Gildersleeve had done before him. Moulton protests*® against the notion that grammar is dull: ‘And yet there is no subject which can be made more interesting than grammar, a science which deals not with dead rocks or mindless vegetables, but with the ever changing expression of human thought.” I wish to acknowledge here my very great indebtedness to Dr. Moulton for his brilliant use of the Egyptian papyri in proof of the fact that the New Testament was written in the vernacular κοινή. Deissmann is the pioneer in this field and is still the leader in it. It is hard to overestimate the debt of modern New Testament scholarship to his work. Dr. D. 5. Margoliouth, it is true, is rather pessimistic as to the value of the papyri: “Not one per cent. of those which are deciphered and edited with so much care tell us anything worth knowing.”4 Certainly that is too

1 Address before the Baptist Theological College at Glasgow, reported in The British Weekly, April 26, 1906.

2 The Cl. Weekly, April 16, 1910.

3 London Quarterly Review, 1908, p. 214. Moulton and Deissmann also disprove the pessimism of Hatch (Essays in Biblical Greek, p. 1): “The lan- guage of the New Testament, on the other hand, has not yet attracted the special attention of any considerable scholar. There is no good lexicon. There is no good philological commentary. There is no adequate grammar.”

4 The Expositor, Jan., 1912, p. 73.

PREFACE ΧΙ

gloomy a statement. Apart from the linguistic value of the papyri and the ostraca which has been demonstrated, these letters and receipts have interest as human documents. They give us real glimpses of the actual life of the common people in the first Christian centuries, their joys and their sorrows, the little things that go so far to make life what it is for us all. But the student of the Greek New Testament finds a joy all his own in seeing so many words in common use that were hitherto found almost or quite alone in the New Testament or LXX. But the grammar of the N. T. has also had a flood of light thrown on it from the papyri, ostraca and inscriptions as a result of the work of Deissmann, Mayser, Milligan, Moulton, Radermacher, Thumb, Volker, Wilcken and others. I have gratefully availed myself of the work of these scholars and have worked in this rich field for other pertinent illustrations of the New Testament idiom. The material is almost exhaustless and the temptation was constant to use too much of it. I have not thought it best to use so much of it in proportion as Radermacher has done, for the case is now proven and what Moulton and Radermacher did does not have to be repeated. As large as my book is, the space is precious for the New Testament itself. But I have used the new material freely. The book has grown so that in terror I often hold back. It is a long step from Winer, three generations ago, to the present time. We shall never go back again to that stand- point. Winer was himself a great emancipator in the gram- matical field. But the battles that he fought are now ancient history.

It is proper to state that the purpose of this Grammar is not that of the author’s Short Grammar which is now in use in various modern languages of America and Europe. That book has its own place. The present volume is designed for advanced stu- dents in theological schools, for the use of teachers, for scholarly pastors who wish a comprehensive grammar of the Greek New Testament on the desk for constant use, for all who make a thorough study of the New Testament or who are interested in the study of language, and for libraries. If new editions come, as I hope, I shall endeavour to make improvements and correc- tions. Hrrata are sure to exist in a book of this nature. Occa- sionally (cf. Accusative with Infinitive) the same subject. is treated more than once for the purpose of fulness at special points. Some repetition is necessary in teaching. Some needless repetition can be eliminated later. I may explain also that the

ΧΙ A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

works used by me in the Bodleian Library and the British Mu- seum had the citations copied twice with double opportunity for errors of reference, but I have guarded that point to the best of my ability. I have been careful to give credit in detail to the many works consulted.

But, after all is said, I am reluctant to let my book slip away from my hands. There is so much yet to learn. I had hoped that Mayser’s Syntax der griechischen Papyri could have ap- peared so that I could have used it, but he sorrowfully writes me that illness has held him back. Neither Helbing nor Thackeray has finished his Syntax of the LXX. The N. T. Lexicon of Moul- ton and Milligan, though announced, has not yet appeared. Deissmann’s Lexicon is still in the future. Thumb’s revision: of Brugmann’s Griechische Grammatik appeared after my book had gone to the press.!_ I could use it only here and there. The same thing is true of Debrunner’s revision of Blass’ Grammatik des neutest. Griechisch. New light will continue to be turned on the Greek of the N. T. Prof. J. Rendel Harris (The Expository Times, Nov., 1913, p. 54f.) points out, what had not been recently no- ticed, that Prof. Masson, in his first edition of Winer in 1859, p. vii, had said: “‘The diction of the New Testament is the plain and unaffected Hellenic of the Apostolic Age, as employed by Greek-speaking Christians when discoursing on religious sub- jects . . . Apart from the Hebraisms — the number of which has, for the most part, been grossly exaggerated — the New Testament may be considered as exhibiting the only genuine fac-simile of the colloquial diction employed by unsophisticated Grecian gentlemen of the first century, who spoke without pedantry —as ἰδιῶται and not as σοφισταί." The papyri have simply confirmed the insight of Masson in 1859 and of Lightfoot in 1863 (Moulton, Prol., p. 242). One’s mind lingers with fas- cination over the words of the New Testament as they meet him in unexpected contexts in the papyri, as when ἀρετή (cf. 1 Pet. 2:9) occurs in the sense of ‘Thy Excellency,’ ἔχω παρα- σχεῖν τῇ σῇ ἀρετῇ, O. P. 1131, 11 f. (v/a.p.), or when ὑπερῷον (Ac. 1:13) is used of a pigeon-house, τὸν ὑπερῷον τόπον τῆς ὑπαρχούσης αὐτῷ ἐν Μουχινὺρ οἰκίας, O. P. 1127, 5-7 (a.p. 183). But the book must now go forth to do its part in the elucidation of the New

1 Prof. E. H. Sturtevant (Cl. Weekly, Jan. 24, 1914, p. 103) criticises Thumb because he retains in his revision of Brugmann’s book the distinction between accidence and syntax, and so is ‘‘not abreast of the best scholarship of the day.” But for the N. T. the distinction is certainly useful.

PREFACE ΧΗ

Testament, the treasure of the ages.!. I indulge the hope that the toil has not been all in vain. Marcus Dods (Later Letters, p. 248) says: “I admire the grammarians who are content to add one solid stone to the permanent temple of knowledge in- stead of twittering round it like so many swallows and only attracting attention to themselves.” I make no complaint of the labour of the long years, for I have had my reward in a more intimate knowledge of the words of Jesus and of his reporters and interpreters. Τὰ ῥήματα ἃ ἔγὼ λελάληκα ὑμῖν πνεῦμά ἐστιν καὶ ζωή ἐστιν (Jo. 6:63).

I must record my grateful appreciation of the sympathy and help received from many friends all over the world as I have plodded on through the years. My colleagues in the Seminary Faculty have placed me under many obligations in making it possible for me to devote myself to my task and in rendering substantial help. In particular Pres. E. Y. Mullins and Prof. J. R. Sampey have been active in the endowment of the plates. Prof. Sampey also kindly read the proof of the Aramaic and Hebrew words. Prof. W. O. Carver graciously read the proof of the entire book and made many valuable suggestions. Dr. 8. Angus, of Edinburgh, read the manuscript in the first rough draft and was exceedingly helpful in his comments and sympa- thy. Prof. W. H. P. Hatch, of the General Episcopal Theological Seminary, New York, read the manuscript for the publishers and part of the proof and exhibited sympathetic insight that is greatly appreciated. Prof. J. 5. Riggs, of the Auburn Theological Semi- nary, read the proof till his health gave way, and was gracious in his enthusiasm for the enterprise. Prof. Walter Petersen, Ph.D., of Bethany College, Lindsborg, Kansas, read all the proof and freely gave his linguistic attainments to the improvement of the book. Last, but not least in this list, Mr. H. Scott, of Birken- head, England, read the whole book in proof, and in the Accidence verified all the references with minute care and loving interest, and all through the book contributed freely from his wealth of knowledge of detail concerning the Greek N. T. The references in Syntax were verified by a dozen of my students whose labour of love is greatly appreciated. Pres. J. W. Shepherd, of Rio Janeiro, Brazil, and Prof. G. W. Taylor, of Pineville, La., had verified the Scripture references in the MS., which were again verified in proof. The Index of Quotations has been prepared by

1 Brilliant use of the new knowledge is made by Dr. James Moffatt’s New Testament (A New Translation, 1913).

XIV A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Rev. W. H. Davis, of Richmond College, Va.; the Index of Greek Words by Rev. S. L. Watson, Tutor of N. T. Greek for this ses- sion in the Seminary. All this work has been done for me freely and gladly. The mere recital of it humbles me very much. Without this expert aid in so many directions the book could not have been produced at all. I must add, however, that all errors should be attributed to me. I have done the best that I could with my almost impossible task. I have had to put on an old man’s glasses during the reading of the proof.

I must add also my sincere appreciation of the kind words of Prof. Edwin Mayser of Stuttgart, Oberlehrer H. Stocks of Cottbus, Pres. D. G. Whittinghill of Rome, Prof. Caspar René Gregory of Leipzig, the late Prof. E. Nestle of Maulbronn, Prof. James Stalker of Aberdeen, Prof. Giovanni Luzzi of Florence, Prof. J. G. Machen of Princeton, Profs. G. A. Johnston Ross and Jas. E. Frame of Union Seminary, and many others who have cheered me in my years of toil. For sheer joy in the thing Prof. C. M. Cobern of Allegheny College, Penn., and Mr. Dan Craw- ford, the author of Thinking Black, have read a large part of the proof.

I gladly record my gratitude to Mr. G. W. Norton, Misses Lucie and Mattie Norton, Mr. R. A. Peter (who gave in memory of his father and mother, Dr. and Mrs. Arthur Peter), Rev. R. N. Lynch, Rev. R. J. Burdette, Mr. F. H. Goodridge, and others who have generously contributed to the endowment of the plates so that the book can be sold at a reasonable price. I am in- debted to Mr. K. B. Grahn for kindly co-operation. I am deeply grateful also to the Board of Trustees of the Seminary for making provision for completing the payment for the plates.

It is a pleasure to add that Mr. Doran has shown genuine enthusiasm in the enterprise, and that Mr. Linsenbarth of the University Press, Cambridge, has taken the utmost pains in the final proofreading.

I should say that the text of Westcott and Hort is followed in all essentials. Use is made also of the Greek Testaments of Nestle, Souter, and Von Soden whose untimely death is so re- cent an event. In the chapter on Orthography and Phonetics more constant use is made, for obvious reasons, of variations in the manuscripts than in the rest of the book. It is now four hundred years since Cardinal Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros had printed the Greek New Testament under the auspices of the University of Alcalé or Complutum, near Madrid, though it

PREFACE XV

was not circulated till 1522. Erasmus got his edition into circu- lation in 1516. “The Complutensian edition of 1514 was the first of more than a thousand editions of the New Testament in Greek”’ (E. J. Goodspeed, The Biblical World, March, 1914, p. 166). It thus comes to pass that the appearance of my Grammar marks the four hundredth anniversary of the first printed Greek New Testament, and the book takes its place in the long line of aids to the study of the “Book of Humanity.” The Freer Gospels and the Karidethi Gospels show how much we have to expect in the way of discovery of manuscripts of the New Testament.

I think with pleasure of the preacher or teacher who under the inspiration of this Grammar may turn afresh to his Greek New Testament and there find things new and old, the vital message all electric with power for the new age. That will be my joy so long as the book shall find use and service at the hands of the ministers of Jesus Christ.

A. T. RoBertson. Louisvitte, Ky., 1914.

ak

pa ie an ee ᾿ἐ

wy

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I— INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER PES New (Materiales. 9 2 net tae ea ia 8 0 a div at ΠῚ ‘The Historical’ Method. 3... ke ee es £6 [sprue Rov προ τ ms § IV. The Place of the New Testament in the Κοινή. . .

PART II —ACCIDENCE

CHAPTER Wa \WWOiGe Mormakhna Al ig'in oes c.d Siro, o coos τς - a VI. Orthography and Phonetics. . - - - «τς Ὁ « Will ehewD eclensionsiemcy i ciieit ie sie -π }νὺὍΐ τ π-Ὸ--- sf VIII. The Conjugation of the Verb. ......---

PART IJI—SYNTAX

CHAPTER DXe ΠΟ Meaning Ole Sy Mba yer. cots el iay stasis ee DC) “Abney ΞΕ ΠΟΘ ho. Mon och GO NGd bo ea hoo alo, c Sc if Sl ea Mien Ghrstess Us Cee in ines Guero; IO ρον CU τη 7» Ξε ΧΟ ΠΑ ELIOS WHA naw ΝΜ ΑΥΕΛΣ ae vist lik ton δὲ τον πε γε} iccimtol rs ( CULTS ΡΕΘΡΟΒΙ ΙΗ 4) sr sete ie way et doe ἀπ τπυτ- es ΘΝ ONGIECLIVES Ne ponzs sore aol onic poner setts rst pou ten was wade ἐξ ον ἸΡΙΟΠΟΌΠΗΣ πὸ τέ tou iemes Br ours Weems τ, alee Atle Nanas aoe elie, We a clic τ ho) © τ NEVE ΝΟ θα HE enters eee π ΛΝ Total ay Ponty ον τ alin τω" f ΙΝ ΠΙΕΉΒΟ ΣΡ ΣΝ cl ΚΡ er umrciih ocatayie etasta, coo τ PANO ΠΟΘ πο Mae ae col, Val τος τὴς Beiserp anes « YOR MEd omlaNoiaess vaweme woe Oa ial icy Guo SMaliows γι XOX UR anti cles erieansniste race riiccltet ey ys Re one aso ern nsypt ore, s i NALS OHI MTES OL SPEED τς ae GPE lal τ τ: 50:

JAG DTNCOINUND, IN(OUWOTEN BE *ge Gh bemommelson on Beto 40 fq, Bile! cl lot to OOP oe ἐν ς

Lig DE ΟΕ SURI CLS πὴ 1..Ὁ05

END AORLG REMI NWORDSiat ciel) sie ttl το val elite Celmtwreken vey τ

LINDE OE QUOTATIONS ποτ wey ne) ise τ aly er ey Le cate My at's

ἣν}.

enor ania

Ms) ay

LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO

I HAD prepared an exhaustive analytic bibliography of the per- tinent literature, but it was so long that, on the advice of several friends, I have substituted an alphabetical list of the main works mentioned in the book. The editions of Greek authors, the pa- pyri and the inscriptions will be found in the Index of Quota- tions. Look therefor them. For full histories of grammatical discussion one may turn to Sandys, A History of Classical Scholar- ship, vols. I-III (1906-1908); Gudemann, GrundriB der Geschichte der klassischen Philologie (2. Aufl., 1909); and Hiibner, Grund- ri8 zu Vorlesungen tiber die griechische Syntax (1883). By no means all the works consulted and referred to in the Grammar are given below. Only the most important can be mentioned. Hundreds that were consulted are not alluded to in the Gram- mar. But the following list represents fairly well the works that have contributed most to the making of my book. The chief journals quoted are also mentioned here.

ἈΑΒΒΟΤΊ, Εἰ. A., Clue. A Guide through Greek to Hebrew (1904).

, Johannine Grammar (1906).

, Johannine Vocabulary (1905).

Am. J. Ph., The American Journal of Philology (Baltimore).

ALEXANDER, W. J., Participial Periphrases in Attic Orators (Am. J. Ph., IV, pp. 291-309).

ALLEN, H. F., The Infinitive in Polybius compared with the In- finitive in Biblical Greek (1907).

Am. J. of Sem. L. and Lit., The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature (Chicago).

Am. J. of Theol., The American Journal of Theology (Chicago).

Anaus, 8., Modern Methods in New Testament Philology (Har- vard Theol. Rev., Oct., 1909).

——, The Κοινή, the Language of the New Testament (Princ. Theol. Rev., Jan., 1910).

Anz, H., Subsidia ad cognoscendum Graecorum sermonem vul- garum e Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina repetita (Diss. phil. Hal., XII, 1894, pp. 259-387).

X1X

ΧΧ A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Apostouipes, Essai sur |’Hellénisme Egyptien et ses rapports avec |’Hellénisme classique et |’Hellénisme moderne (1898).

——., Du grec alexandrin et des rapports avec le gree ancien et le grec moderne (1892).

Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete (Leipzig).

ARNAUD, Essai sur le caractére de la langue grec du N. T. (1899).

ARNOLD and Conway, The Restored Pronunciation of Greek and Latin (1885). |

Aupoin, E., De la déclinaison dans les langues indo-européennes (1898).

Bassitt, The Use of Μή in Questions (Harvard Studies in Class. Phil., 1901).

Bacon, Rocrer, Oxford Greek Grammar. Edited by Nolan and Hirsch (1902).

BaMBERG, Hauptregeln der griechischen Syntax (1890).

Baron, Le Pronom Relatif et la Conjonctive en Grec (1892).

Barry, W., The Holy Latin Tongue (Dublin Rev., April, 1906); Our Latin Bible (7b., July).

BAUMLEIN, Untersuchungen iiber die griech. Modi und die Par- tikeln κέν und ἄν (1846).

——,, Untersuch. iiber griech. Partikeln (1861).

Bekker, Anecdota Graeca. 3 Bde. (1814-1821).

BENARD, Formes verbales en grec d’aprés le texte d’Hérodote (1890).

Brerpout, Der Konsekutivsatz in der dltern griech. Lit. (1896).

BrERNHARDY, G., Wissenschaftliche Syntax der griechischen Sprache (1829).

Bibl. Ec., Bibliothéque de l’école des hautes Etudes (Paris).

Bibl. Gr. V., Bibliothéque grecque vulgaire (Paris).

Bibl. S., The Bibliotheca Sacra (Oberlin).

Bibl. W., The Biblical World (Chicago).

ΒΙΒΚΕ, De Particularum μή et οὐ Usu Polybiano Dionysiaeo Dio- doreo Straboniano (1897).

BIRKLEIN, F., Entwickelungsgeschichte des substantivierten In- finitivs (1882).

Buass, F., Acta Apostolorum (1895).

——., Die griech. Beredsamkeit von Alex. bis auf August. (1865).

——., Die Rhythmen der asianischen und rémischen Kunstprosa (1905).

——, Die rhythm. Kompos. d. Hebr.-Briefes (Theol. Stud. und Krit., 1902, pp. 420-461).

——.,, Evangelium sec. Lukam (1897).

LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO ΧΧῚ

Buass, F., Grammatik d. neut. Griech. 2. Aufl. (1902).

, Hermeneutik und Kritik (1892).

—, Philology of the Gospels (1898).

—, Pronunciation of Ancient Greek (translation by Purton in 1890 of 3. Aufl. of Uber die Aussprache des Griech. (1888).

Buiass-DEBRUNNER, Grammatik d. neut. Griech. 4. Aufl. (1913).

Buass-THACKERAY, Grammar of New Testament Greek. 2d ed. (1905).

BLOOMFIELD, Study of Greek Accent (A. J. Ph., 1883).

Boumer, J., Das biblische ‘fim Namen” (1898).

Borsaca, Les dialectes doriens (1891).

, Dictionnaire étymol. de la langue grecque (1907 ff.).

BouuinG, The Participle in Hesiod (Cath. Univ. Bulletin, 1897).

Bonuo6rrer, A., Epiktet und das N. T. (1911).

Bopp, Vergleichende Grammatik (1857).

Br. W., The British Weekly (London).

Broavvus, JoHn A., Comm. on Matt. (1886).

BrRockELMANN, C., Grundrif} der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen (1907).

BruGMann, K., Elements of Comparative Grammar of the Indo- Germanic Languages (translation by Wright, 1895).

—, Griechische Grammatik. 3. Aufl. (1900), the ed. quoted. Vierte vermehrte Aufl. of A. Thumb (1913).

—, Grundrif8 der vergl. Gr. d. indog. Sprachen. 2. Aufl., Bde. I, II (1897-1913).

—, Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen (1904).

Buck, C. D., Introduction to the Study of the Greek Dialects (1910).

BuLtTMAnn, R., Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch- stoische Diatribe (1910).

Burescu, Teyovay und anderes Vulgirgriechisch (Rhein. Mus. f. Phil., 1891, pp. 193-232).

Burkitt, Εἰ. C., Syriac Forms of N. T. Proper Names (1912).

Burrows, R. M., Discoveries in Crete (1907).

Burton, E. D., Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the N. T. Gk. 3d ed. (1909).

BurtTon-ZWwAANn, Syntax d. Wijzen etijden in ἢ. Gr. N. T. (1906).

ButcueEr, 8. H., Some Aspects of the Greek Genius (1893).

, Harvard Lectures on Greek Subjects (1904).

Burrmann, A., Grammatik d. neut. Sprachgebrauchs (1859).

BurrmMann-[HAyiER, A Grammar of the Ν. T. Greek (1880).

ΧΧῚ A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Bywater, J., The Erasmian Pronunciation of Greek and its Pre- cursors (1908).

Byz.-Z., Byzantinische Zeitschrift (Leipzig).

Cambr. Ph. J., Cambridge Philological Journal.

Cath. Univ. Bull., Catholic University Bulletin.

CavER, Grammatica Militans. 3d ed. (1912).

CHANDLER, H., A Practical Introduction to Greek Accentuation. 2d ed. (1881).

Cuask, F. H., The Credibility of the Acts (1902).

Curist, W., Geschichte der griech. Literatur bis auf die Zeit Jus- tinians. 4. Aufl. (1905). 5. Aufl. (1913).

Cuurton, The Influence of the Septuagint upon the Progress of Christianity (1861).

CuaFr.in, ΕΡΙΤΗ, Syntax of Boeotian Dialect Inscriptions (1905).

CuiassEN, J., De Grammaticae Graecae Primordiis (1829).

Cl. Ph., Classical Philology (Chicago).

Cl. Q., Classical Quarterly (London).

Cl. Rev., Classical Review (London).

Cl. W., Classical Weekly (New York).

CriypE, J., Greek Syntax (1876).

Comprernass, De Sermone Gr. Volg. Pisidiae Phrygiaeque meri- dionalis (1895).

ConyYBEARE and Srock, Selections from the LXX. A Gram- matical Introduction (1905).

Courtoz, Les Préfixes en Grec, en Latin et en Frangais (1894).

Cremer, H., Biblico-Theological Lexicon of N. T. Greek (1892). Urwick’s translation.

- Bibl.-theol. Woérterbuch d. neut. Gricitiét. 9. Aufl. (1902). Cremer-Kiigel, neue Aufl. (1912).

CroOnERT, W., Memoria Graeca Herculanensis (1903).

—, Questiones Herculanenses (1898).

Crum, W. E., Coptic Ostraca from the Collections of the Egypt Exploration Fund, the Cairo Museum and others (1902).

Curtius, G., Greek Etymology. 2 vols. (1886).

——. Studien zur griech. und lat. Grammatik (1868-1878).

Datman, G., Grammatik des jiidisch-palistinischen Aramiisch (1894).

—, Worte Jesu (1902).

——., The Words of Jesus (1902). Translation by Ὁ. M. Kay.

Dawes, E. 8., Pronunciation of the Gk. Aspirates (1894).

D. B., Dictionary of the Bible (Hastings, 1898-1904).

D.C. G., Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (Hastings, 1906).

LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO Xxili

DEISsMANN, A., Bible Studies (1901). Tr. by A. Grieve; cf. Bibel- studien (1895) and Neue Bibelstudien (1897).

——, Biblische Gracitat etc. (Theol. Rundschau, Okt. 1912).

——, Die Hellenisierung des semitischen Monotheismus (N. Jahrb. f. d. kl. Alt., 1903).

—,, Die neut. Formel ‘‘in Christo” (1892).

——, Die Sprache ἃ. griech. Bibel (Theol. Rundschau, 1906, No. 116).

—., Die Urgeschichte des Christentums im Lichte der Sprach- forschung (Intern. Woch., 30. Okt. 1909).

- Hellenistisches Griechisch (Herzog-Hauck’s Realencyc., VII, 1899). .

—., Licht vom Osten (1908).

—, Light from the Ancient East (1910). Tr. by Strachan.

—., New Light on the N. T. (1907). Tr. by Strachan.

—, Papyri (Encye. Bibl., ΠῚ, 1902).

, St. Paul in the Light of Social and Religious History (1912).

Dexpsricxk, B., Ablativ Localis Instrumentalis (1867).

, Grundrif§ der vergl. Gramm. d. indog. Sprachen. © Syntax.

Bde. III—V (1893, 1897, 1900).

——., Introduction to the Study of Language (1882). Einleitung

in das Sprachstudium. 4. Aufl. (1904). 5. Aufl. (1913).

, Syntaktische Forschungen. 5 Bde. (1871-1888).

Dick, Der schriftstellerische Plural bei Paulus (1900).

Dickey, 8., New Points of View for the Study of the Greek of the N. T. (Princeton Theol. Rev., Oct., 1903).

Dre, De enuntiatis finalibus apud graecorum rerum scriptores posterioris aetatis (1894).

Drierericu, K., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Sprache von der hellen. Zeit bis zum 10. Jahrh. n. Chr. (1898).

Donatpson, J. W., The New Cratylus (1859).

DrRakEGER, Hist. Syntax d. lat. Sprache (1878-1881).

Dubl. Rev., The Dublin Review (Dublin).

Durr, Sprachliche Untersuchungen (1899).

Dyrorr, A., Geschichte des Pronomen Reflexivum (1892, 1893).

Earze, M. L., Classical Papers (1912).

EBELING, H., Griechisch-deutsches Woérterbuch zum Ν. T. (1913).

