No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Literary Character of New Testament Greek
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Extract
One reason why the New Testament language was once thought to constitute a backwater from the main stream of Greek literature, and was allotted a place of its own, was that it apparently differed so much from the literature of its period and created no formal precedents in style for later Christian or secular literature. The matter is well discussed by N. W. Lund, who refers to Franz Overbeck's opinion and the subsequent views of E. Norden as far as the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles are concerned. Opinion during the present century no longer sees the NT language as a backwater but stresses its affinities with the vernacular. However, one may feel concerned that the literary elements in this language should not be overlooked. With a message appealing to all humanity, the NT not surprisingly is sometimes colloquial and even uses slang in one or two words, so that it is little wonder if there is a tendency at the present time to assume that its language is much closer to the non-literary Koine than to the cultured Greek of the period.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974
References
page 107 note 1 Chiasmus in the New Testament (N. Carolina, 1942), pp. 9 ff.Google Scholar
page 107 note 2 ‘Über die Anfänge der patristischen Literatur’, Hist. Zeitschr. N.F. XII (1882), 417 ff.Google Scholar, quoted by Norden, E., Die antike Kunstprosa, II (Berlin, 1918), 479 f.Google Scholar
page 107 note 3 Op. cit. pp. 479–510.
page 107 note 4 E.g. by Colwell, E. C., in Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, II, 483.Google Scholar
page 107 note 5 Grammar of New Testament Greek, II (Edinburgh, 1919), 10.Google Scholar
page 107 note 6 See the critical editions published by the Berlin Academy, Die griechische christliche Schriftsteller der ersten drei Fahrhunderte. Migne' Patrologia Graeca ought to be avoided for the purposes of language study, not having a sufficiently critical text.
page 107 note 7 Moffatt, J., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (I.C.C.; Edinburgh, 1924), pp. lvi–lxiv.Google Scholar
page 108 note 1 Mussies, G., ‘The Declensions of the -(Ι)ων Comparatives in New Testament Greek,’ Novum Testamentum VI (1963), 233–8.Google Scholar
page 109 note 1 Simpson, E. K., Words Worth Weighing in the Greek New Testament (London, 1946).Google Scholar
page 109 note 2 Moule, C. F. D., Exp. T. LXX (1959), 100–2.Google Scholar
page 109 note 3 van Unnik, W. C., Tarsus or Jerusalem: the City of Paul's Youth (ET London, 1962)Google Scholar; in contrast, Turner, N., Grammatical Insights (Edinburgh, 1965), pp. 83–5.Google Scholar
page 109 note 4 Coune, M., ‘Le Problème des Idolothytes et I' éducation de la Syncidêsis’, Recherches de Science Religieuse, LI (Paris, 1963), 497–534Google Scholar. But cf. Pierce, C. A., Conscience in the New Testament (Studies in Biblical Theology, no. 15, 1955).Google Scholar
page 109 note 5 Robinson, Armitage, St Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians (London, 1903), pp. 275 ff.Google Scholar
page 109 note 6 Op. cit. pp. 126–55.
page 109 note 7 Op. cit. p. 11.
page 110 note 1 Bultmann, R., Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoischen Diatribe (Göttingen, 1910).Google Scholar
page 110 note 2 Blass, F., Die Rhythmen der asianischen und römischen Kunstprosa (Leipzig, 1905).Google Scholar
page 110 note 3 Op. cit. p. 12.
page 110 note 4 Op. cit. p. 13. Weiss, J., ‘Beiträge zur paulinischen Rhetorik’, in Theologische Studien in honour of Weiss, B. (Göttingen, 1897), pp. 167–9.Google Scholar
page 110 note 5 Op. cit. p. 15.
page 110 note 6 In papers by Unnik, W. C.van, N. T. S. I (1954), 92–110Google Scholar; II (1956), 198–202.
page 110 note 7 Aesopus, Aristeas, Vettius Valens, Sextus Empiricus. LXX: Num. x. 32; Judg. xvii. 13a; Tob. xii. 13b; Wisd. i. 12; I Macc. xi. 33; II Macc. i. 2.
page 111 note 1 Danker, F. W., ‘Menander and the New Testament,’ N. T. S. x (1964), 365–8Google Scholar. See the reference to Papyrus Bodmer IV: Ménandre, Le Dyscolos (1958), ed. V. Martin.Google Scholar
page 111 note 2 E. C. Colwell, op. cit. p. 985.
page 111 note 3 Martin, R. A., ‘Syntactical Evidence of Aramaic Sources in Acts I–XV,’ N. T. S. XI (1964), 38–59.Google Scholar
page 111 note 4 Wilcox, M., The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford, 1965), pp. 180–4.Google Scholar
page 112 note 1 For a close study of their significance for the NT, cf. Triantaphyllides, M., ‘Τά Εύαγγέλια καΙ ό ’Αττικισμός’, in Τά Γράμματα, II (Alexandria, 1913)Google Scholar, and Michaelis, W., ‘Der Attizismus und das NT,’ Z. N. T. W. XXII (1923), 91–121Google Scholar, or more generally, Schmid, W., Der Attizismus in seinen Hauptvertretern (5 vols. Stuttgart, 1887–1897).Google Scholar
page 112 note 2 Others, generally recognized as Atticists, are: Aratus (c. 270 B. C.), Callimachus (c. 240 B. C.), Aristides of Milo (second-century B. C. historian), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (first-century B. C. grammarian), Dio Chrysostom and Herodes Atticus (NT or sub-apostolic period), Aelian and Alciphron (c. A. D. 200), Appian and the pupil of Epictetus, Arrian (second century A. D. lexicographer), and Herodian (third century A. D.). Moreover, Josephus and Plutarch (first-second century A. D.) have a tendency this way; while the closest approach in the LXX is IV Macc.
page 113 note 1 Ed. Stefani, E. L.de (1909, 1920).Google Scholar
page 113 note 2 Ed. Gaisford, T. (Oxford, 1848).Google Scholar
page 113 note 3 The best edition is that of Pierson, J. (Leiden, 1759)Google Scholar.
page 113 note 4 New Phrynichus, ed. W. G. Rutherford (London, 1881)Google Scholar. See also the Praeparatio Sophistica, ed. I. de Borries (Leipzig, 1911).Google Scholar
page 113 note 5 Ed. Bekker, I. (Berlin, 1814–1821).Google Scholar
page 114 note 1 Latte, K., ‘Zur Zeitbestimmung des Antiatticista,’ Hermes L (1915), 373–94.Google Scholar
page 114 note 2 Ed. Schmidt, M. (Jena, 1858–1868).Google Scholar
page 114 note 3 Ed. Bernhardy (Halle, 1853).