The Ideal Grammar? Perhaps the ideal grammar of the New Testament Greek may never be written. It is a supremely difficult 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.1

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.2

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 explaining one term as used for another, one preposition for another, one case for another, etc. As a university tutor Winer 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."3

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 explained one tense as used for another. He was not able to rise entirely above the point of view of his time nor to make persistent 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.

(b) WINER EPOCH-MAKING.--WINER IN ENGLISH. But none the less his work has been the epoch-making one for N. T. study. After his death Dr. Gottlieb Lunemann revised and improved the Neutestamentliches Sprachidiom. Translations of Winer's Grammatik into English were first made by Prof. Masson of Edinburgh, 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) SCHMIEDEL. But now at last Prof. Schmiedel of Zurich 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.4 Deissmann,5 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."

(d) BUTTMANN. Buttmann's Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauchs had appeared in 1859 and was translated by Thayer as Buttmann's Grammar of N.T. Greek (1873), an able work. (e) BLASS. It is not till the Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch by Prof. Blass in 1896 that any other adequate grammar appears in this field. And Blass departs a little from traditional 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.6

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

(a) DEISSMANN. Deissmann7 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 frequent isolation of the N. T. Greek from the so-called "profane Greek."8 Deissmann has justly pointed out that the terms "profane" 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.9

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 Philology 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) THUMB. It was in 1901 that A. Thumb published his great book on the koinh<, Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus, which has done so much to give the true picture of the koinh<. He had already in 1895 produced his Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache. In 1912 the second enlarged edition was issued in English by S. Angus, as Handbook of Modern Greek Vernacular. This hook 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) MOULTON. 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 publish 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 koinh< of the papyri. In 1911 the Prolegomena appeared in German as Einleitung in die Sprache des Neuen Testaments.

(d) OTHER 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 Element in the N. T. (1888); Simcox, The Language of the N. T. (1890); Schaff, A Companion to the Greek Testament and English Version (1889); Viteau, Ètude sur le grec du N. T. — Le Verbe (1893); Le Sujet (1896). The same thing is true of Abbott's Johannine Vocabulary (1905) and Johannine Grammar (1906); Burton'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 Neutestamentliche Grammatik is in fact more a grammar of the koinh< than of the N. T., as it is designed to be an Einleitung. The author's Short Grammar of the Greek N. T. (1908) gives the new 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 fourth enlarged edition in English appeared in 1916. 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 MATERIAL. Now indeed it is the extent of the material demanding examination that causes embarrassment. And only thirty years ago K. Krumbacher10. 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 insurmountable. 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. Dieterich11 has well said that the general truth that progress is from error to truth "finds its confirmation also in the history of the development that the Greek language has received in the last two thousand 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,12 one of the Alexandrian fathers of the old Greek grammar (circa 100 B.C.), said: Grammatikh< e]stin e]mpeiri<a tw?n para> poihtai?j te kai> sugggrafeu? sin w[j e]pi> to> polu> legome<nwn. Andrew Lang13 indeed is a disciple 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 grammatical study.

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

(a) COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY. We must consider the great advance 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 superiority to the facts is sometimes charged upon grammarians.14 "Grammar and logic do not coincide."15 Comparative grammar is merely the historical method applied to several languages to gether instead of only one.16

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 (no<m&) or by nature (fu<sei)."17 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."18 His Greek grammar is still in existence in Bekker's Anecdota,19 and is the cause of much grotesque etymology since.20

This period of grammatical activity came after the great creative period of Greek literature was over, and in Alexandria, not in Athens.21 Rhetoric was scientifically developed by Aristotle long before there was a scientific syntax. Aristotle perfected logical analysis of style before there was historical grammar.22 With Aristotle o[ grammatiko<j was one that busied himself with the letters (gra<mmata). He was not a]gra<mmatoj; h[ grammatikh< then had to do with the letters and was exegetical.23 Plato does not treat grammar, though the substantive and the adjective are distinguished, but only dialectics, metaphysics, logic.24 The Stoic grammarians, who succeeded Plato and Aristotle, treated language from the logical standpoint and accented its psychological side.25 So the Alexandrian grammarians made grammatikh< more like kritikh<. They got hold of the right idea, though they did not attain the true historical method.26

Comparative grammar was not wholly unknown indeed to the ancients, for the Roman grammarians since Varro made a comparison between Greek and Latin words.27 The Roman writers on grammar defined it as the "scientia recte loquendi et scribendi," 28 and hence came nearer to the truth than did the Alexandrian writers with their Stoic philosophy and exegesis. It has indeed been a hard struggle to reach the light in grammar.29 But Roger Bacon in this "blooming time" saw that it was necessary for the knowledge of both Greek and Latin to compare them.30 And Bernhardy in 1829 saw that there was needed a grammaticohistorical discussion of syntax because of the "distrust of the union of philosophy with grammar."31 We needed "the viewpoint of the historical Syntax." Humboldt is quoted by Oertel32 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.33

