IT is with mingled feelings of gratitude and regret that I let this book go to the public. I am grateful for God's sustaining grace through so many years of intense work and am fully conscious of the inevitable imperfections that still remain. For a dozen years this Grammar has been the chief task of my life. I have given to it sedulously what time was mine outside of my teaching. But it was twenty-six years ago that my great predecessor in the chair of New Testament Interpretation proposed to his young assistant that they together get out a revised edition of Winer. The manifest demand for a new grammar of the New Testament is voiced by Thayer, the translator of the American edition of Winer's Grammar, in his article on "Language of the New Testament" in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible.

I actually began the work and prepared the sheets for the first hundred pages, but I soon became convinced that it was not possible to revise Winer's Grammar as it ought to be done without making a new grammar on a new plan. So much progress had been made in comparative philology and historical grammar since Winer wrote his great book that it seemed useless to go on with it. Then Dr. Broadus said to me that he was out of it by reason of his age, and that it was my task. He reluctantly gave it up and pressed me to go on. From that day it was in my thoughts and plans and I was gathering material for the great undertaking. If Schmiedel had pushed through his work, I might have stopped. By the time that Dr. James Hope Moulton announced his new grammar, I was too deep into the enterprise to draw back. And so I have held to the titanic task somehow till the end has come. There were many discouragements and I was often tempted to give it up at all costs. No one who has not done similar work can understand the amount of research, the mass of detail and the reflection required in a book of this nature. The mere physical effort of writing was a joy of expression in comparison with the rest. The title of Cauer's brilliant book, Grammatica Militans (now in the third edition), aptly describes the spirit of the grammarian who to-day attacks the problems of the language of the New Testament in the light of historical research.

From one point of view a grammar of the Greek New Testament is an impossible task, if one has to be a specialist in the whole Greek language, in Latin, in Sanskrit, in Hebrew and the other Semitic tongues, in Church History, in the Talmud, in English, in psychology, in exegesis.1 I certainly lay no claim to omniscience. I am a linguist by profession and by love also, but I am not a specialist in the Semitic tongues, though I have a working knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, but not of Syriac and Arabic. The Coptic and the Sanskrit I can use. The Latin and the Greek, the French and German and Anglo-Saxon complete my modest linguistic equipment. I have, besides, a smattering of Assyrian, Dutch, Gothic and Italian.

I have explained how I inherited the task of this Grammar from Broadus: He was a disciple of Gessner Harrison, of the University of Virginia, who was the first scholar in America to make use of Bopp's Vergleichende Grammatik. Broadus' views of grammar were thus for long considered queer by the students who came to him trained in the traditional grammars and unused to the historical method; but he held to his position to the end.

This Grammar aims to keep in touch at salient points with the results of comparative philology and historical grammar as the true linguistic science. In theory one should be allowed to assume all this in a grammar of the Greek N. T., but in fact that cannot be done unless the book is confined in use to a few technical scholars. I have tried not to inject too much of general grammar into the work, but one hardly knows what is best when the demands are so varied. So many men now get no Greek except in the theological seminary that one has to interpret for them the language of modern philology. I have simply sought in a modest way to keep the Greek of the N. T. out in the middle of the linguistic stream as far as it is proper to do so. In actual class use some teachers will skip certain chapters.

Alfred Gudemann,2 of Munich, says of American classical scholars: "Not a single contribution marking genuine progress, no work on an extensive scale, opening up a new perspective or breaking entirely new ground, nothing, in fact, of the slightest scientific value can be placed to their credit." That is a serious charge, to be sure, but then originality is a relative matter. The true scholar is only too glad to stand upon the shoulders of his predecessors and give full credit at every turn. Who could make any progress in human knowledge but for the ceaseless toil of those3 who have gone before? Prof. Paul Shorey,4 of the University of Chicago, has a sharp answer to Prof. Gudemann. He speaks of "the need of rescuing scholarship itself from the German yoke." He does not mean "German pedantry and superfluous accuracy in insignificant research — but . . . in all seriousness from German inaccuracy." He continues about "the disease of German scholarship" that "insists on 'sweat-boxing' the evidence and straining after 'vigorous and rigorous' demonstration of things that do not admit of proof." There probably are German scholars guilty of this grammatical vice (are American and British scholars wholly free?). But I wish to record my conviction that my own work, such as it is, would have been impossible but for the painstaking and scientific investigation of the Germans at every turn. The republic of letters is cosmopolitan. In common with all modern linguists I have leaned upon Brugmann and Delbrtick as masters in linguistic learning.

