{"id":1809,"date":"2017-11-04T18:28:43","date_gmt":"2017-11-04T15:28:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/?p=1809"},"modified":"2017-11-04T18:28:43","modified_gmt":"2017-11-04T15:28:43","slug":"the-septuagint-and-the-vocabulary-of-the-new-testament","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/1809\/the-septuagint-and-the-vocabulary-of-the-new-testament\/","title":{"rendered":"The Septuagint and the Vocabulary of the New Testament"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here we have to do with a sphere which is comparatively restricted, and so assertions can be made of a far more sweeping and positive kind than was possible in the case of the Septuagint<\/a>. All the facts presented by the New Testament books<\/a> are already within the range of investigation. But numerous problems, for whose solution data scarcely exist, come up as a priori questions in connection with the vocabulary of the New Testament.<\/p>\n

No doubt critics of all schools, or at least those free from violent prejudices, agree in fixing the limits of the New Testament books between 50 and 110 A.D. This is so far helpful, but very little fresh light is being gained as to the conditions and circumstances of the actual writers of the books. Even in the case of an author whose works are so well authenticated as those of St. Paul, all we know is that he used an amanuensis whose name is once given. In all probability this person, and any others who performed the same office, adhered strictly to the dictation of the apostle, but we cannot tell what special colouring may not have been thus introduced. St. Peter also appears to have employed a secretary; and this must be connected with a variety of language, and a certain classical tone found in his writing…<\/p>\n

The books of the New Testament, taken together as a single body of literature, display one particular type of writing, perhaps more varied in individual instances than is ever the case with the literary basis of the \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 writers, yet marked off from all other Greek books by tendencies and modifications which are specially their own.<\/p>\n

A careful Calculation shows that the total number of words in the New Testament, excluding all proper names and their derivatives, is 4829… Altogether there are about 950 post-Aristotelian words, which, subtracted from the total number, 4829, leaves (roughly speaking) about 3850 in the New Testament which are found previous to the death of Aristotle<\/a>, or about 80% of the whole vocabulary. These last figures are significant as showing an almost unexpected purity in the language of the New Testament viewed as a whole. It must, however, be noted that a large number of words, thoroughly current in good classical writers, receive, when employed in the New Testament, an entirely new sense.<\/p>\n

As we have seen, there are, roughly speaking, about 950 post-Aristotelian words in the New Testament, i.e. about 20% of the whole vocabulary. About 314 of these occur in the Septuagint<\/a>, i.e. 33%, 104 in Plutarch, i.e. 10%, 115 in Polybius, i.e. 11% , 98 in Philo, i.e. about 10%. Taking these general results, we are not justified in pronouncing the language of the New Testament to be a “vulgar” language. Yet one must not be misled by the statistics. The list of pre-Aristotelian words includes the prepositions, conjunctions, particles, and common adverbs, which are, of course, to be found in every Greek writer whose works are extant. The post-Aristotelian words, on the other hand, are almost exclusively nouns, verbs, and adjectives.<\/p>\n

But this rough and cursory glance at the constituent elements of the New Testament vocabulary<\/a> may suffice to show that one is dealing here with a language which can be termed, at least in the broad sense, cultivated, and which comes unquestionably nearer the literary dialect of the period than does the language of the Septuagint…<\/p>\n

The New Testament vocabulary, as compared with the Septuagint<\/a>, shows a far more distinct classical strain… In 2 Corinthians<\/a>, 17% of the vocabulary is found in Plato, while 5% represents that author’s share in the language of Deuteronomy. We are certain that less Hellenistic books of the New Testament, such as 1 Peter<\/a>, Hebrews<\/a>, and James<\/a>, would show an even greater preponderance.<\/p>\n

This pure element is constantly showing itself. In parts of Hebrews and Acts<\/a> one can sometimes forget for a moment that the Greek is Hellenistic. But the classical element in the New Testament vocabulary is usually made indistinct by the thoroughly Hellenistic character of the grammar and syntax. This is further helped by the Jewish cast of thought which underlies the actual words.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, in a book like the Epistle of St. James, where the Greek is forcible, and often beautiful, there always remains a certain Hellenistic monotony, a lack of flexibility, which mars the general impression. In this connection there are many anomalies displayed by the various writers, difficult of explanation. Thus St. Matthew’s Gospel<\/a>, which has probably the most Hellenistic and Hebraistic tone of any New Testament book, and the least pretence to style, has fewer actual Hebraisms than the Gospel of St. Luke<\/a>, and a far more even and natural flow than St. Mark’s<\/a> work, which is often rugged and inelegant. On the other hand, St. Luke, while capable of perhaps the most truly classical cast of language, goes beyond all the other New Testament writers in the use of vernacular expressions.<\/p>\n