Ecxinecer, Die Orthographie lateinischer Worter in griech. In- schriften (1893).

E. G. T., Expositor’s Greek Testament.

Encyc. Bibl., Encyclopaedia Biblica.

Encyc. Brit., Encyclopaedia Britannica. 11th ed. (1910).

XXIV A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

ENGEL, E., Die Aussprache des Griechischen (1887).

ERNAULT, Du Parfait en Grec et en Latin (1886).

Evans, A. J., Cretan Pictographs and Pre-Phcenician Script (1895).

—, Further Researches (1898).

Exp., The Expositor (London).

Expos. T., The Expository Times (Edinburgh).

FarNeELL, L. R., Greek Conditional and Relative Sentences (1892).

Farrar, F. W., Greek Syntax (1876).

Fick-BEcHTEL, Die griechischen Personennamen. 2. Aufl. (1894).

Fieip, F., Otium Norvicense. Pars Tertia (1881).

FLENSBERG, Uber Ursprung und Bildung des Pron. αὐτός (1893).

Fow er, The Negatives of the Indo-European Languages (1896).

Foy, K., Lautsystem der griech. Vulgarsprache (1879).

, FRANKEL, Griechische Denominativa (1906).

FRENZEL, Die Entwick. des relativen Satzbaues im Griech. (1889).

, Die Entwick. der Sitze mit πρίν (1896).

Fucus, A., Die Temporalsiitze mit den Konjunktionen ‘‘bis” und “so ἘΝ als’”’ (1902).

Fuurer, De Particulae ὡς cum Participiis et Pinlopoa! punctae Usu Thucydideo (1889).

Gattoway, W. F., On the Use of Μή with the Participle in Clas- sical Greek (1897).

GrppEs, A Compendious Greek Grammar (1888).

GELDART, The Modern Greek Language in Its Relation to An- cient Greek (1870).

Gersporr, C. G., Beitrige zur Sprachcharakteristik der Schrift- steller des N. T. (1816).

GESENIUS-KautzscH, Hebrew Grammar.

Geyer, M., Observationes epigraphicae de praepositionum graec. forma et Usu (1880).

GILDERSLEEVE, B. L., Editions of Pindar and Justin Martyr.

, Latin Grammar. Many editions since 1867.

——., Notes on Stahl’s Syntax of the Greek Verb (1910).

——, Numerous articles in the American Journal of Philology.

GILDERSLEEVE and Miuuer, Syntax of Classical Greek. Part I (1900), Part II (1911).

Gildersleeve Studies. Volume in honour of Prof. Gildersleeve of Johns Hopkins (1902).

Gites, P., A Short Manual of Comparative Philology. 2d ed. (1901).

—,, The Greek Language (Encye. Britannica, 1910).

LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO XXV

Gites-HERTEL, Vergl. Grammatik (1896). Tr. of Giles’ Manual.

GoETZELER, L., De Polybii elocutione (1887).

——, Einfluf ἃ. Dion. Hal. auf d. Sprachgebrauch (1891).

GoopsPEED, E. J., Did Alexandria Influence the Nautical Lan- guage of St. Luke? (The Expositor, VIII, 1903, pp. 130-141).

Goopwin, W. W., Greek Grammar. Various editions.

, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb. Rev.

ed. (1890).

Granit, De Inf. et Part. in Inscr. Dial. Graec. Questiones Synt. (1892).

GREEN, Μή for οὐ before Lucian (Studies in Honour of B. Gil- dersleeve, 1902). .

GREEN, B., Notes on Greek and Latin Syntax (1897).

GREEN, 8. G., Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek N. T. Rev. ed. (1904).

GreGory, Οὐ. R., Canon and Text of the N. T. (1907).

—, Die griech. Handschriften ἃ. N. T. (1908).

——, Nov. Test. Graece, ed. Tischendorf. Bd. III, Prolegomena (1884-1894).

—, Textkritik d. N. T. 3 Bde. (1900-1909).

Grimm-Tuayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the N. T. (1887).

GRUNEWALD, L., Der freie formelhafte Inf. d. Limitation im Griech. (1888).

GupEMANN, A., GrundrifS der Geschichte ἃ. klass. Philologie. 2. Aufl. (1909).

GUILLEMARD, W. H., Hebraisms in the Greek Testament (1879).

Gitnrtuer, R., Die Prapos. in d. griech. Dialektinschriften (Indog. Forsch., 1906).

Haptey and Auuen, Greek Grammar (1895).

Hapbtey, JAMEs, Essays Philological and Critical (1873).

, Language of the N. T. (vol. II, Hackett and Abbott’s ed. of

Smith’s B. D., 1898).

Haune, Zur sprachlichen Asthetik d. Griechischen (1896).

Hate, W. G., The Anticipatory Subj. in Gk. and Lat. (Stud. Cl. Phil., 1895).

——, The Cum Constructions (Studies in Class. Phil., 1887).

——., The Origin of Subj. and Opt. Conditions in Gk. and Lat. (Harvard Studies in Class. Philol., 1901).

Hamiuton, The Negative Conditions in Greek (1899).

Hammer, De τέ Particulae Usu Herodoteo Thucydideo Xeno- phonteo (1904).

Hammerscumipt, Uber die Grundb. von Konjunktiv und Optativ.

XXVi A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Harnack, A., Luke the Physician (1907).

——, The Acts of the Apostles (1909).

Harnris, J. RENDEL, Side-Lights on N. T. Research (1908).

Harrison, GEssNneR, A Treatise on the Philology of Greek Prepo- sitions (1858).

Harrison, Miss JANE, Prol. to the Study of Greek Religion (1903).

Harsina, C., De Optativi in Chartis Aegyptiis Usu. Diss. Bonn (1910).

Hartet, Abrif der Gr. d. hom. und herod. Dial. (1888).

Harruna, J. A., Lehre von den Partikeln der griech. Spr., I, II (1832-1833).

Hatrcu, E., Essays in Bibl. Greek (1892).

Hatcu, W. H. P., Some Illustrations of N. T. Usage from Greek Inscriptions ai Asia Minor (Journ. of Bibl. Lit., 1908, pp.

134-146).

Harzipaxis, G. N., Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik (1892).

Havers, W., Uatersuehs zur Kasussyntax der indog. Sprachen (1911).

Hawkins, J. C., Horae Synopticae. 2d ed. (1909).

Heine, G., Synonymik des neutest. Griechisch (1898).

Hernrict, K. F., Der literarische Charakter der neutest. Schriften (1908).

HeITMULLER, W., Im Namen Jesu (1902).

Hewsine, R., Die Pripos. bei Herodot und andern Historikern (1904).

—, Grammatik der Septuaginta. Laut- und Wortlehre (1907).

——, Uber den Gebrauch des echten und soziativen Dativs bei Herodot.

Henry, Précis de grammaire du grec et du latin. 5th ed. (1894). Elliott’s tr. of 1st ed. (1890).

Hermes, Zeitschrift fiir klassische Philologie.

Hessetinea, D. C., De Koine en de oude dialekten van Griechen- land (1906).

Hicks, E. L., St. Paul and Hellenism (Studia Biblica et Eccl., 1896).

—, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the N. T.

(1896).

, Use of Political Terms in the N. T. (Class. Rev., March

and April, 1887).

Hicks, E. L., and Hin, G. F., A Manual of Greek Historical In- scriptions (1901).

LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED ΤῸ ΧΧΥΪ

Hirt, H., Handbuch der griech. Laut- und Formenlehre (1902). 2. Aufl. (1912).

Hosart, W. K., The Medical Language of Luke (1882).

Horrmann, F., Neutestamentliche Bibelstudien. 5 Bde. (1903).

, Uber die Entwick. des Begriffs der Grammatik bei den

Alten (1891).

Horrmann, O., Das Priisens der indog. Grundsprache (1889).

, Die griechische Dialekte, I-III (1891-1898).

—, Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und ihr Volkstum (1906).

—, Geschichte d. griech. Sprache (1911).

HogartH, D. G., Philip and Alexander (1897).

Hou, K., Das Fortleben der Volkssprachen in nachchristlicher Zeit (Hermes, 1908, 43, pp. 248 ff.).

Hoots, C. H., The Classical Element in the N. T. (1888).

Hort, F. J. A., Notes on Orthography (pp. 141-173, vol. II of the N. T. in the Original Greek, 1882).

Howes, The Use of My with the Participle (Harv. St. in Cl. Ph., 1901).

Hatcu and Reppatu, Concordance to the LX X (1897).

Hisner, E., Grundri8 zu Vorlesungen tiber die griech. Syntax (1883).

HipscHMann, Zur Kasuslehre (1875).

Humpureys, M. W., The Problems of Greek (Congress of Arts and Sciences, 1904, vol. III, pp. 171 ff.).

Indog. Forsch., Indogermanische Forschungen (Stra8burg).

Immer, J., Hermeneutics of the N. T. Tr. by A. H. Newman (1877).

Intern. Woch., Internationale Wochenschrift.

JACOBSTHAL, H. K., Der Gebrauch der Tempora und Modi in den kretischen Dialektinschriften (1906).

JacquiER, E., Histoire des Livres du N. T. Tomes I-IV. Ch. ii, Tome I, Langue du N. T.

J. kl. Ph., Jahrbuch fiir klass. Philologie (Leipzig).

JANNARIS, A. N., A Historical Greek Grammar (1897).

——, On the True Meaning of the Κοινή (Class. Rev., 1903, pp. 93 ff.). |

JEBB, R. C., Attic Orators. 2d ed. (1893).

, Introduction to the Iliad and the Odyssey (1892).

——, On the Relation of Classical to Modern Greek (Appendix to Vincent and Dickson’s Handbook to Mod. Gk., 1887). Jer, W. E., A Grammar of the Greek Language. 2 vols.

(1866).

XXVlli A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Jonannessoun, M., Der Gebrauch der Kasus und der Priaposi- tionen in der Septuaginta. Teil I (1910).

Jotity, Ein Kapitel ἃ. vergl. Syntax. Der Konjunktiv und Op- tativ. 4

——, Geschichte des Infinitivs im Indog. (1873).

Joy, On the Syntax of Some Prepositions in the Greek Dialects (1905).

J. of Phil., The Journal of Philology (London).

J. B. L., The Journal of Biblical Literature (Boston).

J. H. S., The Journal of Hellenic Studies (London).

J. T. 8., The Journal of Theological Studies (London).

Jiiticuer, A., Introduction to the N. T. Tr. by Ward (1904).

Karrst, J., Geschichte des hellenistischen Zeitalters (1901).

KarBEL, Stil und Text der ᾿Αθηναίων Πολιτεία.

KAxxker, F., Questiones de elocutione Polybiana (1880).

KALLENBERG, Stud. iiber den griech. Artikel (1891).

Kavurzscu, E., Grammatik d. bibl. Aram. (1884).

Kennepy, H. A. A., Recent Research in the Language of the N. T. (The Expos. T., xii, 1901).

—, Sources of N. T. Greek (1895).

- St Paul and the Mystery Religions (1913).

Kenyon, F. G., Evidence of the Papyri for Textual Criticism of the N. T. (1905).

——, Handbook to the Textual Crit. of the N. T. 2d ed. (1912).

—, Paleography of the Greek Papyri (1899).

—, Papyri (Hastings’ Ὁ. B., extra vol., 1904).

Kine and Cooxson, The Principles of Sound and Inflexion as Illustrated in the Greek and Latin Languages (1888).

Krauss, 8., Griechische und lateinische Lehnwérter in Talmud, Midrasch und Targum. I (1898), II (1899).

Kress, F., Die Pripositionen bei Polybius (1882. Schanz’ Bei- triige).

- Die Pripositionsadverbien in der spiteren hist. Gricitat. TI. I (1889).

——, Zur Rektion der Kasus in der spateren hist. Gracit. (1887— 1890).

KRENKEL, Josephus und Lukas (1894).

Kretscumer, P., Die Einl. in die Geschichte der griech. Sprache (1906).

-- , Die Entstehung der Κοινή (Sitz. ber. ἃ. Wien. Akad., 1900).

——., Die griech. Vaseninschriften ihrer Sprache nach untersucht (1894).

LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO XXIX

Krumpacuer, Κι, Beitrige zu einer Geschichte der griech. Sprache (Kuhn’s Zeitschr., 1885, pp. 481-545).

=—,, Das Problem d. neugriech. Schriftsprache (1902).

——, Das Programm des neuen Thesaurus d. griech. Spr. (1909).

——, Die griech. Lit. des Mittelalters (Kultur d. Gegenwart, Tl. I, Abt. viii, 1905).

Ktuner-Buass, Ausfiihrliche Grammatik d. griech. Sprache. 3. Aufl. of Kiihner. Teil I, Bde. I, II (1890, 1892).

Ktuner-Gertu, Ausf. Gramm. d. griech. Spr. 3. Aufl. of Kiihner. Tl. II, Bde. I, Π (1898, 1904).

Kuurine, G., De praepositionum Graecarum in chartis Aegyp- tiacis (1906).

Kurrr, Der Gebr. d. Opt. bei Diod. Sic. (1903).

K. Z., Kuhn’s Zeitschrift fiir vergl. Sprachforschung (Berlin).

Laroscabg, Infl. du Lat. sur le Grec (Bibl. de I’Ecole des hautes Et., 1892, pp. 83-158). ’

LAGARDE, P. pn, Septuagintastudien. I (1891).

Lake, K., The Text of the N. T. 4th ed. (1908).

LaMBERT, Etude sur le dialecte éolien (1903).

Lana, A., Homer and His Age (1906).

Laquevr, R., Questiones epigraphicae et papyrologicae selectae (1904).

La Rocue, Beitrige zur griech. Gr. (1883).

—., Das Augment des griech. Verbums (1882).

Laueuuin, T. C., The Solecisms of the Apocalypse (1902).

LavuTeEnsacH, Verbalflexion der attischen Inschriften (1887).

LEFEVRE, Race and Language (1909).

Ley, Der Absolut-Akk. im Griech. bis zu Aristoteles (1892).

Leutner, W. G., The Article in Theocritus (1907).

LippELu and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon. 7th ed. (1882).

LietzMaAnn, H., Die klass. Philologie und das N. T. (N. Jahrb. f. kl. Alt., 1908, Bd. 21).

——. Griechische Papyri ausgewahlt und erklirt. 2. Aufl. (1910).

Licutroot, TreNcH, Eviicotr, The Revision of the N. T. (1873).

Lresius, K. H.\.-., Grammatische Untersuchungen iiber die bibl. Gracitit (1863).

Livineston, The Greek Genius and Its Meaning to Us (1912).

Loseck, C. A., Phrynichi ecloga nominum et verborum Atticorum (1820).

Lock, W., The Bible and Christian Life (1905).

Loisy, A., Histoire critique du texte et des versions de la Bible (1892).

ΧΧΧ A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Lorticu, B., De sermone vulgari Atticorum (1881).

Lutz, Die Kasus-Adverbien bei att. Rednern (1891).

Mapvia, Bemerk. itiber einige Punkte des Griech. (1848).

, Syntax of the Greek Language (1880).

Manarry, J. P., A Survey of Greek Civilization (1897).

, Greek Life and Thought (1896).

——. Progress of Hellenism in Alexander’s Empire (1905).

—, The Greek World under Roman Sway (1890).

—, What Have the Greeks Done for Civilization? (1909).

MarcouioutH, D. 8., Language of the O. T. (Hastings’ Ὁ. B.).

Marco.is, The Particle ἤ in O. T. Gk. (Am. J. of Sem. Lang. and

Lit., July, 1909).

Marsnat., J. T., The Aramaic Gospel (The Expositor, ser. IV,

li, 11, ἵν, vi, viii; The Expos. Times, iv, 260).

Mart, K., Kurzgef. Gr. d. bibl. aram. Spr. (1911).

Mayser, E., Grammatik der griech. Papyri aus der Ptolemierzeit. Laut- und Wortlehre (1906).

Mertxret7, A., Introduction 4 l’étude comparative des langues indo- européennes (1908). 3d ed. (1912).

--- L’aoriste en lat. (Revue de Phil., 1897, p. 81 f.).

—, Notes d’Etymologie Grecque (1896).

Merster, R., Beitrige zur Lautlehre d. LXX (1909).

, Der syntakt. Gebrauch d. Genitivs in den kret. Dialekt-

inschriften (Indog. Forsch., XVIII, pp. 133-204).

—, Die griech. Dialekte. 2 Bde. (1882-1889).

——,, Prol. zu einer Gramm. d. LXX (1907).

MEISTERHANS-SCHWYZER, Gramm. d. attischen Inschriften. 3. Aufl. (1900) of Meisterhans.

Merriam, A. C., Temporal Coincidence of the Aor. Part. with the Principal Verb (Proc. Am. Phil. Assoc., 1877).

Meyer, A., Jesu Muttersprache (1896).

Meyer, G., Griech. Grammatik. 3. Aufl. (1896).

Meyer, L., Griech. Aoriste (1879).

——,, Vergl. Gr. d. griech. und lat. Spr. 2 Bde. 2. Aufl. (1882- 1884). hi,

Meyer-Ltsxe, Gramm. d. roman. Spr. 3 Bde. (1890-1899).

Mipp.teTon, Analogy in Syntax (1892).

——., The Doctrine of the Greek Article (1855).

Mriupen, The Limitations of the Predicate Position in Greek.

Miter, C. W. E., The Limitation of the Imperative in the Attic Orators (Am. J. Ph., 1892, pp. 399-436).

MiuiGcan, G., Selections from the Greek Papyri (1910).

LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO XXXI1

Miuuican, G., The Greek Papyri with Special Reference to their

Value for N. T. Study (1912).

, The N. T. Documents (1913).

Mirsorakis, Praktische Gr. d. neugriech. Schrift- und Umgangs- sprache (1891).

_ Mrrreis und Witcken, Grundziige und Chrestomathie der Papy- ruskunde. 2 Bde. (1912).

Morratt, J., The New Testament. A New Translation (1913).

Mommsen, T., Beitrige zur Lehre der griech. Pripositionen (1886-1895).

——,, Die Priip. civ und μετά bei den nachhom. Epikern (1879).

Monro, Ὁ. B., Homeric Grammar (1882). 2d ed. (1891). First ed. used.

Movtton; J. H., A Grammar of N. T. Greek. Vol. I, Prolego- mena (1906). 3d ed. (1908).

—, Characteristics of N. T. Greek (The Expositor, 1904).

-- “ Hinleitung in die Sprache des N. T. (1911).

——, Grammatical Notes from the Papyri (The Expositor, 1901, pp. 271-282; 1908, pp. 104-121, 423-439. The Classical Re- view, 1901, pp. 31-37, 434-441; 1904, pp. 106-112, 151-155).

——,, Introduction to N. T. Greek (1895). 2d ed. (1904).

——, Language of Christ (Hastings’ One-vol. D. B., 1909).

—, N. T. Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery (Cambr.

Bibl. Essays, 1909, pp. 461-505).

, The Science of Language (1903).

Moutton, W. F., and GeprEn, A. §., A Concordance to the Greek Testament (1897).

Movuuton and Mriuuican, Lexical Notes from the Papyri (The

Expos., 1908—).

, A Lexicon of N. T. Greek based on these ‘‘Notes’’ is announced.

Moztey, F. W., Notes on the Bibl. Use of the Present and Aorist Imperative (Journ. of Theol. Stud., 1903, iv, pp. 279-282).

Mutuacu, F., Grammatik d. griech. Vulgarsprache (1856).

Miuuter, H. C., Hist. Gramm. d. hellen. Sprache (1891).

Miuer, I., Handbuch ἃ. klass. Altertumswissenschaft (1885—).

Miuier, Max, Three Lectures on the Science of Language (1891).

Murray, G., A History of Ancient Greek Lit. (1897).

Murzpaver, C., Die Grundbedeutung des Konjunktivs und Op- tativs und ihre Entwick. im Griech. (1908).

—, Die Grundlagen der griech. Tempuslehre und des hom. Tempusgebrauchs. I (1893), II (1909).

ΧΧΧῚ A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK. NEW TESTAMENT

Nacumanson, E., Beitriige zur Kenntnis der altgriech. Volks- sprache (1910).

—-, Epigraphisch-grammatische Bemerkungen (Eranos 11, 1912).

—, Laute und Formen der magnetischen Inschriften (1903).

Nageut, T., Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus. a—e (1905).

Navarre, Etude sur les particules grecques (R. E. A., vii, pp. 116-130).

Nestiz, E., Einfiihrung in das griech. N. T. 2. Aufl. (1899). Introd. to the Textual Crit. of the N. T. (Tr. 1901).

—, Novum Testamentum Graece. 8th ed. (1910).

——, Septuagint (Hastings’ D. B., 1902).

——, Septuaginta-Studien. I-V (1886-1907).

—, Zum neutest. Griechisch (Z. N. W., vii, 1906).

NEUBAUER, Studia Biblica (1885).

N.k. Z., Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift (Leipzig).

N. Jahrb. kl. Alt., Neue Jahrbiicher fiir das klass. Altertum (Leipzig).

Nitsson, Kausalsiitze im Griech. bis Aristoteles. I., Die Poesie.

Norpen, E., Die antike Kunstprosa. 2. Aufl. (1909).

OxrRTEL, H., Lectures on the Study of Language (1902).

Oapen, De infinitivi finalis vel consecutivi constr. apud priscos poetas Graecos (1913).

Patry, Greek Particles and their Combinations (1881).

Pauus, A., A Few Notes on the Gospel (1903).

——, ‘H Νέα Διαθήκη (1902). The N. T. (Gospels) in modern Greek vernacular.

Pater, W., The Renaissance (1904).

Paut, H., Principles of the History of Language (1888). Tr.

Perrersen, W., Greek Diminutives in --ἰον (1910).

Prerraur, Der Artikel vor Personen- und Gétternamen bei Thuk. und Herod. (1908).

Prister, Die parataktische Darstellungsform in der volkstiim- lichen Erziihlung (Woch. f. klass. Phil., 1911, pp. 809-813).

Ph. W., Philologische Wochenschrift.

Ph. Z., Philologus: Zeitschrift f. d. kl. Alt. (G6ttingen).

Posreats, J. P., Contrasts of Οὐ and Μή (Cambr. Phil. Jour., 1886).

Pretuwitz, Etym. Worterbuch ἃ. griech. Sprache (1893). 24 ed. (1905).

Prevuscuen, E., Vollstiindiges griechisch-deutsches Handworter- buch zu den Schriften d. N. T. und d. tibrigen urchristlichen Literatur (1908).

LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED ΤῸ XXXill

Pr. Rev., The Princeton Review (Princeton).

Psicuart, J., Essai sur le grec de la Septante (Rev. des études juives, April, 1908).

- , Essais de grammaire historique néo-grecque (1886-1889).

RaperMacuER, L., Neut. Grammatik. Das Griechisch des N. T. im Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache (1911).

Ramsay, W. M., Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. 2 vols. (1895, 1897).

—, St. Paul the Traveller (1896).

R. E., Herzog-Hauck’s Realencyclopiidie.

R. E. Gr., Revue des études grecques (Paris).

Rerrev, Uber den Sprachgebr. d. Agathias.

Retx, Der Opt. bei Polyb. und Philo (1907).

Rernacu, 8., Pap. grees et démotiques (1905).

ReEINHOLD, H., De graecitate Patrum (1898).

Rersart, Zur Attraktion der Relativsitze in der griech. Prosa.

ReEITzENSTEIN, Geschichte d. griech. Etym. (1897).

Renavp, The Distributed Emphasis of the Pers. Pronoun (1884).

Rev. and Exp., The Review and Expositor (Louisville).

Rev. d. Ling., Revue de Linguistique de la Phil. comparée (Paris).

Rev. d. Ph., Revue de Philologie (Paris).

Rev. of Th. & Ph., Review of Theology and Philosophy (Edin- burgh). ;

Rh. M., Rheinisches Museum (Bonn).

Rivceway, W., The Early Age of Greece. Vol. I (1901).

RieMANN and GorELzeR, Grammaire Comparée du Grec et du Latin. I (1897), II (1901).

Ries, Was ist Syntax? (1894).

Roserrts, A Short Proof that Greek was the Language of Jesus (1893).

Rosperts-GARDNER, Introduction to Greek Epigraphy (1883).

Rosertson, A. T. A Short Grammar of the Greek N. T. (1908). 3d ed. (1912).

——, Syllabus on N. T. Greek Syntax (1900).

Rosertson-Bonaccors!, Breve grammatica del Nuovo Testa- mento greco (1910).

RoBERTSON-GROSHEIDE, Beknopte Grammatica op het Grieksche Nieuwe Testament (1912).

Rozsertson-Montet, Grammaire du gree du N. T. (1911).

Rosertson-Srocks, Kurzgefa8te Grammatik des neut. Griechisch (1911).

Ross, A., Christian Greece and Living Greek (1898).

XXXIV A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

RossBerc, C., De priipos. graecarum in chartis aegyptiis ptolem. aetatis usu (1909).

Rovrriac, J., Recherches sur les caractéres du grec dans le N. T. d’aprés les inscriptions de Priéne (1911).

RuruerrorD, W. G., A Chapter in the History of Annotation

(1905).

, The New Phrynichus (1881).

Ricer, Priap. bei Joh. Antiochenus (1896).

, Priip. bei Pausanias (1889).

Sanpay, W., The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel (1905).

Sanpys, J. E., A History of Classical Scholarship. I-III (1906- 1908). :

Saycr, A. H., Introduction to the Science of Language (1880).