I cannot here recite my indebtedness to all the scholars whose books and writings have helped me. But, besides Broadus, I must mention Gildersleeve as the American Hellenist whose wit and wisdom have helped me over many a hard place. Gildersleeve has spent much of his life in puncturing grammatical bubbles blown by other grammarians. He exercises a sort of grammatical censorship. "At least whole grammars have been constructed about one emptiness."5 It is possible to be "grammar mad," to use The Independent's phrase.6 It is easy to scout all grammar and say: "Grammar to the Wolves."7 Browning sings in A Grammarian's Funeral:

"He settled Hoti's business — let it be!

     Properly based Oun

Gave us the doctrine of the enclitic De,

     Dead from the waist down."

Perhaps those who pity the grammarian do not know that he finds joy in his task and is sustained by the conviction that his work is necessary. Prof. C. F. Smith (The Classical Weekly, 1912, p. 150) tells of the joy of the professor of Greek at Bonn when he received a copy of the first volume of Gildersleeve's Syntax of Classical Greek. The professor brought it to the Seminar and "clasped and hugged it as though it were a most precious darling (Liebling)." Dr. A. M. Fairbairn8 once said: "No man can be a theologian who is not a philologian. He who is no grammarian is no divine." Let Alexander McLaren serve as a good illustration of that dictum. His matchless discourses are the fruit of the most exact scholarship and spiritual enthusiasm. I venture to quote another defence of the study of Greek which will, I trust, yet come back to its true place in modern education. Prof. G. A. Williams, of Kalamazoo College, says9: "Greek yet remains the very best means we have for plowing up and wrinkling the human brain and developing its gray matter, and wrinkles and gray matter are still the most valuable assets a student can set down on the credit side of his ledger."

Dr. J. H. Moulton has shown that it is possible to make grammar interesting, as Gildersleeve had done before him. Moulton protests10 against the notion that grammar is dull: "And yet there is no subject which can be made more interesting than grammar, a science which deals not with dead rocks or mindless vegetables, but with the ever changing expression of human thought." I wish to acknowledge here my very great indebtedness to Dr. Moulton for his brilliant use of the Egyptian papyri in proof of the fact that the New Testament was written in the vernacular koinh<. Deissmann is the pioneer in this field and is still the leader in it. It is hard to overestimate the debt of modern New Testament scholarship to his work. Dr. D. S. Margoliouth, it is true, is rather pessimistic as to the value of the papyri: "Not one per cent. of those which are deciphered and edited with so much care tell us anything worth knowing."11 Certainly that is too gloomy a statement. Apart from the linguistic value of the papyri and the ostraca which has been demonstrated, these letters and receipts have interest as human documents. They give us real glimpses of the actual life of the common people in the first Christian centuries, their joys and their sorrows, the little things that go so far to make life what it is for us all. But the student of the Greek New Testament finds a joy all his own in seeing so many words in common use that were hitherto found almost or quite alone in the New Testament or LXX. But the grammar of the N. T. has also had a flood of light thrown on it from the papyri, ostraca and inscriptions as a result of the work of Deissmann; Mayser, Milligan, Moulton, Radermacher, Thumb, Volker, Wilcken and others. I have gratefully availed myself of the work of these scholars and have worked in this rich field for other pertinent illustrations of the New Testament idiom. The material is almost exhaustless and the temptation was constant to use too much of it. I have not thought it best to use so much of it in proportion as Radermacher has done, for the case is now proven and what Moulton and Radermacher did does not have to be repeated. As large as my book is, the space is precious for the New Testament itself. But I have used the new material freely. The book has grown so that in terror I often hold back. It is a long step from Winer, three generations ago, to the present time. We shall never go back again to that standpoint. Winer was himself a great emancipator in the grammatical field. But the battles that he fought are now ancient history.

It is proper to state that the purpose of this Grammar is not that of the author's Short Grammar which is now in use in various modern languages of America and Europe. That book has its own place. The present volume is designed for advanced students in theological schools, for the use of teachers, for scholarly pastors who wish a comprehensive grammar of the Greek New Testament on the desk for constant use, for all who make a thorough study of the New Testament or who are interested in the study of language, and for libraries. If new editions come, as I hope, I shall endeavour to make improvements and corrections. Errata are sure to exist in a book of this nature. Occasionally (cf. Accusative with Infinitive) the same subject is treated more than once for the purpose of fulness at special points. Some repetition is necessary in teaching. Some needless repetition can be eliminated later. I may explain also that the works used by me in the Bodleian Library and the British Museum had the citations copied twice with double opportunity for errors of reference, but I have guarded that point to the best of my ability. I have been careful to give credit in detail to the many works consulted.