No doubt these points have, underneath them, explanatory facts which have never come to light. But the minutiae of individual variations only serve to give greater weight to phenomena of general agreement. Mistakes are often made by affixing the stamp of universal validity to what are only the predilections of individuals. Speaking generally, one may say that the desire after clearness and lucidity, which excludes all other aims, combined with the circumstances of the writers, their Jewish modes of thought, and the decay of the classical speech, made it impossible for classical Greek to be a predominating factor in the language of the New Testament. Yet it can be said with accuracy that its claims are far more powerfully vindicated in the sphere of vocabulary than in any other. Dry statistics render this unassailable. It is unnecessary, after what has been done in the case of the Septuagint<\/a>, to attempt an analysis of the more ancient portion of the New Testament vocabulary. The elements which compose it are the same, though they are present in a greatly intensified degree, and specially so as regards the more classical portion of them…<\/p>\n

We find numerous relations between the authors of the “Common Dialect” and the New Testament writers<\/a>. These relations are not found so much to hold of special classes of words. They rather belong to the language as a whole, though perhaps they are most prominently seen in connection with new compounds and words formed in various ways from elements which already exist in the ancient tongue. The New Testament vocabulary is about equally related to the vocabularies of Polybius, Diodorus, Philo, and Josephus. It must be said, however, that the resemblance to Philo is more important, as it is repeatedly found in the case of words which appear nowhere else in literature…<\/p>\n

Perhaps Plutarch stands nearest of all to the New Testament vocabulary, though this comes out especially in the case of certain books. In 2 Corinthians, as has been noted, 31% of the words occur in him as well. In the more narrative parts of the New Testament<\/a> the proportion would be certainly far smaller. A good many of the coincidences in words are due, no doubt, to the subject-matter of Plutarch’s works, and to their semi-philosophical colouring, which finds a parallel in the theological portions of the New Testament. But it often happens that, besides the resemblances in vocabulary, Plutarch’s use of words already found in classical authors sheds striking light on their significations in the New Testament.<\/p>\n

The remarks made up to this point have only dealt with one side of the New Testament language, what may be termed the “literary” side. The point we have wished to emphasise is that the vocabulary of this collection of books cannot, with accuracy, be denominated “vulgar,” seeing it possesses so many elements in common with the rest of Greek literature<\/a>, four-fifths of it being pre-Aristotelian, and a considerable part of the remaining fifth belonging to the literary dialect of the time. These characteristics give it a distinct tone, which marks it as the property of educated men. They elevate it above the usual average of the Septuagint.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, there remains a most important element of the New Testament vocabulary to be taken into account, that, in short, which, in addition to its Hebraistic colouring, marks it off as distinct both from the classical language of the great masters and the “Common” dialect of its literary contemporaries. We mean its “Colloquialism.” This also is an element which might be looked for in the language of the New Testament. Its writers, almost without exception, were Jews. Most scholars agree that the vernacular of Palestine, strictly so called, was Aramaic. Greek was current in the country, in some parts more extensively than in others. It would naturally be the language of trade. The very fact that Greek would, in the first place, be acquired by the New Testament writers, entirely severed from Greek education and the influences of Greek culture, must inevitably give to it, on their lips, a particular stamp, and this could only be the colloquial tone which was familiar to them.<\/p>\n

After they had known the language for some time, and had settled in some particular district, for example, their vocabulary would or might assume a well-marked colouring, but the original colloquial basis would always remain. An additional reason for this was that they intended their writings to be, in the strictest sense, popular. That was their one aim. They did not appeal to a cultivated circle or to a literary audience. Their public consisted of freedmen, half-educated Asiatics, slaves, poor women, and the like. Thus the essential thing for them was to be intelligible. No writing could be too simple for the readers whom they addressed.<\/p>\n

