which
largely
followed
the
Hebrew
original
with
slavish
literalness.
A
special
religious
phraseology
was
thus
created,
which
not
only
contributed
a
large
number
of
forms
tor
direct
quotation,
but
also
supplied
models
for
the
general
style
of
religious
writing,
much
as
the
style
of
modern
sermons
or
devotional
books
is
modelled
upon
the
English
of
the
Bible.
(2)
The
writers
were
mostly
Jews
who
used
Aramaic
(a
language
closely
related
to
Hebrew)
in
their
daily
life.
When,
therefore,
they
thought
and
wrote
in
Greek,
they
were
prone
to
translate
literally
from
their
native
tongue;
and
'
Aramaisms
'
thus
infected
the
Greek,
side
by
side
with
the
'Hebraisms'
which
came
from
the
LXX.
The
degree
to
which
either
of
these
classes
of
Semitism
was
admitted
to
affect
particular
words
or
grammatical
constructions
in
the
Greek
NT
naturally
differed
in
the
Judgment
of
different
writers;
but
even
Thayer,
who
wrote
after
the
new
lights
had
already
begun
to
appear,
shows
no
readiness
to
abandon
the
general
thesis
that
the
NT
Greek
lies
outside
the
stream
of
progress
in
the
development
of
the
Greek
language,
and
must
be
judged
by
principles
of
its
own.
2.
Newer
views.
—
The
credit
of
initiating
a
most
far-reaching
change
of
view,
the
full
consequences
of
which
are
only
beginning
to
be
realized,
belongs
to
a
brilliant
German
theologian,
Adolf
Deissmann.
His
attention
having
been
accidentally
called
to
a
volume
of
transcripts
from
the
Egyptian
papyri
recently
added
to
the
Berlin
Museum,
he
was
immediately
struck
by
their
frequent
points
of
contact
with
the
vocabulary
of
NT
Greek.
He
read
through
several
collections
of
papyri,
and
of
contemporary
Greek
inscriptions,
and
in
1895
and
1897
published
the
two
volumes
of
his
Bible
Studies
(Eng.
tr.
in
one
volume,
1901).
Mainly
on
the
ground
of
vocabulary,
but
not
without
reference
to
grammar
and
style,
he
showed
that
the
isolation
of
NT
Greek
could
no
longer
be
maintained.
Further
study
of
the
papyri
he
used,
and
of
the
immense
masses
of
similar
documents
which
have
been
published
since,
especially
by
the
explorers
of
Oxford
and
Berlin,
con-firms
his
thesis
and
extends
it
to
the
whole
field
of
grammar.
To
put
the
new
views
into
two
statements
—
(1)
The
NT
is
written
in
the
spoken
Greek
of
daily
life,
wliich
can
be
proved
from
inscriptions
to
have
differed
but
little,
as
found
in
nearly
every
corner
of
the
Roman
Empire
in
the
first
century.
(2)
What
is
peculiar
in
'Biblical
Greek'
lies
in
the
presence
of
boldly
literal
translations
from
Hebrew
OT
or
Aramaic
'sources':
even
this,
however,
seldom
goes
beyond
clumsy
and
unidiomatic,
but
perfectly
possible,
Greek,
and
is
generally
restricted
to
the
inordinate
use
of
correct
locutions
which
were
rare
in
the
ordinary
spoken
dialect.
The
Egyptian
non-literary
papyri
of
the
three
centuries
before
and
after
Christ,
with
the
inscriptions
of
Asia
Minor,
the
.^gEean
islands
and
Greece
during
the
same
period,
—
though
these
must
be
used
with
caution
because
of
the
literary
element
which
often
invades
them,
—
supply
us
therefore
with
the
long
desiderated
parallel
for
the
language
of
the
NT,
by
which
we
must
continually
test
an
exegesis
too
much
dominated
hitherto
by
the
thought
of
classical
Greek
or
Semitic
idiom.
3.
History
and
diffusion
of
the
Greek
language,
—
At
this
point,
then,
we
should
give
a
history
of
the
world-
Greek
of
NT
times.
A
sister-language
of
Sanskrit,
Latin,
Slavonic,
German,
and
English,
and
most
other
dialects
of
modem
Europe,
Greek
comes
before
us
earliest
in
the
Homeric
poems,
the
oldest
parts
of
which
may
go
back
to
the
10th
cent.
b.c.
Small
though
the
country
was,
the
language
of
Greece
was
divided
into
more
dialects,
and
dialects
perhaps
more
widely
differing,
than
English
in
the
reign
of
Alfred.
Few
of
these
dialects
gave
birth
to
any
literature;
and
the
intellectual
primacy
of
Athens
by
the
end
of
the
classical
period
(4th
cent,
b.c.)
was
so
far
above
dispute
that
its
dialect,
the
Attic,
became
for
all
future
time
the
only
permitted
model
for
literary
prose.