3. The Discovery of Sanskrit. It is a transcendent fact which has revolutionized grammatical research. The discovery of Sanskrit by Sir William Jones is what did it. In 1786 he wrote thus34: "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 Bopp35 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."36 Pott's great work laid the foundation of scientific phonetics.37 Other great names in this new science are W. von Humboldt,38 Jacob Grimm,39 Schlegel,40 Schleicher,41 Max Muller,42 Curtius,43 Verner,44 Whitney,45 L. Meyer.46

But in recent years two men, K. Brugmann and B. Delbruck, have organized the previous knowledge into a great monumental work, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen.47 This achievement is as yet the high-watermark in comparative grammar. Brugmann has issued a briefer and cheaper edition giving the main results.48 Delbruck has also a brief treatise on Greek syntax in the light of comparative grammar, 49 while Brugmann has applied comparative philology to the Laut- and Formenlehre of Greek grammar.50 In the Grundriss Brugmann has Bde. I, II, while Delbruck treats syntax in Bde. III-V. In the new edition Brugmann has also that part of the syntax which is treated in Vol. III and IV of the first edition. The best discussion of comparative grammar for beginners is the second edition of P. Giles's Manual.51 Hatzidakis successfully undertakes to apply comparative grammar to the modern Greek.52 Riemann and Goelzer have made an exhaustive comparison of the Greek and Latin languages.53 There are, indeed, many interesting discussions of the history and principles growing out of all this linguistic development, such as the works of Jolly,54 Delbruck,55 Sweet,56 Paul,57 Oertel,58 Moulton,59 Whitney, 60 Max Muller,61 Sayce.62 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.63 It is not necessary to say that until recently use of this science had not been made by N. T. grammars.64

(b) ADVANCE IN GENERAL GREEK GRAMMAR. There has been great advance in the study of general Greek grammar. The foundations laid by Crosby and Ktihner, Kruger, Curtius, Buttmann, 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 names65 is full of significance. The work of Kuhner has been thoroughly revised and improved in four massive volumcs by Blass66 and Gerth,67 furnishing a magnificent apparatus for the advanced student. Hirt's handbook68 gives the modern knowledge in briefer form, a compendium of comparative grammar, while G. Meyer69 and Brugmann70 are professedly on the basis of comparative philology. Jannaris71 is the first fairly successful attempt to present in one volume the survey of the progress of the language as a whole. Schanz72 makes a much more ambitious undertaking and endeavours in a large number of monographs to furnish material for a future historical grammar. Gildersleeve73 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 EDITIONS OF GREEK AUTHORS. 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. Butcher74 well says "Greek literature is the one entirely original literature of Europe." Homer, Aristotle, Plato, not to say AEschylus, Sophocles and Euripides are still the modern masters of the intellect. Translations are better than nothing, but can never equal the original. The Greek language remains the most perfect organ of human speech and largely because "they were talkers, whereas we are readers."75 They studied diligently how to talk.76

(d) WORKS ON INDIVIDUAL WRITERS. In nothing has the tendency 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 investigation,77 and those of interest to N. T. students are the monographs on Polybius, Josephus, Plutarch, etc. The concordances of Plato, Aristotle, etc., are valuable. The Apostolic Fathers, Greek Christian Apologists and the Apocryphal writings illustrate 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,78. indeed, is impatient of too much specialism, and sometimes in linguistic study the specialist has missed the larger and true conception of the whole.

(e) THE GREEK INSCRIPTIONS. The Greek inscriptions speak with the voice of authority concerning various epochs of the language. Once we had to depend entirely on books for our knowledge 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 B.C. as the beginning of Greek culture. The two chief names in epigraphical studies are those of August Boeckh (Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum) and Theodor Mommsen (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum). For a careful review of "the Nature of the New Texts" now at our service in the inscriptions see Deissmann, Light, etc., pp. 10-20. See W. H. P. 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 Maander and das Neue Test. (1906), and Rouffiac, Recherches sur les Caracteres du Grec dans le N. T. d'apres les Inscriptions de Priene (1911). Deissmann, op. cit., p. 18, thinks that a]ga<[ph]n is rightly restored in a pagan inscription in Pisidia of the imperial period. For the Christian inscriptions see Deissmann, op. cit., p. 19. Schliemann79 has not only restored the story of Troy to the reader of the historic past, but he has revealed a great civilization at Mycenae.80 Homer stands at the close of a long antecedent 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.81 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,82 Kretschmer,83 Lautensach,84 Rang,85 Meisterhans,86 Schweizer,87 Viteau,88 Wagner,89 Nachmanson,90 etc. These inscriptions are not sporadic nor local, but are found in Egypt, in Crete, in Asia Minor, the various isles of the sea,91 in Italy, in Greece, in Macedonia, etc. Indeed Apostolides92 seems to show that the Greeks were in Egypt long before Alexander the Great founded Alexandria. The discoveries of Dr. A. J. 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 Phoenician writing. The civilization of the Hellenic race was very old when Homer wrote, — how old no one dares say.93 For specimens of the use of the inscriptions see Buck's Introduction to the Study of the Greek Dialects (Grammar, Selected Inscriptions, Glossary), 1910.

