The Greek of the N. T. has many streams that flow into it. But this fact is not a peculiarity of this phase of the language. The koinh< itself has this characteristic in a marked degree. If one needs further examples, he can recall how composite English is, not only combining various branches of the Teutonic group, but also incorporating much of the old Celtic of Britain and receiving a tremendous impress from the Norman-French (and so Latin), not to mention the indirect literary influence of Latin and Greek. The early Greek itself was subject to non-Greek influence as other Indo-Germanic tongues were, and in particular from the side of the Thracians and Phrygians in the East,1 and in the West and North the Italic, Celtic and Germanic pressure was strong.2

I. The Term Koinh<. The word koinh<, sc. dia<lektoj, means simply common language or dialect common to all, a worldspeech (Weltsprache). Unfortunately there is not yet uniformity in the use of a term to describe the Greek that prevailed over Alexander's empire and became the world-tongue. Kuhner- Blass3 speak of ‘h[ koinh< oder e[llhnikh> dia<lektoj." So also Schmiedel4 follows Winer exactly. But Hellenic language is properly only Greek language, as Hellenic culture5 is Greek culture. Jannaris6 suggests Panhellenic or new Attic for the universal Greek, the Greek par excellence as to common usage. Hellenistic Greek would answer in so far as it is Greek spoken also by Hellenists differing from Hellenes or pure Greeks. Krumbacher applies Hellenistic to the vernacular and koinh< to the "conventional literary language" of the time,7 but this is wholly arbitrary. Krumbacher terms the Hellenistic "ein verschwommenes Idiom." Hatzidakis and Schwyzer include in the koinh< both the literary and the spoken language of the Hellenistic time. This is the view adopted in this grammar. Deissmann dislikes the term Hellenistic Greek because it was so long used for the supposedly peculiar biblical Greek, though the term itself has a wide significance.8 He also strongly disapproves the terms "vulgar Greek," "bad Greek," "graecitas fatiscens," in contrast with the "classic Greek." Deissmann moreover objects to the word koinh< because it is used either for the vernacular, the literary style or for all the Greek of the time including the Atticistic revival. So he proposes "Hellenistic world-speech."9 But this is too cumbersome. It is indeed the world-speech of the Alexandrian and Roman period that is meant by the term koinh<. There is on the other hand the literary speech of the orators, historians, philosophers, poets, the public documents preserved in the inscriptions (some even Atticistic); on the other hand we have the popular writings in the LXX, the N. T., the Apostolic Fathers, the papyri (as a rule) and the ostraca. The term is thus sufficient by itself to express the Greek in common use over the world, both oral and literary, as Schweizer10 uses it following Hatzidakis. Thumb11 identifies koinh< and Hellenistic Greek and applies it to both vernacular and written style, though he would not regard the Atticists as proper producers of the koinh<. Moulton12 uses the term koinh< for both spoken and literary koinh<. The doctors thus disagree very widely. On the whole it seems best to use the term koinh< (or Hellenistic Greek) both for the vernacular and literary koinh<, excluding the Atticistic revival, which was a conscious effort to write not koinh< but old Attic.13 At last then the Greek world has speech-unity, whatever was true of the beginning of the Greek language.14

II. The Origin of the Koinh<.

(a) TRIUMPH OF THE ATTIC. This is what happened. Even in Asiatic Ionia the Attic influence was felt. The Attic vernacular, sister to the Ionic vernacular, was greatly influenced by the speech of soldiers and merchants from all the Greek world. Attic became the standard language of the Greek world in the fifth and the fourth centuries B.C. "The dialect of Athens, the so-called Attic— one of the Ionic group--prevailed over all other sister dialects, and eventually absorbed them. It was the Attic, because Athens, particularly after the Persian wars, rose to absolute dominion over all the other Greek communities, and finally became the metropolis of all Greek races."15 This is rather an overstatement, but there is much truth in it. This classic literary Attic is did more and more lose touch with the vernacular. "It is one of our misfortunes, whatever be its practical convenience, that we are taught Attic as the standard Greek, and all other forms and dialects as deviations from it . . . when many grammarians come to characterize the later Greek of the Middle Ages or of to-day, or even that of the Alexandrian or N. T. periods, no adjective is strong enough to condemn this ‘verdorbenes, veruneinigtes Attisch'" (S. Dickey, Princeton Rev., Oct., 1903). The literary Attic was allied to the literary Ionic; but even in this crowning development of Greek speech no hard and fast lines are drawn, for the artificial Doric choruses are used in tragedy and the vernacular in comedy.16 There was loss as well as gain as the Attic was more extensively used, just as is true of modern English. "The orators Demosthenes and AEschines may be counted in the new Attic, where other leading representatives in literature are Menander, Philemon and the other writers of the New Comedy."17 As the literary Attic lived on in the literary koinh<, so the vernacular Attic survived with many changes in the vernacular koinh<. We are at last in possession of enough of the old Attic inscriptions and the koinh< inscriptions and the papyri to make this clear. The march of the Greek language has been steadily forward on this Attic vernacular base even to this present day.18 In a sense, therefore, the koinh< became another dialect (AEolic, Doric, Ionic, Attic, koinh<) . Cf. Kretschmer, Die Entstehung der koinh<, pp. 1-37. But the koinh< was far more than a dialect. Kretschmer holds, it is fair to say, that the koinh< is "eine merkwurdige Mischung verschiedenster Dialecte" (op. cit., p. 6). He puts all the dialects into the melting-pot in almost equal proportions. Wilamowitz-Mollendorff considers the Ionic as the chief influence in the koinh<, while W. Schmidt denies all Doric and Ionic elements. Schwyzer rightly sees that the dialectical influences varied in different places, though the vernacular Attic was the common base.

(b) FATE OF THE OTHER DIALECTS. The triumph of the Attic was not complete, though in Ionia, at the end of the third century B.C., inscriptions in Attic are found, showing that in Asia Minor pure Ionic had about vanished. In the first century B.C. the Attic appears in inscriptions in Boeotia, but as late as the second century A.D. Ionic inscriptions are found in Asia Minor. Ionic first went down, followed by the AEllie. The Doric made a very stubborn resistance. It was only natural that the agricultural communities should hold out longest. See Thumb, Hellen., p. 28 f. Even to-day the Zaconian patois of modern Greek vernacular has preserved the old Laconic Doric "whose broad a holds its ground still in the speech of a race impervious to literature and proudly conservative of a language that was always abnormal to an extreme."19 It is not surprising that the Northwest Greek, because of the city leagues, became a kind of Achaean-Dorian koinh<20 and held on till almost the beginning of the Christian era before it was merged into the koinh< of the whole Graeco-Roman world.21 There are undoubtedly instances of the remains of the Northwest Greek and of the other dialects in the koinh< and so in the N. T. The Ionic, so near to the Attic and having flourished over the coast of Asia Minor, would naturally have considerable influence on the Greek world-speech. The proof of this will appear in the discussion of the koinh< where remains of all the main dialects are naturally found, especially in the vernacular.22

(c) PARTIAL KOINES. The standardizing of the Attic is the real basis. The koinh< was not a sudden creation. There were quasi-koines before Alexander's day. These were Strabo's alliance of Ionic-Attic, Doric-AEolic (Thumb, Handb., p. 49). It is therefore to be remembered that there were "various forms of koinh<" before the koinh< which commenced with the conquests of Alexander (Buck, Gk. Dialects, pp. 154-161), as Doric koinh<, Ionic koinh<, Attic koinh<, Northwest koinh<. Hybrid forms are not uncommon, such as the Doric future with Attic ou as in poihsou?nti (cf. Buck, p. 166). There was besides a revival here and there of local dialects during the Roman times.

(d) EFFECTS OF ALEXANDER'S CAMPAIGNS. But for the conquests of Alexander there might have been no koinh< in the sense of a world-speech. The other Greek koines were partial, this alone was a world-speech because Alexander united Greek and Persian, east and west, into one common world-empire. He respected the customs and language of all the conquered nations, but it was inevitable that the Greek should become the lingua franca of the world of Alexander and his successors. In a true sense Alexander made possible this new epoch in the history of the Greek tongue. The time of Alexander divides the Greek language into two periods. "The first period is that of the separate life of the dialects and the second that of the speech-unity, the common speech or koinh<" (Kretschmer, Die Entst. d. Koinh<, p. 1).

(e) THE MARCH TOWARD UNIVERSALISM. The successors of Alexander could not stop the march toward universalism that had begun. The success of the Roman Empire was but another proof of this trend of history. The days of ancient nationalism were over and the koinh< was but one expression of the glacial movement. The time for the world-speech had come and it was ready for use.

