03.01 - FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE

FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE GREEK BIBLE In the third article⁶⁵⁷ of Bibelstudien we endeavoured to correct the widespread notion that the New Testament presents us with a uniform and isolated linguistic phenomenon. Most of the lexical articles in that section were intended to make good the thesis that a philological understanding of the history of New Testament (and also of Septuagint) texts could be attained to only when these were set in their proper historical connection, that is to say, when they were considered as products of later Greek. Friedrich Blass in his critique⁶⁵⁸ of Bibelstudien has expressed himself with regard to this inquiry in the following manner:— The third treatise again⁶⁵⁹ begins with general reflections, the purport of which is that it is erroneous to regard New Testament, or even biblical, Greek as something distinct and isolated, seeing that the Papyrus documents and the Inscriptions are essentially of the same character, and belong similarly to that “Book of Humanity” to which “reverence “ (Pietat ) is due.⁶⁶⁰This appears to us to be the language of naturalism rather than of theology but, this apart, it remains an incontestable fact that, in the sphere of Greek literature, the New Testament books form a special group—one to be primarily explained by itself; first, because they manifest a peculiar genius, and, secondly, because they alone, or almost alone, represent the popular—in contrast to the literary—speech of their time in a form not indeed wholly, but yet comparatively, unadulterated, and in fragments of large extent. All the Papyri in the world cannot alter this—even were there never so many more of them: they lack the peculiar genius, and with it the intrinsic value; further, they are to a considerable extent composed in the language of the office or in that of books. True, no one would maintain that the N.T. occupies an absolutely isolated position, or would be other than grateful⁶⁶¹ if some peculiar expression therein were to derive illumination and clearness from cognate instances in a Papyrus. But it would be well not to expect too much. The author must confess that he did not expect this opposition from the philological side.⁶⁶² The objections of such a renowned Graecist—renowned also in theological circles—certainly did not fail to make an impression upon him. They prompted him to investigate his thesis again, and more thoroughly, and to test its soundness by minute and detailed research. But the more opportunity he had of examining non-literary Greek texts of the imperial Roman period, the more clearly did he see himself compelled to stand out against the objections of the Halle Scholar. Blass has meanwhile published his Grammar of New Testament Greek.⁶⁶³ In the Introduction, as was to be expected, he expresses his view of the whole question. The astonishment with which the present writer read the following, p. 2, may be conceived:— . . . The spoken tongue in its various gradations (which, according to the rank and education of those who spoke it, were, of course, not absent from it) comes to us quite pure—in fact even purer than in the New Testament itself—in the private records, the number and importance of which are constantly being increased by the ever-growing discoveries in Egypt. Thus the New Testament language may be quite justly placed in this connection, and whoever would write a grammar of the popular language of that period on the basis of all these various witnesses and remains, would be, from the grammarian’s point of view, taking perhaps a more correct course than one who should limit himself to the language of the N.T.⁶⁶⁴ If the present writer judges rightly, Blass has, in these sentences, abandoned his opposition to the thesis above mentioned. For his own part, at least, he does not perceive what objection he could take to these words, or in what respect they differ from the statements the accuracy of which had previously been impugned by Blass. When in the Grammar we read further:— Nevertheless those practical considerations from which we started will more and more impose such a limitation, for that which some Egyptian or other may write in a letter or in a deed of sale is not of equal value with that which the New Testament authors have written:— it can hardly need any asseveration on the author’s part that with such words in themselves he again finds no fault. For practical reasons, on account of the necessities of biblical study, the linguistic relations of the New Testament, and of the Greek Bible as a whole, may continue to be treated by themselves, but certainly not as the phenomena of a special idiom requiring to be judged according to its own laws.

Moreover, that view of the inherent value of the ideas of the New Testament which Blass again emphasises in the words quoted from his Grammar, does not enter into the present connection. It must remain a matter of indifference to the grammarian whether he finds ἐάν used for ἄν in the New Testament or in a bill of sale from the Fayyûm, and the lexicographer must register the κυριακός found in the pagan Papyri and Inscriptions with the same care as when it occurs in the writings of the Apostle Paul. The following investigations have been, in part, arranged on a plan which is polemical. For although the author is now exempted, on account of Blass’s present attitude, from any need of controversy with him as regards principles, still the historical method of biblical philology has very many opponents even yet. In this matter, one thinks first of all of the unconscious opponents, viz., those who in the particular questions of exegesis and also of textual criticism stand under the charm of the “New Testament” Greek without ever feeling any necessity to probe the whole matter to the bottom. Among these the author reckons Willibald Grimm (not without the highest esteem for his lasting services towards the reinvigoration of exegetical studies), the late reviser of Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti Philologica. A comparison of the second,⁶⁶⁵ and the little-changed third,⁶⁶⁶ edition of his work with the English revision of Joseph Henry Thayer⁶⁶⁷—the best, because the most reliable of all dictionaries to the N.T. known to us—reveals many errors, not only in its materials, but also in its method. His book reflects the condition of philological research in, say, the fifties and sixties. At least, the notion of the specifically peculiar character of New Testament Greek could be upheld with more plausibility then than now; the New Testament texts were decidedly the most characteristic of all the products of non-literary and of later Greek which were then known. But materials have now been discovered in face of which the linguistic isolation of the New Testament—even that more modest variety of it which diffuses an atmosphere of venerable romanticism around so many of our