![[레벨:20]](http://www.egw.org/zboard/modules/point/icons/default/20.gif "포인트:37683point (45%), 레벨:20/30"){kind=icon}
kootvanwykNew Testament Greek and its characteristics
by koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)
Sangju Campus
conjoint lecturer of
18 October 2009
The New Testament was written in Greek but what kind of Greek? Not classical, not Ionic, not dialectic but what is called koine Greek. So what is koine Greek and what are the characteristics we need to keep in mind reading the New Testament?
It will not help to grab a classical Greek Dictionary or a classical Greek Grammar and hope that it will reveal the true understanding of the New Testament. Some thought that modern Greek speakers understand the New Testament the best. The answer is, no, it is claimed that spoken and written Greek are so different that the users need to be bilingual. Was the New Testament koine then Hellenistic Greek? Yes it was, but it was not exactly what one expect in Hellenistic Greek.
Greek was used over a period of 3550 years, but it was not static, it changed continuously and Classical Greek is a standard that one can use to see the development of this language as far as grammatical, stylistic and lexicographical aspects are concerned.
The characteristics that we will be listing here are mainly those of the language of the nation of the time of the New Testament as we find it mirrored in the papyri of the pre- and early Christian era.
The book of prof. dr. G. van W. Kruger on this topic is very insightful for our purposes (G. van W. Kruger, Inleiding tot die Studie van Nuwe Testament Grieks [Stellenbosch: T. Wever, 1976] 73-98).
What are we going to see in the koine of the New Testament? Two aspects need to be stressed: 1) the authors were Jews who knew Hebrew and Aramaic very well and thus, the role of the Old Testament in their writings will have a forming influence on the language since many religious concepts had to be translated into Greek. One cannot study the Greek of the New Testament without looking at the Semiticisms in the New Testament. In 2) one need to realize that although the Greek underwent some changes through the centuries, the authors of the New Testament create sometimes their own expressions, words, phrases to express themselves. It means that Grammar is transformed into a new form of expression.
The role of Semitic influence in the New Testament
Adolf Deismann and James Hope Moulton never denied that semitic had an impact in the New Testament Greek. They were trying to proof that the strange phenomena in the New Testament Greek (grammatical and lexical) were not necessarily due to semitic influence but was part of the Greek of those days. However, they went too far (Van W. Kruger 1976: 73). At times, both Deismann and Moulton tried to deny clear examples of Semiticisms.
The New Testament is a continuation of the Old Testament and its message and thus one can expect that continuity will play a large role in the formation of the Greek translations of the Semitic thoughts and concepts.
Various scholars worked on the Semitic elements in the New Testament
Meyer indicated in his book Jesu Muttersprache: Das galiläche Aramäsch in seiner Bedeutung fü die Erkläung der Reden Jesu (Tüingen: 1896]) indicated that an Aramaic reconstruction of the Gospels will assist in its exegesis. This approach should not be overlooked especially for other books like James, Peter and Revelation as well.
It was Gustav Dalman in his Die Worte Jesu (
Gustav Dalman critical of Wellhausen
In his 2nd edition of Die Worte Jesu (
Dalman distinguished between a Judean and a Galilean Aramaic dialect. He felt that Jesus could have spoken both dialects. For the reconstruction of the Judean Aramaic Dalman used the Targum Onkelos on the Pentateuch and also the Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. For the reconstruction of the Galilean Aramaic Dalman used the Talmud. It is known in modern investigations that the Targum Onkelos and Jonathan are literal translations of the Hebrew and there is also the influence of Babylonian Aramaic in the Targums that makes the investigation of Dalman questionable (Van W. Kruger 1976: 74).
C. C. Torrey
Torrey was a great Semitic scholar. He felt that the Gospels were written in toto in Aramaic (C. C. Torrey, The Translations made from the Original Aramaic Gospels [New York, 1912]; idem, The Composition and Date of Acts [Cambridge, Mass. 1916]; idem, "The Aramaic Origin of the Gospel to John" HTR 16 [1923]: 305-344). He said that it is especially clear from the erroneous Greek translations of the Aramaic. On the basis of his reconstructed gospels he published a new translation. Since Torrey time, criticism were brought against his method. His reconstructions may not always fit the New Testament Greek (Van W. Kruger 1976: 74). With his philological witnesses he simplified the problem and sometimes made illegitimate exagerations (Van W. Kruger 1976: 74).