III. The Spread of the Koinh<.

(a) A WORLD-SPEECH. What is called h[ koinh< was a worldspeech, not merely a general Greek tongue among the Greek tribes as was true of the Achaean-Dorian and the Attic. It is not speculation to speak of the koinh< as a world-speech, for the inscriptions in the koinh< testify to its spread over Asia, Egypt, Greece, Italy, Sicily and the isles of the sea, not to mention the papyri. Marseilles was a great centre of Greek civilization, and even Cyrene, though not Carthage, was Grecized.23 The koinh< was in such general use that the Roman Senate and imperial governors had the decrees translated into the world-language and scattered over the empire.24 It is significant that the Greek speech becomes one instead of many dialects at the very time that the Roman rule sweeps over the world.25 The language spread by Alexander's army over the Eastern world persisted after the division of the kingdom and penetrated all parts of the Roman world, even Rome itself. Paul wrote to the church at Rome in Greek, and Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor, wrote his Meditations (tw?n ei]j [Eauto<n) in Greek. It was the language not only of letters, but of commerce and every-day life. A common language for all men may indeed be only an ideal norm, but "the whole character of a common language may be strengthened by the fact of its transference to an unquestionably foreign linguistic area, as we may observe in the case of the Greek koinh<."26 The late Latin became a koinh< for the West as the old Babylonian had been for the East, this latter the first world-tongue known to us.27 Xenophon with the retreat of the Ten Thousand28 was a forerunner of the koinh<. Both Xenophon and Aristotle show the wider outlook of the literary Attic which uses Ionic words very extensively. There is now the "Gross-Attisch." It already has gi<nomai, e!neken, —twsan, ei#pa and h@negka, e]dw<kamen and e@dwkan, basi<lissa, deiknu<w ss, nao<j. Already Thucydides and others had borrowed ss from the Ionic. It is an easy transition from the vernacular Attic to the vernacular koinh< after Alexander's time. (Cf. Thumb's Handbuch, pp. 373-380, "Entstehung der Koinh<.") On the development of the koinh< see further Wackernagel, Die Kultur der Gegenwart, Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 301 ff.; Moulton, Prol., ch. I, II; Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., Iap. I. But it was Alexander who made the later Attic the common language of the world, though certainly he had no such purpose in view. Fortunately he had been taught by Aristotle, who himself studied in Athens and knew the Attic of the time. "He rapidly established Greek as the lingua franca of the empire, and this it was which gave the chief bond of union to the many countries of old civilizations, which had hitherto been isolated. This unity of culture is the remarkable thing in the history of the world."29 It was really an epoch in the world's history when the babel of tongues was hushed in the wonderful language of Greece. The vernaculars of the eastern Roman provinces remained, though the Greek was universal; so, when Paul came to Lystra, the people still spoke the Lycaonian speech of their fathers.30 The papyri and the inscriptions prove beyond controversy that the Greek tongue was practically the same whether in Egypt, Herculaneum, Pergamum or Magnesia. The Greeks were the school-teachers of the empire. Greek was taught in the grammar schools in the West, but Latin was not taught in the East.

(b) VERNACULAR AND LITERARY.

1. Vernacular. The spoken language is never identical with the literary style, though in the social intercourse of the best educated people there is less difference than with the uncultured.31 We now know that the old Attic of Athens had a vernacular and a literary style that differed considerably from each other.32 This distinction exists from the very start with the koinh<, as is apparent in Pergamum and elsewhere.33 This vernacular koinh< grows right out of the vernacular Attic normally and naturally.34 The colonists, merchants and soldiers who mingled all over Alexander's world did not carry literary Attic, but the language of social and business intercourse.35 This vernacular koinh< at first differed little from the vernacular Attic of 300 B.C. and always retained the bulk of the oral Attic idioms. "Vulgar dialects both of the ancient and modern times should be expected to contain far more archaisms than innovations."36 The vernacular is not a variation from the literary style, but the literary language is a development from the vernacular.37 See Schmid38 for the relation between the literary and the vernacular koinh<. Hence if the vernacular is the normal speech of the people, we must look to the inscriptions and the papyri for the living idiom of the common Greek or koinh<. The pure Attic as it was spoken in Athens is preserved only in the inscriptions.39 In the Roman Empire the vernacular koinh< would be understood almost everywhere from Spain to Pontus. See IV for further remarks on the vernacular

2. Literary. If the vernacular koinh< was the natural development of the vernacular Attic, the literary koinh< was the normal evolution of the 1iterary Attic. Thumb well says, "Where there is no development, there is no life."40 "In style and syntax the literary Common Greek diverges more widely from the colloquial." 41 This is natural and in harmony with the previous removal of the literary Attic from the language of the people.42 The growth of the literary koinh< was parallel with that of the popular koinh< and was, of course, influenced by it. The first prose monument of literary Attic known to us, according to Schwyzer, is the Constitution of Athens43 (before 413), falsely ascribed to Xenophon. The forms of the literary koinh< are much like the Attic, as in Polybius, for instance, but the chief difference is in the vocabulary and meaning of the same words.44 Polybius followed the general literary spirit of his time, and hence was rich in new words, abstract nouns, denominative verbs, new adverbs.45 He and Josephus therefore used Ionic words found in Herodotus and Hippocrates, like e@ndesij, parafulakh<, not because they consciously imitated these writers, but because the koinh<, as shown by papyri and inscriptions, employed them.46 For the same reason Luke and Josephus47 have similar words, not because of use of one by the other, but because of common knowledge of literary terms, Luke also using many common medical terms natural to a physician of culture. Writers like Polybius aimed to write without pedantry and without vulgarism. In a true sense then the literary koinh< was a "compromise between the vernacular koinh< and the literary Attic," between "life and school."48 There is indeed no Chinese wall between the literary and the vernacular koinh<, but a constant inflow from the vernacular to the written style as between prose and poetry, though Zarncke49 insists on a thorough-going distinction between them. The literary koinh< would not, of course, use such dialectical forms as tou>j pa<ntej, toi?j pragma<toij, etc., common in the vernacular koinh<.50 But, as Krumbacher51 well shows, no literary speech worthy of the name can have an independent development apart from the vernacular. Besides Polybius and Josephus, other writers in the literary koinh< were Diodorus, Philo, Plutarch, though Plutarch indeed is almost an "Anhanger des Atticismus "52 and Josephus was rather self-conscious in his use of the literary style.53 The literary koinh< was still affected by the fact that many of the writers were of "un-Greek or half Greek descent," Greek being an acquired tongue.54 But the point must not be overdone, for the literary koinh< "was written by cosmopolitan scholars for readers of the same sort," and it did not make much difference "whether a book was written at Alexandria or Pergamum."55 Radermacher56 notes that, while in the oldest Greek there was no artificiality even in the written prose, yet in the period of the koinh< all the literary prose shows "eine Kunstsprache." He applies this rule to Polybius, to Philo, to the N. T., to Epictetus. But certainly it does not hold in the same manner for each of these.

(c) THE ATTICISTIC REACTION. Athens was no longer the centre of Greek civilization. That glory passed to Alexandria, to Pergarnum, to Antioch, to Ephesus, to Tarsus. But the great creative epoch of Greek culture was past. Alexandria, the chief seat of Greek learning, was the home, not of poets, but of critics of style who found fault with Xenophon and Aristotle, but could not produce an Anabasis or a Rhetoric. The Atticists wrote, to be sure, in the koinh< period, but their gaze was always backward to the pre-koinh< period. The grammarians (Dionysius, Phrynithus, Moeris) set up Thucydides and Plato as the standards for pure Greek style, while Aratus and Callimachus sought to revive the style of Homer, and Lucian and Arrian57 even imitated Herodotus. When they wished to imitate the past, the problem still remained which master to follow. The Ionic revival had no great vogue, but the Attic revival had. Lucian himself took to Attic. Others of the Atticists were Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Dio Chrysostom, Aristides, Herodes Atticus, AElian, etc. "They assumed that the limits of the Greek language had been forever fixed during the Attic period."58 Some of the pedantic declaimers of the time, like Polemon, were thought to put Demosthenes to the blush. These purists were opposed to change in language and sought, to check the departure from the Attic idiom. "The purists of to-day are like the old Atticists to a hair."59 The Atticists were then archaic and anachronistic. The movement was rhetorical therefore and not confined either to Alexandria or Pergamum. The conflict between the koinh< (vernacular and literary) and this Atticistic reaction affected both to some extent.60 This struggle between "archaism and life" is old and survives to-day.61 The Atticists were in fact out of harmony with their time,62 and not like Dante, who chose the language of his people for his immortal poems. They made the mistake of thinking that by imitation they could restore the old Attic style. "The effort and example of these purists, too, though criticized at first, gradually became a sort of moral dictatorship, and so has been tacitly if not zealously obeyed by all subsequent scribes down to the present time."63 As a result when one compares N. T. Greek,64 one must be careful to note whether it is with the book Greek (kaqareu< ousa) or the vernacular (o[miloume<nh). This artificial reactionary movement, however, had little effect upon the vernacular koinh< as is witnessed by the spoken Greek of to-day. Consequently it is a negligible quantity in direct influence upon the writers of the N. T.65 But the Atticists did have a real influence upon the literary koinh< both as to word-formation66 and syntax.67 With Dionysius of Halicarnassus beauty was the chief element of style, and he hoped that the Attic revival would drive out the Asiatic influence.68 The whole movement was a strong reaction against what was termed "Asianism" in the language.69 It is not surprising therefore that the later ecclesiastical literary Greek was largely under the influence of the Atticists. "Now there was but one grammar: Attic. It was Attic grammar that every freeman, whether highly or poorly educated, had learned."70 "This purist conspiracy" Jannaris calls it. The main thing with the Atticists was to have something as old as Athens. Strabo said the style of Diodorus was properly "antique."71