When
Attic
as
a
spoken
language
was
dead,
it
was
enforced
by
rigid
grammarians
as
the
only
'
correct
'
speech
for
educated
people.
Post-classical
prose
accordingly,
while
varying
in
the
extent
to
which
colloquial
elements
invade
the
purity
of
its
artificial
idiom,
is
always
more
or
less
dominated
by
the
effort
to
avoid
the
Greek
of
daily
life;
while
in
the
NT,
on
the
contrary,
it
is
only
two
or
three
writers
who
admit
even
to
a
small
extent
a
style
differing
from
that
used
in
common
speech.
Meanwhile
the
history
of
Greece,
with
its
endless
political
independence
and
variation
of
dialect
between
neighbouring
towns,
had
entered
a
new
phase.
The
strong
hand
of
Philip
of
Macedon
brought
Hellas
under
pne
rule;
his
son,
the
great
Alexander,
carried
victorious
Hellenism
far
out
into
the
world
beyond.
Unification
of
speech
was
a
natural
result
when
Greeks
from
different
cities
became
fellow-soldiers
in
Alexander's
army,
or
feUow-colonists
in
his
new
towns.
Within
about
one
generation
we
suddenly
find
that
a
compromise
dialect,
which
was
based
mainly
on
Attic,
but
contained
elements
from
all
the
old
dialects,
came
to
be
established
as
the
language
of
the
new
Greek
world.
This
'
Common
'
Greek,
or
Hellenistic,
once
brought
into
being,
remained
for
centuries
a
remarkably
homogeneous
and
slowly
changing
speech
over
the
larger
part
of
the
Roman
Empire.
In
Rome
itself
it
was
so
widely
spoken
and
read
that
St.
Paul's
letter
needed
no
translating,
and
a
Latin
Bible
was
first
de-manded
far
away
from
Latium.
In
Palestine
and
in
Lycaonia
the
Book
of
Acts
gives
us
clear
evidence
of
bilingual
conditions.
The
Jerusalem
mob
(Ac
21'°
22^)
expected
St.
Paul
to
address
them
in
Greek;
that
at
Lystra
(14")
similarly
reverted
with
pleasure
to
their
local
patois,
but
had
been
following
without
difficulty
addresses
delivered
in
Greek.
It
was
the
one
period
in
the
history
of
the
Empire
when
the
gospel
could
be
preached
throughout
the
Roman
world
by
the
same
missionary
without
interpreter
or
the
need
of
learning
foreign
tongues.
The
conditions
of
Palestine
demand
a
few
more
words.
It
seems
fairly
clear
that
Greek
was
understood
and
used
there
much
as
EngUsh
is
in
Wales
to-day.
Jesus
and
the
Apostles
would
use
Aramaic
among
themselves,
and
in
addressing
the
people
in
Judeea
or
Galilee,
but
Greek
would
often
be
needed
in
conversation
with
strangers.
The
Procurator
would
certainly
use
Greek
(rarely
Latin)
in
his
official
deaUngs
with
the
Jews.
There
is
no
reason
to
believe
that
any
NT
writer
who
ever
lived
in
Palestine
learned
Greek
only
as
a
foreign
language
when
he
went
abroad.
The
degree
of
culture
in
grammar
and
idiom
would
vary,
but
the
language
itself
was
always
entirely
at
command.
4.
NT
Greek.
—
We
find,
as
we
might
expect,
that
'NT
Greek'
is
a
general
term
covering
a
large
range
of
individual
divergence.
The
author
of
Hebrews
writes
on
a
level
which
we
might
best
characterize
by
com-paring
the
pulpit
style
of
a
cultured
extempore
preacher
in
this
country
—
a
spoken
style,
free
from
artificiality
and
archaisms,
but
free
from
anything
really
colloquial.
The
two
Lukan
books
show
similar
culture
in
their
author,
who
uses
some
distinctively
literary
idioms.
But
St.
Luke's
faithful
reproduction
of
his
various
sources
makes
his
work
uneven
in
this
respect.
St.
Paul
handles
Greek
with
the
freedom
and
mastery
of
one
who
probably
used
it
regularly
all
his
life,
except
during
actual
residence
in
Jerusalem.
He
seems
absolutely
uninfluenced
by
literary
style,
and
appUes
the
Greek
of
common
intercourse
to
his
high
themes,
without
stopping
a
moment
to
polish
a
diction
the
eloquence
of
which
is
wholly
unstudied.
Recent
attempts
to
trace
formal
rhetoric
and
laws
of
rhythm
in
his
vmtings
have
completely
failed.
At
the
other
end
of
the
scale,
as
judged
by
Greek
culture,
stands
the
author
of
the
Apocalypse,
whose
grammar
is
very
incor-rect,
despite
his
copious
vocabulary
and
rugged
vigour
of
style.
Nearly
as
unschooled
is
St.
Mark,
who
often
gives
us
very
literal
translations
of
the
Aramaic
in
which
his
story
was
first
wont
to
be
told:
there
seems
some
