The Language of the New Testament

A Paper

Presented to

Dr. Gregory Christopher of the

Baptist Bible Graduate School of Theology

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Course

Greek Grammar/Syntax

Kevin M. Adams

December 9, 1998 The Language of the New Testament

Contents Page

Introduction 1 The Historical Context 1 The Language Context of Palestine 11 Aramaic 11 Hebrew 14 Greek 16 Latin 19 Koine Greek 20 Alexandrian Greek 23 The Language of Palestine and Bilingualism 23 Semitic Greek 25 The Septuagint 27 The Language Jesus Used 28 Linguistics 30 Etymology 31 Textual Criticism 32 The Importance of Hebrew and Aramaic for New Testament Interpretation 36 In Application 37 Helpful Hints for Exegesis 38 Conclusion 39 Works Cited 42 Appendix A: Questions related to the Koine 50 Appendix B: The Multi-Faceted Nature of New Testament Greek Diagram 51 Appendix C: Types of Borrowing in Linguistics 52 Appendix D: The Relationships Between Words 53 Appendix E: Map of Palestine 54 The Language of the New Testament: A Summary

The Historical Context provides the background for the understanding of the change that was occurring in the language of the Palestinian area just prior to, and at the time of Jesus Christ. This is necessary in understanding the context of the language of the New Testament.

The Language Context of Palestine is made up of four languages; Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. These four languages were used to varying degrees and in varying manners in Palestine. Aramaic was the lingua franca (common language), Hebrew was reserved for the synagogues and scribes, Greek was quickly overtaking the Aramaic as the lingua franca and in areas of commerce was the leading language. Latin was used mainly for official purposes until slightly later in the New Testament era. Some scholars propose that there are Aramaic or Hebrew “sayings of Jesus” or even entire Gospels which the writers of the New Testament used as sources and to copy from. This is also used to account for the apparent quotations in the New Testament that are Aramaic or Hebrew in form.

Koine Greek is the language that was introduced in this area by Alexander’s conquests. The amassing of men from all over the known world during these conquests brought together many different dialects of Greek which were then merged into a new form called Koine or common. There is actually a written and a spoken type of this Greek form. This is the form in which our New Testament is written. This language was very heavily used in Alexandria. Much more so than in Palestine because Alexandria had a larger population of Hellenized Jews.

The Septuagint a Greek translation of the Old Testament that was made in the 2nd and 3rd centuries BC. This was the “Bible” of the early Jewish Christians. This is a good tool for use in studying both the New Testament and the Old Testament.

The Language Jesus Used in everyday proceedings was undoubtedly Aramaic. He most likely also knew Hebrew (for the synagogue) and Greek (for the marketplace). It is apparent that there was much bilingualism and even tri-lingualism in the Palestine area in His day.

The area of linguistics is valuable for the exegete in furthering his understanding of how language works. Parts of this deals with the available meanings for words and where they come from (etymology). This is an invaluable of study for the exegete and will help him to minimize the number of incorrect interpretations he will make.

The area of Textual Criticism will help the scholar better understand the transmission of the Original Scriptures down to the manuscripts that are available (extant) today. This field of study is very technical but will help to dispel erroneous views concerning the “infallibility” of specific texts and the order in which translation s came to be.

In conclusion, all these fields, plus hermeneutics, are simply part of the realm of context. Biblical exegesis is strictly about context and in order to master that all these other fields must be mastered first. Exegesis is about researching until the context is so clear one feels as if they are part of the scene. Only then can one really comprehend and interpret the texts of the NT. The Language of the New Testament

Introduction

The language of the New Testament is a subject involving numerous fields of study, all of which must be integrated in order to fully appreciate the language and its implications. A cursory survey of the material will quickly reveal that this issue demands an understanding of more than just language. In fact in order to adequately evaluate the material one must understand the historical, cultural, religious, and linguistic contexts of the New Testament era.

Additionally, an understanding of the grammatical, linguistical, theological, hermeneutical implications of the discoveries must be synthesized into a cohesive unit that has relevance for both the scholar and student. Hence this paper will seek to lay out the aforementioned areas of study in a logical manner such that the end results can be readily applied to anyone’s study of the

New Testament. The running theme that will be found imbedded in each of these fields of study is context. Context is the key to this entire discussion and to all issues of interpretation!

The Historical Context

The New Testament was written and takes place in the first century AD Generally

Christians view the Bible as made up of two different, though united, parts; the Old Testament and the New Testament. However, the Bible is really one unified Book preserving the history of mankind and the revelation of God. The New Testament did not originate in a vacuum. It followed on the heels of the Old Testament with approximately four hundred years interspersed between the two units. These four hundred years and the previous 4,000 (plus or minus) are crucial to understanding the New Testament. In fact in this author’s opinion, a correct understanding of the New Testament can only be arrived at by first understanding the Old

Testament. With this understanding the pre-history of the New Testament must be analyzed.

The following will serve as a general outline of the relevant history.

1 Ferguson writes “The Persian period is one of the more obscure periods of Palestinian

Jewish history, because of the paucity of extra-biblical source material. Nevertheless, the importance of this period is undoubted, for the foundations of post-biblical Judaisms were laid during this time” (Ferguson 312). The real Jewish Diaspora began in 596 when Nebuchadnezzar deported 4,600 men (plus women and children, therefore totaling closer to 18,000). They were the ancestors of the flourishing Jewish colonies in Babylonia. Very few of the “Babylonian

Exiles” and their descendants ever settled again in Judea (Pfeiffer 179-80).

The achievement of those Jews who returned to Palestine from their exile in Babylonia under the auspices of their new Persian rulers is twofold. Cyrus had reversed the policies of the

Assyrians (cf. 2 Kings 17) and Babylonians (cf. 2 Kings 24-25) by encouraging people to return to their homelands and by supporting local institutions under the oversight of the royal administration. Many Jews, however, chose to remain in Babylonia (317). They had followed the advice of Jeremiah (ch. 29). The Babylonian Jewish community grew in influence over the centuries. The Babylonian Talmud (c. AD 500) shows the great prestige later attained by the rabbinic scholars there. Some Jews at the time of the Babylonian conquest had fled to Egypt, where there continued to be sizeable Jewish settlements. Aramaic papyri of the fifth century BC contain the correspondence of a Jewish military colony at Elephantine (which dates back to 594-

589) with Persian and Jewish officials in Palestine. There was a Jewish temple at Elephantine which an anti-Jewish riot in 410 BC destroyed.