IV. The Characteristics of the Vernacular Koinh<.

(a) VERNACULAR ATTIC THE BASE. One must not feel that the vernacular Greek is unworthy of study. "The fact is that, during the best days of Greece, the great teacher of Greek was the common people."72 There was no violent break between the vernacular Attic and the vernacular koinh<, but the one flowed into the other as a living stream.73 If the reign of the separated dialects was over, the power of the one general Greek speech had just begun on the heels of Alexander's victories. The battle of Chaeronea broke the spirit of the old Attic culture indeed, but the Athenians gathered up the treasures of the past, while Alexander opened the flood-gates for the change in the language and for its spread over the world.74 "What, however, was loss to standard Attic was gain to the ecumenical tongue. The language in which Hellenism expressed itself was eminently practical, better fitted for life than for the schools. Only a cosmopolitan speech could comport with Hellenistic cosmopolitanism. Grammar was simplified, exceptions decreased or generalized, flexions dropped or harmonized, construction of sentences made easier" (Angus, Prince. Rev., Jan., 1910, p. 53). The beginning of the development of the vernacular koinh< is not perfectly clear, for we see rather the completed product.75 But it is in the later Attic that lies behind the koinh<. The optative was never common in the vernacular Attic and is a vanishing quantity in the koinh<. The disappearance of the dual was already coming on and so was the limited use of the superlative, --twsan instead of —ntwn, and –sqwsan instead of –sqwn, gi<nomai, ss, ei#pa, ti<j instead of po<teroj, e!kastoj and not e[kateroj.76 But while the Attic forms the ground-form77 of the koinh< it must not be forgotten that the koinh< was resultant of the various forces and must be judged by its own standards.78 There is not complete unanimity of opinion concerning the character of the vernacular koinh<. Steinthal79 indeed called it merely a levelled and debased Attic, while Wilamowitz80 described it as more properly an Ionic popular idiom. Kretschmer81 now (wrongly, I think) contends that the Northwest Greek, Ionic and Boeotian had more influence on the koinh< than the Attic. The truth seems to be the position of Thumb,82 that the vernacular koinh< is the result of the mingling with all dialects uponl the late Attic vernacular as the base. As between the Doric a and the Ionic h the vernacular koinh< follows the Attic usage, and this fact alone is decisive.83 Dieterich84 indeed sums up several points as belonging to the “Attic koinh<” such as verbs in –uw instead of –umi, in –wsan instead of –wn, in contract imperfects, disuse of the temporal and the syllabic augment in composition, disuse of reduplication, —hn instead of --h in acc. sing. of adjs. in –h<j, --ou instead of –ouj in gen. sing. of third declension, –a instead of –ou in proper names, disuse of the Attic declension, –ej for –aj in accusative plural, to<n as relative pronoun, i@dioj as possessive pronoun. But clearly by "Attic koinh<" he means the resultant Attic, not the Attic as distinct from the other dialects. Besides the orthography is Attic (cf. i!lewj, not i!laoj) and the bulk of the inflections and conjugations likewise, as can be seen by comparison with the Attic inscriptions.85 Schlageter86 sums the matter up: "The Attic foundation of the koinh< is to-day generally admitted."

(b) THE OTHER DIALECTS IN THE Koinh<. But Kretschmer87 is clearly wrong in saying that the koinh< is neither Attic nor decayed Attic, but a mixture of the dialects. He compares the mixture of dialects in the koinh< to that of the high, middle and low German. The Attic itself is a koinh< out of Ionic, AEolic and Doric. The mixed character of the vernacular koinh< is made plain by Schweizer88 and Dieterich.89 The Ionic shows its influence in the presence of forms like i]di<h, spei<rhj, ei]dui?a, --ui<hj, kaq ] e!toj (cf. vetus), o]ste<a, xeile<wn, blabe<wn, xruse<on, --a?j, --a?doj; absence of the rough breathing (psilosis or de-aspiration, AEolic also); dropping of mi in verbs like didw?; kiqw<n (xitw<n), te<ssera, pra<ssw for pra<ttw (Attic also), etc. Ionic words like mon-o<fqalmoj (Herod.) instead of Attic e[ter-o<fqalmoj occur. Conybeare and Stock (Sel. from LXX, p. 48) suggest that Homer was used as a text-book in Alexandria and so caused Ionisms like spei<rhj in the koinh<. The spread of the Ionic over the East was to be expected. In Alexander's army many of the Greek dialects were represented.90 In the Egyptian army of the Ptolemies nearly all the dialects were spoken.91 The Ionians were, besides, part of the Greeks who settled in Alexandria.92 Besides, even after the triumph of the Attic in Greece the Ionic had continued to be spoken in large parts of Asia Minor. The Ionic influence appears in Pergamum also. The mixing of the Attic with foreign, before all with Ionic, elements, has laid the foundation for the koinh<.93 The AEolic makes a poor showing, but can be traced especially in Pergamum, where. Schweizer considers it one of the elements of the language with a large injection of the Ionic.94 AEolic has the a for h in proper names and forms in aj. Boeotian-AEolic uses the ending –osan, as ei@xosan, so common in the LXX. Moulton95 points out that this ending is very rare in the papyri and is found chiefly in the LXX. He calls Boeotian- AEolic also "the monophthongizing of the diphthongs." In the Attic and the Ionic the open sound of h prevailed, while in the Boeotian the closed. In the koinh< the two pronunciations existed together till the closed triumphed. Psilosis is also Ionic. The Doric appears in forms like lao<j (lew<j), nao<j (new<j), pia<zw (pie<zw), e]spou<daca, h[ limo<j, to< plou?toj, a]le<ktwr, kli<baonoj (kri<banoj); and in the pronunciation perhaps b, g, d had the Doric softer sound as in the modern Greek vernacular. But, as Moulton96 argues, the vernacular koinh< comes to us now only in the written form; and that was undoubtedly chiefly Attic. The Arcadian dialect possibly contributes a]fe<wntai, since it has a]few<sqh, but this form occurs in Doric and Ionic also.97. Cf. also the change of gender h[ limo<j (Luke) and to> plou?toj (Paul). The Northwest Greek contributed forms like a]rxo<ntoij, tou>j le<gontej, h#tai (h@mhn cf. Messenian and Lesbian also), h]rw<toun (like Ionic), ei@xosan (cf. Boeotian), le<lukan. The accusative plural in —ej is very common in the papyri, and some N. T. MSS. give te<ssrej for te<ssaraj.98 The Achaen-Dorian koinh< had resisted in Northwest Greece the inroads of the common Greek for a century or so. The Macedonian Greek, spoken by many of Alexander's soldiers, naturally had very slight influence on the koinh<. We know nothing of the old Macedonian Greek. Polybius99 says that the Illyrians needed an interpreter for Macedonian. Sturz100 indeed gives a list of Macedonian words found in the koinh<, as a@spiloj, kora<sion, parembolh<, r[u<mh. But he also includes a]gge<llw! The Macedonians apparently used b instead of f as bi<lippoj, d=q as da<natoj, s=b as se<reqron. Plutarch101 speaks of Alexander and his soldiers speaking to each other Makedonisti<. For full discussion of the Macedonian dialect see O. Hoffmann, Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und Volkstuni, 1906, pp. 232-255.