——., Language (Encye. Brit., 11th ed., 1910).

, Principles of Comparative Philology (1875).

ScHaEFER, Das Partizip des Aor. bei d. Tragikern (1894).

Scuarr, P., A Companion to the Greek N. T. and Engl. Vers. 3d ed. (1889).

Scuanz, M., Beitrige zur histor. Syntax ἃ. griech. Sprache (1882—).

Scuituinc, D., Comm. exeg.-philol. im Hebraism. d. N. T. (1886).

Scurrurtz, 8. C., Anleitung zur Kenntnis d. neut. Grundsprache (1863). Ἢ

ScHLACHTER, Statist. Unters. tiber den Gebr. der Temp. und Modi bei einzelnen griech. Schriftst. (1908).

ScuiaGeter, J., Der Wortschatz d. auSerhalb Attikas gefunde-

nen Inschriften (1912).

, Zur Laut- und Formenlehre d. auf. Att. gef. attischen Inschr.

(1908).

Scuieicuer, A., Compendium d. vergl. Gr. ἃ. indog. Sprachen. 4. Aufl. (1876).

Scumip, J., Uber den gnomischen Aor. des Griech. (1894).

Scumip, W., Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern. 4 Bde. (1887-1897).

Scumipt, De Articulo in nominibus propiis apud Att. scriptores (1890).

Scumipt, W., De Flavii Josephi elocutione (1894).

Scumirt, P., Uber den Ursprung des Substantivsatzes mit Rela- tivpartikeln im Griech. (1889).

ScHoEMANN, Die Lehre von den Redet. nach den Alten (1862).

ScuroepeEr, Uber die form. Untersch. d. Redet. im Griech. und Lat. (1874).

LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO XXXV

ScuurEreR, A., A History of the Jew. P. in the Time of Jesus Christ. 5 vols. (1898). Tr. by Macpherson.

Scuuuze, Der schriftsteller. Charakter und Wert des Petrus, Judas und Jakobus (1802).

Scuuuze, W., Graeca Latina (1901).

Scuwaps, O., Hist. Syntax der griech. Komparative in d. klass. Lit. Heft I (1898), II (1894), III (1895).

Scuweizer, E., Bericht itiber die Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der griech. Sprachw. mit Ausschlu8 der Koiné und der Dialekte in den Jahren 1890-1903 (Bursian’s Jahresbericht, οχχ, 1904, pp. 1-152).

——., Die griech. Sprache in Zeit d. Hellen. (N. Jahrb. f. kl. Alt., 1901, vii, viii).

——, Grammatik der pergamen. Inschriften (1898).

——., Neugriech. Syntax und altgriech. (N. Jahrb. f. kl. Alt., 1908, pp. 498-507).

ScHWYZER (SCHWEIZER), E., Die Weltsprachen des Altertums (1902).

Scomp, H. A., The Case Absolute in the N. T. (Bibl. Sacra, April, 1902).

Srrmour, T. D., Homeric Language and Verse (1902).

—., Life in fhe Homeric Age (1907).

——, The Use of the Gk. Aor. Part. (Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc., XII, 1881, pp. 88 ff.).

S. H., Sanday and Headlam on Romans.

Sane G., Remarks on the Definitive Article in the Greek of the Nei "(1803).

SHEFFIELD, A. D., Grammar and Thinking (1912).

Srucox, W. H., The Language of the N. T. (1890).

——, The Writers of the N. T.

Srmonson, A., A Greek Grammar. 2 vols. (1903, 1908).

SmitH, R. H., The Theory of Conditional Sentences in Greek and Latin (1894).

Smytu, H. W., The Sounds and Inflexions of Greek Dialects. 1, Ionic (1894).

SopEn, H. von, Die Schriften des N. T. in ihrer dltesten emeicle baren Textgestalt. Teil I, Untersuch. (1902-1910); Teil II, Text und Apparat (1913).

——.,, Griechisches N. T. Text mit kurzem Apparat (1913).

SoutmsEN, F., Beitraige zur griech. Wortforschung (1909).

——,, Inscriptiones graecae selectae (1905).

——., Untersuch. zur griech. Laut- und Verslehre (1901).

XXXV1 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Sopuoctes, E. A., Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Period (1888).

Sourrr, A., Novum Testamentum Graece (1910). The Revisers’ Text with a New Apparatus Criticus.

Sprexer, The Gen. Abs. in the Attic Orators (Am. J. of Ph., VI, pp. 310-343).

St. B., Standard Bible Dictionary (Ed. by M. W. Jacobus, 1909).

ὅττι, J. M., Kritisch-historische Syntax des griech. Verbums der klass. Zeit. (1907).

Sraurac, Uber den Gebr. d. Gen. bei Herodot.

SrrintHaL, H., Geschichte der Sprachwiss. bei den Griech. und Romern. 2. Aufl. (1890-1891).

—, Introduction to the Psychology and Science of Language (1900).

STERENBOURG, The Use of the Cond. Sentence in the Alex. Ver- sion of the Pentateuch (1908).

Srprrert, J. R. S., Homer’s Iliad with Grammar (1907).

Stocks, H., Das neutestamentliche Griechisch im Lichte der mo- dernen Sprachforschung (Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, XXIV. Jahrgang, 633-700).

Srrack, H. L., Grammatik des bibl. Aram. 4. Aufl. (1905).

Srrone, LocemMan and WHEELER, Introduction to the Study of the History of Lang. (1891).

Srurm, J., Geschichtl. Entwick. der Konstrukt. mit Πρίν (1882).

STuRTEVANT, Studies in Greek Noun Formation (Cl. Philol., VII, 4, 1912).

ΘΌΒΕΜΙΗΙ,, Gesch. der griech. Lit. in der Alexandrinerzeit. I (1891), II (1892).

Siirrertiy, Gesch. der Verba denom. in Altgriech. (1891).

Sweet, History of Language (1900).

Swets, H. B., Introduction to the O. T. in Greek (1900).

, The Apocalypse of St. John (1906).

—, The O. T. in Greek according to the Septuagint (1887). 3 vols.

Szuczurat, De Inf. Hom. Usu (1902).

Téiry, Chron. und Topogr. der griech. Ausspr. nach d. Zeugnisse der Inschr. (1893).

‘ Tuacxeray, H. St., A Grammar of the O. T. in Greek. Vol. I, Introduction, Orthography and Accidence (1909).

—, Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Thought (1900).

Tuayer, J. H., Greek-English Lexicon of the N. T. (1887).

——, Language of the N. T. (Hastings’ D. B., 1900).

LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED ΤῸ xxxvii

TuEimmer, A., Beitrige zur Kenntnis des Sprachgebr. im N. T. (1896).

Th. L.-Z., Theologische Literaturzeitung (Leipzig).

Th. R., Theologische Rundschau (Tiibingen).

Th. St. u. Kr., Theol. Studien und Kritiken (Gotha).

ΤΉΙΕΜΕ, G., Die Inschr. von Magnesia am Miaander und das N. T. (1906).

Tuouuck, Beitrige zur Spracherklirung des N. T.

Tuompson, E. M., Handbook of Greek and Latin Paleography (1893). New ed. (1913).

Tuompson, F. E., A Syntax of Attic Greek. New ed. (1907).

Tuomson, J. E. H., The Language of Palestine during the Time of Our Lord (Temple Bible Dict.).

TuHomson, P., The Greek Tenses in the N. T. (1895).

THOUVENIN, P., Les Négations dans le N. T. (Revue de Philologie, 1894).

Tuums, A., Die Forsch. tiber die hellen. Spr. in den Jahren 1902-1904 (Arch. f. Pap. 3, pp. 443-473).

——,, Die griech. Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus (1901).

—., Die sprachgesch. Stell. des bibl. Griech. (Theol. Rund., 1902).

——, Handbuch der griech. Dial. (1909).

——., Handbuch d. neugriech. Volkssprache. 2. Aufl. (1910).

——, Handbuch des Sanskrits. I, Grammatik (1905).

——, Unters. tiber d. Sp. Asper im Griech. (1889).

Tuoums-Ancus, Handbook of the Modern Greek Vernacular (1912). 3

Tiscu., Novum Testamentum Graece, by C. Tischendorf. Edi- tio octava critica major. 2 vols. (1869-1872).

Trencu, R. C., Synonyms of the N. T. 11th ed. (1890). Deutsche Ausgabe von Werner (1907).

TsountTas and Manatt, The Mycenzean Age (1897).

Tucker, T. G., Introduction to the Natural History of Language (1908).

VANDACLE, L’Optatif Gree (1897).

Vertcu, W., Greek Verbs, Irregular and Defective. 2d ed. (1871).

ViERECK, P., Die griech. Papyruskunde (1899-1905). 34. Jahr- gang 1906. III. Abt. (1907).

——.,, Die Papyrusliteratur in den 70 Jahren bis 1898 (1900). 27. Jahrgang 1899. III. Abt.

, Sermo Graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus (1888).

VrERKE, De μή Particulae cum Indicativo Conjunctae Usu An- tiquiore (1876).

XXXVlli A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Vincent and Dickson, A Handbook to Modern Greek (1887).

ViTEAU, J., Essai sur la syntaxe des voix dans le grec du N. T. (Rev. de Phil., 1894).

- , Etude sur le grec du N. T. I, Le Verbe (1893); II, Le Sujet (1896).

Vocet, H., Zur Charakteristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil (1899).

Voacrinz, Grammatik d. hom. Dial. (1889).

VOLKER, F., Papyrorum graecorum syntaxis specimen (1900).

, Syntax d. griech. Papyri. I, Der Artikel (1903).

Votaw, C. W., The Use of the Infinitive in Bibl. Greek (1896).

WACKERNAGEL, J., Das Dehnungsgesetz der griech. Komposita (1889).

-- Die hellenistische Gemeinsprache. (Die Kult. d. Gegenwart, Tl. I, Abt. viii, 1905, pp. 98-305).

——, Die Sprache des Plut. etc. Teile I, II (1895-1896).

Wacner, R., Questiones de epigrammatis graecis ex lapidibus collectis grammaticae (1883).

Waucu, Observationes in Matt. ex graecis inscriptionibus (1779).

Waker, D., Elementary Greek Syntax (1897).

WarFIELD, B. B., An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the N. T. New ed. (1914).

WARREN, WINIFRED, A Study of Conjunctional Temporal Clauses in Thucyd. (1897).

Weser, P., Entwick. der Absichtssitze. Heft I (1884), Heft II (1885).

WECKLEIN, Curae epigraphicae ad grammaticam graecam et ad poetas scenicos pertinentes (1869).

Weiss, B., Der Gebr. des Artikels bei den Gottesnamen (Th.

Stu. u. Krit., 1911, pp. 319-392).

, Textkritik (1894 ff.). ;

Weiss, J., Beitriige zur paulinischen Rhetorik (1897).

WELLHAUSEN, J., Einl. in die drei ersten Evangelien (1905). 2. Ausg. (1911).

WENDLAND, P., Christentum und Hellenismus (1907).

, Hellen.-rém. Kultur. 3. Aufl. (1912).

WESSELEY, C., Die lat. Elemente in ἃ. Gracitaét d. agypt. Pap. (Wien. Stud., xxiv, 1902).

—, Lit. der Papyruskunde (Stud. zur Palaiogr. und Pap. I, 1901, pp. 17-20; II, 1902, pp. 48-52).

——, Proleg. ad papyrorum graecorum novam collectionem eden- dam (1883).

LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED ΤῸ ΧΧΧΙΧ

Westrcort, B. F., Language of the N. T. (Smith’s B. D.).

W.H., Westcott and Hort’s Edition of the Ν. T. in the Original Greek. Numerous eds.

——, The N. T. in the Original Greek. Introduction and Appen- dix (1882).

Weymoutn, On the Rendering into English of the Greek Aorist and Perfect (1894).

WueEe ter, B. I., The Whence and the Whither of the Modern Science of Language (1905).

WHIBLEY, L., Companion to Greek Studies (1905). 2d ed. (1906).

Wuitney, 8. W., The Revisers’ Greek Text. 2 vols. (1892).

Wuitney, W. D., A Sanskrit Grammar (1891). 4th ed. (1913).

——, Language and the Study of Language (1867).

, Life and Growth of Language (1875).

Wivamowi1rTz-MO6.uLENpDoRFF, U. von, Die griech. Literatur des Altertums (Die Kult. ἃ. Gegenw., 1907, Tl. I, Abt. vill, pp. *3-238. 3. Aufl. 1912).

—, Uber die Entstehung der griech. Schriftsprachen (Verf. deutscher Phil. und Schulm., 1879, pp. 36-41).

Wiucken, U., Die Forschungen tiber die hellen. Spr. in den Jahren 1902-1904 (Archiv f. Pap., 1906, pp. 443-473).

Wine, A., Beitriige zur griech. Inschriftenkunde (1909).

WitHetmus, De Modo Irreali qui Vocatur (1881).

Wi1ke, Neutestamentliche Rhetorik (1849).

Wiis, C. B., The Participle in the Book of Acts (1908).

Witson, A. J., Emphasis in the N. T. (Jour. of Th. Stud., VIII, pp. 75 ff.).

Winer, G. B., De verborum cum praep. compos. in N. T. Usu (1834-1843).

—, Gramm. d. neut. Sprachidioms (1822). 7. Aufl. von Liine- mann (1867).

Winer-Masson, A Grammar of the N. T. Gk. (1859).

Winer-Moutton, A Treatise of the Grammar of N. T. Gk. 3d ed. (1882). Various eds.

WINER-SCHMIEDEL, Winer’s Grammatik des neutest. Sprach- idioms. 8. Aufl. (1894—).

Winer-Tuayer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the N. T. (1869).

_ Various eds.

WIrTkowskI, Sr., Bericht tiber die Lit. zur Koiné aus den Jahren 1898-1902 (Bursian’s Jahrb. CXX, 1904, pp. 153-256). —, Bericht iiber die Lit. zur Koiné aus den Jahren 1903-1906

(Jahresber. f. Alt., 1912, III. Bd., 159).

xl A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

WirxowskI, St., Epistulae privatae graecae (1906).

, Prodromus grammaticae papyrorum graecarum aetatis

Lagidarum (1897).

Woch. f. kl. Ph., Wochenschrift fiir klassische Philologie.

Wricut, J., A Comparative Grammar of the Greek Language (1912).

Wonpt, Volkerpsychologie. 2. Aufl. (1904). 3. Aufl. (1911 Ea

γοῦνα, Language of Christ (Hastings’ Ὁ. C. G.).

ZAuN, ΤῊ, πίη]. in das N. T. Bd. I (1906), II (1907).

, On the Language of Palestine. Vol. I, pp. 1-72. Introduc-

tion to the N. T. Tr. by Jacobus (1909).

ZARNCKE, E., Die Entstehung der griech. Literatursprachen (1890).

ZertLin, The Acc. with Inf. and Some Kindred Constrs. in Eng- lish (1908).

Zezscuwitz, Profangriic. und bibl. Sprachg. (1859).

ZimMER, Vergl. Syntax der indog. Kompar. (1884).

Ζ. Ν.-Τ. W., Zeitschrift fiir neut. Wissenschaft (GieBen).

PART I INTRODUCTION

Th nh at μὴ τ ΜΙ

CHAPTER I NEW MATERIAL

The Ideal Grammar? Perhaps the ideal grammar of the New Testament Greek may never be written. It is a supremely diffi- cult task to interpret accurately the forms of human speech, for they have life and change with the years. But few themes have possessed greater charm for the best furnished scholars of the world than the study of language.!

The language of the N. T. has a special interest by reason of the message that it bears. Every word and phrase calls for minute investigation where so much is at stake. It is the task and the duty of the N. T. student to apply the results of linguistic research to the Greek of the N. T. But, strange to say, this has not been adequately done.?

New Testament study has made remarkable progress in the sphere of criticism, history and interpretation, but has lagged behind in this department. A brief survey of the literary history of the subject shows it.

I. The Pre-Winer Period. It was Winer who in 1822 made a new epoch in N. T. grammatical study by his Neutestamentliches Sprachidiom. It is hardly possible for the student of the present day to enter into sympathy with the inanities and sinuosities that characterized the previous treatises on the N. T. idiom. Not alone in the controversy between the Purists and Hebraists was this true, but writers like Storr, by a secret system of quid pro quo, cut the Gordian knot of grammatical difficulty by ex- plaining one term as used for another, one preposition for an- other, one case for another, etc. As a university tutor Winer

1 See J. Classen, De Gr. Graecae Primordiis, 1829, p. 1, who says: “Inter humani ingenii inventa, quae diuturna consuetudine quasi naturae iura adepta sunt, nullum fere magis invaluit et pervulgatum est, quam grammaticae ratio et usus.”

2 “And despite the enormous advance since the days of Winer toward a rational and unitary conception of the N. T. language, we still labour to-day under the remains of the old conceptions.”? Samuel Dickey, Prince. Theol. Rey., Oct., 1903, ““New Points of View.’

3

4 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

combated ‘this absurd system of interpretation,” and not without success in spite of receiving some sneers. He had the temerity to insist on this order of interpretation: grammatical, historical, theological. He adhered to his task and lived to see ‘“‘an enlightened philology, as deduced and taught by Herrmann and his school,’’ triumph over the previous ‘unbridled license.’’?

II. The Service of Winer.

(a) WINER’s INCONSISTENCIES. It must be said, however, that great as was the service of Winer to this science, he did not at all points carry out consistently his own principles, for he often ex- plained one tense as used for another. He was not able to rise entirely above the point of view of his time nor to make persist- ent application of the philosophical grammar. It is to be borne in mind also that the great science of comparative philology had not revolutionized linguistic study when Winer first wrote. In a true sense he was a pathfinder.

(Ὁ) Winer Epocu-Maxkina.— WINER IN ENGLISH. But none the less his work has been the epoch-making one for N. T. study. After his death Dr. Gottlieb Liinemann revised and improved the Neutestamentliches Sprachidiom. Translations of Winer’s Gram- matik into English were first made by Prof. Masson of Edin- burgh, then by Prof. Thayer of Harvard (revision of Masson), and finally by Prof. W. F. Moulton of Cambridge, who added excellent footnotes, especially concerning points in modern Greek. The various editions of Winer-Thayer and Winer-Moulton have served nearly two generations of English and American scholars.

(c) ScumrepEL. But now at last Prof. Schmiedel of Ziirich is thoroughly revising Winer’s Grammatik, but it is proceeding slowly and does not radically change Winer’s method, though use is made of much of the modern knowledge.? Deissmann,? indeed, expresses disappointment in this regard concerning Schmiedel’s work as being far ‘‘too much Winer and too little Schmiedel.” But Deissmann concedes that Schmiedel’s work ‘marks a characteristic and decisive turning-point in N. T. philology.”’

1 See Pref. to the sixth and last ed. by Winer himself as translated by Dr. J. H. Thayer in the seventh and enlarged ed. of 1869.

2 Winer’s Gr. des neutest. Sprachid. 8. Aufl. neu bearbeitet von Dr. Paul Wilhelm Schmiedel, 1894—.

3 Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, 1898, p. 20. He adds, ‘‘ Der alte Winer war seiner Zeit ein Protest des philologischen Gewissens gegen

die Willkiir eines anmafenden Empiricismus.” Cf. also Exp., Jan., 1908, p. 63. .

NEW MATERIAL 5

(ὦ Butrmann. Buttmann’s Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauchs had appeared in 1859 and was translated by Thayer as Buttmann’s Grammar of Ν.Τ'. Greek (1873), an able work.

(ὁ Buass. It is not till the Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch by Prof. Blass in 1896 that any other adequate gram- mar appears in this field. And Blass departs a little from tradi- tional methods and points of view. He represents a transition towards a new era. The translation by H. St. John Thackeray has been of good service in the English-speaking world.!

Ill. The Modern Period. It is just in the last decade that it: has become possible to make a real advance in New Testa- ment grammatical study. The discovery and investigation that have characterized every department of knowledge have borne rich fruit here also.

(a) DetssMANN. Deissmann? sees rightly the immensity of the task imposed upon the N. T. grammarian by the very richness of the new discoveries. He likewise properly condemns the too fre- quent isolation of the N. T. Greek from the so-called “profane Greek.”’? Deissmann has justly pointed out that the terms “pro- fane” and “biblical” do not stand in linguistic contrast, but rather ‘classical’? and “biblical.” Even here he insists on the practical identity of biblical with the contemporary later Greek of the popular style.4

It was in 1895 that Deissmann published his Bibelstudien, and his Neue Bibelstudien followed in 1897. The new era has now fairly begun. In 1901 the English translation of both volumes by Grieve appeared as Bible Studies. In 1907 came the Philol-

1 First ed. 1898, second ed. 1905, as Blass’ Gr. of N. T. Gk. A revision of the work of Blass (the 4th German edition) by Dr. A. Debrunner has ap- peared as these pages are going through the press.

? Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, 1898, p. 5: “Durch neue Erkennt- nisse befruchtet steht die griechische Philologie gegenwirtig im Zeichen einer vielverheifenden Renaissance, die fordert von der sprachlichen Erforschung der griechischen Bibel, da’ sie in engste Fiihlung trete mit der historischen Erforschung der griechischen Sprache.”

* Ib., p. 7. Like, for instance, Zezschwitz, Profangriic. und bibl. Sprachg., 1859.

* Die Spr. der griech. Bibel, Theol. Runds., 1898, pp. 463-472. He aptly says: “Nicht die Profangricitit ist der sprachgeschichtliche Gegensatz zur ‘biblischen,’ sondern das classische Griechisch. Die neueren Funde zur Ge- schichte der griechischen Sprache zeigen, daf die Higentiimlichkeiten des ‘biblischen’ Formen- und Wortschatzes (bei den original-griechischen Schrif- ten auch der Syntax) im grofen und ganzen Higentiimlichkeiten des spiiteren und zwar zumeist des unliterarischen Griechisch iiberhaupt sind.”

6 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

ogy of the Bible. His Licht vom Osten (1908) was his next most important work (Light from the Ancient East, 1910, translated by Strachan). See Bibliography for full list of his books. The contribution of Deissmann is largely in the field of lexicography.

(b) TuHums. It was in 1901 that A. Thumb published his great book on the κοινή, Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hel- lenismus, which has done so much to give the true picture of the xown. He had already in 1895 produced his Handbuch der neu- griechischen Volkssprache. In 1912 the second enlarged edition issued in English dress, by S. Angus, as Handbook of Modern Greek Vernacular. This book at once took front place for the study of the modern Greek by English students. It is the only book in English that confines itself to the vernacular.

(c) Mouton. In 1895, J. H. Moulton, son of W. F. Moulton, the translator of Winer, produced his Introduction to N. T. Greek, in a noble linguistic succession. In 1901 he began to pub- lish in The Classical Review and in The Expositor, ‘Grammatical Notes from the Papyri,’’ which attracted instant attention by their freshness and pertinency. In 1906 appeared his now famous Prolegomena, vol. I, of A Grammar of N. T. Greek, which reached the third edition by 1908. With great ability Moulton took the cue from Deissmann and used the papyri for grammatical purposes. He demonstrated that the Greek of the N. T. is in the main just the vernacular κοινή of the papyri. In 1911 the Prolegomena appeared in German as Hinleitung in die Sprache des Neuen Testaments.

(d) OrHER ContriBuTIons. It is not possible to mention here all the names of the workers in the field of N. T. grammar (see Bibliography). The old standpoint is still found in the books of Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (1889); Hoole, The Classical Ele- ment in the N. T. (1888); Simeox, The Language of the N. T. (1890); Schaff, A Companion to the Greek Testament and English Version (1889); Viteau, Etude sur le grec du N. T.— Le Verbe (1893); Le Sujet (1896). The same thing is true of Abbott’s Jo- hannine Vocabulary (1905) and Johannine Grammar (1906); Bur- ton’s Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the N. T. Greek (1888, third ed. 1909) is yet a genuine contribution. In Kennedy’s Sources of N. T. Greek (1895) we see a distinct transition toward the new era of N. T. grammar. In 1911 Radermacher’s Neu- testamentliche Grammatik is in fact more a grammar of the κοινή than of the N. T., as it is designed to be an Hinleitung. The au- thor’s Short Grammar of the Greek N. T. (1908) gives the new

NEW MATERIAL 7

knowledge in a succinct form. The Italian translation (1910) by Bonaccorsi has additional notes by the translator. Stocks (1911) made numerous additions to the Laut- und Formenlehre of the German edition. Grosheide in the Dutch translation (1912) has made a revision of the whole book. The French edition (1911) by Montet is mainly just a translation. The third enlarged edi- tion in English appeared in 1912. Many special treatises of great value have appeared (see Bibliography), by men like Angus, Buttmann, Heinrici, Thieme, Vogel, Votaw, J. Weiss, Wellhausen.

(e) RicHNess oF Materiau. Now indeed it is the extent of the material demanding examination that causes embarrassment. But only twenty years ago K. Krumbacher! lamented that it was not possible to give “‘a comprehensive presentation of the Greek language’ because of the many points on which work must be done beforehand. But we have come far in the meantime. The task is now possible, though gigantic and well-nigh insurmount- able. But it is not for us moderns to boast because of the material that has come to our hand. We need first to use it. Dieterich? has well said that the general truth that progress is from error to truth “finds its confirmation also in the history of the develop- ment that the Greek language has received in the last two thou- sand years.’’ By the induction of a wider range of facts we can eliminate errors arising from false generalizations. But this is a slow process that calls for patience. Dionysius Thrax,’ one of the Alexandrian fathers of the old Greek grammar (circa 100 B.c.), said: Γραμματική ἐστιν ἐμπειρία τῶν παρὰ ποιηταῖς τε καὶ συγγρα- φεῦσιν ws ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ λεγομένων. Andrew Lang‘ indeed is a dis- ciple of Dionysius Thrax in one respect, for he contends that students are taught too much grammar and too little language. They know the grammars and not the tongue. A bare outline can be given of the sources of the new material for such gram- matical study.