C. F. Burney
Burney intended to demonstrate the Aramaic origin of the fourth gospel (C. F. Burney, "Had the Fourth Gospel an Aramaic Archetype?" ET 21 [1909]; idem, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel [
He based his conclusions also on assumed-erroneous Greek translations of the Aramaic. His conjectures are sometimes questionable (Van W. Kruger 1976: 74). The problem is indicated by Van W. Kruger as follows, namely, that Burney sometimes considered a form or phrase as Semitic when that form or phrase was part of normal Greek and the correspondence was coincidentally with Hebrew or Aramaic.
Matthew Black
The best study on the Semiticisms in the New Testament is considered to be the work of Black (M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts [Oxford: 1946, 3rd edition 1967], see Van W. Kruger 1976: 74). Van W. Kruger feels comfortable with his study that he weighs the evidence with balance. He does not try to proof something from the start (Van W. Kruger 1976: 1976: 74). Van W. Kruger agrees that there are a large number of lexical and grammatical Semiticisms in the New Testament but he disagree with Nigel Turner, Grammar of NT Greek 4 that the New Testament Greek in toto represents a language of its own with a unity of its own (Van W. Kruger 1976: 75).
Years before Richard Rothe called the New Testament Greek the "Language of the Holy Spirit" (see Richard Rothe, Zur Dogmatik [1863] and Herman Cremer, Biblisch-teologisches Wöterbuch der neutestamentlichen Gräitä [1866]). Herman Thiersch wanted to make it an ecclesiastical dialect or dialectus ecclesiasticus (H. Thiersch, De Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina [Erlangen: 1841]). Van W. Kruger rejects this concept but agree that especially in its vocabulary and ideas, the New Testament is unique. Our own evaluation will be that the unique aspect of the New Testament will not be in conflict with the Old Testament or its concepts. There is a continuity involved that cannot be overlooked or ignored. The proper way to look at the Koine is to see the unique character but also the Koine character of the text. Again, says Van W. Kruger, also in the Koine character of the text it is the exception that proofs the rule and one should not only look at the exceptions (Van W. Kruger 1976: 75).
Origin of Semitic elements in the Greek of the New Testament
The following sources are allocated as responsible for the Semitic element in the Greek New Testament:
a. The influence of the Septuagint
b. The existence of Aramaic sources
c. The existence of a Jewish-Greek dialect
d. The Greek of the Greek-speaking synagogues
e. The Jewish background and education of the New Testament authors
This is the strongest influence in the New Testament (Van W. Kruger 1976: 79).
The New Testament language context
Four languages were spoken in the first century in
Harris Birkeland and Paul Nepper-Christensen
Birkeland and Nepper-Christensen tried to prove that Hebrew or a kind of Mishnah-Hebrew was the general language of Christ and the Apostles (Harris Birkeland, The Language of Jesus [Oslo: 1951]; P. Nepper-Christensen, Das Matthäsevangelium, ein judenchristliches Evangelium [1958]). He thinks that in Acts
The discoveries at
J. P. Mahaffy
Mahaffy claimed that Jesus spoke Greek in public and with the Pharisees (J. P. Mahaffy, The Progress of Hellenism in Alexander's Empire, 130, v). Jesus spoke also Greek, just like the apostles and Paul like the incident with the Syro-Phoenician woman of whom it is said specifically that she was Greek (Mark
Archaeological and literary sources indicate that Greek was spoken in
Our analysis of the situation with Hebrew or Aramaic in the New Testament is that they could have spoken both Hebrew and Aramaic in daily conversations as well as Greek. When the New Testament says that they are saying in Hebrew but cites Aramaic, it means, that the author is saying, "they were speaking Hebrew and said (what we say in Aramaic and what we transliterate in Greek) the following [providing then the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew rather than the Hebrew transliteration])". There is no need for postulations of error on one side or another.
Aramaic or Hebrew?
C. F. D. Moule pointed out in 1959 that it is important for Semiticisms in the New Testament to distinguish between Aramaisms and Hebraisms (C. F. D. Moule, Idiom-Book of NT Greek [Cambridge: 1959], 172). He indicated that Hebrew is not Aramaic and Aramaic is not Hebrew and that Aramaic has many dialects. If Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic then one has to do in cases of Aramaisms with early Christian sources of Aramaic but if it is Hebraisms then one can investigate the contact direct or indirect of the Old Testament Text. The difference between Hebraisms and Aramaisms is sometimes very obvious (Van W. Kruger 1976: 81).