(f) FULLER KNOWLEDGE OF THE DIALECTS. 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 confusion on this subject and concerning the relation of the various Greek races. It now seems clear that the Pelasgians, Achaeans, Dorians were successively dominant in Greece.94 Pelasgian appears to be the name for the various pre-Achaean tribes, and it was the Pelasgian tribe that made Mycenae glorious.95 Homer sings the glories of the Achaeans who displaced the Pelasgians, while "the people who play a great part in later times — Dorians, AEolians, Ionians — are to Homer little more than names."96 The Pelasgian belonged to the bronze age, the Achaean to the iron age.97 The Pelasgians may have been Slavs and kin to the Etruscans of Italy. The Achans were possibly Celts from northern Europe.98 The old Ionic was the base of the old Attic.99 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 division100 between the early dialects 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 attempt at grouping and relating the dialects to each other see Thumb's Handbuch, p. 54 f. The matter cannot be elaborated here (see ch. III). But the point needs to be emphasized that 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 koinh<) was not complete as we shall see.101 "Of dialects the purest Hellenic is Dorian, preserved in religious odes, — pure because they kept aloof from their subjects. The next is the AEolic, 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-AEolic forms without sacrificing the sweet smoothness of Ionic."102 In general concerning the Greek dialects one may consult the works of Meister,103 Ridgeway,104 Hoffmann,105 Thumb,106 Buck,107 Boisacq,108 Pezzi,109 etc. (g) THE PAPYRI AND 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 Berlin for the N. T. language. Farrar (Messages of the Books, 1884, p. 151) noted the similarity of phrase between Paul's correspondence 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., p. 55). The koinh< is now rich in material for the study of the vernacular or popular speech as opposed to the book language. This distinction belongs to all languages which have a literature and to all periods of the language. It is particularly true of the modern Greek to-day as it was true in the early period. The Athenian newspapers as a rule affect the kaqareu<ousa. Occasionally a writer like Aristophanes would on purpose write in the language of the street. It is not therefore a peculiarity of the koinh< that the vernacular Greek prevailed then. It always prevails. But the kaqareu<ousa has secured a more disastrous supremacy over the dhmotikh< than in any other language. And we are now able to estimate the vernacular koinh<, since the great papyri discoveries of Flinders-Petrie, Grenfell and Hunt and others. We had already the excellent discussions of Mullach,110 Niebuhr,111 Blass,112 Foy113 and Lottich.114 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). "I 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 koinh< is found in the papyri collections, many volumes of which have already been published (see Index of Quots. for fuller list), while more are yet to be issued. Indeed, Prof. W. N. Stearns115 complains: "There would seem to be a plethora of such material already as evidenced by such collections as the Berlinische Urkunde 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."116 See the publications of Drs. Grenfell and Hunt,117 Mahaffy,118 Goodspeed,119 the Berlinische Urkunde,120 Papyri in the British Museum,121 the Turin Papyri,122 the Leyden Papyri,123 the Geneva Papyri,124 Lord Amherst's collection (Paris, 1865), etc. For general discussions of the papyri see the writings of Wilcken,125 Kenyon,126 Hartel,127 Haberlin,128 Viereck,129 Deissmann,130 de Ricci,131 Wessely.132 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, etc., 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,133 St. Witkowski,134 Deissmann,135 Moulton,136 H. A. A. Kennedy,137 Jannaris,138 Kenyon,139 Voelker,140 Thumb.141 These are all helpful, but Cronert142 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.143 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 a]gra<mmatoi, but what they wrote has become the chief Book of Mankind.144 Hear Deissmann145 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, letters 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.146 It is no longer possible to say, what even Friedrich Blass147 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. Hatch148 in particular laboured under this error. The N. T. Greek

Archiv fur Pap., 111. 4; also Jahresb. fiber die Fortschr. des Class., 1906; Diegriech. Papyrusurk., 1899-1905, pp. 36-40; Die griech. Spr. etc., 1901. 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.149 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 AEgus, 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 mummies. Thus it has come to be preserved. The rubbish-heaps at Faram and Oxyrhynchus are full of these papyri scraps.

