LANGUAGE
OF
THE
NT
reason
to
suspect
that
in
the
oldest
form
of
his
text
this
occurred
more
frequently
still.
The
other
main
Gospel
'source,'
the
'Sayings
of
Jesus,'
shows
likewise
the
traces
of
processes
of
translation.
Space
forbids
any
attempt
to
distinguish
the
position
of
all
the
NT
writers,
but
we
may
note
that
the
papyri
supply
parallels
in
degrees
of
culture
to
compare
with
them
in
turn,
except
so
far
as
sheer
translation
comes
in.
6.
Help
derived
from
Modem
Greek,
and
from
re-constructed
Aramaic
originals
.
—We
must
now
return
to
the
development-history
of
Greek
to
observe
that
its
later
stages,
even
up
to
the
present
day,
are
full
of
Important
contributions
to
our
study
of
the
NT.
The
'
Common
'
or
Hellenistic
Greek,
described
above,
is
the
direct
ancestor
of
the
vernacular
of
modern
Greece
and
the
Greek-speaking
districts
of
Turkey.
We
are
daily
learning
more
of
the
immense
significance
of
this
despised
patois
for
interpreting
the
sacred
language.
Here
the
student
must
carefully
eliminate
the
artificial
'
Modern
Greek'
of
Athenian
newspapers
and
books,
which
is
untrustworthy
for
this
purpose,
just
as
is
the
Greek
of
Plutarch
or
Josephus.
The
genuine
vernacular
—
with
its
dialects,
based
on
inconsiderable
local
variations
in
Hellenistic,
which
may
ha
ve
no
small
weight
ere
long
even
in
our
NT
criticism
—
may
be
placed
by
the
side
of
modern
folk-ballads
and
medieeval
popular
stories
and
saint-legends,
to
take
us
back
to
the
papyri
and
inscriptions,
as
our
latest-found
tools
for
NT
study.
The
literature,
classical
and
post-classical,
will
of
course
retain
the
place
it
has
always
held,
when
modern
methods
have
taught
us
how
to
check
its
testimony.
And
Comparative
Philology,
with
lights
on
the
meaning
of
eases
and
tenses
and
moods,
may
be
added
to
the
equipment
with
which
purely
linguistic
science
may
now
help
forward
the
interpretation
of
Scripture.
All
this
is
on
the
side
of
the
student
of
Greek
itself.
But
the
other
side
of
NT
language
must
naturally
not
be
forgotten.
Con-tributions
of
great
value
have
recently
been
made
to
our
knowledge
of
the
Aramaic,
in
which
nearly
all
the
sayings
of
Christ
must
have
been
uttered,
and
in
which
Papias
(as
usually
understood)
shows
they
were
first
written
down.
The
possibiUty
of
reconstructing
to
some
extent
the
original
of
our
Greek
Gospel
sources
is
draw-ing
nearer;
and
the
co-operation
of
Greek
and
Semitic
scholars
promises
marked
advances
in
our
knowledge
of
the
very
kernel
of
the
NT
(cf.
next
art.).
6.
Characteristics
of
NT
Greek.
—
A
few
concluding
words
may
be
given
to
the
general
characteristics
of
the
language
which
had
so
providentially
become
the
language
of
the
civilized
world
just
at
the
time
when
the
gospel
began
its
advance.
It
used
to
be
frequently
contrasted
unfavourably
with
the
classical
Attic,
which
is
undeniably
the
most
perfect
language
the
world
has
ever
seen,
for
the
clearness,
subtlety,
and
beauty
with
which
it
can
express
thought.
In
Hellenistic
Greek
the
subtlety,
the
sense
of
rhythm,
and
the
literary
delicacy
have
largely
disappeared.
But
the
old
clearness
is
only
enhanced
by
a
greater
simpUcity;
and
the
boundless
resourcefulness
of
the
language
impresses
us
powerfully
when
in
the
NT
for
the
first
and
(practically)
last
time
the
colloquial
dialect
of
the
people
was
enshrined
in
Uterature,
the
authors
of
which
were
nearly
always
unconscious
that
they
were
creating
literature
at
all.
The
presentation
of
Christianity
to
the
Western
world
as
a
system
of
thought
could
never
have
been
accom-plished
in
Hebrew,
even
if
that
language
had
attained
universal
currency.
In
Greek
we
are
always
conscious
of
a
wealth
of
suggestiveness
which
no
translation
can
convey,
an
accuracy
and
precision
of
thought
which
repay
the
utmost
exactness
of
study.
This
is
in
no
sense
lost
even
when
the
simpler
grammar
of
the
later
language
becomes
the
tool
of
men
who
had
no
inheritance
of
Greek
culture.
A
comparatively
elementary
knowl-edge
of
this
simpler
Greek,
which
can
be
attained
without
touching
the
complex
structure
of
the
classical
language,
will
constantly
reveal
important
elements
in
LANGUAGE
OF
CHRIST
the
writer's
meaning
that
are
beyond
the
reach
of
our
language
to
convey
directly.