(C) NON—DIALECTICAL CHANGES. It is not always possible to separate the various peculiarities of the koinh< into dialectical influences. "Where Macedonian, Spartan, Boeotian, Athenian and Thessalian were messmates a koinh< was inevitable. Pronounced dialecticisms which would render unintelligible or ludicrous to others were dropped" (see Angus, Prince. Theol. Rev., Jan., 1910, p. 67). The common blood itself went on changing. It was a living whole and not a mere artificial mingling of various elements. There is less difference in the syntax of the koinh< and that of the earlier Greek than in the forms, though the gradual disappearance of the optative, use of i!na and finite verb in the non-final sense rather than the infinitive or even o!ti, the gradual disuse of the future part. may be mentioned. It was in the finer shades of thought that a common vernacular would fail to hold its own. "Any language which aspires to be a Weltsprache (worldlanguage), as the Germans say, must sacrifice much of its delicacy, its shades of meaning, expressed by many synonyms and particles and tenses, which the foreigner in his hurry and without contact with natives cannot be expected to master."102

(d) NEW WORDS, NEW FORMS OR NEW MEANINGS TO OLD WORDS. Naturally most change is found either in new words or in new meanings in old words, just as our English dictionaries must have new and enlarged editions every ten years or so. This growth in the vocabulary is inevitable unless the life of a people stops. A third-century inscription in Thera, for instance, shows sunagwgh< used of a religious meeting, pa<roikoj (not the Attic me<toikoj) for stranger, a]po<stoloj and kath<xhsij in their old senses like those Americanisms which preserve Elizabethan English (" fall" for "autumn," for instance).103 Here are some further examples. It is hard to be sure that all of these are words that arose in the koinh<, for we cannot mark off a definite line of cleavage. We mention a]ga<ph, a[gio<thj, a[gno<thj, a@qesmoj, a]qe<thsij, a]llotriepi<skopoj, a]kata<- lutoj, a]kroath<rion, a]nqrwpa<reskoj, a]nti<lutron, a]nakaino<w (and many verbs in —ow, --a<zw, --i<zw), a]nagenna<w, ba<ptisma (many words in --ma), baptismo<j, baptisth<j, grhgore<w (cf. also sth<kw), deisidaimoni<a, dhna<rion, dikaiokrisi<a, e]lehmosu<nh, e]kkake<w, e]kmukthri<zw, qeio<thj, qeo<pneustoj, logi<a, kathxe<w, kra<battoj, maqhteu<w, oi]kodespo<thj, o]rqri<zw, o]ya<rion, o]yw<nion, pro<skairoj, r[omfai<a, sumbou<lion, telw<nion, ui[oqesi<a, u[popo<dion, filadelfi< a, w]ti<on, etc. Let these serve merely as examples. For others see the lists in Deissmann's Bible Studies, Light from the Ancient East, Moulton and Milligan's "Lexical Notes on the Papyri" (Expositor, 1908--), Winer-Schmiedel (p. 22), Thayer's Lexicon, (p. 691 f.), Rutherford's New Phrynichus, and the indices to the papyri collections. One of the pressing needs is a lexicon of the papyri and then of the koinh< as a whole. Many of these words were already in ithe literary koinh<, though they probably came from the vernacular.104 Some old words received slightly new forms, like a]na<qema ‘curse’ (a]na<qhma 'offering'), a]pa<nthsij (a]pa<nthma), a]postasi< a (a]po<stasij), a]rotria<w (a]ro<w), basi<lissa (basi<leia), gene<sia (gene<qlia), dekato<w (dekateu<w), luxni<a (luxni<on), misqapododia (misqodosi< a), mono<fqalmoj (e[tero<fqalmoj), nouqesi<a (nouqe<thsij), oi]kodomh< (oi]-  kodo<mhsij), o]neidismo<j (o@neidoj), o]ptasi<a (o@yij), pandoxeu<j (pandokeu<j), parafroni<a (parafrosu<nh), r[anti<zw (r[ai<nw, cf. baptizw, ba<ptw), sth<kw (e!sthka), tamei?on (tamiei?on), tekni<on (and many diminutives in –i<on which lose their force), paida<rion (and many diminutives in –a<rion), fusia<omai (fusa<omai), etc.

Words (old and new) receive new meanings, as a]nakli<nw (‘recline at table'). Cf. also a]napi<ptw, a]na<keimai, a]ntile<gw) (‘speak against’), a]pokriqh?nai (passive not middle, ‘to answer’), daimo<nion (‘evil spirit,’ ‘demon’), dw?ma (‘house-top’), e]rwta<w (‘beg’), eu]xariste<w (‘thank’), e]piste<llw (‘write a letter’), o]ya<rion (‘fish’), o]yw<nion (‘wages’), parakale<w (‘entreat’), parrhsi<a (‘confidence’), perispa<omai (‘distract’), paideu<w (‘chastise’), ptw?ma (‘corpse’), sugkri<nw (‘compare’), sxolh< (‘school’), fqa<nw (‘come’), xorta<zw (‘nourish’), xrhmati<zw (‘be called’).105 This is all perfectly natural. Only we are to remember that the difference between the koinh< vocabulary and the Attic literature is not the true standard. The vernacular koinh< must be compared with the Attic vernacular as seen in the inscriptions and to a large extent in a writer like Aristophanes and the comic poets. Many words common in Aristophanes, taboo to the great Attic writers, reappear in the koinh<. They were in the vernacular all the time.106 Moulton107 remarks that the vernacular changed very little from the first century A.D. to the third. "The papyri show throughout the marks of a real language of daily life, unspoilt by the blundering bookishness which makes the later documents so irritating." It is just in the first century A.D. that the koinh< comes to its full glory as a worldlanguage. "The fact remains that in the period which gave birth to Christianity there was an international language" (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 59). It is not claimed that all the points as to the origin of the koinh< are now clear. See Hesseling, De koine en de oude dialekten van Griechenland (1906). But enough is known to give an intelligible idea of this language that has played so great a part in the history of man.

(e) PROVINCIAL INFLUENCES. For all practical purposes the Greek dialects were fused into one common tongue largely as a result of Alexander's conquests. The Germanic dialects have gone farther and farther apart (German, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, English), for no great conqueror has arisen to bind them into one. The language follows the history of the people. But the unification of the Greek was finally so radical that "the old dialects to-day are merged into the general mass, the modern folk-language is only a continuation of the united, Hellenistic, common speech."108 So completely did Alexander do his work that the balance of culture definitely shifted from Athens to the East, to Pergamum, to Tarsus, to Antioch, to Alexandria.109 This "union of oriental and occidental was attempted in every city of Western Asia. That is the most remarkable and interesting feature of Hellenistic history in the Greco-Asiatic kingdoms and cities."110 Prof. Ramsay adds: "In Tarsus the Greek qualities and powers were used and guided by a society which was, on the whole, more Asiatic in character." There were thus non-Greek influences which also entered into the common Greek life and language in various parts of the empire. Cf. K. Holl, "Das Fortleben der Volkssprachen in nachchristlicher Zeit" (Hermes, 1908, 43, p. 240). These non-Greek influences were especially noticeable in Pergamum, Tarsus and Alexandria, though perceptible at other points also. But in the case of Phrygia long before Alexander's conquest there had been direct contact with the Arcadian and the AEolic dialects through immigration.111 The Greek inscriptions in the Hellenistic time were first in the old dialect of Phrygia, then gliding into the koinh< then finally the pure koinh<.112 Hence the koinh< won an easy victory in Pergamum, but the door for Phrygian influence was also wide open. Thus, though the koinh< rests on the foundation of the Greek dialects, some non-Greek elements were intermingled.113 Dieterich114 indeed gives a special list of peculiarities that belong to the koinh< of Asia Minor, as, for instance, –an instead of –a in the accus. sing. of 3d decl., proper names in a?j, ti<j for o!stij, o!stij for o!j, ei#mai for ei]mi<, use of qe<lw rather than future tense. In the case of Tarsus "a few traces of the Doric dialect may perhaps have lingered" in the koinh<, as Ramsay suggests (Expositor, 1906, p. 31), who also thinks that naoko<roj for newko<roj in Ac. 19:35 in D may thus be explained.

But no hard and fast distinction can be drawn, as –an for --n as accusative appears in Egypt also, e.g. in qugate<ran. Is it proper to speak of an Alexandrian dialect? Blass115 says so, agreeing with Winer-Schmiedel116 (h{ ]Alecandre<wn dia<lektoj). This is the old view, but we can hardly give the name dialect to the Egyptian Greek. Kennedy117 says: "In all probability the language of the Egyptian capital had no more right to be called a dialect than the vernacular of any other great centre of population." Schweizer118 likewise refuses to consider the Alexandrian koinh< as a dialect. Dieterich119 again gives a list of Egyptian peculiarities such as oi[ instead of ai, –a instead of —aj in nominatives of third declension, adjectives in –h instead of —a, e]sou? for sou?, kaqei?j for e!kastoj, imperfect and aorist in —a, h@mhn for h#n, disuse of augment in simple verbs, indicative instead of the subjunctive. Mayser (Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 35-40) gives a list of "Egyptian words" found in the Ptolemaic papyri. They are words of the soil, like pa<puroj itself. But Thumb120 shows that the majority of the so-called Alexandrian peculiarities were general in the koinh< like h@lqosan, ei#xan, ge<gonan, e[w<rakej, etc. "There was indeed a certain unwieldiness and capriciousness about their language, which displays itself especially in harsh and fantastic word-composition." As examples of their words may be mentioned katanwtizo<menoj, parasuggra< fein, filanqrwpei?n, etc. It is to be observed also that the koinh< was not the vernacular of all the peoples when it was spoken as a secondary language. In Palestine, for instance, Aramaic was the usual language of the people who could also, most of them, speak Greek. Moulton's parallel of the variations in modern English is not therefore true, unless you include also peoples like the Welsh, Scotch, Irish, etc.