Mention should be made also of the ostraca, or pieces of pottery, which contain numerous examples of the vernacular koinh<. For a very interesting sketch of the ostraca see Deissmann, Light, etc. (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,150 has printed the texts of over sixteen hundred of the inscribed potsherds on which the commonest receipts and orders of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt were written."151 It was the material used by the poorer classes.

(h) THE BYZANTINE AND THE MODERN GREEK. The Byzantine and modern Greek has at last received adequate'' recognition.

The student of the N. T. idiom has much to learn from the new books on this subject. The scorn bestowed on the koinh< 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 upheaval at Athens by the University students over the translation of the Gospels into the Greek vernacular (dhmotikh<) 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."152 Just as the "popular Latin finally suppressed the Latin of elegant literature,"153 so the vernacular koinh< 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 possibly extreme 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."154 And certainly Prof. Dickey155 is right in affirming "that the Greek of N. T. stands in the centre of the development 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 interpretation of the N. T. has almost entirely been in the sole light of the ancient, i. e. the Attic Greek, and, therefore, to that extent has been unscientific and often inaccurate." Hatzidakis156 indeed complained that the whole subject had been treated with unworthy "dilettanteism" and not without ground for the complaint. He himself did much by his great work to put the study of modern Greek on a scientific basis,157 but he has not worked alone in this important field. Another native Greek, Prof. Sophocles, has produced a Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods in which there is an excellent discussion for that time158 of the koinh<, the Byzantine and the modern Greek. Other scholars have developed special phases of the problem, as Krumbacher,159 who has enriched our knowledge of the Byzantine160 or Middle Ages Greek. Dieterich161 also has done fine work in this period of Greek, as has Thumb.162 Worthy of mention also is the work of G. Meyer,163 Geldart164 and Preste1,165 though the latter have not produced books of great value. See also Meyer-Lithke's grammar, 166 Jannaris' Historical Greek Grammar and the writings of Psichari.167 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 koinh< of the N. T., like i!na in the non-final clause, is too common for remark in the modern Greek. Indeed the N. T. had a predominant 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 illustrate the language of the time.168 The modern Greek is in all essential points the same as the Byzantine Greek of 1000 A.D. In forty years169 we have seen a revolution in the study of the modern Greek. But as late as 1887 Vincent and Dickson170 could say: "By many it is believed that a corrupt patois of Turkish and Italian is now spoken in Greece; and few even among professed 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.171

(i) THE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC. Less that is new has come from the Hebrew and Aramaic field of research. Still real advance has been made here also. The most startling result is the decrease of emphasis upon Hebraisms in the N. T. style. In chapter IV, iii the Semitic influence on the N. T. language is discussed. Here the literary history is sketched.

1. The Old View. It was only in 1879 that Guillemard172 issued his Hebraisms in the Greek Testament, in which he said in the Preface: "I earnestly disavow any claim to an exhaustive exhibition 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 Hatch173 says: "Biblical Greek is thus a language by itself. What we have to find out in studying it is what meaning certain Greek words conveyed to a Semitic mind." Again he says174: "The great majority of N. T. words are words which, though for the most part common to biblical and to contemporary secular Greek, express in their biblical use the conceptions of a Semitic race, and which must consequently be examined by the light of the cognate documents which form the LXX." And W. H. Simcox175 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. Kennedy176 says: "But while the writer began with a complete, though provisional, acceptance of Hatch's conclusions, the farther the inquiry was pushed, the more decidedly was he compelled 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."177

3. Deissmann's Revolt. The full revolt against the theory of a Semitic or biblical Greek is seen in the writings of Deissmann,178 who says179: "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 psychology 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 Deissmann180 himself. Prof. H. B. Swete of Cambridge has laid all biblical students under lasting obligation to him by his contribution to the study of the Septuagint, consisting of an edition of the LXX181 with brief critical apparatus and a general discussion182 of the Septuagint. Brooke and McLean are publishing an edition of the Septuagint with exhaustive critical apparatus.183 Students of the LXX now rejoice in Helbing's Gr. der Septuaginta: Laut- u. Formenlehre (1907) and Thackeray's Gr. of the 0. 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,184 Lagarde,185 Hartung,186 Ralf's,187 Susemihl,188 Apostolides.189