In contrast with these Jewish settlements in Mesopotamia, those in Egypt were voluntary rather than the result of forcible deportations. The earliest Jewish migration to Egypt was in

586. The Jews of the Elephantine community did not continue to observe the law of Moses.

They disregarded the Deuteronomy Code of 621 BC They built a temple to Yahweh and apparently also indulged in idolatrous religious practices. They, however, regarded their temple

2 as genuine. In 411this temple was destroyed (Pfeiffer 169-71).

The two great accomplishments of the returned exiles were the rebuilding of the Lord’s house in Jerusalem and the collection and studying of the law (Torah) with a view to regulating the life of the people by it…Those who returned from the Babylonian captivity under the leadership of Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the priest were not themselves wealthy, but they had the support of their country men and of the royal treasury…A second group of exiles returned under the leadership of Ezra (Ezra 1-7), …and with him we are introduced to a new class of religious leaders who were to assume great importance in the subsequent period…A different kind of “wise men” arose - scholars in the sacred writings. Scribes replaced priests as the interpreters of the law, and in the absence of prophetic revelation, scribal interpretation became the authority…The great work of Ezra was the restoration of the law (cf. Neh. 8-10)…

The restoration of the temple and the law required physical security. This was attained with the restoration of the walls of Jerusalem by Nehemiah, who came to Jerusalem in 445/444 BC as governor under Artexerxes I (Ferguson 317-8).

The exiles who returned from Babylon felt that they were superior to the Jews who had stayed around Jerusalem and a conflict occurred. Those who had stayed also opposed the rebuilding that the Jews of the exile wanted to do. This created a religious and racial superiority complex among those who had returned from the exile and created a major division between the

Samaritans from the northern land around the old capital (319).

Before the conquests of Alexander the Great the most important foreign settlements of Jews were in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Persia. The ultimate fate of the Northern Israelites deported in 734 by Tiglath-pileser III (II Kings 15:29), and in 722 by Sargon II, is a mystery…Twenty-one years after the fall of Samaria and the deportation of less than 28,000 of its inhabitants, Sennacherib (705-681) devastated the kingdom of Judah (in 701) and deported many Judeans…[which] were gradually absorbed by the native population among which they lived, and thus disappeared from the history as a distinct national and religious group (Pfeiffer 168-9).

3 Alexander the Great (ruled 336-323 BCE) was the son of Philip II, king of Macedon who came to the throne at the age of twenty-three and conquered most of the then recognized civilized world (Harris 24). Alexander the Great of Macedon took control of Palestine in 332

BC and with him began a process of Hellenization. As Alexander attempted to take control of the world his armies organized colonies throughout his newly established areas of control.

Greek culture, language, etc. began to spread throughout the greater regions of his control. With this many Jews moved to Alexandria, Antioch, and other areas in Asia Minor.

When Alexander died in 323 BC his empire began to dissolve. His successors, the

Diadochi separately controlled different sections of his empire. Ptolemy I, one of Alexander’s generals, founded a dynasty that ruled Egypt (including Jerusalem, Alexandria) for nearly three centuries. Another of his successors, Seleucis, established the Seleucid Empire that controlled

Syria (from Turkey to Iraq, incl. Antioch). Attempts to keep Alexander’s empire unified did not succeed. His influence did carry over into the Hellenization of the empire though. This

Hellenization covers the periods of Roman expansion and goes into early Christianity (Harris

24-5).

There were struggles between his successors and the Ptolemies (rulers of Egypt) for

Jerusalem as well as for other areas. Alexander’s other successors (his kingdom was divided into regions and therefore, there were in effect multiple successors) agreed to let the Ptolemies have Jerusalem so amidst other troubles the Ptolemies had control of Palestine from about 301

BC Several wars were fought over Palestine even after that time.

Under the Ptolemic dynasty (314-198) the Jews inhabiting Judaea - the territory surrounding Jerusalem - enjoyed relative peace and prosperity. Traditional Jewish ideals continued to blossom in Palestine. Under the Ptolemic system, villages were grouped together into districts (toparchies) and were controlled by a commandat at the toparchy level and by a

4 clerk of the central government at the village level. These titles may have been out of usage in the New Testament times as they are not mentioned in the Bible. Palestine did not rule itself

(Stambaugh 89). During this period, Ptolemy I transported many Jews to Egypt, and Alexandria became a major center of Jewish dispersion. During this period the Greek translation of the

Hebrew Scriptures was undertaken (the Septuagint).

Shortly after 200 BC, however, the Seleucid kings gained control, forcing out the

Ptolemies. These kings and the Jews had conflicts that escalated into the time of Antiochus IV

(175-163). Antiochus Epiphanes (“God Manifest”) attempted to unify the diverse religious groups by actively promoting Greek culture, customs, and religion. Whereas many Jews were willingly absorbed into this Hellenistic way of life there were also those who resisted.

Antiochus response was to outlaw the Jewish rituals and practices that made them a unique people. This was a departure of the traditional Greek philosophy of toleration. He forbade reading or teaching the Mosaic Law, ordered copies of it burned, executed women who had their sons circumcised (along with the sons), and declared observance of the Sabbath a capital crime.

He also desecrated the temple by stripping it and erecting a statue of Zeus. The orthodox Jews who would not submit to his schemes were known as the Hasidim, of which the Pharisees of

Jesus day are descendents. The Maccabees were the leaders of this orthodox revolt and established for themselves the Hasmonean dynasty. In 63 B.C a claimant to the Hasmonean throne sought Rome’s help in establishing himself which brought Rome into the picture and the

Hasmoneans became merely puppets of that nation (Harris 34-7). Rome came to control more than what Alexander had originally conquered.