In
our
own
time
at
last
this
language
is
being
studied
for
its
own
sake;
and
even
classical
scholars
are
beginning
to
allow
that
the
renewed
youth
of
Greek,
under
conditions
which
make
it
largely
a
new
language,
produced
a
literature
which
the
philologist,
and
not
merely
the
theologian,
can
admire.
James
Hope
Moulton.
LANGUAGE
OF
CHRIST.—
The
records
of
our
Lord's
words
and
discourses
have
descended
to
us
in
four
Greek
Gospels.
Some
early
Christian
writers
assert
that
St.
Matthew
wrote
in
Hebrew;
but
the
Greek
St.
Matthew
has
universally,
and
from
the
first,
been
accepted
as
an
authoritative
and
inspired
document.
It
is
not
improbable
that
the
writer
pubhshed
his
book
in
the
two
languages,
and
that
the
Greek
edition
alone
has
survived.
Josephus,
who
wrote
in
Greek,
pre-pared
a
Semitic
edition
of
his
Wars
for
the
benefit
of
those
who
understood
only
their
vernacular.
At
the
present
day,
perhaps,
most
scholars
would
admit
that
the
vernacular
of
Palestine
in
the
time
of
our
Lord
was
Semitic,
and
not
Greek;
but
a
difference
is
observed
between
their
theory
and
their
practice;
for
in
all
kinds
of
theological
writings,
critical
as
well
as
devotional,
the
references
to
the
text
of
the
Gospels
constantly
assume
that
the
Greek
words
are
those
actually
uttered
by
our
Lord.
But
if
Greek
was
not
commonly
spoken
in
the
Holy
Land,
it
is
improbable
that
He
who
ministered
to
the
common
people
would
have
employed
an
uncommon
tongue.
It
follows
that
the
Greek
words
recorded
by
the
Evangelists
are
not
the
actual
words
Christ
spoke.
We
may
think
we
have
good
grounds
for
beUeving
that
they
accurately
represent
His
utterances;
but
to
hear
the
original
sounds
we
must
recover,
if
that
be
possible,
the
Semitic
vernacular
which
underlies
the
traditional
Greek.
The
evidence
as
to
the
nature
of
the
Palestinian
vernacular
may
be
thus
stated.
In
the
first
century
of
the
Christian
era
the
Holy
Land
was
peopled
by
men
of
more
than
one
race
and
nationaUty,
but
there
is
no
reason
to
suppose
they
had
been
fused
into
one
people,
with
Greek
for
their
common
tongue.
Most
of
the
inhabitants
of
Judaea
were
Jews,
being
descendants
of
the
returned
exiles.
In
Galilee
there
was
a
mixture
of
races;
but
the
name
'
Gahlee
of
the
Gentiles
'
was
a
survival
of
the
description
of
an
earlier
condition.
The
Syrian
and
Assyrian
invaders
of
the
Northern
Kingdom
had
passed,
though
leaving
their
mark,
and
a
period
of
Jewish
ascendency
had
followed,
created
by
the
victories
of
the
Maccabees.
The
Idumsean
princes,
though
in-clined
to
alliance
vrith
Rome,
sought
to
pose
as
Judaizers.
Herod
the
Great,
while
in
sympathy
with
Hellenism,
was
famous
as
the
builder
of
the
third
Temple.
The
strict,
orthodox
Jews,
who
were
opposed
to
Hellenism,
and
compassed
sea
and
land
to
make
one
proselyte,
would
lose
no
opportunity
of
re-occupying
their
father-land,
from
Jerusalem
in
the
south
to
the
north
of
Gralllee,
and
would
take
with
them
the
ancient
customs
and
the
ancestral
tongue.
Samaria,
however,
preserved
its
in-tegrity
as
a
foreign
colony,
with
its
own
Semitic
dialect.
Beyond
the
Jordan,
and
in
the
border
lands
of
the
south,
there
was
some
mingling
with
the
neighbouring
Moabite,
Idumaean,
and
Arab
tribes,
and
probably
many
dialects
were
spoken,
the
records
of
which
have
perished
for
ever.
Yet
the
Hebrew
of
the
Jerusalem
Pharisee,
the
language
of
the
Samaritans,
the
speech
of
the
men
of
Galilee,
and
.
the
patois
of
the
borderers,
were
all
Semitic
dialects.
No
place
is
found
for
the
alien
speech
of
Greece.
Yet
it
must
not
be
forgotten
that
Greek
was
the
language
of
trade
and
literature.
It
would
be
heard
in
the
seaports,
and
in
the
neighbourhood
of
the
great
roads
by
which
communication
was
kept
up
through
Palestine
between
Asia
Minor,
Mesopotamia,
and
Egypt.
It
was
spoken
by
many
in
the
Roman
garrisons,
and
was
the
adopted
tongue
of
the
Jews
of
the
Dispersion,
who
cultivated
Hellenism,
and
brought
their
foreign
customs
to
Jeru-