4. The Language of Jesus. Another point of special interest in this connection, which may be discussed as well 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. Roberts190 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, VII) 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 ]Abba< o[ path<r thus, Mark not having translated it. Thomson, "The Language of Palestine" (Temple Bible Dict.), argues strongly that Christ spoke Greek, not Aramaic. Neubauer191 contends that there was spoken besides at Jerusalem and in Judea a modernized Hebrew, and comments192 on "how little the Jews knew Greek." A. Meyer193 urges that the vernacular of Jesus was Aramaic and shows what bearing this fact has on the interpretation of the Gospels. A. Julicher194 indeed says: "To suppose, however (as, e.g. G. B. Winer supposes, because of Mk. 7:34; 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 Dalman195 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 Bhqesda<, xDAz;H, tyBe, 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."196 J. T. Marshall197 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. Abbott198 also attempts to reproduce the original Aramaic of the words of Jesus from the Greek. But Prof. Mahaffy199 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 with Pontius Pilate, were certainly carried on mainly in the Greek." Zahn (Intr. 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 (Einl. 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: t^? diale<kt& au]tw?n [Akeldama<x; 22:2, a]kou<santej o!ti t^? ]Ebrai~di diale<kt& prosefw< nei au]toi?j ma?llon pare<sxon h[suxi<an. There is no doubt which language is the vernacular in Jerusalem. Cf. also 26:14. Josephus confirms Luke on this point (War, V, 6. 3), for the people of Jerusalem cried out t^? patri<& glw<ss^, and Josephus also acted intermediary for Titus, t^? patri<& glw<ss^ (War, VI, 2. 1). See also 2 Macc. 7: 8, 21. Josephus wrote his War first in Aramaic and then in Greek. The testimony of Papias that Matthew wrote his lo<gia 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 Galilean 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 understood 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 (Phoenicia), where Greek was necessary, and he held converse with a Greek (Syro-Phcenician) woman. Near Caesarea-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 addressed people from Decapolis and Perea (largely Hellenized), besides 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 Iduma." It is hardly possible that these crowds understood Aramaic. The fact that Mark 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< o[ path<r, 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 occasion and read the Hebrew as well as the Septuagint, if we may argue from the 0. T. quotations in the Gospels which are partly like the Hebrew text and partly like the LXX.200 In Lu. 4:17 it is not clear whether it was the Hebrew text or the LXX that was read in the synagogue at Nazareth.201 One surely needs no argument to see the possibility that a people may be bilingual when he remembers the Welsh, Scotch, Irish, Bretons of the present day.202 The people in Jerusalem understood either Greek or Aramaic (Ac. 22:2).

(j) GRAMMATICAL COMMENTARIES. A word must be said Concerning the new type of commentaries which accent the grammatical 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 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 empiricism which controlled Greek philology."203

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 outlook 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.204 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."205 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.  

12. As quoted in Bekker, Anec. Graeca (1816), vol. II, p. 629. Dionysius Thrax mentions six me<rh in grammar: a]na<gnwsij, e]ch<ghsij, glwssw?n te kai> i[storiw? n pro<xeiroj u[po<dosij, e]tumologi<aj eu!rhsij, a]nalogi<aj e]klogismo<j, kri<sij poihma< twn. A generous allowance truly!

13.  Morning Post, Lond., May 5,1905.

14. So Dr. John H. Kerr, sometime Prof. of N. T. in the Pac. Theol. Sem. in conversation with me.

15. Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., 1888, p. 18.

16. Ib., pp. 1 ff. 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."

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

18. Ib., p. 261.

19. Op. cit., pp. 629-643.

20. See Sayce, Intr. to the Sci. of Lang., 1880, vol. I, p. 19 f.; Dionysius Thrax's te<xnh grammatikh< was developed into a system by Apollonius Dyscolus (ii/A.D.) and his son Herodian. Dionysius Thrax was born B.C. 166. Dyscolus wrote a systematic Gk. Syntax of accentuation in 20 books (known to us only in epitome) about 200 A.D.

21. See Jebb in Whibley's Comp. to Gk. Stud., 1905, p. 147 f.

22. See Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw. bei den Griech. und Rom., 2. TI., 1891, p. 179.

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

24. Ib., p. 144. The early Gk. grammarians were "ohne richtiges historisches Bewusstsein" (Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw. etc., 1. Tl., 1863, p. 39). Even in Plato's Kratylus we do not see "das Gauze in seiner Ganzheit" (p. 40).

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

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

27. See Kretschmer, op. cit., p. 4.

28. F. Blass, Hermen. und Krit., 1892, p. 157 f.

29. Steinthal, Gesch. etc., 2. Tl., 1891, p. 1, calls this time of struggle "ihre Blutezeit."

30. Roger Bacon, Oxford Gk. Gr., edited by Nolan and Hirsch, 1902, p. 27: "Et in hac comparatione Grammaticae Graecae ad Latinam non solum est necessitas propter intelligendam Grammaticam Graecam, sed omnino necqssarium est ad intelligentiam Latinae Grammaticae."

31. Wissenseh. Synt, der griech. Spr., 1829, pp. 7, 12.

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

33. See C. Herrmann, Philos. Gr., 1858, p. 422: "Die Natur der philosophischen Grammatik war von Anfang an bestimmt worden als die eine Grenzwissenschaft zwischen Philosophie and Philologie." But it is a more objective task now.