But, after all is said, I am reluctant to let my book slip away from my hands. There is so much yet to learn. I had hoped that Mayser's Syntax der griechischen Papyri could have appeared so that I could have used it, but he sorrowfully writes me that illness has held him back. Neither Helbing nor Thackeray has finished his Syntax of the LXX. The N. T. Vocabulary of Moulton and Milligan, though announced, has not yet appeared. Deissmann's Lexicon is still in the future. Thumb's revision of Brugmann's Griechische Grammatik appeared after my book had gone to the press.12 I could use it only here and there. The same thing is true of Debrunner's revision of Blass' Grammatik des neatest. Griechisch. New light will continue to be turned on the Greek Of the N. T. Prof. J. Rendel Harris (The Expository Times, Nov., 1913, p. 54 f.) points out, what had not been recently noticed, that Prof. Masson, in his first edition of Winer in 1859, p. vii, had said: "The diction of the New Testament is the plain and unaffected Hellenic of the Apostolic Age, as employed by Greek-speaking Christians when discoursing on religious subjects . . . Apart from the Hebraisms — the number of which has, for the most part, been grossly exaggerated — the New Testament may be considered as exhibiting the only genuine fac-simile of the colloquial diction employed by unsophisticated Grecian gentlemen of the first century, who spoke without pedantry — as i]diw?tai and not as sofistai<." The papyri have simply confirmed the insight of Masson in 1859 and of Lightfoot in 1863 (Moulton, Prol., p. 242). One's mind lingers with fascination over the words of the New Testament as they meet him in unexpected contexts in the papyri, as when a]reth< (cf. 1 Pet. 2 : 9) occurs in the sense of 'Thy Excellency,' e@xw parasxei? n t^? s^? a]ret^?, 0. P. 1131, 11 f. (v/A.D.), or when u[per&?on (Ac. 1:13) is used of a pigeon-house, to>n u[per&?on to<pon th?j u[parxou<shj au]t&? e]n Mouxinu>r oi]ki<aj, 0. P. 1127, 5-7 (A.D. 183). But the book must now go forth to do its part in the elucidation of the New Testament, the treasure of the ages.13 I indulge the hope that the toil has not been all in vain. Marcus Dods (Later Letters, p. 248) says:, "I admire the grammarians who are content to add one solid stone to the permanent temple of knowledge instead of twittering round it like so many swallows and only attracting attention to themselves." I make no complaint of the labour of the long years, for I have had my reward in a more intimate knowledge of the words of Jesus and of his reporters and interpreters. Ta> r[h<mata a{ e]gw> lela<lhka u[mi?n pneu?ma< e]stin kai> zwh< e]stin (Jo. 6:63).

I must record my grateful appreciation of the sympathy and help received from many friends all over the world as I have plodded on through the years. My colleagues in the Seminary Faculty have placed me under many obligations in making it possible for me to devote myself to my task and in rendering substantial help. In particular Pres. E. Y. Mullins and Prof. J. R. Sampey have been active in the endowment of the plates. Prof. Sampey also kindly read the proof of the Aramaic and Hebrew words. Prof. W. 0. Carver graciously read the proof of the entire book and made many valuable suggestions. Dr. S. Angus, of Edinburgh, read the manuscript in the first rough draft and was exceedingly helpful in his comments and sympathy. Prof. W. H P. Hatch, of the General Episcopal Theological Seminary, New York, read the manuscript for the publishers and part of the proof and exhibited sympathetic insight that is greatly appreciated. Prof. J. S. Riggs, of the Auburn Theological Seminary, read the proof till his health gave way, and was gracious in his enthusiasm for the enterprise. Prof. Walter Petersen, Ph.D., of Bethany College, Lindsborg, Kansas, read all the proof and freely gave his linguistic attainments to the improvement of the book. Last, but not least in this list, Mr. H. Scott, of Birkenhead, England, read the book in galley proof, and in the Accidence verified all the references with minute care and loving interest, and all through the book contributed freely from his wealth of knowledge of detail concerning the Greek N. T. The references in Syntax were verified by a dozen of my students whose labour of love is greatly appreciated. Pres. J. W. Shepherd, of Rio Janeiro, Brazil, and Prof. G. W. Taylor, of Pineville, La., had verified the Scripture references in the MS., which were again verified in proof. The Index of Quotations has been prepared by Rev. W. H. Davis, of Richmond College, Va.; the Index of Greek Words by Rev. S. L. Watson, Tutor of N. T. Greek for this session in the Seminary. All this work has been done for me freely and gladly. The mere recital of it humbles me very much. Without this expert aid in so many directions the book could not have been produced at all. I must add, however, that all errors should be attributed to me. I have done the best that I could with my almost impossible task. I have had to put on an old man's glasses during the reading of the proof.