But further, the great bulk of the persons for whom they wrote were either Jews of the Diaspora, or the mixed populations dwelling in the great centres of the new kingdoms which arose at the death of .Alexander. This of itself determined their dialect. But the same public with whom they had to reckon, or, at least, one exactly similar, had, long before, come into possession of a body of literature written by Jews like themselves, and written in the Greek language. The translation of the Old Testament<\/a> into Greek was an existing fact which proved the possibility of writing for the common people in a speech which they could easily understand. The language used then had been thoroughly vernacular. But Jews had now a more complete mastery of the Greek tongue. A kind of general culture had diffused itself everywhere, and even men of a foreign nation could not be insensible to it.<\/p>\n

Besides, the New Testament<\/a> was not mere hack-work, so to speak. It was the free production of active minds thoroughly absorbed in their subject. This gave them a sort of natural eloquence, which had its effect on their language as well as on their style and tone. Still, their diction was thoroughly popular in character, essentially a spoken language, and not that of books, but yet the language spoken by men of education. This last fact makes it impossible to draw a hard and fast line round the New Testament vocabulary<\/a>. Nowhere does an immovable barrier stand between it and the “Common” dialect.<\/p>\n

The distinguishing feature, then, about the New Testament language is that it has for its regulating factor that type of colloquial Greek which originally prevailed in Egypt, which received a fixed form, or at least a standard, in the translation of the Old Testament<\/a>, and which henceforward served as a linguistic basis for all Greek-speaking Jews. Some of the vernacular features which appear in the New Testament vocabulary have been treated in connection with the LXX., notably the constant employment of diminutives, well exemplified by St. Mark… The instances of vernacular words, already given from the LXX., occur also in the New Testament. But there is a further line of inquiry of great importance, which shows not only that the New Testament language contains a very large colloquial element, but that much of this element is no recent growth; that it has descended from an early period in the current popular speech of daily intercourse.<\/p>\n

The Comic poets supply a valuable group of instances of words which are, at least, exceedingly rare outside their pages, and often found nowhere else, but which appear in the New Testament<\/a>… In the Comic poets, if anywhere, we should expect to find the current popular speech strongly marked. And when words meet us all through the Comic literature of Greece, from Cratinus at its beginning to Posidippus at its close, which scarcely appear anywhere else except in the New Testament, we are justified in accepting this as proof positive of our position.<\/p>\n

The facts exhibited show clearly the existence of a language of popular intercourse from an early time, which verges on the borders of the literary language, but is excluded from composition except in the case of Comedy. Yet many of the words in question must have borne the stamp of refinement, and belonged to the diction of polite speech at a period long antecedent to literary production. By processes which can no more be discovered, these words have somehow lost caste, and while by no means rejected altogether, we may believe, from the conversation of the educated, have come to be regarded as more or less “vulgar” and “rough.” In this way the door of literature was barred to them. But they continued all along to have full play in the language of daily life, and accordingly, when Greek literary taste began to decay, and the real literary dialect no longer survived in spontaneous form, these words again asserted themselves, and by the time the New Testament was written, they have regained their place in the language of educated men, and are found occasionally even in the writers of the “Common Dialect”…<\/p>\n

A most interesting and important contribution is made to the history of colloquial Greek in connection with the language of the New Testament<\/a> by the vocabulary of Aristophanes<\/a>. In his case we have the advantage of seeing the phenomena of the Greek popular vocabulary at a definite stage in Greek history. So a landmark is given by which the past of the colloquial language and its future may be estimated. Besides, Aristophanes lived in the Golden Age of the Attic dialect, when the sense for language had reached its highest pitch. Accordingly, one may expect that the “popular” words admitted by him are, at least, on the higher level of the “conversational ” type of speech. This gives an additional criterion for the New Testament vocabulary…<\/p>\n

Cf. A Greek Vocabulary – Basic New Testament Words<\/a>, An outline of Greek grammar<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here we have to do with a sphere which is comparatively restricted, and so assertions can be made of a far more sweeping and positive kind than was possible in the case of the Septuagint. All the facts presented by the New Testament books are already within the range of investigation. But numerous problems, for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_disable_autopaging":false},"categories":[5,13,317,11,10],"tags":[319,3996,4002,166,92,4001,94,100,101],"class_list":["post-1809","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-education","category-greek-history","category-greek-language","category-elpenor-greek-library","category-orthodox-christianity","tag-ancient-greek","tag-biblical-criticism","tag-christian-biblical-canon","tag-christianity","tag-greece","tag-languages-of-europe","tag-new-testament","tag-old-testament","tag-septuagint"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1809","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1809"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1809\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1809"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1809"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1809"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}