But as a whole the vernacular koinh< was a single language with only natural variations like that in the English of various parts of the United States or England.121 Thumb perhaps makes too much of a point out of the use of e]mo<j rather than mou in Asia Minor in its bearing on the authorship of the Gospel of John where it occurs 41 times, once only in 3 Jo. and Rev. (34 times elsewhere in the N. T.), though it is interesting to note, as he does, that the infinitive is still used in Pontus. But there were non-Greek influences here and there over the empire as Thumb122 well shows. Thumb123 indeed holds that "the Alexandrian popular speech is only one member of a great speech-development."

(f) THE PERSONAL EQUATION. In the vernacular koinh<, as in the literary language, many variations are due to differences in education and personal idiosyncrasies. "The colloquial language in its turn went off into various shades of distinction according to the refinement of the speaker" (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 59). The inscriptions on the whole give us a more formal speech, sometimes official decrees, while the papyri furnish a much wider variety. "The papyri show us the dialect of Greek Egypt in many forms, — the language of the Government official, of the educated private person, of the dwellers in the temples, of the peasantry in the villages."124 We have numerous examples of the papyri through both the Ptolemaic and the Roman rule in Egypt. All sorts of men from the farm to the palace are here found writing all sorts of documents, a will or a receipt, a love-letter or a dun, a memorandum or a census report, a private letter or a public epistle. "Private letters are our most valuable sources; and they are all the better for the immense differences that betray themselves in the education of the writers. The wellworn epistolary formulae show variety mostly in their spelling; and their value for the student lies primarily in their remarkable resemblances to the conventional phraseology which even the N. T. letter-writers were content to use."125 Deissmann126 has insisted on a sharp distinction between letters and epistles, the letter being private and instinct with life, the epistles being written for the public eye, an open letter, a literary letter. This is a just distinction. A real letter that has become literature is different from an epistle written as literature. In the papyri therefore we find all grades of culture and of illiteracy, as one would to-day if one rummaged in the rubbish-heaps of our great cities. One need not be surprised at seeing to>n mh<trwj, to>n qe<sin, and even worse blunders. As a sample Jannaris127 gives a]ceiwqei>j u[pairatw?n gra<- mata mei> ei]dw<twn, for e]ciwqei>j u[p ] au]tw?n gra<mmata mh> ei]do<twn. Part of these are crass errors, part are due to identity of sounds in pronunciation, as o and w, ei and h, ei and i. Witkowski128 properly insists that we take note of the man and the character of work in each case.

It is obvious that by the papyri and the inscriptions we gain a truer picture of the situation. As a specimen of the vernacular koinh< of Egypt this letter of the school-boy Theon to his father has keen interest (see 0. P. 119). It belongs to the second century A.D. and has a boy's mistakes as well as a boy's spirit. The writing is uncial.

qe<wn qe<wni t&? patri> xai<rein.

kalw?j e]poi<hsej. ou]k a]pe<nhxe<j me met ] e]-

sou? ei]j po<lin. h[ ou] qe<lij a]pene<kkein met

] e]sou? ei]j ]Alecandri<an ou] mh> gra<yw se e]-

pistolh>n ou@te lalw? se, ou@te ui[ge<nw se,

`ei#ta. a}n de> e@lq^j ei]j ]Alecandri<an, ou]

mh> la<bw xei?ran para< (s)ou ou@te pa<li xai<rw

se lupo<n. a}m mh> qe<l^j a]pene<kai m[e]

tau?ta ge(i<)nete. kai> h[ mh<thr mou ei#pe ]Arxela<&

o!ti a]nastatoi? me: a@rron au]to<n.

kalw?j de> e]poi<hsej. dw?ra< moi e@pemye[j]

mega<la a]ra<kia. pepla<nhkan h[mw?j e]ke[i?],

t^? h[me<r% ib ] o!ti e@pleusej. lupo>n pe<myon ei][j]

me, parakalw? se. a}m mh> pe<my^j ou] mh> fa<-

gw, ou] mh> pei<nw: tau?ta.

                                       e]rw?sqe< se eu@x(omai).

     Tu?bi ih ].

On the other side:

a]po<doj qe<wni [a]]po> qewna?toj ui[w?.

Milligan (Greek Papyri, p. xxxii) admits that there may be now a temptation "to exaggerate the significance of the papyri." But surely his book has a wonderful human, not to say linguistic, interest. Take this extract from a letter of Hilarion to his wife Alis (P. Oxy. 744 B.C. 1): ]Ea>n pollapollw?n te<k^j, e]a>n h#n a@rsenon, a@fej, e]a>n h#n qh<lea, e@kbale.

(g) RESUME. To all intents and purposes the vernacular koinh< is the later vernacular Attic with normal development under historical environment created by Alexander's conquests. On this base then were deposited varied influences from the other dialects, but not enough to change the essential Attic character of the language. There is one koinh< everywhere (cf. Thumb, Griech. Spr., p. 200). The literary koinh< was homogeneous, while the vernacular koinh< was practically so in spite of local variations (cf. Angus, The Koine: "The Language of the N. T.," Prince. Theol. Rev., Jan., 1910, p. 78 f.). In remote districts the language would be Doric-coloured or Ionic-coloured.

Phonetics and Orthography. It is in pronunciation that the most serious differences appear in the koinh< (Moulton, Prol., p. 5). We do not know certainly how the ancient Attic was pronounced, though we can approximate it. The modern Greek vernacular pronunciation is known. The koinh< stands along the path of progress, precisely where it is hard to tell. But we know enough not to insist too strongly on "hair-splitting differences hinging on forms which for the scribe of our uncials had identical value phonetically, e.g. oi, h, ^, u, i=ee in feet, or ai=e (Angus, op. cit., p. 79). Besides itacisms the i-monophthongizing is to be noticed and the equalizing of o and w. The Attic tt is ss except in a few instances (like ),( e]la<ttwn, krei<ttwn). The tendency is toward deaspiration except in a few cases where the reverse is true as a result of analogy (or a lost digamma). Cf. e]f ] e[lpi<di. Elision is not so common as in the Attic, but assimilation is carried still further (cf. e]mme<s&). There is less care for rhythm in general, and the variable final consonants n and j appear constantly before consonants. The use of –ei– for –iei– in forms like pei?n, and tamei?on probably comes by analogy. Ou]qei<j and mhqei<j are the common forms till 100 B.C. when ou]dei<j and mhqei<j begin to regain their ascendency.

Vocabulary. The words from the town-life (the stage, the market- place) come to the front. The vocabulary of Aristophanes is in point. There was an increase in the number of diminutive forms. The koinh< was not averse to foreign elements if they were useful. Xenophon is a good illustration of the preparation for the koinh<. Cf. Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 8.

Word-Formation. There is the natural dropping of some old suffixes and the coining of new suffixes, some of which appear in the modern Greek vernacular. The number of compound words by juxtaposition is greatly increased, like plhro-fore<w, xeiro<-grafon. In particular two prepositions in compounds are frequent, like sun-anti-lamba<nomai. New meanings are given to old words.

Accidence. In substantives the Ionic –rhj, not –raj, is common, bringing nouns in –ra into harmony with other nouns of the first declension (Thackeray, Gr. of the 0. T. in Gk., p. 22). The Attic second declension disappears. Some feminine nouns in –oj become masculine. The third declension is occasionally assimilated to the first in forms like nu<kran, qugate<ran. Contraction is absent sometimes in forms like o]re<wn. Both xa<rin and xa<rita occur. Adjectives have forms like a]sfalh?n, plh<rhj indeclinable, pa?n for pa<nta (cf. me<gan), dusi< for duoi?n. The dual, in fact, has disappeared in all inflections and conjugations. Pronouns show the disappearance of the dual forms like e[ka<teroj and po<teroj. Ti<j is used sometimes like o!stij, and o{j e]a<n is more frequent than o{j a@n about A.D. 1. Analogy plays a big part in the language, and this is proof of life. In the verb there is a general tendency toward simplification, the two conjugations blending into one (mi verbs going). New presents like a]pokte<nnw, o]pta<nw, are formed. There is confusion in the use of —a<w and –e<w verbs. We find gi<nomai, ginw<skw. The increase of the use of first aorist forms like e@sxa (cf. ei#pon and ei#pa in the older Greek). This first aorist termination appears even in the imperfect as in ei#xa. The use of —osan (ei@xosan, e@sxosan) for —on in the third plural is occasionally noticeable. The form —an (de<dwkan) for —asi may be due to analogy of this same first aorist. There is frequent absence of the syllabic augment in the past perfect, while in compound verbs it is sometimes doubled like a]pekate<sthsan. The temporal augment is often absent, especially with diphthongs. We have —twsan rather than —ntwn, —sqwsan rather than —sqwn.