34. Cf. Benfey, Gesch. der Sprachw., p. 348. "This brilliant discovery, declared in 1786, practically lies at the root of all linguistic science." J. H. Moulton, Sci. of Lang., 1903, p. 4.

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

36. Delbruck, Intr. to the Study of Lang., 1882, p. 25.

37. Etym. Forsch. auf dem Gebiet der indoger. Spr., 1833-1830.

38. Always mentioned by Bopp with reverence.

39. Deutsche Gr., 1822. Author of Grimm's law of the interchange of letters. Next to Bopp in influence.

40. Indische Bibl.

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

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

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

44. The discovery of Verner's law, a variation from Grimm's law, according to which p, t and k, pass into b, d and g, instead of f, th and h when not immediately followed by the word-accent.

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

46. Vergl. Gr., 1865.

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

48. Kurze vergl. Gr., 1902-1904.

49. Die Grundl. der griech. Synt., 1879.

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

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

52. Einl. in die neugr. Gr., 1892.

53. Gr. comparee du Grec et du Lat.: Syntaxe, 1897; Phonetique 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.

54. Schulgr. und Sprachw., 1874.

55. 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 grec et du latin, 5th ed., 1894.

56. The Hist. of Lang., 1899.

57. Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., 1888; 4th Germ. ed. 1909.

58. Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1901.

59. The Sci. of Lang., 1903.

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

61. Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891.

62. Prin. of Comp. Philol., 1875.

63. By "die historische Sprachforschung" the Gk. tongue is shown to be a member of the Indo-Germanic family; thus is gained "der sprachgeschichtliche Gesichtspunkt," and then is gained " ein wesentlich richtiges Verstandnis . . . fur den Entwicklungsgang der Sprache." Brugmann, Griech. Gr., 1885, p. 4. Cf. p. 3 in third ed., 1901.

64. See J. H. Moulton's Prol. to the N. T. Gk. Gr., 1906, and A. T. Robertson's N. T. Syll., 1900, and Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., 1908.

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

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

67. Ib., 2. Tl. Satzlehre, Bd. I, II. Besorgt von Dr. Bernhard Gerth, 1898, 1904.

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

69. Griech. Gr., 3. Aufl., 1896.

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

71. 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.

72. Beitr. zur histor. Synt. der griech. Spr., Tl. I. Cf. also Hubner, Grundr. zur Vorlesung tiber die griech. Synt., 1883. A good bibliography. Krumbacher, Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn's Zeitschr. etc., 1885, pp. 481-545.

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

74. 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."

75. Ib., p. 203.

76. See Bernhardy, Griech. Lit., TI. I, II, 1856; Christ, Gesch. der griech. Lit. bis auf die Zeit Justinians, 4. revid. Aufl., 1905; 5. Aufl., 1908 ff. Parnell, Gk. Lyric Poetry, 1891, etc. A. Croiset and M. Croiset, An Abr. Hist. of Gk. Lit., transl. by Heffelbower, 1904.

77. Cf., for instance, Die Spr. des Plut. etc., T1. I, II, 1895, 1896; Krebs, Die Prapositionen 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. etc.

78. "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.

79. Mycenae and Tiryns, 1878.

80. See also Tsountas and Manatt, The Mycenaean Age, 1897.

81. Ridgeway (Early 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 Hiss Age (1906), advocates strongly the unity of the Homeric poems.

82. Inscr. Graecae Antiq., 1882.

83. Die griech. Vaseninschr. und ihre Spr., 1894.

84. Verbalfl. der att. Inschr., 1887.

85. Antiquites hellen., 1842.

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

87. Gr. der perg. Inschr., 1898.

88. La decl. dans les inscr. att. de l'Empire, 1895.

89. Quest. de epigram. Graecis, 1883.

90. Laute und Formen der magn. Inschr., 1903; cf. also Solmsen, Inscr. Graecae ad illustr. Dial. sel.; Audollent, Defix. Tabellae, 1904; Michel, Rec. d'inscr. 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.

91. As, for example, Paton and Hicks, The Inscr. of Cos, 1891; Kern, Die Inschr. von Magn., 1900; Gartingen, Inschr. von Priene, 1906; Gartingen and Paton, Inscr. Maris Aegaei, 1903; Letronne, Rec. des inscr. lat. et grec. de 1'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.

92. Essai sur l'Hellenisme Egypt., 1908, p. vi. He says: "Les decouvertes recentes des archeologues ont dissipe ces illusions. Des ruines de Naucratis, de Daphne, de Gurob, et de l'Illahoun (pour ne citer que les localites dans lesquelles les recherches ont donne le plus de resultats) est sortie toute une nouvelle Grece; une Grece anterieure aux Ramses . . .; et, si les recherches se continuent, on ne tardera pas, nous en sommes convaincus, acquerir la certitude que les Grecs sont aussi anciens en Egypte qu'en Grece meme."