The Seleucids’ rule (198-167 BC) disrupted the peace as Antiochus III gained control of

Palestine from Egypt around the turn of the century. Antiochus was welcomed initially by many

Jews but his control was slowed when the Romans thwarted his plans to expand. This caused

5 financial difficulties for the Seleucids. During this time there was also a rivalry between two

Jewish families, the Oniads and the Tobiads, two leading families related by marriage. The family of Onias held the high priesthood and Tobias held the right of collecting taxes for the

Ptolemies and probably the Seleucids too. Onias went to Antioch to settle a dispute and his brother Jason bought his way into the office of the priesthood. Onias was killed and Jason ruled the priesthood. Jason changed Jerusalem from a temple state to a Greek city-state, thus furthering Hellenism. The city was renamed Antioch and the high priest was not a Seleucid official. The orthodox Jews were outraged to see their young aristocrats rush through their

Jewish rituals to go to the Greek gyms. Some even went so far as to have surgical operations to remove the marks of circumcision in order to “fit in” with the Greeks. A division became clear between the Jews who wanted to be a part of the Hellenistic culture and those who wanted to perpetuate their orthodoxy.

In 167 BC Antiochus IV issued decrees forbidding the observance of the Jewish Sabbath, festivals, food laws, circumcision, etc. In addition he sacrificed swine on the alters, further desecrating the orthodoxy. Many of the pious had fled Jerusalem and with the ranks of the peasants who were much less Hellenized a resistance movement developed. This Maccabean

Period (167-63 BC) was full of guerilla warfare. The Macabees warred against the Selecuid

Army (defeating them) , the Jewish Hellenists (expelling and killing many), and rescued many

Jews form pagan cities (Seltzer, 181). Under Judas, the son of Mattathias, Hellenistic Jews were often attacked and after some orthodox Jews were attacked and killed on the Sabbath, even the orthodox would fight on that holy day. In 164 BC Antiochus IV withdrew the ban on the Jewish practices and under Judas’ strength the temple was rededicated. Judas was eventually killed in later fights, as he continued to attempt to increase his power. His brother Jonathan (160-143 BC) continued in the tradition of his brother. Eventually, he too was killed and his brother Simon

6 continued the fight (143-134 BC) Simon supported the Seleucid king Demetrius II against

Trypho and in return, in 142 BC tribute was lifted from the Jews, basically making them an independent people. Simon was later killed. From the securing of religious freedom under Judas

(162) to the supplanting of the priestly aristocracy under Jonathan (152) to the gaining of political independence under Simon (142), the house of Hashmon was to go on to military conquest under John Hyrcanus and to kingship under his sons. It is in this period, under

Antiochus IV that according to Seltzer (156) the Greek language was introduced into Jerusalem.

In the Hellenistic period the Jews were not well liked by the Greeks. They were a people

“scattered abroad” with “diverse laws”. Under the Ptolemies the Greeks dislike of the Jews was mostly demonstrated verbally. Octavian Augustus (30-14) and Tiberius (14-37) were able to actually enlist some Jews in supporting Rome after Egypt was conquered. Caligula, however,

(37-41) was not able to keep Jewish disturbances down. Goldstein, (61-86) lists six different criteria (see appendix) of Hellenism and evaluates the historical occurrences of the Hellenistic period in light of them. He concludes that the “concepts of Hellenism and of the confrontation had their origins in the interpretation and misinterpretation of Acts 6:1. Johann Gustav Droysen in the 19th century continued the misinterpretation of Acts 6:1 and produced the fruitful extended concept of Hellenism as the great confronting culture which arose in the fifth century BC” (64).

He illustrates the misinterpretation by how “Martin Hengel shows Judaism even of believers in the Torah, down to the reign of Antiochus IV, was heavily Hellenized, though there was some

Jewish opposition to Hellenism as evidenced in the book of Ben Sira” (65). The misinterpretation, he argues is in stating that Christianity fully assimilated Hellenism into a monotheistic religion. He argues that the Torah did allow for many of the forms of Hellenism.

While the Jews were not allowed to worship the Greek gods or practice homosexuality, they was an allowance for some intercourse of Hellenism. He further indicates that the Jews had acquired

7 foreign languages in the past (cf. Nehemiah’s response to those whose children knew Ashdode language but not the Semitic tongue), and that Daniel had no apparent aversion to taking a

Babylonian name and studying Babylonian wisdom (68-9). “If we define Hellenization in the broadest sense as adaptive adjustment to the complex intellectual horizons, social conditions, and psychological stresses of the age, them most of Judaism became Hellenized to some degree beginning in the 3rd and 2nd century BCE” (Seetzer 197). According to Bohak (315), “the first to be Hellenized were communities in the Diaspora, such as Egypt, in which the Jews quickly abandoned their ancestral language and adopted Greek as their main means of expression. From the third century BCE onwards, Egyptian Jews conducted not only their everyday business but also their religious life in Greek, including the use of a Greek translation of the Torah. However, abandoning the ancestral language did not necessarily mean abandoning ancestral behavior, beliefs, and identity. In Judea…the process of Hellenization seems to have been much slower than in Egypt or the cities of the Mediterranean coast.”

By the time of Christ, Herod the Great was the ruling monarch. An appointment of the

Roman Senate in 40 BC Herod, expanded the boundaries of the Jewish state to include Samaria,

Galilee, and territories east of the Jordan River. He was also responsible for rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem which was finally completed in 62 AD and then destroyed by Rome in 70

AD Herod died in 4 B.C and his kingdom was divided amongst his three sons: Philip who became tetrarch of the areas north and east of Galilee; Herod Antipas who ruled Galilee and

Perea (east of the Jordan) and Herod Archelaus who ruled Judea , Samaria and Idumea. He was removed (6 AD) by the Romans and replaced by different prefects which eventually became procurators (a 1 year appointment) of which Pontious Pilate ruled from 26-36 AD (Harris 34-7).