Syntax. There is in general an absence of many Attic refinements. Simplicity is much more in evidence. This is seen in the shorter sentences and the paratactic constructions rather than the more complex hypotactic idioms. The sparing use of particles is noticeable. There is no effort at rhetorical embellishment. What is called "Asianism" is the bombastic rhetoric of the artificial orators. Atticism aims to reproduce the classic idiom. The vernacular koinh< is utterly free from this vice of Asianism and Atticism. Thackeray (op. cit., p. 23) notes that "in the breach of the rules of concord is seen the widest deviation from classical orthodoxy." This varies a great deal in different writers as the papyri amply testify. The nominativus pendens is much in evidence. The variations in case, gender and number of substantives, adjectives and verbs are frequent kata> su<nesin. The neuter plural is used with either a singular or plural verb. The comparative does duty often for the superlative adjective. The superlative form usually has the elative sense. Prw?toj is common (as sometimes in older Greek) when only two are compared. [Eautw?n occurs for all three persons. The accusative is regaining its old ascendency. There is an increase in the use of the accusatives with verbs and much freedom in the use of transitive and intransitive verbs. The growth in the use of prepositions is very marked both with nouns and in composition, though some of the old prepositions are disappearing. Few prepositions occur with more than two cases. Phrases like ble<pw a]po< show a departure from the old idiom. New adverbial and prepositional phrases are coming into use. The cases with prepositions are changing. The instrumental use of e]n is common. The optative is disappearing. The future participle is less frequent. The infinitive (outside tou?, e]n t&?, ei]j to< and the inf.) is receding before i!na, which is extending its use very greatly. There is a wider use of o!ti. Everywhere it is the language of life and not of the books. The N. T. use of expressions like ei]j to> o@noma, du<o du<o, once cited as Hebraisms, is finding illustration in the papyri (cf. Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 123 f.). Mh< begins to encroach on ou], especially with infinitives and participles. The periphrastic conjugation is frequently employed. The non-final use of i!na is quite marked. Direct discourse is more frequent than indirect. Clearness is more desired than elegance. It is the language of nature, not of the schools.

V. The Adaptability of the Koinh< to the Roman World. It is worth while to make this point for the benefit of those who may wonder why the literary Attic could not have retained its supremacy in the Graeco-Roman world. That was impossible. The very victory of the Greek spirit made necessary a modern common dialect. Colonial and foreign influences were inevitable and the old classical culture could not be assimilated by the Jews and Persians, Syrians, Romans, Ethiopians. "In this way a Panhellenic Greek sprang up, which, while always preserving all its main features of Attic grammar and vocabulary, adopted many colonial and foreign elements and moreover began to proceed in a more analytical spirit and on a simplified grammar."129 The old literary Attic could not have held its own against the Latin, for the Romans lamented that they were Hellenized by the Greeks after conquering them.130 Spenserian English would be an affectation to-day. The tremendous vitality of the Greek is seen precisely in its power to adjust itself to new conditions even to the present time. The failure of the Latin to do this not only made it give way before the Greek, but, after Latin became the speech of the Western world during the Byzantine period, the vernacular Latin broke up into various separate tongues, the modern Romance languages. The conclusion is irresistible therefore that the koinh< possessed wonderful adaptability to the manifold needs of the Roman world.131 It was the international language. Nor must one think that it was an ignorant age. What we call the "Dark Ages" came long afterwards. "Let me further insist that this civilization was so perfect that, as far as it reached, men were more cultivated in the strict sense than they ever have been since. We have discovered new forces in nature; we have made new inventions; but we have changed in no way the methods of thinking laid down by the Greeks . . . The Hellenistic world was more cultivated in argument than we are nowadays."132 Moulton133 cannot refrain from calling attention to the remarkable fact that the new religion that was to master the world began its career at the very time when the Mediterranean world had one ruler and one language. On the whole it was the best language possible for the Groeco-Roman world of the first century A.D.

2. Kretschmer, op. cit., pp. 153-170, 244-282.

3. Griech. Gr., Bd. I, p. 22.

4. W.-Sch., N. T. Gr., p. 17.

5. Mahaffy, Prog. of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., p. 3. Mahaffy does use Hellenism like Droysen in his Hist. of Hellenism, as corresponding to Hellenistic, but he does so under protest (p. 3 f.). He wishes indeed that he had coined the word "Hellenicism." But Hogarth (Philip and Alexander, p. 277) had already used "Hellenisticism," saying: "Hellenisticism grew out of Hellenism."

6. Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 6.

7. Munchener Sitzungsber., 1886, p. 435.

8. Art. Hell. Griech., Hauck's Realencyc., p. 629.

9. Ib., p. 630.

10. Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 19 f.

11. Die griech. Spr. etc., p. 9.

12. Prol., p. 23. It is not necessary to discuss here the use of "Hellenistic" Gk. as "Jewish-Gk." (see "Semitic Influence" in ch. IV), for it is absurd. The notion that the koinh< is Macedonian Gk. is quite beside the mark, for Mac. Gk. is too barbarous. The theory of an Alexandrian dialect is obsolete. Du Canges, in his Glossarium called Hell. Gk. "corruptissima lingua," and Niebuhr (Uber das Agyp.-Griech., Kl. Schr., p. 197) calls it "jargon."

13. Blass indeed contrasts the literature of the Alex. and Rom. periods on this principle, but wrongly, for it is type, not time, that marks the difference. "If then the literature of the Alexandrian period must be called Hellenistic, that of the Roman period must be termed Atticistic. But the popular language had gone its own way." Gr. of the N. T. Gk., 1898 and 1905, p. 2. On the Gk. of Alexandria and its spread over the world see Wackernagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 304 f.

14. See Kretschmer, Einl., p. 410. Dieterich: "Das Sprachgebiet der koinh< bildet eben ein Ganzes and kann nur im Zusamrnenhang betrachtet werden." Unters., p. xvi.

15. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., 1897, p. 3 f. On the superiority of the Attic see Wackernagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 299.

16. Rutherford, Zur Gesch. des Atticismus, Jahrb. fur class. Phil., suppl. xiii, 1884, pp. 360, 399. So Audoin says: " Ce n'est point arbitrairement que les ecrivains grecs ont employe tel ou tel dialecte." Et. sommaire des Dial, Grecs. Litt., 1891, p. 4.

17. Simonson, Gk. Gr., Accidence, 1903, p. 6. He has a good discussion of the dialects, pp. 221-265.

18. Riemann and Goelzer well say: "Quant au dialecte attique, grace aux grands ecrivains qui l'illustrerent, grace a la preponderance politique et commerciale d'Athenes, grace aussi a son caractere de dialecte intermediaire entre l'ionien et les dialectes en a, il se repandit de bonne heure, hors de son domaine primitif, continua a s'etendre meme apres la chute de l'empire politique d'Athenes et finit par embrasser tout le monde sur le nom de langue commune (koinh> dia<lektoj)" (Phonetique, p. 16). And yet the common people understood Homer also as late as Xenophon. Cf. Xenophon, Com. 3, 5, kai> nu?n dunai<mhn a}n ]Ilia<da o!lhn kai> ]Odu<sseian a]po> sto<matoj ei]pei?n. Cf. Lottich, De Serm. vulg. Attic., 1881. On the "Growth of the Attic Dialect" fee Rutherford, New Phrynichus, pp. 1-31.

19. Moulton, Prol., p. 32.

20. Ib., p. 37.

21. Radermacher (NT. Gr., p. 1) puts it clearly: "Es genugt zu sagen, dass die koinh< starksten Zusammenhang mit dem Attischen, in zweiter Linie mit dem Ionischen, verrat. In der altesten Periode des Hellenismus zeigt sich daneben geringer Einfluss arderer Dialekte, des Dorischen and Aolischen."

22. “Il est a peine besoin de repeter que ces caracteres s'effacenta, mesure que l'on descend vers l'ere chretienne. Sous Finfluence sans cesse grandissante de l’atticisime, il s'etablit une sorte d'uniformite." Boisacq, Les Dial. Dor., 1891, p. 204. "The Gk. of the N. T. is not, however, mere koinh<. In vocabulary it is fundamentally Ionic" (John Burnet, Rev. of Theol. and Phil., Aug., 1906, p. 95). "Fundamentally" is rather strong, but a]po<stoloj, as ambassador, not mere expedition, eu]logi<a, nhstei<a, give some colour to the statement. But what does Prof. Burnet mean by "mere koinh<?