commentaries—must lose its last shadow of justification. Among the conscious opponents, i.e., those who oppose in matters of principle, we reckon Hermann Cremer. His Biblisch-theologisches Worterbuch der neutestamentlichen Graciteit⁶⁶⁸ has for its fundamental principle the idea of the formative power of Christianity in the sphere of language. This idea, as a canon of historical philology, becomes a fetter upon investigation. Further, it breaks down at once in the department of morphology. But the most conspicuous peculiarity of “New Testament” Greek—let us allow the phrase for once—is just the morphology. The canon breaks down very often in the syntax also. There are many very striking phenomena in this department which we cannot isolate, however much we may wish. The few Hebraising expressions in those parts of the New Testament which were in Greek from the first⁶⁶⁹ are but an accidens which does not essentially alter the fundamental character of its language. The case in regard to these is similar to that of the Hebraisms in the German Bible, which, in spite of the many Semitic constructions underlying it, is yet a German book. There remains, then, only the lexical element in the narrower sense, with which Cremer’s book is, indeed, almost exclusively occupied. In many (not in all, nor in all the more important) of its articles, there appears, more or less clearly, the tendency to establish new “biblical” or “New Testament” words, or new “biblical” or “New Testament” meanings of old Greek words. That there are “biblical” and “New Testament” words—or, more correctly, words formed for the first time by Greek Jews and Christians—and alterations of meaning, cannot be denied. Every movement of civilisation which makes its mark in history enriches language with new terms and fills the old speech with new meanings. Cremer’s fundamental idea is, therefore, quite admissible if it be intended as nothing more than a means for investigating the history of religion. But it not infrequently becomes a philologico-historical principle: it is not the ideas of the early Christians which are presented to us, but their “Greek”. The correct attitude of a lexicon, so far as concerns the history of language, is only attained when its primary and persistent endeavour is to answer the question: To what extent do the single words and conceptions have links of connection with contemporary usage? Cremer, on the other hand, prefers to ask: To what extent does Christian usage differ from heathen? In cases of doubt, as we think, the natural course is to betake oneself placidly to the hypothesis of ordinary usage; Cremer prefers in such cases to demonstrate something which is distinctively Christian or, at least, distinctively biblical. In spite of the partially polemical plan of the following investigations, polemics are not their chief aim. Their purpose is to offer,⁶⁷⁰ towards the understanding of the New Testament, positive materials⁶⁷¹ from the approximately contemporary products of later Greek, and to assist, in what degree they can, in the liberation of biblical study from the bonds of tradition, in the secularising of it—in the good sense of that term. They take up again, one might say, the work of the industrious collectors of “observations” in last century. The reasons why the new spheres of observation disclosed since that time are of special importance for the linguistic investigation of the Greek Bible in particular, have been already set forth and corroborated by examples.⁶⁷² In these pages the following works have been laid under contribution:— 1. Collections of Inscriptions: the Inscriptions of Pergamus⁶⁷³ and those of the Islands of the AEgean Sea, fast. 1.⁶⁷⁴ 2. Issues of Papyri: the Berlin Egyptian Documents, vol. i. and vol. ii., parts 1-9;⁶⁷⁵ also the Papyri of the Archduke Rainer, vol. i.⁶⁷⁶ In reading these the author had in view chiefly the lexical element, but he would expressly state that a reperusal having regard to the orthographical and morphological features would assuredly repay itself. He desiderates, in general, a very strict scrutiny of his own selections. It is only the most important lexical features that are given here. The author, not having in Herborn the necessary materials for the investigation of the LXX at his disposal, had, very reluctantly, to leave it almost entirely out of consideration. But he has reason for believing that the Berlin and Vienna Papyri in particular, in spite of their comparative lateness, will yet yield considerable contributions towards the lexicon of the LXX, and that the same holds good especially of the Inscriptions of Pergamus in connection with the Books of Maccabees. It may be said that the two groups of authorities have been arbitrarily associated together here. But that is not altogether the case. They represent linguistic remains from Asia Minor⁶⁷⁷ and Egypt, that is to say, from the regions which, above all others, come into consideration in connection with Greek Christianity. And, doubtless, the greater part of the materials they yield will not be merely local, or confined only to the districts in question. The gains from the Papyri are of much wider extent than those from the Inscriptions. The reason is obvious. We might almost say that this difference is determined by the disparity of the respective materials on which the writing was made. Papyrus is accommodating and is available for private purposes; stone is unyielding, and stands open to every eye in the market-place, in the temple, or beside the tomb. The Inscriptions, particularly the more lengthy and the official ones, often approximate in style to the literary language, and are thus readily liable to affectation and mannerism; what the papyrus leaves contain is much less affected, proceeding, as it does, from the thousand requirements and circumstances of the daily life of unimportant people. If the legal documents among the Papyri show a certain fixed mode of speech, marked by the formalism of the office, yet the many letter-writers, male and female, express themselves all the more unconstrainedly. This holds good, in particular, in regard to all that is, relatively speaking, matter of form. But also in regard to the vocabulary, the Inscriptions afford materials which well repay the labour spent on them. What will yet be yielded by the comprehensive collections of Inscriptions, which have not yet been read by the author in their continuity, may be surmised from the incidental discoveries to which he has been guided by the citations given by Frankel. What might we not learn, e.g., from the one inscription of Xanthus the Lycian!⁶⁷⁸ Would that the numerous memorials of antiquity which our age has restored to us, and which have been already so successfully turned to account in other branches of science, were also explored, in ever-increasing degree, in the interest of the philologico-historical investigation of the Greek Bible! Here is a great opportunity for the ascertainment of facts!