During this time the more settled areas of Achaia (capitol - Corinth) and Cyprus (capitol -

Paphos) were not as prone to unrest as other areas (Machen 26). Other areas, which were more

8 newly conquered had Roman soldiers stationed in them to curtail the unrest. These soldiers and their legates were under direct control of the emperor. These areas were known as imperial provinces.

The settlements of Judeans and Israelites in foreign lands, followed in later centuries by the rise of flourishing colonies of Jews outside of Palestine, is not a unique nor even an exceptional phenomenon until the Middle Ages, when the scattered Jewish communities lacked a common fatherland. Quite aside from great movements of populations known from time immemorial - such as the Aramean migrations after 1200 BC - forcible or voluntary settlements abroad of large civilized urban groups are well known at least since Tiglath-pileser III (745-727

BC) inaugurated the Assyrian policy of deporting to distant regions a part - often the best - of defeated peoples (Pfeiffer 167).

The technical term for the settlement of Israelites and Jews abroad, beginning with the deportation by Tiglath-pileser III in 732 BC (II Kings 15:29), is the Greek word diaspora’ (the

Dispersion), which occurs in II Macc. 1:27 (in the sense of the dispersed Jews) and in Judith 5:19

(in the sense of the land of Babylonian Exile). The Jewish Dispersion has a western and an eastern realm. The Eastern Dispersion consisted of the Trans Euphratic: Parthians, Medes,

Elamites, and other dwellers of Mesopotamia. The Western Dispersion consisted of the

Hellenists and Grecians (cf John 7:35; Acts 6:1; 9:29; 11:20) (Edersheim 1997, 5). Concerning the two different aspects of the dispersion it is possible that when Schurer (77) reports that Greek was used for bills of divorcement and for Bible translations that this was mainly for the accommodation of those Dispersion Jews. Alexandrian Jews even spoke of the Jewish

Dispersion as the sending forth of colonies in the Greek manner.

In the second half of the Hellenistic period and in the early part of the Roman period (ca.

200 BC - AD 200), with which we are here concerned, the Jews were scattered throughout the

9 civilized countries of the Mediterranean world.

There were few “true” Greek city-states (independent) as such; in Galilee mainly Tiberias

(Acts 6:9) and possibly Sepphoris. Galilee, according to Schurer (7-8) before the exile was never inhabited by Jews, although parts of Southern Galilee did have some pockets of Jews.

Additionally, Jamnia, Joppa, and Caeseria were apparently Greek city-states. In the Decapolis only Damascus, Gadara, and Pella were truly Greek city-states. Schurer (75) adds Philippi as well. However, on every side Palestine was bordered by Greek towns and within it were great

Greek centers, including Samaria, Tiberias, and Caeserea Philippi (Head 5).

Hellenistic advances into the Palestinian interior were impeded by Judaism’s religious barriers, however, only the lower levels of society and the rural populations could possibly not be affected by this process. As Hellenism increased, so did the zeal which the orthodox Jews resisted it. In fact it is noted that some Jews would not do business with a Greek for three days prior to their celebrations, lest they be accused of financing paganism (Schurer 82). Within

Palestine both Scythopolis and Samaria were Hellenized (Schurer 29). Additional evidences of

Hellenization in Judaism is that real Greek proselytes came to the temple to sacrifice. Obviously they spoke Greek (75).

The Language Context of Palestine

With the massive control of the world by Alexander and then by Rome, the Greek culture made its way from the western coast of Asia Minor throughout the known world. In Alexander’s kingdom the Greek language was the common language of the courts and large cities. When the

Romans took control they did not attempt to change the language that was in use (Machen 26).

While Schaff (5) breaks down the language milieu simply into the language of religion

(Hebrew), the language of culture (Greek), and the language of law and empire (Latin) it is necessary to analyze this clear cut distinction since such a clear cut distinction is questionable.

10 He further indicates that the Jew spoke Hebrew, the Greek spoke Greek, and the Roman spoke

Latin. This is another overly generalized statement.

Aramaic

In the Aramaic language, there have been at least five different dialects that are different enough from each other to warrant separate time periods. While the cut off point for each period is obviously not such an obvious change as would be illustrated in a chart, the point is that the language changes. Old Aramaic was used from about 925-700 BC, Official Aramaic from 700-

300 BC, Middle Aramaic from 300 BC - 200 AD, Late Aramaic from 200-700 AD, and then

Modern Aramaic. Among the Late Aramaic there is an additional breakdown into Western and

Eastern styles. Modern Aramaic is still spoken is isolated villages in Syria, Kurdistan,

Azerbaijan, and Iraq (Yamauchi 325).

According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (Werblowsky 60) Aramaic is a “North Semitic language closely related to Hebrew. Its written use is documented in Syria from the ninth century BCE; it appears slightly later in Babylonia, where it seems gradually to have ousted the Babylonian-Assyrian language from everyday speech. The use of Aramaic as a trade language (lingua franca) and as the everyday language of mixed populations spread widely.

The vernacular of Palestine was probably Aramaic. The Aramaic translations of the Bible [see

Targums] may have been for the benefit of those who did not understand Hebrew or may have been viewed as a commentary on the Bible, containing additional material and read in Aramaic to distinguish it from the original text, which was always read first” The Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period (Neusner 52-4) ads that “Even though it was the lingua franca of the Fertile

Crescent during the middle of the first millennium BCE, Aramaic is now best known as the language of the targums, the Peshitta, and large sections of the Talmuds and the midrashim…

[After] 612 BCE, Aramaic became the official language of government…This official status of

11 Aramaic continued during the Persian Empire and into the third century BCE A single, dominant dialect was used across the whole empire, from the Indus valley in the east to Egypt in the west, although there were regional variations.” (This is the Imperial, Official, or Standard Aramaic). A literary version of this period also developed. Alexander’s conquest replaced Aramaic as the official state language which changed the scene considerably (Middle Aramaic). The Standard

Aramaic continued to influence the offspring Standard Literary Aramaic and the dominance of

Greek led to the isolation of Aramaic in different regions across the former Persian Empire. This created many dialects (Jewish Literary Aramaic, Nabatean, Palmyrene, Hatran). This is the period in which the texts of Qumran and Bar Kokhba, and the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan were composed.