23. See Churton, Infl. of the LXX Vers., 1861, p. 14.

24. Viereck, Sermo Graecus quo Senatus Popul. Rom. etc., 1888, p. xi.

25. See Wilamowitz-Mollendorff: "In demselben Momente, wo die casarische Weltmonarchie alle Strome hellenischer and italischer Kultur in einem Bette leitet, kommt die griechische Kunst auf alien Gebieten zu der Erkenntnis, dass ihre Kreise erftillt sind, das einzige das ihr bleibt, Nachahmung ist." Uber die Entst. der griech. Schriftspr., Abhandl. deuts. Phil., 1878, p. 40.

26 Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. 496. See also Kaerst, Gesch. d. hellenist. Zeitalt., 101, p. 420: "Die Weiterentwicklung der Geschichte des Altertums, so weit sie fur unsere eigene Kultur entscheidende Bedeutung erlangt hat, beruht auf einer fortschreitenden Occidentalisierung; auch das im Oriente emporgekommene Christentum entfaltet sich nach dem Westen zu and gelangt hier zu seiner eigentlich weltgeschichtlichen Wirksamkeit."

27 Schwyzer, Die Weltspr. etc., p. 7.

28 See Mahaffy, Prog. of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., p. 7; cf. also Rutherford New Phrynichus, 1881, p. 160 f.; Schweizer, Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 16. Moulton (Prol., p. 31) points out that the vase-inscriptions prove the statement of the Const. of Athens, 11. 3, that the Athenians spoke a language compounded of all Greek and barbarian tongues besides.

29. Mahaffy, Prog. of Hellen., etc., p. 40.

30. Schwyzer, Weltspr., p. 29.

31. Schweizer, Gr. der perg. etc., p. 22.

32. See Kretschmer, Die griech. Vaseninschr. and ihre Spr., 1894; and Meisterhans, Gr. der att. Inschr., 1900. Cf. Lottich, De Serm. vulg. Attic., 1881.

33. Schweizer, Gr., p. 27.

34. Thumb, Griech. Spr. im Zeitalter etc., p. 208 f. Lottich in his De Serm. vulg. Attic. shows from the writings of Aristophanes how the Attic vernacular varied in a number of points from the literary style, as in the frequent use of diminutives, desiderative verbs, metaphors, etc.

35. Schweizer, Gr., p. 23.

36. Geldart, Mod. Gk. Lang. in its Rela. to Anc. Gk., 1870, p. 73. See also Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 10, who calls "die koinh< weniger ein Abschluss als der Anfang einer neuen Entwicklung." On the older Gk. koinh< see Wackernagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 300 f.

37. Deissmann, Hell. Griech., Hauck's Realencyc., p. 633.

38. Atticismus, Bd. IV, pp. 577-734. A very important treatment of the whole question is here given.

39. Hirt, Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenl., 1902, p. 41.

40. Griech. Spr., p. 251.

41. Moulton, Prol., p. 26.

42. Jannaris, Hist. C-k. Gr., p. 5. Deissmann (New Light on the N. T., 1907, p. 3 f.) shows that part of Norden's criticism of Paul's Gk. is nothing but the contrast between literary koinh< and vernacular koinh<; cf. Die ant. Kunstpr.

43. Schwyzer, Die Weltspr. der Alt., p. 15. See also Christ, Gesch. der griech. Lit., p. 305. See Die pseudoxenophontische ]Aqhnai<wn Politei<a, von E. Kalinka, 1913.

44. Schweizer, Gr., p. 21.

45. Christ, op. cit., p. 588.

46. Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 213. See also Goetzeler, De Polyb. Floc., 1887, p. 15.

47. Thumb, ib., p. 225 f. See also Krenkel, Josephus und Lukas, 1894, pp. 283 ff.

48. Thumb, ib., p. 8.

49. Zarncke in Griech. Stud., Hermann Lipsius, 1894, p. 121. He considers the Homeric poetry a reflection of the still older historical prose and the epic the oldest literary form. See his Die Entst. der griech. Literaturspr., 1896. Cf. Wilamowitz-Mollendorff, Die Entst. der griech. Schriftspr., Verhandl. d. Phil., 1878, p. 36 f.

50. Hatzidakis, Einl. in die neugr. Spr., p. 6.

51. Das Prob. der neugr. Schriftspr., 1903, p. 6. A valuable treatment of this point.

52. Weissenberger, Die Spr. Plut. von Charonea, 1895, pp. 3, 11.

53. Jos., Ant., XIV, t, 1.

54. Susemihl, Gesch. der griech. Lit. in der Alexandrienzeit, 1. Bd., 1891, p. 2.

55. Croiset, An Abr. Hist. of Gk. Lit., 1904, p. 425.

56. N. T. Gr., p. 2.

57. A sharp distinction as a rule must be made between the language of Arrian and Epict. The Gk. of Epict. as reported by Arrian, his pupil, is a good representative of the vern. koinh< of an educated man. Arrian's introduction is quite Atticistic, but he aims to reproduce Epictetus' own words as far as possible.

58. Sophocles, Lex., p. 6. Athenaeus 15. 2 said: Ei] mh> i]atroi> h#san, ou]de>n a}n h#n tw?n grammate<wn mwro<teron.

59. Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 180. On Atticism in the koinh< see Wackernagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 309.

60. Norden, Die griech. Kunstpr. bis Aug., Bd. I, 1898, p. 150.

61. Thumb, ib., p. 8.

62. Ib., p. 252 f.

63. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 7.

64. Moulton, Prol., p. 26. The diction of Aristophanes is interesting as a specimen of varieties of speech of the time. Cf. Hope, The Lang. of Parody; a Study in the Diction of Aristophanes (1906). Radermacher (N. T. Gk., p. 3) holds that we must even note the "barbarisches Griechisch" of writers like John Philoponos and Proclos.

65. Schmid, Der Atticismus etc., Bd. IV, p. 578.

66. Ib., p. 606 f.

67. Troger, Der Sprachgeb. in der pseudolong. Schr., 1899, Tl. I, p. 61.

68. Schmid, ib., Bd. I, pp. 17, 25. See Bd. IV, pp. 577-734, for very valuable summary of this whole subject.

69. Norden, Die griech. Kunstpr., 1898. 1. Bd., p. 149. So Blass calls it "gleichzeitige atticistische Reaction gegen die asianische Beredsamkeit." Die griech. Beredsamkeit etc. von Alex. bis Aug., 1865, p. 77.

70. Jannaris, op. cit., p. 11. See also Fritz, Die Briefe des Bischofs Synesius von Kyrene. Ein Beitr. zur Gesch. des Att. im 4. and 5. Jahrh., 1898.

71.Strabo, 13. 4, 9.

72. Sophocles, Lex. of Rom. and Byz. Period, p. 11.

73. Deissmann, Die sprachl. Erforsch. etc., p. 11. Rutherford (New Phryn., p. 2) says that "the debased forms and mixed vocabulary of the common dialect would have struck the contemporaries of Aristophanes and Plato as little better than jargon of the Scythian policemen." On the form of the koinh< see Wackernagel, Kult. etc., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 305.

74. Christ, Gesch. der griech. Lit., 1905, p. 509 f. For "the Attic groundcharacter of the koinh<" see Mayser, Gr. der griech. Pap. (1906, p. 1).

75. Kaibel, Stil and Text der ]Aqnai<wn Politei<a, p. 37.

76. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 3. Even in the literary konh< the dual is nearly gone, as in Polybius and Diodorus Siculus; cf. Schmidt, De Duali Graec. et Emor. et Reviv., 1893, pp. 22, 25.

77. Gott. Gel.-Anz., 1895, p. 30 f.; Hatzidakis, Einl. in die neugr. Gr., p. 168 f.; Krumbacher, Byz. Lit., p. 789.

78. "Die Erforschung der koinh< hat lange genug unter dem Gesichtswinkel des ‘Klassicismus’ gestanden." Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 10.

79. Gesch. der Sprachw., p. 37f.

80. Verhandl. der 32. phil. Versamml.; p. 40.

81. Wochenschr. fur klass. Philol., 1899, p. 3; Die Entst. der koinh<, 1900.

82. Op. cit., pp. 53-101, 202f.

83 Moulton, Prol., p. 33 f.

84. Unters. zur Gesch. griech. Spr., 1898, p. 258 f.

85. Meisterhans, Gr. der Att. Inschr.

86. Der Wortsch. der ausserhalb Attikas gefundenen att. Inschr., 1912.

87. Wochenschr. fur klass. Phil., 1899, p. xvii.

88. Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 201 f.