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

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

95. Ib., p. 293. For the contribution of the dialects to the koinh< see ch. III.

96. Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., 1901, p. 526.

97. Ib., p. 406.

98. Ridgeway, op. cit., vol. I, p. 337.

99 Ib., pp. 666-670.

100. 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.

101. See Dieterich, Die Koinh< and die heut. kleinasiat. Mundarten-Unters. zur Gesch. etc., pp. 271-310. Cf. Chabert, Hist. sommaire des et. d'epigr. grecque, 1906.

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

103. Griech. Dial., Bd. I, 1882, Bd. II, 1889; cf. Hicks, Man. of Gk. Hist. Inscr., 1888.

104. Op. cit.

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

106. Handb. der griech. Dial., 1909.

107. Gk. Dialects.

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

109. Lingua Greca Antica, 1888. Cf. Lambert, Et. stir le dial. Cohen, 1903.

110. Gr. der griech. Vulgarspr., 1856.

111. Uber das Agyp.-Griech., Kl. Schr., II, p. 197 f.

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

113. Lauts. der griech. Vulgarspr., 1879.

114. De Serm. vulg. Att., 1881.

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

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

117. Oxyrhyn. Pap., vols. I–XII, 1898-1916; Faytim 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. raisonnee, 1905.

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

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

120. Griech. Urik., 1895, 1898, 1903, 1907, etc.

121. 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.

122. Peyron, 1826, 1827.

123 Zauber Pap., 1885; Leeman's Pap. Graeci, 1843.

124. J. Nicole, 1896, 1900; cf. Wessely's Corpus Pap., 1895.

125. Griech. Papyrusurk., 1897; Archly fur Papyrusforsch. und verve. Gebiete, 1900—.

126. Palaeog. of Gk. Pap., 1899; art. Papyri in Hast. D. B. (ext. vol.).

127. Uber die griech. Pap.

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

129. Ber. uber die altere Pap.-Lit., Jahresb. uber d. Fortschr. etc., 1898, 1899.

130. Art. Papyri in Encyc. Bibl.

131. Bul. papyrologique in Rev. des Rt. grecques since 1901.

132. Papyrus-Samml. since 1883. Cf. also Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., 1903; Reinach, Pap. grecs et &mot. etc., 1905.

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

134. Prodromus Gr. Pap. Grace. aetatis Lagidarum, 26. Bd. der Abhandl. der Phil. class. der Acad. zu Krakau, 1897, pp. 196-260.

135. B. S., 1901; Light, etc.; art. Hell. Griech. in Hauck's Realencyc.; art. Papyrus in Encyc. Bibl., etc.

136. 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., etc.

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

138. Hist. Gk. Gr., 1897; The Term koinh<, Cl. Rev., March, 1903.

139. Art. Papyri in Hast. D. B.

140. Syntax der griech. Pap., Tl. I, 1903.

141. Die Forsch. uber die hell. Spr. in d. Jahr. 1896-1901, Archiv far Papyrusforsch., 1903, pp. 396-426; Die Forsch. uber die hell. Spr. in d. Jahr. 1902-4,

142. Archiv fur Pap.-Forsch., 1900, p. 215.

143. “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.

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

145. Art. Papyri in Encyc. Bibl.

146. See Lo<gia ]Ihsou?, 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.

147. Theol. Literaturzeit., 1894, p. 338.

148. Essays in Bibl. Gk., 1892, p. 11 f. The earliest dated papyrus is now P. Eleph. 1 (311 n.c.), not P. Hibeh, as Thackeray has it in his Gr. of the 0. T. in Gk., p. 56. This was true in 1907; cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., March, 1910, p. 53.

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

150. Griech. Ostraka aus Agypten and Nubien, Bd. I, H, 1899; cf. also Crum, Coptic Ostraca, 2 vols. (1899); cf. Hilprecht, S. S. Times, 1902, p. 560. "In many Coptic letters that are written on potsherds the writers beg their correspondents to excuse their having to use an ostrakon for want of papyrus" (Deissmann, Exp. Times, 1906, Oct., p. 15).

151. E. J. Goodspeed, Am. Jour. of Theol., Jan., 1906, p. 102.

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

153. 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; cf. also art. on The Holy Latin Tongue, in April number.

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

155. New Points of View for the Study of N. T. Gk. (Prince. Theol. 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 a great service to the right understanding of the book's contents."

156. Einl. in die neugr. Gr., 1892, p. ix; cf. also H. C. Muller, Hist. Gr. de hell. Spr., 1891.

157. "Und wenn es mir gelingt, die wissenschaftliche Welt von ihrer wohlberechtigten Zuruckhaltung abzubringen und ihr nachzuweisen, dass das Mittel- und Neugriechische ein vielversprechendes unkultivirtes Gebiet der Wissenschaft ist, woraus man viel, sehr viel bezuglich der Sprachwissenschaft uberhaupt wie des Altgriechischen speciell lernen kann, so ist mein Zweck vollkommen erreicht." Ib., p. x.