1 Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn’s Zeits. fiir vergl. Sprach- forsch., 1882, p. 484: ‘Hine zusammenhiingende Darstellung des Entwick- lungsganges der griechischen Sprache ist gegenwiirtig nicht méglich. Auf allzu vielen Punkten eines langen und viel verschlungenen Weges gebricht es an den Vorarbeiten, welche fiir ein solches Unternehmen unerliiflich sind.”

2 Unters. zur Gesch. der griech. Spr. von der hell. Zeit bis zum 10. Jahrh. n. Chr., 1898, p. x.

* As quoted in Bekker, Anec. Graeca (1816), vol. II, p. 629. Dionysius also mentions six μέρη in grammar: ἀνάγνωσις, ἐξήγησις, γλωσσῶν τε καὶ ἱστο- ριῶν πρόχειρος ὑπόδοσις, ἐτυμολογίας εὕρησις, ἀναλογίας ἐκλογισμός, κρίσις ποι- μάτων. A generous allowance truly! 4 Morning Post, Lond., May ὅδ, 1905.

8 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

IV. The New Grammatical Equipment for N. T. Study.

(a) CoMPARATIVE PHILOLoGy. We must consider the great ad- vance in comparative philology. The next chapter will deal somewhat at length with various phases of the historical method of linguistic study.

1. The Linguistic Revolution. A revolution has been wrought in the study of language. It must be confessed that grammatical investigation has not always been conducted on the inductive principle nor according to the historical method. Too often the rule has been drawn from a limited range of facts. What is afterwards found to conflict with a rule is called an “exception.” Soon the exceptions equal or surpass the rule. Unfortunately the ancients did not have the benefit of our distinctions of ‘‘regular”’ and “irregular.”” Metaphysical speculation with lofty superi- ority to the facts is sometimes charged upon grammarians." “Grammar and logic do not coincide.”? Comparative grammar is merely the historical method applied to several languages to- gether instead of only one.’

2. A Sketch of Greek Grammatical History. The Greek has had its own history, but it is related to the history of kindred tongues. ‘From the days of Plato’s Kratylus downward . . . the Greek disputed as to whether language originated by convention (νόμῳ) or by nature (φύσει).᾽᾽ 4 Indeed formal Greek grammar was the comparison with the Latin and began “with Dionysius Thrax, who utilized the philological lucubrations of Aristotle and the Alexandrian critics for the sake of teaching Greek to the sons of the aristocratic contemporaries of Pompey at Rome.”® His Greek grammar is still in existence in Bekker’s Anecdota,’ and is the cause of much grotesque etymology since.’

This period of grammatical activity came after the great crea- tive period of Greek literature was over, and in Alexandria, not

1 So Dr. John H. Kerr, sometime Prof. of N. T. in the Pac. Theol. Sem., in conversation with me. 2 Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., 1888, p. 18.

3 Ib., pp. 1ff. So Oertel, Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1901, p. 42, “Comparative grammar in Schleicher’s sense is in its essence nothing but historical grammar by the comparative method.”’

4 Sayce, Prin. of Comp. Philol., 1875, p. 259 f.

5 Tb., p. 261. 6 Op. cit., pp. 629-643.

7 See Sayce, Intr. to the Sci. of Lang., 1880, vol. I, p. 19 f.; Dionysius Thrax’s τέχνη γραμματική was developed into a system by Apollonius Dysco- lus (ii/A.D.) and his son Herodian. Dionysius Thrax was born B.c. 166. Dys- colus wrote a systematic Gk. Syntax of accentuation in 20 books (known to us only in epitome) about 200 a.p.

NEW MATERIAL 9

in Athens.!. Rhetoric was scientifically developed by Aristotle long before there was a scientific syntax. Aristotle perfected log- ical analysis of style before there was historical grammar.? With Aristotle 6 γραμματικός was one that busied himself with the let- ters (γράμματα). He was not ἀγράμματος; ἡ Ὑραμματική then had to do with the letters and was exegetical. Plato does not treat grammar, though the substantive and the adjective are distin- guished, but only dialectics, metaphysics, logic. The Stoic gram- marians, who succeeded Plato and Aristotle, treated language from the logical standpoint and accented its psychological side.’ So the Alexandrian grammarians made γραμματική more like κριτική. They got hold of the right idea, though they did not attain the true historical method.*®

Comparative grammar was not wholly unknown indeed to the ancients, for the Roman grammarians since Varro made a com- parison between Greek and Latin words.?’ The Roman writers on grammar defined it as the “scientia recte loquendi et scri- bendi,”’® and hence came nearer to the truth than did the Alex- andrian writers with their Stoic philosophy and exegesis. It has indeed been a hard struggle to reach the light in grammar.’ But Roger Bacon in this “blooming time” saw that it was necessary for the knowledge of both Greek and Latin to compare them." And Bernhardy in 1829 saw that there was needed a grammatico- historical discussion of syntax because of the ‘distrust of the union of philosophy with grammar.”!! We needed ‘‘the view-

1 See Jebb in Whibley’s Comp. to Gk. Stud., 1905, p. 147 f.

2 See Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw. bei den Griech. und Rém., 2. Tl. 1891, p. 179. ν

3 F. Hoffmann, Uber die Entwickelung des Begriffs der Gr. bei den Alten, 1891, p. 1.

4 ib, p. 144. The early Gk. grammarians were “ohne richtiges historisches Bewuftsein” (Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw. etc., 1. Tl., 1863, p. 39). Even in Plato’s Kratylus we do not see “das Ganze in seiner Ganzheit”’ (p. 40).

5. Ib., p. 277f. For a good discussion of Dion. Thr. see Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 34f.

6 See Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, p. 1.

7 See Kretschmer, op. cié., p. 4.

8 ¥, Blass, Hermen. und Krit., 1892, p. 157 f.

9. Steinthal, Gesch. ete., 2. ΤΊ., 1891, p. 1, calls this time of struggle “ihre Bliitezeit.”

10 Roger Bacon, Oxford Gk. Gr., edited by Nolan and Hirsch, 1902, p. 27: ‘“‘Et in hac comparatione Grammaticae Graecae ad Latinum non solum est necessitas propter intelligendam Grammaticam Graecam, sed omnino neces-

sarium est ad intelligentiam Latinae Grammaticae.’’ 1 Wissensch. Synt. der griech. Spr., 1829, pp. 7, 12.

10 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

point of the historical Syntax.’’? Humboldt is quoted by Oertel? as saying: “Linguistic science, as I understand it, must be based upon facts alone, and this collection must be neither one-sided nor incomplete.’ So Bopp conceived also: ‘‘A grammar in the higher scientific sense of the word must be both history and natural science.” This is not an unreasonable demand, for it is made of every other department of science.”

3. The Discovery of Sanskrit. It is a transcendent fact which has revolutionized grammatical research. The discovery of San- skrit by Sir William Jones is what did it. In 1786 he wrote thus’: “The Sanskrit language, whatever may be its antiquity, is of wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either; yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could have been produced by accident; so strong that no philologer could examine all the three without believing them to have sprung from some common source which no longer exists. There is a similar reason, though not so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanskrit.” He saw then the significance of his own discovery, though not all of it, for the Teutonic tongues, the Lithuanian and Slav group of languages, the Iranian, Italic, Armenian and Albanian belong to the same Aryan, Indo-Germanic or Indo- European family as it is variously called.

4. From Bopp to Brugmann. But Bopp‘ is the real founder of comparative philology. Before Bopp’s day “in all grammars the mass of ‘irregular’ words was at least as great as that of the ‘regular’ ones, and a rule without exception actually excited suspicion.”® Pott’s great work laid the foundation of scientific phonetics. Other great names in this new science are W. von

1 Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1901, p. 47.

2 See C. Herrmann, Philos. Gr., 1858, p. 422: “Die Natur der philoso- phischen Grammatik war von Anfang an bestimmt worden als die eine Grenzwissenschaft zwischen Philosophie und Philologie.” But it is a more objective task now.

3 Cf. Benfey, Gesch. der Sprachw., p. 348. “This brilliant discovery, de- clared in 1786, practically lies at the root of all linguistic science.” J. H. Moulton, Sci. of Lang., 1903, p. 4.

4 See his Vergl. Gr., 1857. He began publication on the subject in 1816.

5 Delbriick, Intr. to the Study of Lang., 1882, p. 25.

8 Etym. Forsch. auf dem Gebiet der indoger. Spr., 1833-1836.

NEW MATERIAL 11

Humboldt,! Jacob Grimm,? Schlegel, Schleicher, Max Miller, Curtius,® Verner,’ Whitney,® L. Meyer.?

But in recent years two men, K. Brugmann and B. Delbriick, have organized the previous knowledge into a great monumental work, Grundrif der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogerma- nischen Sprachen.!° This achievement is as yet the high-water- mark in comparative grammar. Brugmann has issued a briefer and cheaper edition giving the main results." Delbriick has also a brief treatise on Greek syntax in the light of comparative gram- mar,” while Brugmann has applied comparative philology to the Laut- und Formenlehre of Greek grammar." In the Grundri£ Brugmann has Bd. I, II, while Delbriick treats syntax in Bd. ΠΙΟΝ. In the new edition Brugmann has also that part of the syntax which is treated in Vol. III and IV of the first edi- tion. The best discussion of comparative grammar for begin- ners is the second edition of P. Giles’s Manual.“ Hatzidakis successfully undertakes to apply comparative grammar to the modern Greek.!! Riemann and Goelzer have made an exhaustive comparison of the Greek and Latin languages.!® There are, in- deed, many interesting discussions of the history and principles growing out of all this linguistic development, such as the works

1 Always mentioned by Bopp with reverence.

2 Deutsche Gr., 1822. Author of Grimm’s law of the interchange of let- ters. Next to Bopp in influence.

3 Indische Bibl.

4 Vergl. Gr. der indoger. Spr., 1876, marks the next great advance.

5 Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1866. He did much to popularize this study.

§ His most enduring work is his Prin. of Gk. Etym., vols. I, II, fifth ed., 1886.

ἴ The discovery of Verner’s law, a variation from Grimm’s law, according to which p, ¢ and k, pass into ὃ, d and g, instead of f, th and h when not im- mediately followed by the word-accent.

8. Life and Growth of Lang., 1875; Sans. Gr., 1892, etc.

® Vergl. Gr., 1865.

10 Bd. I-V, 1st ed. 1886-1900; 2d ed. 1897—; cf. also Giles-Hertel, Vergl. Gr., 1896.

1 Kurze vergl. Gr., 1902-1904.

#2 Die Grundl. der griech. Synt., 1879.

15. Griech. Gr., 1900, 3. Aufl.; 4. Aufl., 1913, by Thumb. See also ἃ. Meyer, Griech. Gr., 3. verm. Aufl., 1896.

4 A Short Man. of Comp. Philol., 1901.

16 Hinl. in die neugr. Gr., 1892.

16 Gr. comparée du Gree et du Lat.: Syntaxe, 1897; Phonétique et Etude de Formes, 1901. Cf. also King and Cookson’s Prin. of Sound and Inflexion as illustrated in the Gk. and Lat. Lang., 1888.

12 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

of Jolly,! Delbriick,? Sweet,? Paul, Oertel,> Moulton,® Whit- ney,’ Max Miller,’ Sayce.* It is impossible to write a grammar of the Greek N. T. without taking into consideration this new conception of language. No language lives to itself, and least of all the Greek of the N. T. in the heart of the world-empire.” Τύ is not necessary to say that until recently use of this science had not been made by N. T. grammars."

(b) ADVANCE IN GENERAL GREEK GRAMMAR. There has been great advance in the study of general Greek grammar. The foundations laid by Crosby and Kiihner, Kriiger, Curtius, Butt- mann, Madvig, Jelf and others have been well built upon by Hadley, Goodwin, Gildersleeve, Gerth, Blass, Brugmann, G. Meyer, Schanz, Hirt, Jannaris, etc. To the classical student this catalogue of names” is full of significance. The work of Kihner has been thoroughly revised and improved in four massive vol- umes by Blass!* and Gerth,'4 furnishing a magnificent apparatus for the advanced student. Hirt’s handbook” gives the modern knowledge in briefer form. These make use of comparative grammar, while G. Meyer and Brugmann™ are professedly on the

1 Schulgr. und Sprachw., 1874.

2 Intr. to the Study of Lang., 1882; 5th Germ. ed. 1908. Uber die Resultate der vergl. Synt., 1872. Cf. Wheeler, The Whence and Whither of the Mod. Sci. of Lang., 1905; Henry, Précis de gr. du gree et du latin, 5th

ed., 1894. 3 The Hist. of Lang., 1899. « Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., 1888; 4th Germ. ed. 1909. 5 Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1901. 6 The Sci. of Lang., 1903.

7 Lang. and the Study of Lang., 1867.

8 Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891. 9 Prin. of Comp. Philol., 1875.

10 By “die historische Sprachforschung” the Gk. tongue is shown to be a member of the Indo-Germanic family; thus is gained ‘‘der sprachgeschicht- liche Gesichtspunkt,” and then is gained “ein wesentlich richtiges Verstind- nis... fiir den Entwicklungsgang der Sprache.” Brugmann, Griech. Gr., 1885, p. 4. Cf. p. 3 in third ed., 1901.

11 See J. H. Moulton’s Prol. to the N. T. Gk. Gr., 1906, and A. T. Robert- son’s N. T. Syll., 1900, and Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., 1908.

2 The late G. N. Hatzidakis contemplated a thesaurus of the Gk. language, but his death cut it short.

13 Ausfiihrl. Gr. der griech. Spr. von Dr. Raphael Kiihner, 1. Tl.: Elemen- tar- und Formenlehre, Bd. I, II. Besorgt von Dr. Friedrich Blass, 1890, 1892.

4 ΤΌ., 2. ΤΊ.: Satzlehre, Bd. I, II. Besorgt von Dr. Bernhard Gerth, 1898, 1904.

16 Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenlehre, 1902, 1. Aufl.; 2. Aufl., 1912.

16 Griech. Gr., 3. Aufl., 1896.

17 Th., 1900; 4. Aufl., 1913, by Thumb; 3d ed. quoted in this book. And now (1912) Wright has given in English a Comp. Gr. of the Gk. Lang.

NEW MATERIAL 15

basis of comparative philology. Jannaris! is the first fairly suc- cessful attempt to present in one volume the survey of the prog- ress of the language as a whole. Schanz? makes a much more ambitious undertaking and endeavours in a large number of mono- graphs to furnish material for a future historical grammar. Géil- dersleeve* has issued only two volumes of his work, while the grammars of Hadley-Allen and Goodwin are too well known to call for remark. New grammars, like F. E. Thompson’s (1907, new ed.) and Simonson’s (2 vols., 1903, 1908), continue to appear.

(c) CriticaL Epitions or GREEK AuTHorRs. The Greek authors in general have received minute and exhaustive investigation. The modern editions of Greek writers are well-nigh ideal. Careful and critical historical notes give the student all needed, sometimes too much, aid for the illumination of the text. The thing most lacking is the reading of the authors and, one may add, the study of the modern Greek. Butcher‘ well says “Greek literature is the one entirely original literature of Europe.” Homer, Aris- totle, Plato, not to say Aschylus, Sophocles and Euripides are still the modern masters of the intellect. Translations are better than nothing, but can never equal the original. The Greek lan- guage remains the most perfect organ of human speech and largely because “‘they were talkers, whereas we are readers.’’® They studied diligently how to talk.®

(ὦ) Works on InpivipuaL Writers. In nothing has the ten- dency to specialize been carried further than in Greek grammatical research. The language of Homer, Thucydides, Herodotus, the tragic poets, the comic writers, have all called for minute investi-

1 An Hist. Gk. Gr., chiefly of the Att. Dial., 1897. Cf. also Wackernagel, Die griech. Spr. (pp. 291-318), Tl. I, Abt. VIII, Kultur der Gegenw.

? Beitr. zur histor. Synt. der griech. Spr., ΤΊ. I. Cf. also Hiibner, Grundr. zur Vorlesung tiber die griech. Synt., 1883. A good bibliography. Krum- bacher, Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn’s Zeitschr. etc., 1885, pp. 481-545.

3 Synt. of Class. Gk., 1900, 1911.

‘ Harv. Lect. on Gk. Subj., 1904, p. 129. See also Butcher, Some Aspects of the Gk. Genius, 1893, p. 2: ‘Greece, first smitten with the passion for truth, had the courage to put faith in reason, and, in following its guidance, to take no account of consequences.”’ So p. 1: “To see things as they really are, to discern their meanings and adjust their relations was with them an instinct and a passion.” 5 Ib., p. 203.

6 See Bernhardy, Griech. Lit., Tl. I, II, 1856; Christ, Gesch. der griech. Lit. bis auf die Zeit Justinians, 4. revid. Aufl., 1905; 5. Aufl., 1008 ff. Far- nell, Gk. Lyric Poetry, 1891, ete. A. Croiset and M. Croiset, An Abr. Hist. of Gk. Lit., transl. by Heffelbower, 1904.

14 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

gation,! and those of interest to N. T. students are the mono- graphs on Polybius, Josephus, Plutarch, etc. The concordances of Plato, Aristotle, etc., are valuable. The Apostolic Fathers, Greek Christian Apologists and the Apocryphal writings illus- trate the tendencies of N. T. speech. Cf. Reinhold, De Graec. Patr. Apost. (1898). The universities of America and Europe which give the Ph.D. degree have produced a great number of monographs on minute points like the use of the preposition in Herodotus, etc. These all supply data of value and many of them have been used in this grammar. Dr. Mahaffy,? indeed, is impatient of too much specialism, and sometimes in linguistic study the specialist has missed the larger and true conception of the whole.

(ὃ Tur Greex Inscriptions. The Greek inscriptions speak with the voice of authority concerning various epochs of the lan- guage. Once we had to depend entirely on books for our knowl- edge of the Greek tongue. There is still much obscurity, but it is no longer possible to think of Homer as the father of Greek nor to consider 1000 8.6. as the beginning of Greek culture. The two chief names in epigraphical studies are those of August Boeckh (Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum) and Theodor Momm- sen (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum). For a careful review of “the Nature of the New Texts” now at our service in the in- scriptions see Deissmann, Light, etc., pp. 10-20. See Wie: Hatch’s article (Jour. of Bibl. Lit., 1908, pp. 134-146, Part 2) on “Some Illustrations of N. T. Usage from Greek Inscriptions of Asia Minor.” Cf. also Thieme, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Mdander und das Neue Test. (1906), and Rouffiac, Recherches sur les Caractéres du Grec dans le N. T. d’aprés les Inscriptions de Priéne (1911). Deissmann, op. cit., p. 18, thinks that ἀγάπη |v is rightly restored in a pagan inscription in Pisidia of the imperial period. For the Christian inscriptions see Deissmann, op. cit., p. 19. Schliemann*® has not only restored the story of Troy to the reader of the historic past, but he has revealed a great civi-

1 Cf., for instance, Die Spr. des Plut. ete., Tl. I, II, 1895, 1896; Krebs, Die Pripositionen bei Polybius, 1881; Goetzeler, Einfl. des Dion. Hal. auf die Sprachgesch. etc., 1891; Schmidt, De Flavii Josephi eloc. observ. crit., 1894; Kaelker, Quest. de Eloc. Polyb. ete.

2 “A herd of specialists is rising up, each master of his own subject, but absolutely ignorant and careless of all that is going on around him in kindred studies.” Survey of Gk. Civilization, 1897, p. 3.

3 Mycene# and Tiryns, 1878.

NEW MATERIAL 15

lization at Mycenz.'! Homer stands at the close of a long ante- cedent history of linguistic progress, and once again scholars are admitting the date 850 or even 1000 B.c. for his poems as well as their essential unity, thus abandoning Wolff’s hypothesis.2 They have been driven to this by the abundant linguistic testimony from the inscriptions from many parts of Greece. So vast is this material that numerous grammatical discussions have been made concerning the inscriptions, as those by Roehl,? Kretschmer,‘ Lautensach,> Rang,® Meisterhans,’ Schweizer,® Viteau,? Wagner, Nachmanson,! ete.

These inscriptions are not sporadic nor local, but are found in Egypt, in Crete, in Asia Minor, the various isles of the sea,” in Italy, in Greece, in Macedonia, etc. Indeed Apostolides® seems to show that the Greeks were in Egypt long before Alexander the Great founded Alexandria. The discoveries of Dr. A. J.

1 See also Tsountas and Manatt, The Mycenzan Age, 1897.

2 Ridgeway (Karly Age of Greece, vol. I, 1901, p. 635) says that the methods applied to dissection of the Iliad and the Odyssey would pick to pieces the Paradise Lost and The Antiquary. ‘‘The linguistic attack upon their age may be said to have at last definitely failed.’’ (T. W. Allen, Cl. Rev., May, 1906, p. 193.) Lang, Homer and His Age (1906), advocates strongly the

unity of the Homeric poems. 3 Inscr. Graecae Antiq., 1882. 4 Die griech. Vaseninschr. und ihre Spr., 1894. 5 Verbalfl. der att. Inschr., 1887. 6 Antiquités hellén., 1842.

7 Gr. der att. Inschr., 3. Aufl. von E. Schwyzer, 1900.

8 Gr. der perg. Inschr., 1898.

9 La decl. dans les inscr. att. de 1’Empire, 1895.

10 Quest. de epigram. Graecis, 1883.

11 Laute und Formen der magn. Inschr., 1903; cf. also Solmsen, Inscr. Graecae ad illustr. Dial. sel.; Audollent, Defix. Tabellae, 1904; Michel, Rec. d’inser. Graec., 1883; Dittenberger, Or. Graeci Inscr. Sel., 1903-1905; Roberts- Gardner, Intr. to Gk. Epigr., 1888. See Bibliography. Cf. especially the various volumes of the Corpus Inscr. Graecarum.

12 As, for example, Paton and Hicks, The Inscr. of Cos, 1891; Kern, Die Inschr. von Magn., 1900; Girtingen, Inschr. von Priene, 1906; Girtingen and Paton, Inscr. Maris Aegaei, 1903; Letronne, Rec. des inscr. lat. et grec. de l’Egypte, 1842. As early as 1779 Walch made use of the inscriptions for the N. T. Gk. in his Observationes in Matt. ex graecis inscriptionibus. Cf. also the works of E. L. Hicks, Lightfoot, Ramsay.

13 Essai sur l’Hellénisme Egypt., 1908, p. vi. He says: ‘‘Les découvertes récentes des archéologues ont dissipé ces illusions. Des ruines de Naucratis, de Daphné, de Gurob, et de |’Illahoun (pour ne citer que les localités dans lesquelles les recherches ont donné le plus de résultats) est sortie toute une nouvelle Gréce; une Gréce antérieure aux Ramsés . . .; et, si les recherches se continuent, on ne tardera pas, nous en sommes convaincus, ἃ acquérir la certitude que les Grecs sont aussi anciens en Egypte qu’en Gréce méme.”

10 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Evans in Crete have pushed back the known examples of Greek a thousand years or more. The linear script of Knossos, Crete, may be some primitive form of Greek 500 years before the first dated example of Pheenician writing. The civilization of the Hellenic race was very old when Homer wrote, — how old no one dares say.! For specimens of the use of the inscriptions see Buck’s Introduction to the Study of the Greek Dialects (Gram- mar, Selected Inscriptions, Glossary), 1910.

(f) FuLLER KNOWLEDGE OF THE DraLects. The new knowledge of the other dialects makes it possible to form a juster judgment of the relative position of the Attic. There has been much confu- sion on this subject and concerning the relation of the various Greek races. It now seems clear that the Pelasgians, Achzans, Dorians were successively dominant in Greece.? Pelasgian ap- pears to be the name for the various pre-Achzan tribes, and it was the Pelasgian tribe that made Mycene glorious.* Homer sings the glories of the Achzans who displaced the Pelasgians, while ‘‘the people who play a great part in later times — Dorians, AXolians, Ionians—are to Homer little more than names.’’4 The Pelasgian belonged to the bronze age, the Achzan to the iron age.© The Pelasgians may have been Slavs and kin to the Etruscans of Italy. The Achwans were possibly Celts from northern Europe. The old Ionic was the base of the old Attic.” This old Ionic-Attic was the archaic Greek tongue, and the choruses in the Attic poets partly represent artificial literary Doric. There was not a sharp division® between the early dia- lects owing to the successive waves of population sweeping over the country. There were numerous minor subdivisions in the dialects (as the Arcadian, Boeotian, Northwest, Thessalian, etc.) due to the mountain ranges, the peninsulas, the islands, etc., and other causes into which we cannot enter. For a skilful at- tempt at grouping and relating the dialects to each other see Thumb’s Handbuch, p. 54f. The matter cannot be elaborated here (see ch. III). But the point needs to be emphasized that

1 A. J. Evans, Ann. Rep. of the Smiths. Inst., p. 436.

2 See Ridgeway, The Early Age of Greece, vol. I, p. 84.

3 Tb., p. 293. For the contribution of the dialects to the κοινή see ch. III.

4 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., 1901, p. 526. 5 Tb., p. 406.