With the Jewish dispersion, Palestine was an area where Aramaic was more the lingua franca than it was in other areas (Schurer 20, Drijvers 31). This was an effect, in part, of the

Persian Empire’s rule in previous years (Schurer 20). Many areas were fully Hellenized.

Stambaugh (84) says that four different languages were spoken in Palestine: Greek, Hebrew,

Aramaic, and Latin, with the latter being used sparsely in comparison to the others. He uses the coinage of the time as an example of the lingua franca. Over time the makeup of Palestine changed, with the pre-Maccabean period having a decline in Jewish population and an increase in the Greek population, and then in the post-Maccabean period illustrating a continuous climb in the Jewish population (Schurer 1-6).

Josephus admits to the use of the Aramaic, in fact he first wrote his Jewish War (1.1.2) in such a “native tongue” since he was originally writing for the Parthians, Babylonians, and others.

Thus it is abundantly clear that Aramaic was a common language in first century Palestine.

Edersheim also agrees that the lingua franca in Palestine was Aramaic, while in Babylon it was an eastern dialect of the same (1997, 7). While opinions have differed over this, the more

12 archeology has discovered, the more the hypothesis has been supported. What was once a lightly thought of idea is now quite widely assumed. It would be wise to heed this experience in the realm of the other languages and hypotheses we hold to. New material could be found any day.

“The sayings of Jesus and some of the traditions of the early Palestinian Church, which are preserved in Greek, are translated out of Aramaic” (Caird 123).

13 Hebrew

The Hebrew language is a “primary language of the Jewish people throughout the ages; more specifically, a dialect of the Canaanite language, mutually intelligible with other dialects such as Phoenician, Ammonite, Moabite, and Edomite. The oldest attested specimens of Hebrew date to around 1100 BCE. Like all languages, Hebrew changed throughout the centuries.”

Archaic Biblical Hebrew dates from c. 1100-1000 BC, Standard Biblical Hebrew from c. 100-

550 BC, Late Biblical Hebrew from c. 550-200 BC. There was a spoken as well as a literary variety of Hebrew as occurs with many (if not most) languages. “Hebrew died out as a living, spoken language in the third century CE, when it was replaced by Aramaic as the language spoken by the Jews. Aramaic, the lingua franca of much of the Near East in late antiquity, had exerted influence over Hebrew for about 750 years” (Neusner 280).

Fitzmyer (1991, 127) notes that “Hebrew did not wholly disappear from Palestine, either when Aramaic had become the more common language or when Palestinian Jews gradually began to use Greek.” In fact it is the oldest language that was still being used in Palestine.

Though the evidence is not as abundant as it is for Aramaic, it is clear that Hebrew was being spoken in first century Palestine (Fitzmyer 1991, 159). Most of the inscriptural evidence comes from Qumran, which Yamauchi (331-2) believes to be Standard Literary Aramaic which does not represent the lingua franca of Palestine or Galilee. The difference in use of ben (Hebrew) and bar (Aramaic) for “son” indicate the changes occurring. Though obviously used, at current, it is uncertain to what extent due to the limited evidence recovered. Once again caution is urged.

Prior to Qumran few thought Hebrew was spoken, now it is obvious that it was spoken.

The Hasmonians used only Hebrew inscriptions when they were minting their own coins, until Alexander Jannaeus, who used a bilingual inscription. And his grandson was the first to issue coins with only Greek inscriptions on them (Stambaugh 84; Schurer 26-7). Additional

14 literature finds indicate that Hebrew was still in use in first century Palestine (88). Edersheim

(1997, 7) indicates that the common people were ignorant of the Hebrew language and this fascilitated Hebrew becoming the language of the students and the synagogue. This also demanded a role of interpreter (hence Targums) which Edersheim likens to tongues and interpreters in the Corinthian Church. Targums are by their very nature interpretive. That was their role, to interpret into Aramaic the Hebrew Scriptures. The Mishnah and Tosefta were written in Hebrew, the learned language of the schools and academies. Aramaic was the exception in these areas. It is not until the third to fourth century AD that Aramaic literature begins to show up (Schurer 23). The oldest extant Targums are those of Onkelos (contains the

Torah) and Jonathans (contains the prophets). These Targums, Edersheim claims, originated in

Palestine though our current copies are from Bablyon (Edersheim 1997, 8; Metzger 1993, 41). It was during this time in the early first century AD that Biblical Hebrew began to once again be revived (Schurer 26).

In Fields’ review (1984, 277) of Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus he indicates the support for a Hebrew background to the New Testament are mainly: “(1) the languages used in the inscriptions on the cross (Greek, Latin, and Hebrew); (2) the large number of Hebrew words surviving in the NT (many more by actual count than Aramaic words; (3) the now better understood fact that Hebrew works from the time contain Aramaisms (just as modern Israeli

Hebrew scholarly works do), but that these do not point to Aramaic originals; and (4) most especially facts that much of the day-to-day Second Temple literature discovered at Qumran and

Massada is in Hebrew.” Fields indicates that even Matthew Black, a proponent of the Aramaic

Gospels is swayed by the evidence. It is proposed that within about five years of Jesus death a

Hebrew Gospel was written and several years later this was translated into a Greek Gospel which was later put into chronological order and smoothed out. This theory supposes Luke to have

15 been written first. Jerome also believed that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew

(Schwarz 120).