I must add also my sincere appreciation of the kind words of Prof. Edwin Mayser of Stuttgart, Oberlehrer H. Stocks of Cottbus, Pres. D. G. Whittinghill of Rome, Prof. Caspar Rene Gregory of Leipzig, the late Prof. E. Nestle of Maulbronn, Prof. James Stalker of Aberdeen, Prof. Giovanni Luzzi of Florence, Prof. J. G. Machen of Princeton, Profs. G. A. Johnston Ross and Jas. E. Frame of Union Seminary, and many others who have cheered me in my years of toil. For sheer joy in the thing Prof. C. M. Cobern of Allegheny College, Penn., and Mr. Dan Crawford, the author of Thinking Black, have read a large part of the proof.

I gladly record my gratitude to Mr. G. W. Norton, Misses Lucie and Mattie Norton, Mr. R. A. Peter (who gave in memory of his father and mother, Dr. and Mrs. Arthur Peter), Rev. R. N. Lynch, Rev. R. J. Burdette, Mr. F. H. Goodridge, and others who have generously contributed to the endowment of the plates so that the book can be sold at a reasonable price. I am indebted to Mr. K. B. Grahn for kindly co-operation. I am deeply grateful also to the Board of Trustees of the Seminary for making provision for completing the payment for the plates.

It is a pleasure to add that Mr. Doran has shown genuine enthusiasm in the enterprise, and that Mr. Linsenbarth of the University Press, Cambridge, has taken the utmost pains in the final proofreading.

I should say that the text of Westcott and Hort is followed in all essentials. Use is made also of the Greek Testaments of Nestle, Souter, and Von Soden whose untimely death is so recent an event. In the chapter on Orthography and Phonetics more constant use is made, for obvious reasons, of variations in the manuscripts than in the rest of the book. It is now four hundred years since Cardinal Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros had printed the Greek New Testament under the auspices of the University of Alcahi or Complutum, near Madrid, though it was not circulated till 1522. Erasmus got his edition into circulation in 1516. "The Complutensian edition of 1514 was the first of more than a thousand editions of the New Testament in Greek" (E. J. Goodspeed, The Biblical World, March, 1914, p. 166). It thus comes to pass that the appearance of my Grammar marks the four hundredth anniversary of the first printed Greek New Testament, and the book takes its place in the long line of aids to the study of the "Book of Humanity." The Freer Gospels and the Karidethi Gospels show how much we have to expect in the way of discovery of manuscripts of the New Testament. I think with pleasure of the preacher or teacher who under the inspiration of this Grammar may turn afresh to his Greek New Testament and there find things new and old, the vital message all electric with power for the new age. That will be my joy so long as the book shall find use and service at the hands of the ministers of Jesus Christ.

A. T. ROBERTSON.

LOUISVILLE, KY., 1914.  

1. Cf. Dr. James Moffatt's remarks in The Expositor, Oct., 1910, p. 383 f.

2. The Cl. Rev., .June, 1909, p. 116.

3. F. H. Colson, in an article entitled "The Grammatical Chapters in Quintilian," I, 4–8 (The Cl. Quarterly, Jan., 1914, p. 33), says: "The five chapters which Quintilian devotes to ‘Grammatica’ are in many ways the most valuable discussion of the subject which we possess," though he divides "grammatica" into "grammar" and "literature," and (p. 37) "the whole of this chapter is largely directed to meet the objection that grammar is ‘tenuis et jejuna.’"

4. The Cl. Weekly, May 27, 1911, p. 229.

5. Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., July, 1909, p. 229.

6. 1911, 717.

7. Article by F. A. W. Henderson, Blackwood for May, 1906.

8. Address before the Baptist Theological College at Glasgow, reported in The British Weekly, April 26, 1906.

9. The Cl. Weekly, April 16, 1910.

10. London Quarterly Review, 1908, p. 214. Moulton and Deissmann also disprove the pessimism of Hatch (Essays in Biblical Greek, p. 1): "The language of the New Testament, on the other hand, has not yet attracted the special attention of any considerable scholar. There is no good lexicon. There is no good philological commentary. There is no adequate grammar."

11. The Expositor, Jan., 1912, p. 73.

12. Prof. E. H. Sturtevant (Cl. Weekly, Jan. 24, 1914, p. 103) criticises Thumb because he retains in his revision of Brugmann's book the distinction between accidence and syntax, and so is "not abreast of the best scholarship of the day." But for the N.T. the distinction is certainly useful.

13. Brilliant use of the new knowledge is made by Dr. James Moffatt's New Testament (A New Translation, 1913).