6 Ridgeway, op. cit., vol. I, p. 337. 7 Ib., pp. 666-670.

8 Hoffmann, Die griech. Dial., Bd. I, p. 7. A more recent treatment of the dialects is Thumb’s Handb. der griech. Dial. (1909), which makes use of all the recent discoveries from the inscriptions. On the mixing of the dialects see Thumb, p. 61 f.

; NEW MATERIAL 17 the literary dialects by no means represent the linguistic history of Greece itself and still less that of the islands and other colonies (cf. Buck’s Greek Dialects, p. 1). The blending of these dialects into the κοινή was not complete as we shall see.!. “Of dialects the purest Hellenic is Dorian, preserved in religious odes, — pure be- cause they kept aloof from their subjects. The next is the AXolie, preserved in lyric odes of the Lesbian school. The earliest to be embodied in literature was Ionic, preserved in epic poems. The most perfect is Attic, the language of drama, philosophy and oratory. This arose out of the Ionic by introducing some of the strength of Doric-M®olic forms without sacrificing the sweet smoothness of Ionic.”2 In general concerning the Greek dialects one may consult the works of Meister,’ Ridgeway, Hoffmann,® Thumb,® Buck,’ Boisacq,® Pezzi,® ete.

(9) Tue Papyrt anp OsTRACA. Thiersch in 1841 had pointed out the value of the papyri for the study of the LXX in his De Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina, but nobody thought it worth while to study the masses of papyri in London, Paris and Ber- lin for the N. T. language. Farrar (M. essages of the Books, 1884, p. 151) noted the similarity of phrase between Paul’s correspon- dence and the papyri in the Brit. Mus. “N. T. philology is at present undergoing thorough reconstruction ; and probably all the workers concerned, both on the continent and in English-speaking countries, are by this time agreed that the starting-point for the philological investigations must be the language of the non-literary papyri, ostraca, and inscriptions” (Deissmann, Light, etc, pi 55): The κοινή is now rich in material for the study of the vernacular or popular speech as opposed to the book language. This distinc- tion belongs to all languages which have a literature and to all periods of the language. It is particularly true of the modern

1 See Dieterich, Die Kow# und die heut. kleinasiat. Mundarten-Unters. zur Gesch. etc., pp. 271-310. Cf. Chabert, Hist. sommaire des ét. d’épigr. grecque, 1906.

2 MS. Notes on Gk. Gr. by H. H. Harris, late Prof. of Gk. at Richmond College.

* Griech. Dial., Bd. I, 1882, Bd. II, 1889; cf. Hicks, Man. of Gk. Hist. Inscr., 1888. 4 Op. cit.

5 Op. cit. and Bd. II, 1893, Bd. III, 1898. See also various volumes of the Samml. der griech. Dial.-Inschr.

® Handb. der griech. Dial., 1909. 7 Gk. Dialects.

® Les dialectes Doriens, 1891; cf. also H. W. Smyth, The Gk. Dial. (Ionic only), 1894.

ὁ Lingua Greca Antica, 1888. Cf, Lambert, Et. sur le dial, éolien, 1903.

18 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Greek to-day as it was true in the early period. Witness the Athenian riot over the Pallis vernacular translation. Occasion- ally a writer like Aristophanes would purposely write in the lan- guage of the street. It is not therefore a peculiarity of the κοινή that the vernacular Greek prevailed then. It always prevails. But the καθαρεύουσα has secured a more disastrous supremacy over the δημοτική than in any other language. And we are now able to estimate the vernacular κοινή, since the great papyri discoveries of Flinders-Petrie, Grenfell and Hunt and others. We had already the excellent discussions of Mullach,! Niebuhr,? Blass,? Foy4 and Lottich.6 But in the last fifteen years or so a decided impetus has been given to this phase of Greek grammatical research. It is in truth a new study, the attention now paid to the vernacular, as Moulton points out in his Prolegomena (p. 22). “T will go further and say that if we could only recover letters that ordinary people wrote to each other without being literary, we should have the greatest possible help for the understanding of the language of the N. T. generally” (Bishop Lightfoot, 1863, as quoted in Moulton’s Prol., 2d and 3d ed., p. 242). If Lightfoot only lived now! Cf. Masson’s Preface to Winer (1859).

The most abundant source of new light for the vernacular κοινή is found in the papyri collections, many volumes of which have already been published (see Bibliography for fuller list), while more are yet to be issued. Indeed, Prof. W. N. Stearns® com- plains: “There would seem to be a plethora of such material already as evidenced by such collections as the Berlinische Ur- kunde and the Rainier Papyri.’”’ But the earnest student of the Greek tongue can only rejoice at the ‘‘extraordinary and in part unexpected wealth of material from the contemporary and the later languages.’’? See the publications of Drs. Grenfell and Hunt,®

1 Gr. der griech. Vulgarspr., 1856.

2 Uber das Agyp.-Griech., ΚΙ. Schr., II, p. 197 f.

3 Die griech. Beredsamkeit von Alex. bis auf Aug., 1865.

4 Lauts. der griech. Vulgarspr., 1879.

5 De Serm. vulg. Att., 1881.

6 Am. Jour. of Theol., Jan., 1906, p. 134.

7 Samuel Dickey, New Points of View for the Study of the Gk. of the N.T. (Prince. Theol. Rev., Oct., 1903).

8 Oxyrhyn. Pap., vols. I-VIII, 1898-1911; Fayim Pap., 1900; Tebtunis Pap., 1902 (Univ. of Cal. Publ., pts. I, II, 1907; Hibeh Pap., pt. I, 1906; vol. IV, Oxyrhyn. Pap., pp. 265-271, 1904; Grenfell and Hunt, The Hibeh Pap., 1906, pt. I. In general, for the bibliography of the papyri see Hohlwein, La papyrol. grec., bibliog. raisonnée, 1905.

NEW MATERIAL 19

Mahaffy,! Goodspeed,” the Berlinische Urkunde,’? Papyri in the British Museum,‘ the Turin Papyri,> the Leyden Papyri,® the Geneva Papyri,’ Lord Amherst’s collection (Paris, 1865), etc. For general discussions of the papyri see the writings of Wilcken,’ Kenyon,’ Hartel,!° Haberlin," Viereck,” Deissmann,” de Ricci, Wessely.“ A great and increasing literature is thus coming into existence on this subject. Excellent handbooks of convenient size are those by H. Lietzmann, Greek Papyri (1905), and by G. Milligan, Greek Papyri (1910). For a good discussion of the papyri and the literature on the subject see Deissmann, Light, ete., pp. 20-41. The grammatical material in the papyri has not been exhausted. There are a number of excellent workers in the field such as Mayser,'® St. Witkowski,!” Deissmann,'* Moulton,’ H. A. A. Kennedy,” Jannaris,” Kenyon,” Voelker,¥ Thumb.”

1 Flinders-Petrie Pap., 1891, 1892, 1893.

2 Gk. Pap. from the Cairo Mus., 1902, 1903.

3 Griech. Urk., 1895, 1898, 1903, 1907, etc.

4 F. G. Kenyon, Cat. of Gk. Pap. in the B. M., 1893; Evid. of the Pap. for Text. Crit. of the N. T., 1905; B. M. Pap., vol. I, 1893, vol. II, 1898.

5 Peyron, 1826, 1827.

6. Zauber Pap., 1885; Leeman’s Pap. Graeci, 1843.

7 J. Nicole, 1896, 1900; cf. Wessely’s Corpus Pap., 1895.

8 Griech. Papyrusurk., 1897; Archiv fiir Papyrusforsch. und verw. Gebiete, 1900—.

9 Paleog. of Gk. Pap., 1899; art. Papyri in Hast. Ὁ). B. (ext. vol.).

10 Uber die griech. Pap.

1 Griech. Pap., Centralbl. fiir Bibliothekswesen, 14. 1 f.

12 Ber. iiber die ailtere Pap.-Lit., Jahresb. iiber d. Fortschr. etc., 1898, 1899.

13 Art. Papyri in Encye. Bibl.

4 Bul. papyrologique in Rev. des Et. grecques since 1901.

1 Papyrus-Samml. since 1883. Cf. also Crénert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., 1903; Reinach, Pap. grecs et démot. etc., 1905.

16 Gr. der griech. Pap., Tl. I, Laut- und Wortl., 1906.

17 Prodromus Gr. Pap. Graec. aetatis Lagidarum, 26. Bd. der Abhandl. der Phil. class. der Acad. zu Krakau, 1897, pp. 196-200.

18 Ἢ, §., 1901; Light, etc.; art. Hell. Griech. in Hauck’s Realencyc.; art. Papyrus in Encye. Bibl., ete.

19 Gr. Notes from the Pap., Cl. Rev., 1901; Notes on the Pap., Exp., April, 1901, Feb., 1903; Characteristics of N. T. Gk., Exp., March to Dec., 1904; Prol. to Gr. of N. T. Gk., 1908, 3d ed., ete.

20 Sources of N. T. Gk., 1895; Recent Res. in the Lang. of the N. T., Exp. Times, May, July, Sept., 1901.

2 Hist. Gk. Gr., 1897; The Term Κοινή, Cl. Rev., March, 1903.

2 Art. Papyri in Hast. D. B.

2% Syntax der griech. Pap., Tl. I, 1903.

24 Die Forsch. iiber die hell. Spr. in ἃ. Jahr. 1896-1901, Archiv fiir Papyrus- forsch., 1903, pp. 8396-426; Die Forsch. iiber die hell. Spr. in ἃ. Jahr. 1902-4,

20 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

These are all helpful, but Crénert! is right in urging that we need a comprehensive discussion of the syntax of the Ptolemaic papyri in order to set forth properly the relation of the papyri both to the N. T. Greek and to the older Attic. This will require time, for the mass of material is very great and is constantly growing. But enough already is clear for us to see the general bearing of the whole on the problem of the N. T. It is just here that the papyri have special interest and value. They give the language of business and life. The N. T. writers were partly ἀγράμματοι, but what they wrote has become the chief Book of Mankind. Hear Deissmann‘ again, for he it is who has done most to blaze the way here: “The papyrus-leaf is alive; one sees autographs, individual peculiarities of penmanship — in a word, men; manifold glimpses are given into inmost nooks and crannies of personal life in which history has no eyes and historians no glasses . . . It may seem a paradox, but it can safely be affirmed that the unliterary papyri are more important in these respects than the literary.”” Some of the papyri contain literary works, fragments of Greek classics, portions of the LXX or of the N. T., though the great mass of them are non-literary documents, let- ters and business papers. Cf. also Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 29. Unusual interest attaches to the fragments containing the Logia of Jesus, some of which are new, dating from the second or third centuries A.D. and showing a Gnostic tinge.® It is no longer pos- sible to say, what even Friedrich Blass® did in 1894, that the N. T. Greek ‘‘is to be regarded something by itself and following laws of its own.” That view is doomed in the presence of the papyri. Hatch’ in particular laboured under this error. The N. T. Greek

Archiv fir Pap., 111. 4; also Jahresb. itiber die Fortschr. des Class., 1906; Die griech. Papyrusurk., 1899-1905, pp. 36-40; Die griech. Spr. etc., 1901.

1 Archiv fiir Pap.-Forsch., 1900, p. 215.

2 “Zum ersten Mal gewinnen wir reale Vorstellungen von dem Zustand und der Entwickelung der handschriftlichen Lebenslieferung im Altertum selbst. Neue wichtige Probleme sind damit der Philologie gestellt.’’ N. Wilcken, Die griech. Papyrusurk., 1897, p. 7. Mayser’s Tl. II will supply this need when it appears.

3. See Deissmann, Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, 1898, p. 27.

4 Art. Papyri in Encye. Bibl.

5 See Λόγια Ἰησοῦ, Sayings of Jesus, by Grenfell and Hunt, 1897. New Sayings of Jesus, by Grenfell and Hunt, 1904. See also two books by Dr. C. Taylor, The Oxyrhyn. Logia, 1899; The Oxyrhyn. Sayings of Jesus, 1905; Lock and Sanday, Two Lect. on the Sayings of Jesus, 1897.

6 Theol. Literaturzeit., 1894, p. 338.

7 Essays in Bibl. Gk., 1892, p. 11f. The earliest dated papyrus is now

NEW MATERIAL 21

will no longer be despised as inferior or unclassical. It will be seen to be a vital part of the great current of the Greek language. For the formal discussion of the bearing of the papyri on the N. T. Greek see chapter IV. A word should be said concerning the reason why the papyri are nearly all found in Egypt.! It is due to the dryness of the climate there. Elsewhere the brittle material soon perished, though it has on the whole a natural toughness. The earliest known use of the papyri in Egypt is about 3400 B.c. More exactly, the reign of Assa in the fifth dynasty is put at 3360 B.c. This piece of writing is an account-sheet belonging to this reign (Deissmann, Light from A. E., p. 22). The oldest specimen of the Greek papyri goes back to “the regnal year of Alexander Atgus, the son of Alexander the Great. That would make it the oldest Greek papyrus document yet discovered” (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 29). The discoveries go on as far as the seventh century a.D., well into the Byzantine period. The plant still grows in Egypt and it was once the well-nigh universal writing material. As waste paper it was used to wrap the mum- mies. Thus it has come to be preserved. The rubbish-heaps at Fayfim and Oxyrhynchus are full of these papyri scraps.

Mention should be made also of the ostraca, or pieces of pot- tery, which contain numerous examples of the vernacular κοινή. For a very interesting sketch of the ostraca see Deissmann, Light, ete. (pp. 41-53). Crum and Wilcken have done the chief work on the ostraca. They are all non-literary and occur in old Egyptian, Arabic, Aramaic, Coptic, Greek and Latin. ‘Prof. Wilcken, in his Griechische Ostraka,? has printed the texts of over sixteen hundred of the inscribed potsherds on which the commonest re- ceipts and orders of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt were written.’’? It was the material used by the poorer classes.

(hk) THE BYZANTINE AND THE MopERN GREEK. The Byzantine and modern Greek has at last received adequate recognition.

P. Eleph. 1 (311 B.c.), not P. Hibeh, as Thackeray has it in his Gr. of the O. T. in Gk., p. 56. This was true in 1907; ef. Moulton, Cl. Rev., March, 1910, p. 53.

1 The practical limitation of the papyri to Egypt (and Herculaneum) has its disadvantages; cf. Angus, The Kow7, The Lang. of the N. T. (Prince. Theol. Rev., Jan., 1910, p. 80).

2 Griech. Ostraka aus Agypten und Nubien, Bd. I, II, 1899; ef. also Crum, Coptic Ostraca, 2 vols. (1899); ef. Hilprecht, S. S. Times, 1902, p. 560. ‘‘In many Coptic letters that are written on potsherds the writers beg their cor- respondents to excuse their having to use an ostrakon for want of papyrus”’ (Deissmann, Exp. Times, 1906, Oct., p. 15).

3. KE. J. Goodspeed, Am. Jour. of Theol., Jan., 1906, p. 102.

22 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

The student of the N. T. idiom has much to learn from the new books on this subject. The scorn bestowed on the κοινή by the intense classicists was intensified by the modern Greek, which was long regarded as a nondescript jumble of Greek, Albanian, Turkish, Italian, etc. Indeed the modern Greeks themselves have not always shown proper appreciation of the dignity of the modern vernacular, as is shown, for instance, in the recent up- heaval at Athens by the University students over the translation of the Gospels into the Greek vernacular (δημοτική) of to-day, though the N. T. was manifestly written in the vernacular of its day. ‘While the later Greeks, however, could no longer write classically, they retained a keen sense for the beauties of the classical language.”! Just as the ‘‘popular Latin finally sup- pressed the Latin of elegant literature,”? so the vernacular κοινή lived on through the Roman and Byzantine periods and survives to-day as the modern Greek. There is unity in the present-day Greek and historical continuity with the past. Dr. Rose is pos- sibly correct in saying: ‘There is more difference between the Greek of Herodotus and the Greek of Xenophon than there is between the Greek of the latter and the Greek of to-day.”* And certainly Prof. Dickey‘ is right in affirming “that the Greek of N. T. stands in the centre of thezdevelopment of which classical and modern Greek may be called extremes, and that of the two it is nearer to the second in character than the first. The inter- pretation of the N. T. has almost entirely been in the sole light of the ancient, i.e. the Attic Greek, and, therefore, to that ex- tent has been unscientific and often inaccurate.” Hatzidakis® indeed complained that the whole subject had been treated with

1 Dr. Achilles Rose, Chris. Greece and Living Gk., 1898, p. 7.

2 R.C. Jebb, On the Rela. of Mod. to Class. Gk., in V. and D.’s Handb. to Mod. Gk., 1887, p. 287. ‘In other words, the Bible was cast into spoken Latin, familiar to every rank of society though not countenanced in the schoolroom; and thus it foreshadowed the revolution of ages whereby the Roman tongue expanded into what we may label as Romance.” W. Barry, “Our Latin Bible,” in Dublin Rev., July, 1906, p. 4; οἵ. also art. on The Holy Latin Tongue, in April number.

3 Chris. Greece and Living Greek, p. 253.

4 New Points of View for the Study of N. T. Gk. (Prince. Theol. Rev., Oct., 1903). See also S. Angus, Mod. Methods in N. T. Philol. (Harv. Theol. Rev., Oct., 1911, p. 499): ‘“‘That the progress of philology has thus broken down the wall of partition of the N. T. and removed its erstwhile isolation is @ great service to the right understanding of the book’s contents.”

5 inl. in die neugr. Gr., 1892, p. ix; ef. also H. C. Miiller, Hist. Gr. der hell. Spr., 1891.

NEW MATERIAL 23

unworthy “dilettanteism”’ and not without ground for the com- plaint. He himself did much by his great work to put the study of modern Greek on a scientific basis,! but he has not worked alone in this important field. Another native Greek, Prof. Sopho- cles, has produced a Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods in which there is an excellent discussion for that time? of the κοινή, the Byzantine and the modern Greek. Other scholars have developed special phases of the problem, as Krumbacher,? who has enriched our knowledge of the Byzantine* or Middle Ages Greek. Dieterich* also has done fine work in this period of Greek, as has Thumb. Worthy of mention also is the work of G. Meyer,’ Geldart® and Prestel,? though the latter have not produced books of great value. See also Meyer-Liibke’s gram- mar,’® Jannaris’ Historical Greek Grammar and the writings of Psichari.“ In general great progress has been made and it is now possible to view the development of the N. T. idiom in the light of the modern Greek. The apparent drift-in the vernacular

1 “Und wenn es mir gelingt, die wissenschaftliche Welt von ihrer wohl- berechtigten Zuriickhaltung abzubringen und ihr nachzuweisen, daf das Mittel- und Neugriechische ein vielversprechendes unkultivirtes Gebiet der Wissenschaft ist, woraus man viel, sehr viel beziiglich der Sprachwissenschaft iiberhaupt wie des Altgriechischen speciell lernen kann, so ist mein Zweck vollkommen erreicht.”’ Ib., p. x.

2 1870. One of the pressing needs is a lexicon of the papyri also. See Contopoulos, Lex. of Mod. Gk., 1868, and others.

3. Das Problem der neugr. Schriftspr., 1903. ‘‘Heute bedarf das Studien- gebiet der byzantinischen und neugriechischen Philologie keine Apologie,” p. 3. In his hands the middle Gk. (Byzantine) is shown to be a rich field for the student both of philology and literature; cf. also Gesch. der byzant. Lit., p. 20.

4 Gesch. der byzant. Lit. etc.; cf. also his Byz. Zeitschr. and his Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn’s Zeitschr., 1885.

5 Unters. zur Gesch. d. griech. Spr. etc., 1898; Gesch. der byz. und neugr. Lit., 1902.

6 Handb. d. neugr. Volkspr., 1895; Thumb-Angus, Handb. of Mod. Gk. Ver- nac., 1912; Die neugr. Sprachforsch. in d. Jahr. 1890 u. 1891 (Anz. fiir indoger. Spr., I, 1892; VI, 1896, and IX, 1898); Die griech. Spr. im Zeitalter des Hellen., 1901; Die sprachgesch. Stellung des bibl. Griechisch, Theol. Runds., March, 1902.

7 Neugr. Stud., 1894.

8 The Mod. Gk. Lang. in its Rela. to Anc. Gk., 1870. On the Orig. and Devel. of the Mod. Gk. Lang., Jour. of Philol., 1869.

® Zur Entwickelungsgesch. der griech. Spr.

10 Gr. der romanischen Spr.

11 Hssais de Gr. hist. Néogrecque, 1886; cf. also Boltz, Die hell. Spr. der Gegenw., 1882.

24 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

κοινή of the N. T., like ἵνα in the non-final clause, is too common for remark in the modern Greek. Indeed the N. T. had a pre- dominant influence on the later Greek as the chief literature of the period, and especially as Christianity won the victory over heathenism. The Byzantine Greek is in subject-matter largely ecclesiastical. The sermons and treatises of the Greek Christian Fathers constitute a large and valuable literature and amply il- lustrate the language of the time.!| The modern Greek is in all essential points the same as the Byzantine Greek of 1000 a.p. In forty years? we have seen a revolution in the study of the modern Greek. But as late as 1887 Vincent and Dickson’ could say: “ΒΥ many it is believed that a corrupt patois of Turkish and Italian is now spoken in Greece; and few even among pro- fessed scholars are aware how small the difference is between the Greek of the N. T. and the Greek of a contemporary Athenian newspaper.”? The new Greek speech was developed not out of the Byzantine literary language, but out of the Hellenistic popular speech.#

(it) Tot Heprew AND Aramaic. Less that is new has come from the Hebrew and Aramaic field of research. Still real ad- vance has been made here also. The most startling result is the decrease of emphasis upon Hebraisms in the N. T. style. In chapter IV, m1 the Semitic influence on the N. T. language is dis- cussed. Here the literary history is sketched.

1. The Old View. It was only in 1879 that Guillemard® issued his Hebraisms in the Greek Testament, in which he said in the Preface: ‘I earnestly disavow any claim to an exhaustive exhibi- tion of all the Hebraisms, or all the deviations from classical phraseology contained in the Greek Testament; of which I have gathered together and put forward only a few specimens, in the hope of stimulating others to fuller and more exact research.” Even in 1889, Dr. Edwin Hatch® says: “Biblical Greek is thus a

1 See the Migne Lib. and the new Ber. Royal Lib. ed.

2 Dieterich, op. cit., p. 10.

3 Handb. to Mod. Gk., p. 3. See also Horae Hellenicae, by Stuart Blackie, 1874, p. 115: ‘Byzantine Gk. was classical Gk. from beginning to end, with only such insignificant changes as the altered circumstances, combined with the law of its original genius, naturally produced.” Cf. Rangabé, Gr. Abré- gée du grec actuel; Γεννάδιος, Γραμματικὴ τῆς ᾿Ελλενικῆς Γλώσσης.

4 Dieterich, op. cit., p. 5.

5 See also A. Miiller, Semit. Lehnw. in Alteren Griech., Bezzenb. Beitr., 1878, I, pp. 278 ff.; S. Krauss, Griech. und lat. Lehnw. im Tal., 1898, 1899.

6 Essays in Bibl. Gk., p. 11.

NEW MATERIAL 25

language by itself. What we have to find out in studying it is what meaning certain Greek words conveyed to a Semitie mind.” Again he says!: ‘‘The great majority of N. T. words are words which, though for the most part common to biblical and to con- temporary secular Greek, express in their biblical use the concep- tions of a Semitic race, and which must consequently be examined by the light of the cognate documents which form the LXX.” And W. H. Simcox? says: “Thus it is that there came to exist a Hellenistic dialect, having real though variable differences from the Common or Hellenic.”

2. A Change with Kennedy. But a turn comes when H. A. A. Kennedy* says: “But while the writer began with a complete, though provisional, acceptance of Hatch’s conclusions, the far- ther the inquiry was pushed, the more decidedly was he com- pelled to doubt those conclusions, and finally to seek to establish the connection between the language of the LXX and that of the N. T. on a totally different basis.”? He finds that common bond in ‘‘the colloquial Greek of the time.’’4

3. Deissmann’s Revolt. The full revolt against the theory of a Semitic or biblical Greek is seen in the writings of Deissmann,° who says*: “The theory indicated is a great power in exegesis, and that it possesses a certain plausibility is not to be denied. It is edifying, and what is more, is convenient. But it is absurd. It mechanizes the marvellous variety of the linguistic elements of the Greek Bible and cannot be established either by the psy- chology of language or by history.’’ There is here some of the zeal of new discovery, but it is true. The old view of Hatch is dead and gone. The ‘“clamant need of a lexicon to the LXX” is emphasized by Deissmann’ himself. Prof. H. B. Swete of Cambridge has laid all biblical students under lasting obligation

1 Th., p. 34. See also p. 9: “Biblical Gk. belongs not only to a later period of the history of the language than classical Gk., but also to a different coun- try.” On page 14 we read: “It is a true paradox that while, historically as well as philologically, the Gk. (LXX) is a translation of the Hebrew, philo- logically, though not historically, the Hebrew may be regarded as a trans- lation of the Gk.’’

2 The Lang. of the N. T., 1890, p. 15. Note the date, as late as 1890.

5. Sources of N. T. Gk., 1895, p. v. 4 Ib., p. 146.

5 Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, 1898; B. S., 1901; Hell. Griech., Hauck’s Realencyc., New Light (1907), ete. ΒΕ 5:5 De OO.