Lexical Semiticisms in the New Testament
On a lexical level one can find the greatest number of Semticisms. The authors expressed their Jewish concepts sometimes thought the vocabulary of the Old Testament in Greek, or the Septuagint. Scholars indicate the that Semitic element arrived in the Greek translation through a) the loan translations and b) through loanwords. Sometimes the Semitic word was just transcribed. Many such words cannot be found in the classical Greek lexicon. As Van W. Kruger said, the true meaning of a New Testament word must be investigated not in
Loan translation
nomos or torah had a different meaning for Jews and Greeks. For the Greeks it was "use" or customary law. For the Jews it was instruction of God or teaching of God.
parabole meant according to Aristotle (Rhetorika, ii. 20. 2-4) a true, imaginary story that is meant to bring forward a lesson on human relations. In Luke
ta ethne is sometimes translated as heathen (Matthew
diatheke is used in the New Testament as testament just like in koine Greek. However, there is an extra dimension from the Old Testament word berith that means covenant.
kurios is the New Testament translation of the Tetragrammaton YHWH. For the Athenians and profane Greeks of the Hellenistic period, the expression Christos and ho hios tou anthropou may have sounded strange. But within the seams of the Old Testament as translations of Messiah and son of man, it was and is very meaningful.
angelos malak; aioon olam; aletheia emeth yahweh; ginosko yadah; deo; diabolos sathan; eidolon eloah, gelolim; euangelion besarah; miseo sane; oikodomeo bagah; pasa sarx kal basar; prosopon lambanein nasa panim; rema dabar; riza saras; stoma machairas pi-hereb; psuche nephesh.
In the work of David Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings (Cambridge: 1967) one can find the terms for soteriology explained from within the Old Testament, ilaskomai, lutron, dikaiosune, zoe, pneuma (Van W. Kruger 1976: 83).
Loan words
a. Religious words
abba ab; allelouia; amen; korban; korbanas; mamonas; manna; maran atha; maran atha "the Lord came" or marana tha "come Lord" messias; pascha; rabbi/ei; rabbouni; raka; sabaoth; sabbaton or sabata (Aramaic status determinatus which is in Aramaic sabata and in Hebrew sabat/sabaton; satan/satanas or diabolos; hosanna (Van W. Kruger 1976: 84).
b. Literal transcriptions of Jesus words
eloi; eppata; eli; koum; koumi; lama; lema; sabachthani; talitha;
c. Measurements of Contents
batos (Luke
d. Diverse items
bussos (Luke
Idiomatic and syntactic Semiticisms in the New Testament
Klaus Beyer also wanted to study the role of Semitic syntax on New Testament Greek (K. Beyer, Syntax im Neuen Testament [Vol. 1, Satzlehre, Part I Gottingen: 1961]).
True Semiticisms
a. parallelismus membrorum (synonymous parallelism; antithetical parallelism; synthetic parallelism; climatic parallelism).
It is very common in the expressions of Jesus and John the Baptist (Van W. Kruger 1976: 86). It is also common in the first two chapters of Luke in the Magnificat, Benedictus and the Nunc Dimittis and is similar to the Old Testament hymns (ibid).
b. One of the most popular subordinate clauses in Hebrew and Aramaic syntax is the circumstantial clause. The sentence is introduced with waw which is followed with a noun or pronoun and its verb. In idiomatic Greek, such a clause is expressed by a genitive absolute. In Matthew
c. The rules for the use of the definite article in Greek is extensive but sometimes in the New Testament the definite article it is used in an uncommon way and that is when it is comparing with the Semitic use of the article. The definite article is left out in John
d. The adverbial use of prostithenai in the New Testament with the indicative or infinitive meaning "again" or "further" compares very well with the Septuagint use of it and also with the Hebrew expression wayoseph li (Luke
e. kai egeneto = wayyehi in Luke
f. Adversative kai in the gospel of John (John
g. There is the intensive use of toi theoi with an adjective in Acts
h. The superlative in Hebrew is expressed by having a word in its genetive construction and then to let it be followed by the same word in the plural for example, godesh godashim "most holy" or shir hashirim "the hymn of all hymns", the most beautiful hymn. We find here the idiom in the Greek New Testament in 1 Timothy
i. The use of ei-negandi in Mark
j. The use of the adjective genetive in passages like Mark
k. The pleonastic use of the personal pronoun in a relative clause like in Mark
l. The infinitivus absolutus are sometimes used in Hebrew together with a similar root as a finite verb to express emphasis, see Genesis
m. The use of the ordinal numbering for dating in passages like Mark
n. The adverbial use of the ordinal number in Mark
o. The practice to show distribution by repeating the same ordinal number, is Semitic. It also appears in Classical Greek as well as in the New Testament in Mark
p. pas . . .ou instead of oudeis compares to the Hebrew kal . . . lo in Matthew
r. Diverse Hebrew phrases in the New Testament Greek are the following: apo mias "as one" in Luke
Secondary Semiticisms
These are cases where the idiom is shared in both Greek and Hebrew but in Classical Greek only sporadic while in Hebrew more often. This increase in the use of the idiom then makes it semitic but it can be questionable.