The Greek language had many dialects at the time of Alexander’s conquest and these spread with Attic becoming the prominent dialect (from Athens) due to its commercial, political, and literary supremacy. As Attic spread it lost its original character and went from a relatively small literary tradition to a world wide one (Machen 27-31). Greenlee (409) identifies five different period of the language: (1) Prehistoric - prior to the 8th century BC; (2) Classical - to

300 BC; (3) Hellenistic - to AD 500; (4) Byzantine - to AD 1450; and (5) Modern.

“Greek culture had been increasingly affecting the Jew of Palestine for some time prior to the conquest of Alexander. The influence of this culture continued after his conquest, especially with the Hellenizing efforts of the Lagide and Seleucid kings, and even with the Herods. Greek cities were founded in Palestine and older towns were transformed into poleis”(some 30 or more). The names of the towns indicate this fact (Fitzmyer 191, 134). These towns facilitated the spread of Hellenism to other areas where their influence varied in extent. From the time of

Alexander and the Seleucid Dynasty Greek was the official language of Hellenisitic Syria. The

Seleucid administration used it for public, official, and legal documents and undoubtedly it was spoken and understood in Palestine (Drijvers 31)

While there was certainly an understanding of some of the Greek language, Schurer (75) feels there was an incomplete understanding, especially among the lower classes. He admits that the upper classes probably were able to use the language with out difficulty. “If one believes that

Greek was spoken especially by the upper layers of society, one will naturally assume that the lower layers knew little or nothing of that language. Moreover one will then be inclined to draw a sharp distinction in this matter between town and country. Some cultured city-dwellers

16 perhaps knew good Greek, but, according to this hypothesis, the simple rural population knew nothing at all of it. There in the country only the language of the land was spoken” (Sevenster

184). If this holds true, the natural implication is that Jesus knew no Greek. Sevenster, himself, does not agree with this proposition, and believes that the Greek was not restricted to simply the upper classes (190). He furthermore states that in the first century a precise boundary could not be drawn between a Hellenized Jew of Egypt and a non-Hellenized Jew in Palestine (133). Prior to 70 AD in fact, certain Jewish circles in Palestine used Greek as a matter of course. It is certain that in Palestine there was a familiarity with the Greek language due to its educated classes, immigrants from the Dispersion, and Hellenist Jews. Elsewhere, however there was only superficial acquaintance with the language (79). Palestine, however, has no documented use of

Greek prior to Alexander’s conquest. The earliest text found there is dated 227 BC Josephus further indicates that Jews were able to learn Greek although it was not as esteemed as learning the Law of Moses. Additionally, Fitzmyer (138) interprets Josephus to mean that he had a good command of the language (though he had a heavy accent) and that few Palestinians had taken the time to be able to speak the Greek language well. Lamsa elsewhere interprets Josephus to mean that few could or were willing to speak Greek because it was not a common language in

Palestine (cf. Josephus Antiquities 20.12.1; Lamsa 1947, Fitzmyer 1991, 138). In The Language of the New Testament (43) Metzger says “the Greek langauge…was widely understood in

Palestine, particularly in ‘Galilee of the Gentiles,’ as it was called (Matt. 4:15). Here, more than in Judea to the south, Jews would rub elbows with Greek speaking Gentiles; and, to be successful in the market place, bilingualism was an economic necessity.”

Ossuary inscriptions in Palestine that have been recovered are mostly (two-thirds) in the

Greek and while Stambaugh believes that sepulchral inscriptions best illustrate the lingua franca,

Sevenster denies that this is necessarily the correct implication of the evidence. Providing some

17 corroborating evidence for Sevenster, is Schurer (80) who says that the average ossuary inscription is no more than an elementary level of Greek writing. Other literature finds concerning Bar Cochba indicate that both Aramaic and Greek must have been spoken because there are letters of almost identical content in both languages (Fitzmyer 191, 141).

By the time of Christ even the synagogues (at least many) were using the Greek language, although the Hebrew may have still been read. The Hebrew had for the most part stopped being the language of Palestine. It had been replaced by Aramaic (Machen 34).

Edersheim asserts, however, that the pious Jews cut themselves off from the heathen tongue and practices of the Greeks, although Stambaugh indicates (88) that the religious part of life was the most influenced by Hellenism. This may, however refer to other aspects of the culture, not simply language. While social circumstances may have forced him (the Jew) into learning some

Greek, and maybe even some Latin, the blessings of the priests, phylacteries, and the Mesusah were all to be written in Hebrew only. The prohibition that was against Greek learning seems to be more of a prohibition on learning Greek philosophy and literature, not the language per se

(Edersheim 118). The forbidding of the teaching of Greek in its context may simply be during the Quietus War. It seems that previous to this war teaching of Greek was occurring among the

Jews. Greek letters were, in fact, used to illustrate certain figures (Schurer 77). Additionally, the

Herodian princes and Roman procurators issued Greek coinage (87). Christian Jews at any rate surely used the Greek language according to Stambaugh (88). The issue is to what extent they used it.

Caird concludes that “Jews living outside Palestine were brought up with Greek as their first or only language, and even in Palestine there were Greek-speaking enclaves, so that most

Jews must have had some familiarity with the universal tongue” (122). Additionally, Greenlee

(410) states that it is much more likely that “Jesus and the disciples knew Greek than that the

18 Greeks spoke Aramaic.” He adds that it is unlikely that the Roman governor was conversant with Aramaic and even less likely that the Jews knew Latin. Most likely the entire discussion between the two groups took place in Greek.

Latin is not really an area of contention like the Hebrew and Aramaic as far as the language spoken by Jesus or in his day. Latin was more an “official” language than anything else. It was some time later that it became a “world” language. The Romans added Latin to the language milieu but it was only used for official purposes until later periods of rule. Josephus does, however, mention some decrees of Caesar concerning the Jews that were written in Latin

(Schurer 80; Fitzmyer 1991, 129).

Sparks (193, 101) states that “for more than a century all the linguistic affinities of the

Roman community are Greek and not Latin. Though the State used two languages, the Church was content with one.” Jerome was the first to write theological treatise in Latin, followed by

Tertullian (c. 160-230) and Nobatian (c. 200-60). Just as Targums were used to translate from

Hebrew to Aramaic, and the LXX to translate to Greek, so Latin was soon required for those who knew neither Hebrew nor Greek.

Koine Greek

A cursory look at a few grammars of Biblical Greek will quickly alert the reader that the language of the New Testament is Koine Greek. Some Grammars deal with the subject in a paragraph, others in a few pages (cf. Mounce, Wallace). Many times the subject is simply passed over as “the obvious.” Upon a closer look however, there are some questions which are not being answered in most of these grammars. For instance, how did this Koine come about? If it is so certain that the New Testament was written in Koine, why do some propose it was originally written (at least in part) in Aramaic (Black, Lamsa) or Hebrew (Fields)? (For

19 additional issues see Silva 1991, 206-7). What does any of this matter for personal study and teaching?