7 Ib., p. 73. Schleusner, 1821, is hopelessly inadequate and out of date. Hatch and Redpath have issued in six parts (two volumes) a splendid con- cordance to the LXX and other Gk. versions of the O. T., 1892-1896, 1900.

20 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

to him by his contribution to the study of the Septuagint, con- sisting of an edition of the LXX! with brief critical apparatus and a general discussion? of the Septuagint. Brooke and McLean are publishing an edition of the Septuagint with exhaustive crit- ical apparatus.? Students of the LX-X now rejoice in Helbing’s Gr. der Septuaginta: Laut- u. Formenlehre (1907) and Thackeray’s Gr. of the O. T. in Greek, vol. I (1909). Conybeare and Stock’s Selections from the Septuagint (1905) has the old standpoint. Other modern workers in this department are Nestle, Lagarde,® Hartung,® Ralfs,7 Susemihl,? Apostolides.?

4. The Language of Jesus. Another point of special interest in this connection, which may be as well discussed now as later, is the new light concerning the Aramaic as the language habitually spoken by Jesus. This matter has been in much confusion and the scholars are not at one even now. Roberts!? maintains that Greek, not Hebrew, was ‘‘the language of the common public intercourse in Palestine in the days of Christ and His apostles.”’ By Hebrew he means Aramaic. In The Expositor (1st series, vols. VI, VID) Roberts argued also that Christ usually spoke Greek. He was replied to (vol. VII) by Sanday. Lightfoot (on Gal. 4 : 6) holds that Jesus said ’ABB4 ὁ πατήρ thus, Mark not having trans- lated it. Thompson, ‘‘The Language of Palestine” (Temple D. of the Bible), argues strongly that Christ spoke Greek, not Aramaic. Neubauer" contends that there was spoken besides at Jerusalem and in Judea a modernized Hebrew, and comments” on ‘‘ how

1 The O.T. in Gk. according to the LXX, vols. I-III, 1887-1894. He does not give an edited text, but follows one MS. at a time with critical apparatus in footnotes.

2 An Intr. to the O. T. in Gk., 1900.

8 The Larger Camb. LXX, 1906—.

4 Ed. of the LXX with Crit. Apparatus, 1880-1887; Sept.-Stud., 1886- 1896; Urtext und Ubersetz. der Bibel, 1897. Nestle died in 1913.

6 Sept.-Stud., 1891-1892. 6 Ib., 1886. 7 Ib., 1904.

8 Gesch. der griech. Lit. in der Alexandrinzeit, Bd. I, 11, 1891, 1892.

9 Du grec Alexandrin et de ses rapports avec le grec ancien et le gree mo- derne, 1892. Cf. among the older discussions, Sturz, De dial. Maced. et Alexan., 1808; Lipsius, Gr. Unters. iiber die bibl. Griic., 1853; Churton, The Infl. of the LXX upon the Prog. of Chris., 1861. See also Anz, Subs. ad cognos. Graec. serm. vulg. e Pent. vers. Alexan., 1894.

10 Disc. on the Gosp., pt. I, On the Lang. Employed by Our Lord and His Apost., 1864, p. 316; A Short Proof that Greek was the Language of Jesus (1893).

11 On the Dial. of Palestine in the Time of Ch., Stud. Bibl., 1885.

12 Stud. Bibl., p. 54.

NEW MATERIAL a

little the Jews knew Greek.”? A. Meyer! urges that the vernacular of Jesus was Aramaic and shows what bearing this fact has on the interpretation of the Gospels. A. Jiilicher? indeed says: “To suppose, however (as, e.g. G. B. Winer supposes, because of Mk. 7:24; Jo. 7:25; 12:20) that Jesus used the Greek language is quite out of the question.’? But Young, vol. II, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (Hastings), article ‘Language of Christ,’ admits that Christ used both, though usually he spoke Aramaic. So Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 8. But Dalman* has done more than any one in showing the great importance of the Aramaic for the interpretation of the words of Jesus. He denies the use of a modernized Hebrew in Jerusalem and urges that proper names like Βηθεσδά, STI na, are Aramaic (but see J. Rendel Harris, Side Lights on the N. T., p. 71 f.). Dalman further urges that “Aramaic was the mother tongue of the Galileans.”4 J. T. Marshall® makes out a plausible case for the idea of a primitive Aramaic Gospel before our Mark, and this would make it more probable that Jesus spoke Aramaic. E. A. Abbott® also attempts to reproduce the original Aramaic of the words of Jesus from the Greek. But Prof. Mahaffy’ can still say: “And so from the very beginning, though we may believe that in Galilee and among His intimates our Lord spoke Aramaic, and though we know that some of His last words upon the cross were in that language, yet His public teaching, His discussions with the Pharisees, His talk

1 Jesu Mutterspr.: das galiliische Aram. in seiner Bedeut. fiir die Erkl. der Reden Jesu und der Evang. iiberhaupt, 1896. So Deissmann (Light, etc., p. 57) says that Jesus ‘did not speak Gk. when He went about His public work,” and, p. 1, “Jesus preaches in his Aramaic mother-tongue.”’

Art. Hellenism in Encyc. Bibl. Canon Foakes-Jackson (Interp., July, 1907, p. 392) says: “ὙΠῸ Jews of high birth or with areputation for sanctity are said to have refused to learn any language but their own, and thus we have the strange circumstance in Roman Palestine of the lower orders speaking two languages and their leaders only one.’’

3 The Words of Jesus considered in the Light of the post-Bibl. Jewish Writings and the Aram. Lang., 1902. Cf. also Pfannkuche (Clark’s Bibl. Cab.).

4 Ib., p. 10.

5 Exp., ser. IV, VI, VIII. See also Brockelmann, Syrische Gr., 1904; Schwally, Idioticon des christl.-palestinischen Aramiiisch, 1893; Riggs, Man. of the Chaldean Lang., 1866; Wilson, Intr. Syriac Meth. and Man., 1891; Strack, Gr. des bibl. Aramiischen.

§ Clue, A Guide through Gk. to Heb., 1904.

7 The Prog. of Hellen. in Alexan. Emp., 1905, p. 130 f. Hadley (Ess. Phil. and Crit., p. 413) reaches the conclusion that Jesus spoke both Gk. and Aram.

28 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

with Pontius Pilate, were certainly carried on mainly in the Greek.” Zahn ([ntr. to the N. T.) labours needlessly to show that Hebrew was no longer the language of Palestine, but he does not prove that Aramaic was everywhere spoken, nor that Jesus always spoke Aramaic. Wellhausen (Hinl. in die drei erst. Evang.) is prejudiced in favour of the Aramaic theory. It may be admitted at once that Aramaic was known to the majority of the Jews in Palestine, particularly in Judea. Cf. Ac. 1:19: τῇ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν ᾿Ακελδαμάχ; 22:2, ἀκούσαντες ὅτι τῇ “EBpatdc διαλέκτῳ προσε- φώνει αὐτοῖς μᾶλλον παρέσχον ἡσυχίαν. There is no doubt which language is the vernacular in Jerusalem. Cf. also 26:14. Jo- sephus confirms Luke on this point (War, V, 6. 3), for the people of Jerusalem cried out τῇ πατρίῳ γλώσσῃ, and Josephus also acted intermediary for Titus, τῇ πατρίῳ γλώσσῃ (War, VI, 2. 1). See also 2 Mace. 7:8, 21. Josephus wrote his War first in Aramaic and then in Greek. The testimony of Papias that Matthew wrote his λόγια in Aramaic bears on the question because of the tradition that Mark was the interpreter of Peter. The brogue that Peter revealed (Mt. 26:73) was probably due to his Gali- lean accent of Aramaic. Aramaic was one of the languages for the inscription on the cross (Jo. 19:20). It is clear therefore that the Hellenizing work of Jason and Menelaus and Antiochus Epiphanes received a set-back in Palestine. The reaction kept Greek from becoming the one language of the country. Even in Lycaonia the people kept their vernacular though they under- stood Greek (Ac. 14:11). On the other hand Peter clearly spoke in Greek on the Day of Pentecost, and no mention is made of Greek as one of the peculiar “tongues,” on that occasion. It is clear that Paul was understood in Jerusalem when he spoke Greek (Ac. 22:2). Jesus Himself laboured chiefly in Galilee where were many gentiles and much commerce and travel. He taught in Decapolis, a Greek region. He preached also in the regions of Tyre and Sidon (Pheenicia), where Greek was neces- sary, and he held converse with a Greek (Syro-Phoenician) woman. Near Cvzsarea-Philippi (a Greek region), after the Transfiguration, Jesus spoke to the people at the foot of the mountain. At the time of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus ad- dressed people from Decapolis and Perea (largely Hellenized), be- sides the mixed multitudes from Galilee, Jerusalem and Judea (Mt. 4:25). Luke (6:17) adds that crowds came also from Tyre and Sidon, and Mark (3: 8) gives “from Idumza.”’ It is hardly pos- sible that these crowds understood Aramaic. The fact that Mark

NEW MATERIAL 29

twice (5:41; 7:34) uses Aramaic quotations from the words of Jesus does not prove that He always spoke in that tongue nor that He did so only on these occasions. In Mk. 14:36, ’ABBa ὁ πατήρ, it is possible that Jesus may have used both words as Paul did (Ro. 8:15). In the quotation from Ps. 22: 1, spoken on the cross, Mt. 27:46 gives the Hebrew, while Mk. 15: 34 has an Aramaic adaptation. There is no reason to doubt that Jesus knew Hebrew also. But Thomson (Temple Bible, Lang. of Palestine) proves that Matthew gives the quotations made by Christ in the words of the LXX, while his own quotations are usually from the Hebrew. It is clear, therefore, that Jesus spoke both Aramaic and Greek according to the demands of the occa- sion and read the Hebrew as well as the Septuagint, if we may argue from the O. T. quotations in the Gospels which are partly like the Hebrew text and partly like the LXX.! In Lu. 4:17 it is not clear whether it was the Hebrew text or the LX X that was read in the synagogue at Nazareth.? One surely needs no argu- ment to see the possibility that a people may be bilingual when he remembers the Welsh, Scotch, Irish, Bretons of the present day.’ The people in Jerusalem understood either Greek or Ara- maic (Ac. 22: 2).

(2) GRAMMATICAL CommM=NTARIES. A word must be said con- cerning the new type of commentaries which accent the gram- matical side of exegesis. This is, to be sure, the result of the emphasis upon scientific grammar. The commentary must have other elements besides the grammatical. Even the historical element when added does not exhaust what is required. There still remains the apprehension of the soul of the author to which historical grammar is only an introduction. But distinct credit is to be given to those commentators who have lifted this kind of exegesis out of the merely homiletic vein. Among the older writers are to be mentioned Meyer, Ellicott, Godet, Broadus, Hackett, Lightfoot and Westcott, while among the more recent commentators stand out most of the writers in the International

1 See C. Taylor, The Gospel in the Law, 1869; Boehl, Alttestamentl. Cit. im N. T., 1878; Toy, Quota. in the N. T., 1884; Huhn, Die alttestamentl. Cit. ete., 1900; Gregory, Canon and Text of the N. T., 1907, p. 394.

2 On the Gk. in the Tal. see art. Greek in Jew. Encye.; Krauss, Griech. und lat. Lehnw. im Tal.; Schiirer, Jew. Hist., div. II, vol. I, p. 29f.

3 See Zahn, Einl. in das N. T., ch. 11. On the bilingual character of many of the Palestinian Jews see Schiirer, Jew. Peo. in the Time of Ch., div. II, vol. I, p. 48 f.; Moulton, Prol., p. 7 f.

90 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Critical Commentary, Holtzmann’s Hand Comm., The Expositor’s Greek Test., Swete, Mayor, G. Milligan, Lietzmann’s Handbuch, Zahn’s Kommentar, The Camb. Gk. Test., etc. In works like these, grammatical remarks of great value are found. There has been great advance in the N. T. commentaries since Winer’s day, when these comments ‘were rendered useless by that uncritical empi- ricism which controlled Greek philology.” !

V. The New Point of View. It will hardly be denied, in view of the preceding necessarily condensed presentation of the new material now at hand that new light has been turned upon the problems of the N. T. Greek. The first effect upon many minds is to dazzle and to cause confusion. Some will not know how to assimilate the new facts and to co-ordinate them with old theories nor be willing to form or adopt new theories as a result of the fresh phenomena. But it is the inevitable duty of the student in this department to welcome the new discoveries and to attack the problems arising therefrom. The new horizon and wider out- look make possible real progress. It will not be possible to avoid some mistakes at first. A truer conception of the language is now offered to us and one that will be found to be richer and more inspiring.2 Every line of biblical study must respond to the new discovery in language. ‘A new Cremer, a new Thayer-Grimm, a new Winer will give the twentieth century plenty of editing to keep its scholars busy. New Meyers and Alfords will have fresh matter from which to interpret the text, and new Spurgeons and Moodys will, we may hope, be ready to pass the new teaching on to the people.”? The N. T. Greek is now seen to be not an abnormal excrescence, but a natural development in the Greek language; to be, in fact, a not unworthy part of the great stream of the mighty tongue. It was not outside of the world-language, but in the very heart of it and influenced considerably the future of the Greek tongue.

1 Winer, Gr. of the N. T. Idiom, Thayer’s transl., p. 7.

2 “Nun hat man aber die Sprache der heiligen Biicher mit den Papyrus- denkmiilern und den Inschriften der alexandrinischen und rémischen Zeit genau verglichen, und da hat sich die gar manchen Anhiinger der alten Dok- trin verbliiffende, in Wahrheit ganz natiirliche Tatsache ergeben, daf die Sprache des N. T. nichts anderes ist als eine fiir den literarischen Zweck leicht temperierte Form des volkstiimlich Griechisch.”” Krumbacher, Das Prob. der neugr. Schriftspr., 1903, p. 27.

3 J. H. Moulton, New Lights on Bibl. Gk., Bibl. World, March, 1902.

CHAPTER II

_THE HISTORICAL METHOD

I. Language as History. The scientific grammar is at bottom a grammatical history, and not a linguistic law-book. The seat of authority in language is therefore not the books about language, but the people who use the language. The majority of well-edu- cated people determine correct usage (the mos loquendi as Horace says). Even modern dictionaries merely record from time to time the changing phenomena of language. Wolff was right when he conceived of philology as the “biography of a nation.” The life of a people is expressed in the speech which they use.1 We can well agree with Benfey? that “speech is the truest picture of the soul of a people, the content of all that which has brought a people to self-consciousness.”’ However, we must not think that we can necessarily argue race from language.* The historical conception of grammar has had to win its way against the purely theoretical and speculative notion. Etymology was the work of the philosophers. The study of the forms, the syntax, the dialects came later. The work of the Alexandrians was originally philology, not scientific grammar.‘

(a) CoMBINING THE VARIOUS ELEMENTs. It is not indeed easy to combine properly the various elements in the study of language. Sayce considers Steinthal too psychological and Schleicher too physical.> The historical element must be added to both. Paul® objects to the phrase “philosophy of language” as suggesting “metaphysical speculations of which the historical investigation

1 See Oertel, Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1902, p. 9 f.

2 Kleinere Schr., 1892, 2. Bd., 4. Abt., p. 51.

3 See Sayce, Prin. of Comp. Philol., 1875, p. 175 f.

4 See Kretschmer, Hinl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 2, 3.

5 Prin. of Comp. Philol., p. xvi. f

6 Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., 1888, p. xxi. ‘‘The truth is that the science of which we are thinking is philosophy in the same way as physics or physi- ology is philosophy, neither more, nor less.’

31

32 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

of language needs to take no count.” He prefers the term “sei- ence of principles.” The study of language is a true science, a real philosophy, with a psychical as well as a physical basis. It is properly related to the historical natural sciences which have been subject “to the misdirected attempt at excluding them from the circle of the sciences of culture.’’! Language is capable of almost perfect scientific treatment. IKretschmer? outlines as modern advances over ancient grammar the psychological treat- ment of language, the physiology of sound, the use of the com- parative method, the historical development of the language, the recognition of speech as a product of human culture, and not to be separated from the history of culture, world-history and life of the peoples. He thinks that no language has yet received such treatment as this, for present-day handbooks are only “speech- pictures,’”’ not “speech-histories.”

(Ὁ) Practica, GRamMMAR A Compromise. Historical practical grammars have to make a compromise. They can give the whole view only in outline and show development and interrelation in part. It is not possible then to write the final grammar of Greek either ancient or modern. The modern is constantly changing and we are ever learning more of the old. What was true of Mistriotes? and Jannaris? will be true of the attempts of all. But none the less the way to study Greek is to look at it as a history of the speech-development of one of the greatest of peo- ples. But it is at least possible now to have the right attitude, thanks to the books already mentioned and others by Bernhardy,?

1 Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., 1888, p. xxvii. See Von Ulrich’s Grundl. und Gesch. der Philol., 1892, p. 22: “Zu der wissenschaftlichen Grammatik gesellt sich die historische Betrachtung. Sie unterscheidet die Periodisierung der Satze von deren loser Verkniipfung, die wechselnde Bedeutung der Partikeln, den Gebrauch der Modi und Tempora, die erfahrungsmifig festgestellten Regeln der Syntax, den Sprachgebrauch der Schriftsteller.” On the scientific study of the Gk. language sketched historically see Wackernagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, pp. 314-316.

2 ἘΠ]. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., pp. 3-5. He himself here merely outlines the historical background of the Gk. language.

3 (( Κατὰ ταῦτα λοιπὸν ἡ γραμματολογία δὲν εἶναι οὔτε ἀμιγὴς ἱστορική, οὔτε ἀμι- γὴς αἰσθητικὴ ἐπιστήμη ἀλλὰ μετέχει ἀμφοτέρων. ὩἙλληνικὴ Πραμματολογία, 1894, p. 6.

4 “As αὶ matter of course, I do not presume to have said the last word on all or most of these points, seeing that, even in the-case of modern Gk., I cannot be expected to master, in all its details, the entire vocabulary and grammar of every single Neohellenic dialect.” Hist. Gk. Gr., 1897, p. x.

5. Wissensch. Synt. der griech. Spr., 1829.

THE HISTORICAL METHOD 33

Christ,’ Wundt,’ Johannsen,’ Krumbacher,t Schanz,> G. Meyer,® I. Miller,’ Hirt,’ Thumb,? Dieterich,” Steinthal.1. The Latin syntax received historical treatment by Landgraf,!2 not to men- tion English and other modern languages.

II. Language as a Living Organism.

(a) THe OriciIn or LancuaGe. Speech is indeed a character- istic of man and may he considered a divine gift, however slowly the gift was won and developed by him. Sayce is undoubtedly correct in saying that language is a social creation and the effort to communicate is the only true solution of the riddle of speech, whether there was ever a speechless man or not. “Grammar has grown out of gesture and gesticulation.”!* But speech has not created the capacities which mark the civilized man as higher than the savage. Max Miiller remarks that “language forms an impassable barrier between man and beast.’”’ Growls and signs do not constitute “intellectual symbolism.” 156. Paul indeed, in op- position to Lazarus and Steinthal, urges that “every linguistic creation is always the work of a single individual only.’’!7 The psychological organisms are in fact the true media of linguistic

1 Gesch. der griech. Lit., 1893.

* Volkerpsychol., 1900, 3. Aufl., 1911 f.

3 Beitr. zur griech. Sprachk., 1890.

4 Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1885.

5 Beitr. zur hist. Synt. der griech. Spr., Bd. I-XVII.

§ Ess. und Stud. zur Sprachgesch. und Volksk., Bd. I, II, 1885, 1893.

7 Handb. der Altertumswiss. He edits the series (1890—).

8 Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenl. Eine Einfiihr. in das sprach- wiss. Stud. des Griech., 1902, 2. Aufl., 1912.

® Die griech. Spr. im Zeitalter des Hellen., 1901.

10 Untersuch. zur Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1898.

τ Gesch. der Sprachwiss. bei den Griech. und Rém., TI. I, II, 1891.

2 Hist. Gr. der lat. Spr., 1903. Cf. Stolz und Schrsale Lat. Gr., 4. Aufl., 1910; Draeger, Hist. Synt. der lat. Spr., Bd. I, II, 1878, 1881; ae The Lat. Lang., 1894. In Bd. III of Landgraf’s Gr., Golling says (p. 2) that Latin Grammar as a study is due to the Stoics who did it “in der engsten Verbin- dung mit der Logik.” Cf. Origin of Gk. Gr.

15. See Whitney, Lang. and the Study of Lang., 1868, p. 399.

4 Sayce, Intr. to the Sci. of Lang., vol. II, p. 301.

16 Whitney, Darwinism and Lang., ΠΕ τ from North Am. Rev., July, 1874.

16 Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891, p. 9. See also The Silesian Horse- herd: “Language and thought go hand in hand; where there is as yet no word, there is as yet no idea.” Many of the writers on animals do not accept this doctrine.

” Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. xliii.

94 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

development. Self-observation and analogy help one to strike a general average and so make grammar practical as well as scien- tific.

(Ὁ) EvotuTion In LaneuacE. Growth, then, is to be expected in a living tongue. Change is inseparable from life. No language is dead so long as it is undergoing change, and this must be true in spoken and written usage. It is not the function of the gram- marian to stop change in language, a thing impossible in itself. Such change is not usually cataclysmic, but gradual and varied. “A written language, to serve any practical purpose, must change with the times, just like a living dialect.”! In general, change in usage may be compared to change in organic structure in “oreater or lesser fitness.”? The changes by analogy in the speech of children are very suggestive on this point. The vocab- ulary of the Greek tongue must therefore continually develop, for new ideas demand new words and new meanings come to old words. Likewise inflections vary in response to new movements. This change brings great wealth and variety. The idea of prog- ress has seized the modern mind and has been applied to the study of language as to everything else.

(c) CHANGE CHIEFLY IN THE VERNACULAR. Linguistic change occurs chiefly in the vernacular. From the spoken language new words and new inflections work their way gradually into the written style, which is essentially conservative, sometimes even anachronistic and purposely archaic. Much slang is finally ac- cepted in the literary style. The study of grammar was originally confined to the artificial book-style. Dionysius Thrax expressly defined grammar as ἐμπειρία τῶν παρὰ ποιηταῖς τε Kal συγγραφεῦσιν ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ λεγομένων. It was with him a concern for the poets and writers, not “die Sprache des Lebens.’’? Grammar (γραμματική, Ὑράφω), then, was first to write and to understand what was written; then the scientific interpretation of this litera- ture; later the study of literary linguistic usage. It is only the moderns who have learned to investigate the living speech for its own historical value. Before the discovery of the Greek in- scriptions the distinction between the vernacular and the literary style could not be so sharply drawn for the Greek of the classical

1 Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. 481.

2 Tb., p. 13. Kiihner speaks of ‘‘das organische Leben der Sprache’ and of “ein klares, anschauliches und lebensvolles Bild des grofen und kraftig bliihenden Sprachbaums.” Ausfiihrl. Gr. der griech. Spr., 1. Bd., 1890, p. ii.

3 Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 3-5.

THE HISTORICAL METHOD 35

period, though Aristophanes should have taught us much. We have moved away from the position of Mure! who said: “The distinction between the language of letters and the vulgar tongue, so characteristic of modern civilization, is imperceptible or but little defined in the flourishing age of Greece. Numerous peculi- arities in her social condition tended to constitute classical ex- pression in speaking or writing, not, as with us, the privilege of a few, but a public property in which every Hellene had an equal interest.’”’? The people as a whole were wonderfully well educated, but the educated classes themselves then, as now with us, used a spoken as well as a literary style. Jannaris? is clear on this point: “But, speaking of Attic Greek, we must not infer that all Athe- nians and Atticized Greeks wrote and spoke the classical Attic portrayed in the aforesaid literature, for this Attic is essentially what it still remains in modern Greek composition: a merely historical abstraction; that is, an artistic language which nobody spoke but still everybody understood.” We must note therefore both the vernacular and the literary style and expect constant change in each, though not in the same degree. Zarncke indeed still sounds a note of warning against too much attention to the vernacular, though a needless one.* In the first century a.p. the vernacular Greek was in common use all over the world, the char- acter of which we can now accurately set forth. But this non- literary language was not necessarily the speech of the illiterate. Mahaffy is very positive on this point. “I said just now that the Hellenistic world was more cultivated in argument than we are nowadays. And if you think this is a strange assertion, ex- amine, I pray you, the intellectual aspects of the epistles of St. Paul, the first Christian writer whom we know to have been thor- oughly educated in this training. Remember that he was a practi- cal teacher, not likely to commit the fault of speaking over the heads of his audience, as the phrase 15. Hatzidakis® laments that the monuments of the Greek since the Alexandrian period are no longer in the pure actual living speech of the time, but in the ar-

1 A Crit. Hist. of the Lang. and Lit. of Anc. Greece, 1850, vol. I, p. 117.

2 Op. cit., 1897, p. 3 f.

8 Die Entst. der griech. Literaturspr., 1890, p. 2: ‘Denn man liefe Gefahr, den Charakter der Literaturdenkmiiler ginzlich zu zerst6ren, indem man, ihre eigenartige Gestaltung verkennend, sie nach den Normen einer gespro- chenen Mundart corrigirt.”” But see Lottich, De Serm. vulg. Att., 1881; and Apostolides, op. cit. -

4 Prog. of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., 1905, p. 137.

5 Hinleitung, p. 3.

90 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

tificial Attic of a bygone age. The modern Greek vernacular is a living tongue, but the modern literary language so proudly called καθαρεύουσα is artificial and unreal.t. This new conception of language as life makes it no longer possible to set up the Greek of any one period as the standard for all time. The English writer to-day who would use Hooker’s style would be affected and anachronistic. Good English to-day is not what it was two hundred years ago, even with the help of printing and (part of the time) dictionaries. What we wish to know is not what was good Greek at Athens in the days of Pericles, but what was good Greek in Syria and Palestine in the first century a.p. The direct evidence for this must be sought among contemporaries, not from ancestors in a distant land. It is the living Greek that we desire, not the dead.