158. 1870. One of the pressing needs is a lexicon of the papyri also. See Contopoulos, Lex. of Mod. Gk., 1868, and others.

159. Das Problem der neugr. Schriftspr., 1903. "Heute bedarf das Studiengebiet der byzantinischen und neugricchischen 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.

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

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

162. Handb. d. neugr. Volkspr., 1895; Thumb-Angus, Handb. of Mod. Gk. Vernac., 1912; Die neugr. Sprachforsch. in d. Jahr. 1890 u. 1891 (Anz. fur 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.

163. Neugr. Stud., 1894.

164. 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.

165. Zur Entwickelungsgesch. der griech. Spr.

166. Gr. der romanischen Spr.

167. Essais de Gr. hist. Neogrecque, 1886; cf. also Boltz Die hell. Spr. der Gegenw., 1882.

168. See the Migne Lib. and the new Ben Royal Lib. ed.

169. Dieterich, op. cit., p. 10.

170. 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, wit'' only such insignificant changes as the altered circumstances, combined with the law of its original genius, naturally produced." Cf. Rangabe, Gr. Abregee du grec actuel; Genna<dioj, Grammatikh> th?j [Ellenikh?j Glw<sshj.

171. Dieterich, op. cit., p. 5.

172. See also A. Miller, Semit. Lehnw. in alteren Griech., Bezzenb. Beitr. 1878, I, pp. 273 ff.; S. Krauss, Griech. und lat. Lehnw. im Tal., 1898, 1899.

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

174. Ib., 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 country." 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, philologically, though not historically, the Hebrew may be regarded as a translation of the Gk."

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

176. Sources of N. T. Gk., 1895, p. v.

177. Ib., p. 146.

178. Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, 1898; B. S., 1901; Hell. Griech., Hauck's Realencyc., New Light (1907), etc.

179. B. S., p. 65.

180. Ib., p. 73. Schleusner, 1821, is hopelessly inadequate and out of date. Hatch and Redpath have issued in six parts (two volumes) a splendid concordance to the LXX and other Gk. versions of the 0. T., 1892-1896, 1900.

181. 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.

182. An Intr. to the 0. T. in Gk., 1900; 2d ed., 1914.

183. The Larger Camb. LXX, 1906—.

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

185. Sept.-Stud., 1891-1892.

186. Ib., 1886.

187. Ib., 1904.

188. Gesch. der griech. Lit. in der Alexandrinzeit, Bd. I, II, 1891, 1892.

189. Du grec Alexandrin et de ses rapports avec le grec ancien et le grec moderne, 1892. Cf. among the older discussions, Sturz, De dial. Maced. et Alexan., 1808; Lipsius, Gr. Unters. fiber die bibl. Grac., 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.

190. 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).

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

192. Stud. Bibl., p. 54.

193. Jesu Mutterspr.: das galilaische Aram. in seiner Bedeut. fur die Erkl. der Reden Jesu and der Evang. uberhaupt, 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."

194. Art. Hellenism in Encyc. Bibl. Canon Foakes-Jackson (Interp., July, 1907, p. 392) says: "The Jews of high birth or with a reputation 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."

195. 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.).

196. Ib., p. 10.

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

198. Clue, A Guide through Gk. to Heb., 1904.

199. 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.

200. 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. etc., 1900; Gregory, Canon and Text of the N. T., 1907, p. 394.

201. On the Gk. in the Tal. see art. Greek in Jew. Encyc.; Krauss, Griech. and lat. Lehnw. im Tal.; Schurler, Jew. Hist., div. II, vol. I, p. 29 f.

202. See Zahn, Einl. in das N. T., ch. 11. On the bilingual character of many of the Palestinian Jews see Schurer, Jew. Peo. in the Time of Ch., div. II, vol. I, p. 48 f.; Moulton, Prol., p. 7 f.

203. Winer, Gr. of the N. T. Idiom, Thayer's transl., p. 7.

204. "Nun hat man aber die Sprache der heiligen Bucher mit den Papyrusdenkmalern und den Inschriften der alexandrinischen und romischen Zeit genau verglichen, und da hat sich die gar manchen Anhanger der alten Doktrin verbluffende, in Wahrheit ganz naturliche Tatsache ergeben, dass die Sprache des N. T. nichts anderes ist als eine fur den literarischen Zweck leicht temperierte Form des volkstumlich Griechisch." Krumbacher, Das Prob. der neugr. Schriftspr., 1903, p. 27.

205. J. H. Moulton, New Lights on Bibl. Gk., Bibl. World, March, 1902.