89. Unters. zur Gesch. etc., p. 259 f.

90. Arrian, II, 20. 5.

91. Myer, Das Heerwesen der Ptolemaer und Romer in Agypten, 1900.

92. H. Anz, Subsidia ad cognoscendum Graec. Serm. vulg. etc., 1894, p. 386. Mayser, Gr., pp. 9-24, finds numerous Ionic peculiarities in the Ptolemaic pap. far more than AEolic and Doric. He cites –twsan, maxai<rhj, e@sw, e!neken, o]re<wn, goggu<zw, paraqh<kh, te<sserej, e@kptwma, etc. On the Ionic and other non- Attic elements in the koinh< see Wackernagel, Kult., p. 306 f.

93. Kaibel, Stil Lnd Text etc., p. 37.

94. Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 202.

95. Prol., p. 33. The caution of Psichari (Essais de Gr. Hist. Neo-grq., 2eme ed., 1889, p. cxlix) is to be noted, that the vernacular is not necessarily dialectical, but "des tinee au peuple et venait du peuple." Cf. on AEolic elements, Mayser, p. 9. He cites h[ limo<j in the pap.; Lao<j is also AEolic.

96. Prol., p. 34.

97. Moulton, ib., p. 38, n. 3. For Doric elements in the pap. see Mayser, Gr., p. 5 f.

98. W. H., Intr. to the Gk. N. T., App., p. 150.

99. Polybius, 28. 8, 9.

100. De Dial. Alexan. etc., 1786, p. 56 f.; see also De Dial. Macedonica et Alexan., 1808, pp. 37, 42; Maittaire, Graecae Ling. Dial. Sturzii, 1807, p. 184; Sophocles, Lex. of Rom. and Byz. Period, p. 3. Schweizer, Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 27, sees very little in the Macedonian influence.

101. I, 592 B, 694 C. Kennedy (Sources of N. T. Gk., p. 17) says: "In any case, the Macedonian type of Greek, whether or not it is admissible to call it a special dialect, was so far removed from ordinary Attic as to make it certain that the latter on Macedonian lips must soon and inevitably suffer thorough- going modification."

102. Mahaffy, Survey of Gk. Civilization, p. 220. Cf. Geldart, Mod. Gk. Lang. in its Rela. to Anc. Gk., p. 73, for discussion of "the levelling tendency common to all languages."

103. Hicks, St. Paul. and Hellen., in Stud. Bibl. et Eccl., 1896, p. 5. Mayser (Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 24-35) gives an interesting list of words that were chiefly "poetical" lin the classic literature, but are common in the papyri. The poets often use the vernacular. Some of these words are a]le<ktwr, bibrw<- skw, de<smioj, dw?ma, e]ktina<ssw, e]ntre<pomai, e]paite<w, e]pisei<w, qa<lpw, kataste<llw, koima<omai, ko<poj, laoi< = people, me<rimna, nh<pioj, oi]khth<rion, peri<keimai, prosfwne<w, sku<llw, ste<gh, sunanta<w, u[eto<j. New forms are given to old words as limpa<nw," from lei<pw, etc. Ramsay (see The Independent, 1913, p. 376) finds e]mbateu<w (cf. Col. 2:18) used in the technical sense of entering in on the part of initiates in the sanctuary of Apollos at Claros in an inscription there.

104. See W.-Sch., p. 19, n. 8.

105. Schlageter (Wortsch. etc., pp. 59-62) gives a good list of words with another meaning in the koinh<.

106. Cf. Kennedy, Sour. of N. T. Gk., pp. 70 f., 147,

107. Cl. Quar., April, 1908, p. 137,

108. Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. etc., p. 417.

109. Jannaris, Hit. Gk. Gr., p. 6. The multitudinous mod. Gk. patois illustrate the koinh<.

110. W. M. Ramsay, Tarsus, Exp., Mar., 1906, p. 261.

111. Schweizer, dr. der perg. Inschr., pp. 15 ff.

112. Ib., p. 25.

113. Bruns, Die att. Bestrebungen in der griech. Lit., 1896,1p. 12, says: "Statt ihrer (classische attische Sprache) regiert ein gemeines Kebsweib, das aus irgend einer phrygischen Spelunke stammt — das ist der hellenistische Stil"! A slight exaggeration. Cf. Brugmann, Vergl. Gr., p. 9.

114. Untersuch. zur Gesch. etc., pp. 258 ff. The speech of Asia Minor has indeed close affinity with that of Paul and Luke and with all the N. T. writers. Cf. Thieme, Die Inschr. von Magn. am Maander und das N. T., 1906.

115. Gr. of N. T. Gk., 1905, p. 3 note.

116. Gr. des neut. Sprachid., § 3. 1, n. 4.

117. Sour. of N. T. Gk., 1895, p. 23. Irenaeus (Minucius Pacatus) and Demetrius Ixion wrote treatises on "the dialect of Alexandria" (Swete, Intr. to the 0. T. in Gk., p. 289). But they probably did not understand that the vernacular koinh<, which differed from the literary koinh<, was international (Thackeray, Gr. of the 0. T. in Gk., vol. I, p. 19). "It is certain that many forms of this later language were specially characteristic of Alexandria" (ib.).

118. Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 27.

119. Unters. zur Gesch. etc., pp. 258 ff.

120. Die griech. Spr. etc., p. 168 ff. See also Anz, Subs. ad cognos. Graec. Serm. vulg. etc., 1891, p. 262. "Nec quae Apostolides homo doctus Alexandrinus nuperrime protulit omnes caligines propulsaverunt. Certe nemo jam existet qui cum Sturzio Macedonicam dialectum ibi quaerat, sed altera e parte neminem puto judicare illam quae vulgo appellatur dialectum Alexandrinam solis vindicandam esse Alexandrinis." Cf. Susemihl, Lit. der Alexandrinerzeit.

121. Sir Jonathan Williams, an Eng. savant, is quoted in the Louisville Courier- Journal (May 9, 1906) as saying: "I have found in the city of Louisville a pronunciation and a use of terms which is nearer, to my mind, to Addison and the English classicists than anything which the counties of England, the provinces of Australia, or the moors of Scotland can offer." He added that the purest English known to him is spoken in Edinburgh and Louisville. These two cities, for geographical reasons, are not provincial.

122. Griech. Spr. etc., pp. 102-161; Theol. Literaturzeit., 1903, p. 421; cf. also Moulton, Pro:. p. 40. Moulton sets over against e]mo<j the fact that John's Gospel uses i!na rather than the infinitive so often. Much of the force of such an argument vanishes also under the personal equation.

123. Griech. Spr. etc., p. 171. Cf. also Zahn, Einleitung in das N. T., I, 38.

124. Kenyon, ext. vol. of Hast. D. B., art. Papyri, p. 355b. See also id., Palaeog. of the Gk. Pap., 1899.

125.1 Moulton, Prol., p. 27 f.

126. B. S., 1901, pp. 3-59. "The distinction holds good, even if we cannot go all the way with Deissmann in pronouncing all the Pauline writings 'letters' rather than 'Epistles.'" G. Milligan, Gk. Pap., p. xxxi.

127. Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 7. Quoted from Griech. Urk., Berlin, 13 2, belonging to year 289 A.D.

128. The papyri contain "exempla ex vita deprompta, cum sermo scriptorum ut solutae ita poeticae orationis nullo modo veram nobis imaginem sermonis illius aetatis praebeat. Etenim sermo, quem apud auctores hellinisticos deprehendimus, arti, non vitae, debetur." Witkowski Prodr. gr. pap. Graec., etc., 1898, p. 197. He urges that in case of variations in forms or syntax one must inquire "utrum ab alia qua dialecto petita sit an in Aegypto nata, utrum ab homine Graeco an barbaro formata." Ib., p. 198. He thinks it is necessary that we have "librum de sermone papyrorum, librum de sermone titulorum, librum de sermone auctorum poeticae et pedestris orationis illius aetatis, librum de dialecto Macedonica tractantem." Ib.

129. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 6.

130. Cf. Sharp, Epictetus and the N. T. (1914), for useful comparison of language and thought of Epictetus and the N. T.

131. Lafoscade, Infl. du Lat. sur le Grec, pp. 83-158, in Biblioth. de 1'Ecole des hautes et., 1892.

132. Mahaffy, Prog. of Hellen. in Alex. Ernp., 1905, p. 137. He adds (p. 111): "The work of Alexandria was a permanent education to the whole Greekspeaking world; and we know that in due time Pergamum began to do similar work."

133. Prol., p. 6. See also Breed, Prep. of the World for Chr., 1904, ch. IX, The Hellenizing of the Nations, and ch. XI, The Unification of the World. Jannaris (op. cit., p. 8) indeed puts the LXX, N. T. and many pap. into "the Levantine group" of the literary language, but this is a wrong assignment for both the LXX and the N. T.