The Greek language of the New Testament has at various times been thought to belong to categories of “Holy Ghost Greek” (Turner), a poor form of Attic, and any multiple other compilations of thought. Moulton (1991, 3) illustrates the tendency to place the New Testament into a category of Semitically Influenced Greek (Hebraic) or to parallel it to Classical Greek

(Purist). The reason for this was because mainly, the New Testament Greek did not conform in its entirety or even majorally to any one type of language. As Moulton states, what if the papyri that are being used to compare the New Testament Greek are full of Semitisms as well (1991

65)? In that case nothing of value has been gained for interpreting the New Testament.

However, if papyri from various areas indicate the same results then it would be improbable that all of them were due to Semitisms. Borrowed phrases are sterile and produce no imitations, therefore, if multiple phrases of similar syntax are found it is probably a grammatical feature

(Moulton 1988, 67). Additionally, Silva (1990, 49) adds that literature “provides a truncated and thus inadequate base for determining how language actually works in a society.”

Deissmann’s ground breaking studies showed that the New Testament Greek was in fact used commonly. He illustrated this through the many inscriptions that were unearthed during excavations. This put a whole new light on the subject and others continued on in his footsteps, advancing his model (see Thumb, Moulton, Debrunner). Many words which were once thought to only belong to the Bible Canon were proved by Deissmann (Bible Studies) to be part of the common vernacular of the day. As Unger further illustrates, new archaeological criteria was able to prove that the New Testament Greek was not to be divorced from the historical and cultural milieu (20).

The Koine was “one language, without serious dialectal differences. But at the same time

20 within the Koine there were two varieties, the literary and the nonliterary type. Authors who pretended to be cultured tried with varying degrees of success to imitate Attic Greek of the

Classical period.” Nonliterary Koine, on the other hand, was the “speech of the street, the home, the market place, the farm” and “differed from that of the school and the lecture hall” (Metzger

45). Deissmann differentiates between the two types by listing as qualities of the written: restricted, artificial, and regenerated; and for the spoken: uninhibited, wildly growing, unrestricted, and receptive (1991, 41). This difference in types of Greek is important in understanding why there are so many views as to the type of Greek used in Jesus day. Most discussions do not distinguish between the uses as do Metzger and Deissman (cf. Machen and other sources on Hellenism).

While there was definitely a diversity of styles among the New Testament writers this was not due to the use of strained Attic Greek culled up from the height of the Alexandrian conquest. In fact literary Greek, per se, was never spoken (cf. Robertson 9)! Moulton (1988, 4-

5) states that “men who aspired to literary fame wrote in an artificial dialect, a would-be rival of the language of Athens in her prime, much as educated Greeks of the present day profess to do.”

The New Testament writers, however, were not trying to write literature. They were promoting their new found faith in the fulfillment of the Old Testament (the Gospels). Additionally, they were interested in dealing with local church problems as they came up (cf. Paul’s epistles) and encouraging Christians under persecution (1 Peter). These writings were more “occasional writings” to meet a specific need. Scott (2) indicates that in additional to the practical purpose of the writings of the New Testament, was also the practical limitations that may have been imposed on the writers due to available papyri to write on. For instance he indicates that some epistles (Philemon, Jude) could be written on one sheet of papyri while others (Matthew, Mark, etc) may have constituted the maximum manageable bulk that one would put in a “roll” of

21 papyri.

While many indicate that the Semitisms in the New Testament are due to Hebrew thinkers putting their thoughts into Greek, Moulton indicates rather that the apostles “thought” in

Greek and that their Greek consequently varied by their level of education. Moulton indicates that private letters recovered from the New Testament period are most important in this study because they betray the education of the writer, provide an epistolary formula, and indicate similar phraseology to the New Testament writers (1988, 27). Concerning inscriptions, he indicates that while these were meant to last they do not necessarily indicate the normal or best

Greek in use. Their purpose was simply to last a long time. Alexander’s army itself was a nucleus of synthesizing the dialects of Greek into one more common (Koine) style. Through his soldiers this was inevitably spread throughout much of the Hellenized world (Moulton 1988, 31).

Mouton concludes (1988, 37-40) that one “cannot safely trace any feature of Common Greek to the influence of some particular dialect unless it appears in that dialect as a distinct new type, and not a mere survival. Hellenistic Greek may be regarded as a unity, hardly varying except with the education of the writer, his tendency to use or ignore specialties of literary language, and the degree of his dependence upon foreign originals which might be either freely or slavishly rendered into the current Greek.”

Alexandrian Greek

“Hellenistic Greek may be regarded as a unity, hardly varying except with the education of the writer, his tendency to use or ignore specialties of literary language, and the degree of his dependence upon foreign originals” (Moulton 40). It is this language that was the lingua franca of the Alexandrian area. Unlike the Palestinian area, this was filled with immigrant Jews who were fully Hellenized and as such no longer used Hebrew or Aramaic. They were without doubt fully Greek in their usage of the language (Silva 191, 216-220; Gehman 80-90). The need for a

22 Greek translation of the Old Hebrew provides plenty of evidence for the creation of the

Septuagint (LXX) during this period of high immigration in Alexandria (285-247 BC).

Obviously, even here there were some who understood the Old Hebrew as it was translated to the

Greek. While some propose that this Alexandrian culture produced a kind of Jewish-Greek dialect it is apparent from Silva’s (1991, 221) critique of the position that this was not the case.

It was Greek that was spoken in Alexandria.

The Language of Palestine and Bilingualism

The native language of a bilingual is not effected in the same way as is the secondary language. As such there will be various levels of competence within a group (Silva 1991, 214).

With an understanding of this concept the language of Palestine must be distinguished from that of Alexandria. It is very obvious that in Palestine the fluency of Hebrew and Aramaic influenced their use of Greek. This influence, however would be in the areas of spoken language and therefore would not necessarily carry over into the written form (see Silva 1991, 221 for a parallel relationship that exists between the Welsch and the English). While there is not universal agreement on the effect of the Hebrew and Aramaic tongue in the Greek language (cf.