III. Greek not an Isolated Language.

(a) THe IMPORTANCE OF COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR. Julius Cesar, who wrote a work on grammar, had in mind Latin and Greek, for both were in constant use in the Roman world.2 Formal Sanskrit grammar itself may have resulted from the comparison of San- skrit with the native dialects of India.? Hence comparative grammar seems to lie at the very heart of the science. It cannot be said, however, that Panini, the great Sanskrit scholar and erammarian of the fourth century B.c., received any impulse from the Greek civilization of Alexander the Great. The work of Panini is one of the most remarkable in history for subtle orig- inality, “une histoire naturelle de la langue sanscrite.”’ The Roman and Greek grammarians attended to the use of words in sentences, while the Sanskrit writers analyzed words into syl- lables’ and studied the relation of sounds to each other. It is not possible to state the period when linguistic comparison was first made. Max Miiller in The Science of Language even says: “From an historical point of view it is not too much to say that the first Day of Pentecost marks the real beginning of the Science of language.””? One must not think that the comparative method is “more characteristic of the study of language than of other

1 “Wine Literatursprache ist nie eine Art Normalsprache.”’ Schwyzer, Weltspr. des Altert., 1902, p. 12.

2 King, Intr. to Comp. Gr., p. 2.

3 Sayce, Prin. of Comp. Philol., p. 261.

4 Goblet d’Alviella, Ce que l’Inde doit ἃ la Gréce, 1897, p. 129.

5 King, op. cit., p. 2f. ‘‘The method of comparative grammar is merely auxiliary to historical grammar,’ Wheeler, Whence and Whither of the Mod. Sci. of Lang., p. 96.

THE HISTORICAL METHOD BY

branches of modern inquiry.”! The root idea of the new gram- mar is the kinship of languages. Chinese grammar is said to be one of the curiosities of the world, and some other grammatical works can be regarded in that light. But our fundamental obli- gation is to the Hindu and Greek grammarians.?

(6) THE Common Bonp ΙΝ Laneuace. Prof. Alfredo Trom- betti, of Rome, has sought the connecting link in all human speech? It is a gigantic task, but it is doubtless true that all speech is of ultimate common origin. The remote relationships are very difficult to trace. As a working hypothesis the compara- tive grammarians speak of isolating, agglutinative and inflectional languages. In the isolating tongues like the Chinese, Burmese, etc., the words have no inflection and the position in the sen- tence and the tone in pronunciation are relied on for clearness of meaning. Giles* points out that modern English and Persian have nearly returned to the position of Chinese as isolating lan- guages. Hence it is inferred that the Chinese has already gone through a history similar to the English and is starting again on an inflectional career. Agglutinative tongues like the Turkish ex- press the various grammatical relations by numerous separable prefixes, infixes and suffixes. Inflectional languages have made still further development, for while a distinction is made between the stem and the inflexional endings, the stems and the endings do not exist apart from each other. There are two great families in the inflexional group, the Semitic (the Assyrian, the Hebrew, the Syriac, the Arabic, ete.) and the Indo-Germanic or Indo-Euro- pean (the Indo-Iranian or Aryan, the Armenian, the Greek, the Albanian, the Italic, the Celtic, the Germanic and the Balto- Slavic). Indo-European also are Illyrian, Macedonian, Phrygian, Thracian and the newly-discovered Tocharian. Some of these groups, like the Italic, the Germanic, the Balto-Slavic, the Indo- Iranian, embrace a number of separate tongues which show an inner affinity, but all the groups have a general family likeness.®

1 Whitney, Life and Growth of Lang., 1875—, p. 315.

2 Τὶ Hoffmann, Uber die Entwickel. des Begrifis der Gr. bei den Alten, 1891, p. 1.

8. See his book, The Unity of Origin of Lang. Dr. Allison Drake, Disc. in Heb., Gaelic, Gothic, Anglo-Sax., Lat., Basque and other Caucasic Lang., 1908, undertakes to show “fundamental kinship of the Aryan tongues and of Basque with the Semitic tongues.”’

4 Man. of Comp. Philol., 1901, p. 36.

5 Brugmann, Kurze vergl. Gr. der indoger. Spr., 1. Lief., 1902, p. 4.

6 See Misteli, Characteristik der hauptsiichlichsten Typen des Sprach-

38 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

(c) Tue OricinaL INpo-GERMANIC SpEEcH. It is not claimed that the original Indo-Germanic speech has been discovered, though Kretschmer does speak of “die indogermanische Ur- sprache,” but he considers it only a necessary hypothesis and a useful definition for the early speech-unity before the Indo-Ger- manic stock separated.1 Brugmann speaks also of the original and ground-speech (Ur- und Grundsprache) in the prehistoric back- ground of every member of the Indo-Germanic family.’ The science of language has as a historic discipline the task of inves- tigating the collective speech-development of the Indo-Germanic peoples.’ Since Bopp’s day this task is no longer impossible. The existence of an original Indo-Germanic speech is the working hypothesis of all modern linguistic study. This demands indeed a study of the Indo-Germanic people. Horatio Hale* insists that language is the only proper basis for the classification of man- kind. But this test breaks down when Jews and Egyptians speak Greek after Alexander’s conquests or when the Irish and the American Negro use English. The probable home and wander- ings of the original Indo-Germanic peoples are well discussed by Kretschmer.’ It is undeniable that many of the same roots exist in slightly different forms in all or most of the Indo-Germanic tongues. They are usually words that refer to the common do- mestic relations, elementary agriculture, the ordinary articles of food, the elemental forces, the pronouns and the numerals. In- flexional languages have two kinds of roots, predicative (nouns and verbs) and pronominal. PAnini found 1706 such roots in Sanskrit, but Edgren has reduced the number of necessary San- skrit roots to 587.6 But one must not suppose that these hypo- thetical roots ever constituted a real language, though there was an original Indo-Germanic tongue.’

baues, 1893. For further literature on comparative grammar see ch. I, 2 (7) of this book. There is an English translation of Brugmann’s Bde. I and IL called Elements of the Comp. Gr. of the Indo-Ger. Lang., 5 vols., 1886-97. But his Kurze vergl. Gr. (1902-4) is the handiest edition. Meillet (Intr. ἃ )’Etude Comp. etc., pp. 441-455) has a discriminating discussion of the litera- ture.

1 ἘΠ]. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 7-9.

2 Kurze vergl. Gr., 1. Lief., 1902, p. 3.

Sb. Ὁ. 27:

4 Pop. Sci. Rev., Jan., 1888.

5 Hinl. in die Gesch. ete., pp. 7-92.

8 See Max Miiller, Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891, p. 29.

7 Sayce, Prin. of Comp. Philo!., 1875, p. vi.

THE HISTORICAL METHOD 39

(ὃ GREEK as A “Dratect” or THE INDO-GERMANIC SPEECH. Greek then can be regarded as one of the branches of this original Indo-Germanic speech, just as French is one of the descendants of the Latin,’ like Spanish, Portuguese, Italian. Compare also the re- lation of English to the other Teutonic tongues.2 To go further, the separation of this original Indo-Germanic speech into various tongues was much like the breaking-up of the original Greek into dialects and was due to natural causes. Dialectic variety itself implies previous speech-unity.? Greek has vital relations with all the branches of the Indo-Germanic tongues, though in varying degrees. The Greek shows decided affinity with the Sanskrit, the Latin and the Celtic’ languages. Part of the early Greek stock was probably Celtic. The Greek and the Latin flourished side by side for centuries and had much common history. All the com- parative grammars and the Greek grammars from this point of view constantly compare the Greek with the Latin. See especially the great work of Riemann and Goelzer, Grammaire comparée du Grec et du Latin.’ On the whole subject of the relation of the Greek with the various Indo-Germanic languages see the excel- lent brief discussion of Kretschmer.é But the hypothesis of an original Graeco-Italic tongue cannot be considered as shown, though there are many points of contact between Greek and Latin.’ But Greek, as the next oldest branch known to us, shows marked affinity with the Sanskrit. Constant use of the San- skrit must be made by one who wishes to understand the historical development of the Greek tongue. Such a work as Whitney’s Sanskrit Grammar is very useful for this purpose. See also J. Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik. 1, Lautlehre (1896). II, 1, Hinleitung zur Wortlehre (1905). So Thumb’s

1 See Meyer-Liibke, Gr. der rém. Spr., 3 Bde., 1890, 1894, 1899.

? See Hirt, Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenl., 2d ed., 1912, p. 18. Cf. Donaldson, New Crat., p. 112 (Ethn. Affin. of the Ane. Greeks).

5. Whitney, Lang. and the Study of Lang., 1868, p. 185. See Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 5: “Die griechische, lateinische, indische u.s.w. Grammatik sind die konstitutiven Teile der indogermanischen Grammatik in gleicher Weise, wie z. B. die dorische, die ionische u.s.w. Grammatik die griechische Grammatik ausmachen.”

4 See Holder, Altcelt. Sprachsch., 1891 ff.

5 Synt., 1897. Phonét. et Et. des Formes Grq. et Lat., 1901.

6 Hinl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., pp. 153-170.

” Prof. B. L. Gildersleeve, Johns Hopkins Univ., has always taught Greek, but his Latin Grammar shows his fondness for Latin. See also Henry, A Short Comp. Gr. of Gk. and Lat., 1890, and A Short Comp. Gr. of Eng. and Ger., 1893.

40 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Handbuch des Sanskrit. I, Grammatik (1905). Max Miiller! playfully remarks: “It has often been said that no one can know anything of the science of language who does not know Sanskrit, and that is enough to frighten anybody away from its study.” It is not quite so bad, however. Sanskrit is not the parent stock of the Greek, but the oldest member of the group. The age of the Sanskrit makes it invaluable for the study of the later speech- developments.

The Greek therefore is not an isolated tongue, but sustains vital relations with a great family of languages. So important does Kretschmer consider this aspect of the subject that he devotes his notable Hinleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache to the setting forth of “the prehistoric beginnings of the Greek speech-development.”’? This effort is, of necessity, fragmentary and partly inferential, but most valuable for a scientific treat- ment of the Greek language. He has a luminous discussion of the effect of the Thracian and Phrygian stocks upon the Greek when the language spread over Asia Minor.®

IV. Looking at the Greek Language as a Whole. We cannot indeed make an exhaustive study of the entire Greek language in a book that is professedly concerned only with one epoch of that history. As a matter of fact no such work exists. Jannaris* in- deed said that “an ‘historical’ grammar, tracing in a connected manner the life of the Greek language from classical antiquity to the present time, has not been written nor even seriously at- tempted as yet.’”’ Jannaris himself felt his limitations when he faced so gigantic a task and found it necessary to rest his work upon the classical Attic as the only practical basis.* But so far

1 Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891, p. 72.

2 P.5. Prof. Burrows (Disc. in Crete, 1907, pp. 145 ff.) raises the question whether the Greek race (a blend of northern and southern elements) made the Gk. language out of a pre-existing Indo-European tongue. Or did the northerners bring the Gk. with them? Or did they find it already in the Agean? It is easier to ask than to answer these questions.

3 See pp. 171-243. 4 Mist. Gk. Gr: 18975 p: ve

5 Ib., p. xi. Thumb says: ‘Wir sind noch sehr weit von einer Geschichte oder historischen Grammatik der griechischen Sprache entfernt; der Ver- such von Jannaris, so dankenswert er ist, kann doch nur provisorische Gel- tung beanspruchen, wobei man mehr die gute Absicht und den Fleif8 als das sprachgeschichtliche Verstiindnis des Verfassers loben mu.’ Die griech. Spr., ete., 1901, p. 1. Cf. also Krumbacher, Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr. (1884, p. 4): ‘‘ Eine zusammenhingende Darstellung des Entwickelungs- ganges der griechischen Sprache ist gegenwirtig nicht méglich.” But it is more possible now than in 1884.

THE HISTORICAL METHOD 41

he departed from the pure historical method. But such a gram- mar will come some day.

(a) Descriptive HistortcaL GRAMMAR. Meanwhile descriptive historical grammar is possible and necessary. “ Descriptive gram- mar has to register the grammatical forms and grammatical con- ditions in use at a given date within a certain community speaking a common language.’’! There is this justification for taking Attic as the standard for classical study; only the true historical perspective should be given and Attic should not be taught as the only real Greek. It is possible and essential then to correlate the N. T. Greek with all other Greek and to use all Greek to throw light on the stage of the language under review. If the Greek itself is not an isolated tongue, no one stage of the lan- guage can be so regarded. ‘‘ Wolff? deprecates the restriction of grammar to a set of rules abstracted from the writings of a ‘golden’ period, while in reality it should comprise the whole his- tory of a language and trace its development.” H. C. Miiller3 indeed thought that the time had not arrived for a grammar of Greek on the historical plan, because it must rest on a greater amount of material than is now at hand. But since then a vast amount of new material has come to light in the form of papyri, inscriptions and research in the modern Greek. Miiller’s own book has added no little to our knowledge of the subject. Mean- while we can use the historical material for the study of N. T. Greek.

(b) Unrry or ran Greek Lancuace. At the risk of slight repe- tition it is worth while to emphasize this point. Miiller¢ is apolo- getic and eager to show that “the Greek language and literature is one organic, coherent whole.” The dialectical variations, while confusing to a certain extent, do not show that the Greek did not possess original and continuous unity. As early as 1000 B.c. these dialectical distinctions probably existed and the speech of Homer is a literary dialect, not the folk-speech. The original sources of

1 Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., 1888, p. 2.

? Oertel, Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1902, p. 27. Thumb (Theol. Litera- turzeit., 1903, p. 424) expresses the hope that in a future edition of his Gr. des N. T., Blass may do this for his book: “Die Sprache des N. T. auf dem grofen Hintergrund der hellenistischen Sprachentwicklung beschreiben zu k6nnen.” 8. Hist. Gr. der hell. Spr., 1891, p. 14f.

4 Ib., p. 16. On “die griechische Sprache als Einheit”” see Thumb’s able discussion in Handb. d. griech. Dial. (pp. 1-12). With all the diversity of dialects there was essential unity in comparison with other tongues.

5 Brugmann, Vergl. Gr., 1902, p. 8.

42 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

the Greek speech go back to a far distant time when as one single language an Asiatic idiom had taken Europe in its circle of: in- fluence. The translator of Buttmann’s Greek Grammar speaks of Homer “almost as the work of another language.”’ This was once a common opinion for all Greek that was not classic Attic. But Thiersch entitled his great work Griechische Grammatik vor- ztiglich des homerischen Dialekts, not simply because of the worth of Homer, “but because, on the contrary, a thorough knowledge of the Homeric dialect is indispensably necessary for those who desire to comprehend, in their whole depth and compass, the Grecian tongue and literature.”? But Homer is not the gauge by which to test Greek; his poems are invaluable testimony to the early history of one stage of the language. It is a pity that we know so little of the pre-Homeric history of Greek. “Homer pre- sents not a starting-point, but a culmination, a complete achieve- ment, an almost mechanical accomplishment, with scarcely a hint of origins.”’ But whenever Greek began it has persisted as a linguistic unit till now. It is one language whether we read the Epic Homer, the Doric Pindar, the Ionic Herodotus, the Attic Xenophon, the Aolic Sappho, the Atticistic Plutarch, Paul the exponent of Christ, an inscription in Pergamus, a papyrus letter in Egypt, Tricoupis or Vlachos in the modern time. None of these representatives can be regarded as excrescences or imperti- nences. There have always been uneducated persons, but the Greek tongue has had a continuous, though checkered, history all the way. The modern educated Greek has a keen appreciation of “die Schénheiten der klassischen Sprache.’’* Miiller® complained that “almost no grammarians have treated the Greek language as a whole,’ but the works of Krumbacher, Thumb, Dieterich, Hatzidakis, Psichari, Jannaris, etc., have made it possible to ob- tain a general survey of the Greek language up to the present time. Like English,* Greek has emerged into a new sphere of unity and consistent growth.

1 Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, p. 6. On the un- mixed character of the Gk. tongue see Wackernagel, Die griech. Spr., p. 294, ΤΊ. I, Abt. 8 (Die Kult. der Gegenw.). On the antiquity of Gk. see p. 292 f.

2 Sandford, Pref. to Thiersch’s Gk. Gr., 1830, p. viii.

3 Miss Harrison, Prol. to the Study of Gk. Rel., 1903, p. vii.

4 Hatzidakis, Hinl. in die neugr. Gr., 1892, p. 4.

5 Hist. Gr. der hell. Spr., 1891, p. 2.

6 See John Koch, Eng. Gr., for an admirable bibliography of works on Eng. (in Ergeb. und Fortschr. der germanist. Wiss. im letzten Vierteljahrh., 1902, pp. 89-138, 325-437). The Germans have taught us how to study English!

THE HISTORICAL METHOD 43

(c) Periops oF THE GREEK LaNauacr. It will be of service to present a brief outline of the history of the Greek tongue. And yet it is not easy to give. See the discussion by Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon (p. 11 f.), inadequate in view of recent discoveries by Schliemann and Evans. The following is a tentative outline: The Mycenzan Age, 2000 B.c. to 1000 B.C.; the Age of the Dia- lects, 1000 B.c. to 300 B.c.; the Age of the Κοινή, 300 B.c. to 330 A.D.; the Byzantine Greek, 330 a.p. to 1453 A.D. ; the modern Greek, 1453 a.p. to the present time. The early stage of the Byzantine Greek (up to 600 a.p.) is really κοινή and the rest is modern Greek. See a different outline by Jannaris! and Hadley and Allen.? As a matter of fact any division is arbitrary, for the language has had an unbroken history, though there are these general epochs in that history. We can no longer call the pre-Homeric time mythical as Sophocles does.? In naming this the Mycenzan age we do not wish to state positively that the Mycenzans were Greeks and spoke Greek. “Of their speech we have yet to read the first syllable.”* Tsountas® and Manatt, however, venture to believe that they were either Greeks or of the same stock. They use the term “to designate all Greek peoples who shared in the Mycenzean civilization, irrespective of their habitat.”® Ohnefalsch-Richter (Cont. Rev., Dec., 1912, p- 862) claims Cyprus as the purveyor of culture to the Creto- Mycenzan age. He claims that Hellenes lived in Cyprus 1200 to 1000 B.c. The Mycenzean influence was wide-spread and comes “down to the very dawn of historical Greece.”? That Greek was known and used widely during the Myceneean age the researches of Evans at Knossos, in Crete, make clear. The early linear

1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. xxii. Cf. also Schuckburgh, Greece, 1906, p. 24 f. Moulton (Prol., p. 184) counts 32 centuries of the Gk. language from 1275 B.c., the date of the mention of the Achzans on an Egyptian monument.

? Gk. Gr., 1885, p. 1 f. Deissmann indeed would have only three divisions, the Dialects up to 300 B.c., Middle Period up to 600 a.p., and Mod. Gk. up to the present time. Hauck’s Realencyc., 1889, p. 630. Cf. Miiller, Hist. Gr. der hell. Spr., 1891, pp. 42-62, for another outline.

a Gk ex. -etc:, p. Ll:

1 Tsountas and Manatt, The Mycenzan Age, 1897, p. 316.

ΒΡ. eso dt.

Gab.) pe 295:

’ Ib., p. 325. See also Beloch, Griech. Gesch., I., 85: “Auch sonst kann kein Zweifel sein, daf die mykeniische Kultur in Griechenland bis in das VIII. Jahrhundert geherrscht.” Flinders-Petrie (Jour. of Hell. Stud., xii, 204) speaks of 1100 to 800 B.c. as the “age of Mycenman decadence.”

® Cretan Pictographs and Pre-Phcenician Script, 1895, p. 362; ef. also

44 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

writing of the Cretans came from a still earlier pictograph. The Greek dialects emerge into light from about 1000 B.c. onward and culminate in the Attic which flourished till the work of Alexander is done. The Homeric poems prove that Greek was an old language by 1000 to 800 B.c. The dialects certainly have their roots deep in the Mycenzean age. Roughly, 300 B.c. is the time when the Greek has become the universal language of the world, a Welt- sprache. 330 A.D. is the date when the seat of government was re- moved from Rome to Constantinople, while a.p. 1453 is the date when Constantinople was captured by the Turks. With all the changes in this long history the standards of classicity have not varied greatly from Homer till now in the written style, while the Greek vernacular to-day is remarkably like the earliest known inscriptions of the folk-speech in Greece.! We know something of this history for about 3000 years, and it is at least a thousand years longer. Mahaffy has too poor an idea of modern Greek, but even he can say: “Even in our miserable modern pigeon- Greek, which represents no real pronunciation, either ancient or modern, the lyrics of Sophocles or Aristophanes are unmistakably lovely.’’?

(d) MopERN GREEK IN ParticuuaR. It is important to single out the modern Greek vernacular* from the rest of the language for the obvious reason that it is the abiding witness to the perpetuity of the vernacular Greek as a living organism. It is a witness also that is at our service always. The modern Greek popular speech does not differ materially from the vernacular Byzantine, and thus connects directly with the vernacular κοινῆ. Alexandria was “the great culture-reservoir of the Greek-Oriental world .. . the repository of the ancient literary treasures.”* With this

Jour. of Hell. Stud., xiv, 270-372. See Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 22, for fur- ther proofs of the antiquity of Gk. as a written tongue. Mosso (Palaces of Crete, 1907, p. 73 f.) argues that the Mycenzan linear script was used 1900 B.c. Cf. Evans, Further Researches, 1898.

1 Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 18. See also Hatzidakis, Einl. in die neugr. Gr., 1892, p. 3.

2 Survey of Gk. Civiliz., 1896, p. 209. Cf. further Mosso, Dawn of Civiliz. in Crete, 1910; Baike, Kings of Crete, 1910; Firmen, Zeit und Dauer der kretisch- myken. Kult., 1909.

3 The modern literary language (καθαρεύουσα) is really more identical with the ancient classical Gk. But it is identity secured by mummifying the dead. It is identity of imitation, not identity of life. Cf. Thumb-Angus, Handb. of Mod. Gk. Vern., Foreword (p. xif.).

4 Dieterich, Gesch. der byz. und neugr. Lit., 1902, p. 2.

THE HISTORICAL METHOD 45

general position Thumb heartily agrees.'| Hatzidakis? even says: “The language generally spoken to-day in the towns differs less from the common language of Polybius than this last differs from the language of Homer.’’ Since this is true it at first seems odd that the students at the University of Athens should object so much to the translation of the N. T. into the modern vernacular. They forget that the N. T. is itself written in the vernacular κοινή. But that was so long ago that it is now classic to them. Certainly in the Gospels, as Wellhausen*® insists, the spoken Greek became literature. Knowledge of the modern Greek* helps the student to escape from “the Procrustean bed of the old Greek” which he learned as a fixed and dead thing.’ It is prob- able that Roger Bacon had some Byzantine manual besides the old Greek grammars.’ “In England, no less than in the rest of Western Europe, the knowledge of Greek had died away, and here also, it was only after the conquest of Constantinople that a change was possible.”7 Western Christians had been afraid of the corruptions of paganism if they knew Greek, and of Moham- medanism if they knew Hebrew (being kin to Arabic!). But at last a change has come in favour of the modern Greek. Boltz in- deed has advocated modern Greek as the common language for the scholars of the world since Latin is so little spoken.’ There is indeed need of a new world-speech, as Greek was in the N. T. times, but there is no language that can now justly make such a claim. English comes nearer to it than any other. This need has given rise to the artificial tongues like Volapik and Espe-

1 “Die heutige griechische Volkssprache ist die natiwliche Fortsetzung der alten Kow?.” Die neugr. Spr., 1892, p. 8. See Heilmeier’s book on the Ro- maic Gk. (1834), who first saw this connection between the mod. vern. and the vern. κοινή.

2 Transl. by J. H. Moulton in Gr. of N. T. Gk., 1906 and 1908, p. 30, from Rev. des Et. Grq., 1903, p.. 220. Cf. Krumbacher, Das Prob. der neugr. Schriftspr., 1902. 3 Winl. in die drei ersten Evang., 1905, p. 9.

4 See Riiger, Priip. bei Joh. Antiochenus, 1896, p. 7.

5 Thumb, Handb. der neugr. Volkspr., 1895, p. x.

6 Roger Bacon’s Gk. Gr., edited by Nolan and Hirsch, 1902, p. Ix f.

WT ΠΡ. Ril.

8 Hell. die internat. Gelehrtenspr. der Zukunft, 1888. Likewise A. Rose: “Die griechische Sprache... hat... eine gliinzende Zukunft vor sich.” Die Griechen und ihre Spr., 1890, p. 4. He pleads for it as a ‘“‘ Weltsprache,” p. 271. . But Schwyzer pointedly says: ‘Die Rolle einer Weltsprache wird das Griechische nicht wieder spielen.” Weltspr. des Altert., 1902, p. 38. Cf. also A. Boltz, Die hell. Spr. der Gegenw., 1882, and Gk. the Gen. Lang. of the Future for Scholars.