a. Eduard Norden in Agnostos Theos 365 consider the placing of the verb at the beginning of the sentence as a sign that it is Semitic. For Greek there is no rule although when the verb is placed at the beginning of the sentence in Greek, it is for emphasis but in the Gospels this use has no function of emphasis (Van W. Kruger 1976: 89).
b. Semitic influence is seen in the presence of repeated tautology especially in Mark:
c. Some pleonasms are also ascribed to Semitic influence as the unnecessary use of pronouns in Mark
valent (Van W. Kruger 1976: 90).
d. The use of the preposition en with the dative (in the instrumentalis) and apo and ek with the genitive (with the partitive construction) may have been inspired by the Hebrew construction with be and min. See Mark
e. It is possible that en toi with the infinitive at temporal sentences was modelled on the Hebrew be with the infinitive. Especially the Septuagint translates it as such. Luke is using it in
f. The use of tou with the infinitive in the New Testament (where the definite article is actually pleonastic in purpose clauses) is seen as a mirror of the Hebrew le with the infinitive as in Matthew
g. Using the futurum as imperative in Matthew
h. The interjectional (kai) idou in the New Testament translate the Hebrew hinneh and the Aramaic ha in Matthew
i. The two words heis and anthropos is sometimes used in the New Testament for the indefinite article tis which is the Hebrew ahad and Aramaic nash in Matthew
j. The Aramaic illah is exceptive (ei me "except") and adversative (= alla "but"). Confusion in the New Testament exist for the proper distinction of the two Greek forms of the translations and in Revelation
Coincidental Semiticisms
These are cases where the Semitic idiom happen to be the same as the Greek idiom. This means that not everything that compares to Semitic is evidence of semitic influence. Sometimes the Greek form is as old as the Parthenon (Van W. Kruger 1976: 91). It is sometimes simply a form that grew within Greek itself since ancient times. There are examples where people claim to have found a semiticism and then by closer inspection it turned out to be normal Greek. Examples are those under the heading of secondary semiticisms like tou en toi with the infinitive; apo/ek with the genitive for the partitative genitive; the use of the en-instrumentalis; the pleonastic use of participles with verbs of "answer" and "say"; the imperative futurum; and even the adjective genitive that compares with the Classical Greek genitive of description. The frequence with which it appears in the New Testament is then also not do with normal Greek:
a. Parataxis is one of the characteristics of Greek and also in the Gospels. Allen Wikren, Hellenistic Greek Texts (
b. The pleonastic use of the pronominal forms for emphasis also appear in non-literal papyri of the New Testament period (Van W. Kruger 1976: 92).
c. The use of the historic present in Mark and John was considered by scholars in the past to be Aramaic influence (W. C. Allen, The Gospel according to St. Mark; C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel. However, H. St. John Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship [London: 1922, 20) demonstrated that the historic present is used 206 times in the first three books of Herodotus, History and 218 times in the first three books of Thucidides, History. It was thus well in use in Classical Greek. Therefore one may still find it in the living language of people in the New Testament period (Van W. Kruger 1976: 92).
d. The 85 appearances of the periphrastic imperfectum is considered by J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of NT Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena) (
e. The use of ina in result and purpose sentences was also indicated to be a semiticism since the Semite may have confused cause and result (C. F. D. Moule, Idiom-Book of NT Greek, 142, 173). B. G. Mandilaras, Studies in the Greek Language (
f. The New Testament use of casus pendens followed by a resumptive pronoun is seen as a semiticism since it is common in Hebrew and Aramaic. In the New Testament it appears in Matthew
Socalled erroneous Greek translations from the Aramaic
In this section, G. van W. Kruger tried to list the examples of cases where the Greek wrongly translated the Aramaic in the New Testament and that this serves as a proof for the Aramaic influence or the Aramaic background of the Gospels. What they do methodologically, is to translate the Greek into Aramaic and then from that translation tries to explain the crux or problem. This, in our opinion, is a very
dangerous course to take. One has to be very careful and critical of such attempts. Why? Since there is no original to judge it by except the mind of the reconstructionist. Secondly, sometimes alternative exist as explanations that may make these suggestions obsolete.
In this section, one has to really stop the information, since Julius Wellhausen's suggestion of an error in translation in Luke
End item
![[레벨:11]](http://www.egw.org/zboard/modules/point/icons/default/11.gif "포인트:11592point (33%), 레벨:11/30"){kind=icon}
김숙영![[레벨:30]](http://www.egw.org/zboard/modules/point/icons/default/30.gif "포인트:81491point, 레벨:30/30"){kind=icon}
Mission