40 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

ranto,! the latter having some promise in it. But the modern Greek vernacular has more merit than was once conceded to it. The idioms and pronunciation of the present-day vernacular are often seen in the manuscripts of the N. T. and other Greek docu- ments and much earlier in inscriptions representing one or an- other of the early dialects. The persistence of early English forms is easily observed in the vernacular in parts of America or Eng- land. In the same way the late Latin vernacular is to be compared with the early Latin vernacular, not with the Latin of elegant literature. “Speaking generally, we may say that the Greek of a well-written newspaper [the literary language] is now, as a rule, far more classical than the Hellenistic of the N. T., but decidedly less classical than the Greek of Plutarch.”’? What the rela- tion between the N. T. Greek and the modern Greek is will be shown in the next chapter. It should be noted here that the N. T. Greek had a strong moulding influence on the Byzantine, and so on the modern Greek because of the use of the Greek New Testament all over the world, due to the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire.* The great Christian preachers did not indeed use a peculiar ecclesiastical Greek, but the N. T. did tend to emphasize the type of κοινή in which it was written. “The diction of the N. T. had a direct influence in moulding the Greek ordinarily used by Christians in the succeeding cen- turies.”4 Compare the effect of the King James Version on the English language and of Luther’s translation of the Bible on German.

V. The Greek Point of View. It sounds like a truism to insist that the Greek idiom must be explained from the Greek point of view. But none the less the caution is not superfluous. Trained linguists may forget it and so commit a grammatical vice. Even Winer® will be found saying, for instance: “ Appel- latives which, as expressing definite objects, should naturally

1 Cf. J. C. O’Connor, Esperanto Text-book, and Eng.-Esper. Dict.

2 Jebb, On the Rela. of Mod. to Class. Gk., in Vincent and Dickson’s Handb. to Mod. Gk., 1887, p. 294. Blass actually says: “‘ Der Sprachge- brauch des Neuen Testaments, der vielfiiltig vom Neugriechischen her eine viel bessere Beleuchtung empfingt als aus der alten klassischen Literatur.” Kiihner’s Ausf. Gr. etc., 1890, p. 25. Blass also says (ib., p. 26) that “eine wissenschaftliche neugriechische Grammatik fehlt.” But Hatzidakis and others have written since.

3 See Reinhold, De Graecitate Patrum, 1898.

4 Jebb, ib., p. 290.

5 Gr. of the N. T. Gk., Moulton’s transl., 1877, p. 147.

THE HISTORICAL METHOD 47

have the article, are in certain cases used without it.” That “should” has the wrong attitude toward Greek. The appel- lative in Greek does not need to have the article in order to be definite. So when Winer often admits that one tense is used “for” another, he is really thinking of German and how it would be expressed in German. Each tongue has its own history and genius. Parallel idioms may or may not exist in a group of lan- guages. Sanskrit and Latin, for instance, have no article. It is not possible to parallel the Hebrew tenses, for example, with the Greek, nor, indeed, can it be done as between Greek and English. The English translation of a Greek aorist may have to be in the past perfect or the present perfect to suit the English usage, but that proves nothing as to how a Greek regarded the aorist tense. We must assume in a language that a good writer knew how to use his own tongue and said what he meant to say. Good Greek may be very poor English, as when Luke uses ἐν τῷ εἰσαγαγεῖν τοὺς γονεῖς τὸ παιδίον ᾿Ιησοῦν (Lu. 2:27). A literal translation of this neat Greek idiom makes barbarous English. The Greeks simply did not look at this clause as we do. “One of the commonest and gravest errors in:studying the grammar of foreign languages is to make a half-conjectural translation, and then reason back from our own language to the meaning of the original; or to ex- plain some idiom of the original by the formally different idiom which is our substantial equivalent.”! Broadus was the greatest teacher of language that I have known and he has said nothing truer than this. After all, an educated Greek knew what he meant better than we do. It is indeed a great and difficult task that is demanded of the Greek grammarian who to-day under- takes to present a living picture of the orderly development of the Greek tongue “zu einem schénen und groken Ganzen” and also show “in the most beautiful light the flower of the Greek spirit and life.”? Deissmann?® feels strongly on the subject of the neglect of the literary development of Primitive Christianity, “a

1 Broadus, Comm. on Mt., 1886, p. 316. See also Gerber, Die Spr. als Kunst, 1. Bd., 1871, p. 321: “ Der ganze Charakter dieser oder jener Sprache ist der Abdruck der Natur des Landes, wo sie gesprochen wird. Die griechi- sche Sprache ist der griechische Himmel selbst mit seiner tiefdunklen Bliue, die sich in dem sanft wogenden dgiischen Meere spiegelt.’’

2 Kiihner, Ausf. Gr. der griech. Spr., 1834, p. iv. How much more so now!

3 Expos. Times, Dec., 1906, p. 103. Cf. also F. Overbeck, Hist. Zeitschr., neue Folge, 1882, p. 429 ff.

48 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

subject which has not yet been recognized by many persons in its full importance. Huge as is the library of books that have been written on the origin of the N. T. and of its separate parts, the N. T. has not often been studied by historians of literature; that is to say, as a branch of the history of ancient literature.”

CHAPTER III

THE KOINH

The Greek of the N. T. has many streams that flow into it. But this fact is not a peculiarity of this phase of the language. The κοινή itself has this characteristic in a marked degree. If one needs further examples, he can recall how composite English is, not only combining various branches of the Teutonic group, but also incorporating much of the old Celtic of Britain and re- ceiving a tremendous impress from the Norman-French (and so Latin), not to mention the indirect literary influence of Latin and Greek. The early Greek itself was subject to non-Greek influ- ence as other Indo-Germanic tongues were, and in particular from the side of the Thracians and Phrygians in the East,! and in the West and North the Italic, Celtic and Germanic pressure was strong.”

I. The Term Kowy. The word κοινή, sc. διάλεκτος, means simply common language or dialect common to all, a world- speech (Weltsprache). Unfortunately there is not yet uniformity in the use of a term to describe the Greek that prevailed over Alexander’s empire and became the world-tongue. Kiihner- Blass® speak of “ἡ κοινή oder ἑλληνικὴ διάλεκτος." So also Schmie- del* follows Winer exactly. But Hellenic language is properly only Greek language, as Hellenic culture> is Greek culture. Jan- naris® suggests Panhellenic or new Attic for the universal Greek,

1 Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 171-243. But the true Phrygians were kin ‘to the Greeks. See Percy Gardner, New Ch. of Gk. Hist., p. 84.

2. Kretschmer, op. cit., pp. 153-170, 244-282.

*Griech. Gr,, Bds I, pe22: ΘΟ Ne. De Gr cap 17

5 Mahaffy, Prog. of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., p. 3. Mahaffy does use Hel- lenism like Droysen in his Hist. of Hellenism, as corresponding to Hellen- istic, but he does so under protest (p. 3f.). He wishes indeed that he had coined the word “Hellenicism.” But Hogarth (Philip and Alexander, p. 277) had already used “ Hellenisticism,” saying: “ Hellenisticism grew out of Hel- lenism.’’

6 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 6.

49

50 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

the Greek par excellence as to common usage. Hellenistic Greek would answer in so far as it is Greek spoken also by Hellenists differing from Hellenes or pure Greeks. Krumbacher applies Hel- lenistic to the vernacular and κοινή to the “conventional literary language” of the time,! but this is wholly arbitrary. Krumbacher terms the Hellenistic “ein verschwommenes Idiom.” Hatzida- kis and Schwyzer include in the κοινή both the literary and the spoken language of the Hellenistic time. This is the view adopted in this grammar. Deissmann dislikes the term Hellenistic Greek because it was so long used for the supposedly peculiar biblical Greek, though the term itself has a wide significance.” He also strongly disapproves the terms “vulgar Greek,” “bad Greek,” “oraecitas fatiscens,’ in contrast with the “classic Greek.” Deissmann moreover objects to the word κοινή because it is used either for the vernacular, the literary style or for all the Greek of the time including the Atticistic revival. So he proposes “Hellenistic world-speech.”’ But this is too cumbersome. It is indeed the world-speech of the Alexandrian and Roman period that is meant by the term κοινή. There is on the other hand the literary speech of the orators, historians, philosophers, poets, the public documents preserved in the inscriptions (some even Atti- cistic); on the other hand we have the popular writings in the LXX, the N. T., the Apostolic Fathers, the papyri (as a rule) and the ostraca. The term is thus sufficient by itself to express the Greek in common use over the world, both oral and literary, as Schweizer! uses it following Hatzidakis. Thumb® identifies κοινή and Hellenistic Greek and applies it to both vernacular and written style, though he would not regard the Atticists as proper producers of the κοινή. Moulton® uses the term κοινή for both spoken and literary κοινή. The doctors thus disagree very widely. On the whole it seems best to use the term κοινή (or Hellenistic Greek) both for the vernacular and literary κοινή, excluding the Atticistic revival, which was a conscious effort to write not κοινή

1 Miinchener Sitzungsber., 1886, p. 435.

2 Art. Hell. Griech., Hauck’s Realencyc., p. 629.

3 Tb., p. 630.

4 Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 19 f. 5 Die griech. Spr. ete., p. 9.

6 Prol., p. 23. It is not necessary to discuss here the use of “ Hellenistic” Gk. as “Jewish-Gk.” (see ‘Semitic Influence” in ch. IV), for it is absurd. The notion that the κοινή is Macedonian Gk. is quite beside the mark, for Mac. Gk. is too barbarous. The theory of an Alexandrian dialect is obsolete. Du Canges, in his Glossarium called Hell. Gk. ‘“corruptissima lingua,” and Niebuhr (Uber das Agyp.-Griech., Kl. Schr., p. 197) calls it “jargon.”

THE KOINH 51

but old Αὐἴ16.;Σ At last then the Greek world has speech-unity, whatever was true of the beginning of the Greek language.

II. The Origin of the Κοινή.

(a) TRIuMPH or THE Attic. This is what happened. Even in Asiatic Ionia the Attic influence was felt. The Attic ver- nacular, sister to the Ionic vernacular, was greatly influenced by the speech of soldiers and merchants from all the Greek world. Attic became the standard language of the Greek world in the fifth and the fourth centuries B.c. “We must not infer that all Athenians and Atticized Greeks wrote and spoke the classical Attic portrayed in the aforesaid literature, for this Attic is essentially what it still remains in modern Greek compo- sition: a merely historical abstraction, that is, an artistic language which nobody spoke, but still everybody understood.”? This is rather an overstatement, but there is much truth in it. This classic literary Attic did more and more lose touch with the ver- nacular. “It is one of our misfortunes, whatever be its practical convenience, that we are taught Attic as the standard Greek, and all other forms and dialects as deviations from it ... when many grammarians come to characterize the later Greek of the Middle Ages or of to-day, or even that of the Alexandrian or N. T. periods, no adjective is strong enough to condemn this ‘verdor- benes, veruneinigtes Attisch’” (S. Dickey, Princeton Rev., Oct., 1903). The literary Attic was allied to the literary Ionic; but even in this crowning development of Greek speech no hard and fast lines are drawn, for the artificial Doric choruses are used in tragedy and the vernacular in comedy. There was loss as well as gain as the Attic was more extensively used, just as is true

1 Blass indeed contrasts the literature of the Alex. and Rom. periods on this principle, but wrongly, for it is type, not time, that marks the difference. “Tf then the literature of the Alexandrian period must be called Hellenistic, that of the Roman period must be termed Atticistic. But the popular lan- guage had gone its own way.” Gr. of the N. T. Gk., 1898 and 1905, p. 2. On the Gk. of Alexandria and its spread over the world see Wackernagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 304 f.

2 See Kretschmer, Einl., p. 410. Dieterich: ‘Das Sprachgebiet der Κοινή bildet eben ein Ganzes und kann nur im Zusammenhang betrachtet werden.” Unters., p. xvi.

5. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., 1897, p. 3f. On the superiority of the Attic see Wackernagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., ΤΊ. I, Abt. 8, p. 299.

4 Rutherford, Zur Gesch. des Atticismus, Jahrb. fiir class. Phil., suppl. xiii, 1884, pp. 360, 399. So Audoin says: “Ce n’est point arbitrairement que les écrivains grecs ont employé tel ou tel dialecte.” Et. sommaire des Dial. Grecs. Litt., 1891, p. 4.

δ2 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

of modern English. “The orators Demosthenes and Aischines may be counted in the new Attic, where other leading representa- tives in literature are Menander, Philemon and the other writers of the New Comedy.”! As the literary Attic lived on in the literary κοινή, so the vernacular Attic survived with many changes in the vernacular κοινή. We are at last in possession of enough of the old Attic inscriptions and the κοινή inscriptions and the papyri to make this clear. The march of the Greek language has been steadily forward on this Attic vernacular base even to this pres- ent day.2. Ina sense, therefore, the κοινή became another dialect (Holic, Doric, Ionic, Attic, κοινή). Cf. Kretschmer, Die Ent- stehung der Kown, pp. 1-37. But the κοινή was far more than a dialect. Kretschmer holds, it is fair to say, that the κοινή is “eine merkwiirdige Mischung verschiedenster Dialecte”’ (op. cit., p. 6). He puts all the dialects into the melting-pot in almost equal pro- portions. Wilamowitz-Mollendorff considers the Ionic as the chief influence in the κοινή, while W. Schmidt denies all Doric and Ionic elements. Schwyzer rightly sees that the dialectical influences varied in different places, though the vernacular Attic was the common base.

(b) FATE oF THE OTHER D1atects. The triumph of the Attic was not complete, though in Ionia, at the end of the third century B.c., inscriptions in Attic are found, showing that in Asia Minor pure Ionic had about vanished. In the first century B.c. the Attic appears in inscriptions in Boeotia, but as late as the second cen- tury a.p. Holic inscriptions are found in Asia Minor. éolie first went down, followed by the Ionic. The Doric made a very stub- born resistance. It was only natural that the agricultural com- munities should hold out longest. See Thumb, Hellen., p. 28 f. Even to-day the Zaconian patois of modern Greek vernacular

1 Simonson, Gk. Gr., Accidence, 1903, p. 6. He has a good discussion of the dialects, pp. 221-265.

2 Riemann and Goelzer well say: “Quant au dialecte attique, grice aux grands écrivains qui l’illustrérent, grace ἃ la prépondérence politique et com- merciale d’Athénes, grace aussi A son caractére de dialecte intermédiaire entre Vionien et les dialectes en a, il se répandit de bonne heure, hors de son domaine primitif, continua ἃ s’étendre méme aprés la chute de l’empire politique d’Athénes et finit par embrasser tout le monde sur le nom de langue com- mune (κοινὴ διάλεκτος)" (Phonétique, p. 16). And yet the common people understood Homer also as late as Xenophon. Cf. Xenophon, Com. 3, 5, καὶ νῦν δυναίμην ἂν ᾿Ιλιάδα ὅλην καὶ ᾿Οδύσσειαν ἀπὸ στόματος εἰπεῖν. Cf. Lottich, De Serm. vulg. Attic., 1881. On the “Growth of the Attic Dialect” see Rutherford, New Phrynichus, pp. 1-31.

THE KOINH 53

has preserved the old Laconic Doric “whose broad a holds its ground still in the speech of a race impervious to literature and proudly conservative of a language that was always abnormal to an extreme.”! It is not surprising that the Northwest Greek, because of the city leagues, became a kind of Achzean-Dorian κοινή and held on till almost the beginning of the Christian era before it was merged into the κοινή of the whole Graeco-Roman world.2. There are undoubtedly instances of the remains of the Northwest Greek and of the other dialects in the κοινή and so in the N. T. The Ionic, so near to the Attic and having flourished over the coast of Asia Minor, would naturally have considerable influence on the Greek world-speech. The proof of this will ap- pear in the discussion of the κοινή where remains of all the main dialects are naturally found, especially in the vernacular.*

(c) Partian Kornes. The standardizing of the Attic is the real basis. The κοινή was not a sudden creation. There were quasi-koines before Alexander’s day. These were Strabo’s alli- ance of Ionic-Attic, Doric-Molic (Thumb, Handb., p. 49). It is therefore to be remembered that there were “various forms of κοινή before the κοινή which commenced with the conquests of Alexander (Buck, Gk. Dialects, pp. 154-161), as Doric κοινή, Ionic κοινή, Attic κοινή, Northwest κοινή. Hybrid forms are not un- common, such as the Doric future with Attic ov as in ποιησοῦντι (cf. Buck, p. 160). There was besides a revival here and there of local dialects during the Roman times.

(d) Errects or ALEXANDER’S CampaiGNs. But for the conquests of Alexander there might have been no κοινή in the sense of a world-speech. The other Greek koines were partial, this alone was a world-speech because Alexander united Greek and Persian, east and west, into one common world-empire. He respected the

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 32. 2 Ib. pial.

3 Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 1) puts it clearly: “‘ Es geniigt zu sagen, daf die κοινή stiirksten Zusammenhang mit dem Attischen, in zweiter Linie mit dem Ionischen, verriit. In der iiltesten Periode des Hellenismus zeigt sich daneben geringer Hinfiaf anderer Dialekte, des Dorischen und Aolischen.”

4 “T) est ἃ peine besoin de répéter que ces caractéres s’effacent, ἃ mesure que l’on descend vers l’ére chrétienne. Sous |’influence sans cesse grandis- sante de l’atticisme, il s’établit une sorte d’uniformité.” Boisacq, Les Dial. Dor., 1891, p. 204. ‘The Gk. of the N. T. is not, however, mere κοινή. In vocabulary it is fundamentally Ionic” (John Burnet, Rev. of Theol. and Phil., Aug., 1906, p. 95). “Fundamentally” is rather strong, but ἀπόστολος, as ambassador, not mere expedition, εὐλογία, νηστεία, give some colour to the statement. But what does Prof. Burnet mean by “mere κοινή ?

54 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

customs and language of all the conquered nations, but it was in- evitable that the Greek should become the lingua franca of the world of Alexander and his successors. In a true sense Alexander made possible this new epoch in the history of the Greek tongue. The time of Alexander divides the Greek language into two peri- ods. “The first period is that of the separate life of the dialects and the second that of the speech-unity, the common speech or κοινή (Kretschmer, Die Hntst. d. Kow7, p. 1).

(6) Toe Marcu Ttowarp UNIVERSALISM. The successors of Alexander could not stop the march toward universalism that had begun. The success of the Roman Empire was but another proof of this trend of history. The days of ancient nationalism were over and the κοινή was but one expression of the glacial move- ment. The time for the world-speech had come and it was ready for use.

III. The Spread of the Kowy.

(a) A Worup-Sprecu. What is called ἡ κοινή was a world- speech, not merely a general Greek tongue among the Greek tribes as was true of the Achzan-Dorian and the Attic. It is not speculation to speak of the κοινή as a world-speech, for the in- scriptions in the κοινή testify to its spread over Asia, Egypt, Greece, Italy, Sicily and the isles of the sea, not to mention the papyri. Marseilles was a great centre of Greek civilization, and even Cy- rene, though not Carthage, was Grecized.1 The κοινή was in such general use that the Roman Senate and imperial governors had the decrees translated into the world-language and scattered over the empire.? It is significant that the Greek speech becomes one instead of many dialects at the very time that the Roman rule sweeps over the world. The language spread by Alexander’s army over the Eastern world persisted after the division of the kingdom and penetrated all parts of the Roman world, even Rome itself. Paul wrote to the church at Rome in Greek, and Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor, wrote his Meditations (τῶν eis ‘Eavrév) in Greek. It was the language not only of letters, but of commerce and every-day life. A common language for all

1 See Churton, Infl. of the LXX Vers., 1861, p. 14.

2 Viereck, Sermo Graecus quo Senatus Popul. Rom. etc., 1888, p. xi.

3 See Wilamowitz-MOllendorff: ‘In demselben Momente, wo die césari- sche Weltmonarchie alle Stréme hellenischer und italischer Kultur in einem Bette leitet, kommt die griechische Kunst auf allen Gebieten zu der Erkennt- nis, daf ihre Kreise erfiillt sind, das einzige das ihr bleibt, Nachahmung ist.” Uber die Entst. der griech. Schriftspr., Abhandl. deuts. Phil., 1878, p. 40.

THE ΚΟΙΝΗ By

men may indeed be only an ideal norm, but “the whole character of a common language may be strengthened by the fact of its transference to an unquestionably foreign linguistic area, as we may observe in the case of the Greek κοινή. The late Latin became a κοινή for the West as the old Babylonian had been for the East, this latter the first world-tongue known to us.2 Xeno- phon with the retreat of the Ten Thousand? was a forerunner of the κοινή. Both Xenophon and Aristotle show the wider outlook of the literary Attic which uses Ionic words very extensively. There is now the “Grof-Attisch.” It already has γίνομαι, ἕνεκεν, πτωσαν, εἶπα and ἤνεγκα, ἐδώκαμεν and ἔδωκαν, βασίλισσα, δεικνύω, oo, ναός. Already Thucydides and others had borrowed oo from the Ionic. It is an easy transition from the vernacular Attic to the vernacular κοινή after Alexander’s time. (Cf. Thumb’s Hand- buch, pp. 373-380, ‘‘Entstehung der Kow7.”) On the development of the κοινή see further Wackernagel, Die Kultur der Gegenwart, Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 301 ff.; Moulton, Prol., ch. I, II; Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., Kap. J. But it was Alexander who made the later Attic the common language of the world, though certainly he had no such purpose in view. Fortunately he had been taught by Aristotle, who himself studied in Athens and knew the Attic of the time. “He rapidly established Greek as the lingua franca of the empire, and this it was which gave the chief bond of union to the many countries of old civilizations, which had hitherto been isolated. This unity of culture is the remarkable thing in the history of the world.’ It was really an epoch in the world’s history when the babel of tongues was hushed in the wonderful language of Greece. The vernaculars of the eastern Roman provinces remained, though the Greek was universal; so, when Paul came to Lystra, the people still spoke the Lycaonian speech

1 Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. 496. See also Kaerst, Gesch. d. hel- lenist. Zeitalt., 1901, p. 420: ““Die Weiterentwicklung der Geschichte des Altertums, so weit sie fiir unsere eigene Kultur entscheidende Bedeutung er- langt hat, beruht auf einer fortschreitenden Occidentalisierung; auch das im Oriente emporgekommene Christentum entfaltet sich nach dem Westen zu und gelangt hier zu seiner eigentlich weltgeschichtlichen Wirksamkeit.”’

2 Schwyzer, Die Weltspr. ete., p. 7.

8 See Mahaffy, Prog. of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., p. 7; ef. also Rutherford New Phrynichus, 1881, p. 160f.; Schweizer, Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 16. Moulton (Prol., p. 31) points out that the vase-inscriptions prove the state- ment of the Const. of Athens, 11. 3, that the Athenians spoke a language com- pounded of all Greek and barbarian tongues besides.

4 Mahaffy, Prog. of Hellen., etc., p. 40.

δ0 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

of their fathers... The papyri and the inscriptions prove beyond controversy that the Greek tongue was practically the same whether in Egypt, Herculaneum, Pergamum or Magnesia. The Greeks were the school-teachers of the empire. Greek was taught in the grammar schools in the West, but Latin was not taught in the East.

(b) VERNACULAR AND LITERARY.

1. Vernacular. The spoken language is never identical with the literary style, though in the social intercourse of the best edu- cated people there is less difference than with the uncultured.? We now know that the old Attic of Athens had a vernacular and a literary style that differed considerably from each other.’ This distinction exists from the very start with the κοινή, as is apparent in Pergamum and elsewhere. This vernacular κοινή grows right out of the vernacular Attic normally and naturally.’ The colo- nists, merchants and soldiers who mingled all over Alexander’s world did not carry literary Attic, but the language of social and business intercourse.® This vernacular κοινή at first differed little from the vernacular Attic of 300 B.c. and always retained the bulk of the oral Attic idioms. “Vulgar dialects both of the an- cient and modern times should be expected to contain far more archaisms than innovations.’”’? The vernacular is not a varia- tion from the literary style, but the literary language is a develop- ment from the vernacular.’ See Schmid? for the relation between the literary and the vernacular κοινή. Hence if the vernacular is the normal speech of the people, we must look to the inscriptions and the papyri for the living idiom of the common Greek or κοινή. The pure Attic as it was spoken in Athens is preserved only in

1 Schwyzer, Weltspr., p. 29. * Schweizer, Gr. der perg. ete., p. 22:

3 See Kretschmer, Die griech. Vaseninschr. und ihre Spr., 1894; and Mei- sterhans, Gr. der att. Inschr., 1900. Cf. Lottich, De Serm. vulg. Attic., 1881.

4 Schweizer, Gr., p. 27.

5 Thumb, Griech. Spr. im Zeitalter ete., p. 208 f. Lottich in his De Serm. vulg. Attic. shows from the writings of Aristophanes how the Attic vernacular varied in a number of points from the literary style, as in the frequent use of diminutives, desiderative verbs, metaphors, etc.

6 Schweizer, Gr., p. 23.

7 Geldart, Mod. Gk. Lang. in its Rela. to Ane. Gk., 1870, p. 73. See also Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 10, who calls “die κοινή weniger ein Abschluf als der Anfang einer neuen Entwicklung.’’ On the older Gk. κοινή see Wackernagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 300 f.

8 Deissmann, Hell. Griech., Hauck’s Realencyc., p. 633.

9 Atticismus, Bd. IV, pp. 577-734. A very important treatment of the whole question is here given.

THE ΚΟΙΝΗ sy

the inscriptions... In the Roman Empire the vernacular κοινή would be understood almost everywhere from Spain to Pontus. See IV for further remarks on the vernacular κοινή.

2. Literary. If the vernacular κοινή was the natural develop-