Moulton, Sevenster, Silva) it seems that Greek permeated more than just the upper classes

(Sevenster 189) and was in use before Jesus arrived on the scene.

“It is the language of the learner that is influenced, not the language he learns. The reason for this is that the social pressure is all in one direction, because of the difference in prestige of the speakers of the two languages” (E. Haugen in Silva 1991, 214). Accordingly

Aramaic and Hebrew would consequently be more likely to influence Greek than vice versa.

Additionally since “learners…do maltreat the language they learn…the innovations they make in the language they learn do not spread to the native speakers of that language, while the innovations they make in their own language do spread (E. Haugen in Silva 1991, 215).

23 Therefore it is understandable why there would be slightly different Greek styles spoken in

Palestine and Alexandria. Linguistically this would be parole not langue (Langue is the abstracted linguistic system in the consciousness of a community while Parole is the actual speech utterances of individual speakers; a slip of the tongue). The differences do not manifest themselves in the actual language structure of Greek Koine but rather in the spoken accounts.

The style is the variations (parole) that grammar (langue) leaves out (Silva 1991, 223). These styles, however, would not effect the styles of the currently spoken Hebrew or Aramaic but would simply attest to the difference in context in the two areas of the East. Understanding these two differences is crucial in correctly discerning the viewpoints of various scholars. For instance

Silva (1991 223-4) points out that Deissmann was dealing with issues of grammatical rule

(langue) and therefore held that New Testament Greek was not to be isolated from Hellenistic

Greek. Turner on the other hand was dealing with syntax, an area similar to style (parole) saw and undeniable difference between the two forms. This understanding helps to bridge the gap between views of Greek so divergent as “Holy Ghost” and “Koine.”

As a comparative example Silva (1991 225) describes the use of the KJV of the Bible in

America. It is rarely used without understanding that it is being used. This is not a part of the linguistic structure of English. It is used for idioms, phrases, allusions, and more so in formal speech than in normal conversation. Similar assumptions may be made for the Koine in its different areas of use. While different groups of people within a language structure may have different styles of speech they are not referred to as having a different language. This implication should be applied to the language of the New Testament as well. Hence the Greek language of the New Testament was one language with stylistic variations. Each New Testament writer in fact had their own style, but not their own language (that they wrote in).

Semitic Greek

24 Semitisism are words and phrases that occur in the New Testament that contain an

Aramaic or Hebrew element. Schaff (25) indicates that Semitic Greek is not grammatical blunders but necessary supplements of the defects of secular Greek. The pressure of thought was so strong it broke through the rules of grammar. John writes Greek but thinks Hebrew thoughts

(Schaff 67). “The NT is full of Semitic syntax, vocabulary, idioms, and thought patters (Fields

282). New Words come from Jewish belief not Jewish Greek. Just as there is no “Gnostic

Greek” or “Stoic Greek” there is no Jewish Greek. Words are often simply redefined for the sake of the new needs that arise Deissmann 1191, 54).

With this in mind any literature that is translated from another source (LXX, parts of

Gospels?) may contain “translation Greek” but not Jewish Greek. This translation Greek would be more artificial, not a spoken type of Greek, and would contain few actual Semitisms, per se.

The assumption that is made is that because the language of the New Testament is not exactly the same, in all aspects, as the language environment in which it was composed, then it must be somehow very unique. As Deissmann (1991, 49 ff.) notes, there is not such a special set of rules that language follows, and studies in phonology and morphology shatter the myth of a special

Biblical Greek. Additionally, Deissmann notes that concerning the LXX, it was translated from written originals and therefore many of its words that are found in the New Testament are a carry over from that translation process. The Words of Jesus are probably also from oral sources or maybe even some written ones and were put into print by bilingual Christians. Therefore according to Deissmann a true Semitism would be religious in nature and few would be in the

New Testament (1991, 57). Semitisms “do not place the Bible outside the scope of Greek philology’ they are merely birthmarks” (Deissmann in Silva 1991, 207)

Silva (1983, 74) indicates that the Semantic influence on the New Testament is due to phonetic resemblance (similar sounding words), semantic similarity (similar meanings of words),

25 and from Semantic borrowing (consciously imitating a foreign language). The LXX, if used with caution, is the most important source for explaining these semantic changes according to

Silva (75) but it is not the only source and thus must not be treated as such. Additionally,

Wallace (27) notes that “Semitisms affect the style of the New Testament, while the syntax is still

Hellenistic Greek. Syntax he says is something external to an author - the basic linguistic features of a community without which communication would be impossible. Style, on the other hand, is something internal to each writer.”

26 The Septuagint

The Septuagint enriched Greek in three ways: Greek words took on new meanings from the Hellenistic words they translated, some Hellenistic words became naturalized in Greek due to transliteration or other forms, and new words were coined, either deliberately or accidentally

(Caird 126).

The LXX was the Bible of the early Christian Church but it suffered from inner Greek corruption and “hibernation”, that is, the equivalents of Hebrew words in current usage that later fell into disuse (Jellicoe xvi). In may instances where the Greek New Testament agrees with the

Hebrew over the LXX the superiority of the Hebrew is exemplified, disproving the LXX’s superior inspired translation (Schwarz 124). However, Schaff (23) indicates that in more instances than not the New Testament agree more so or wholly with the LXX over the Hebrew indicating that the LXX was the accepted Bible of the Hellenized Jew and early Christian and that it was the vehicle for Hebrew thought.

While the Letter of Aristeas has been dubbed as a fraud, it does indicate the importance of translation attitude that was prevalent (Schwarz 113-4). A translation had to be carefully done.

There was to be a commission to discuss details which needed to reach agreement on issues. It had to be an accurate translation, and it must be done by learned men who were pious, free from sin, and prayerful. It was, however, the work of human minds, there was no re-inspiration.

Addition accounts of “inspiration” seem to appear later, and to come from Philo’s statements.

This view propagated the view that the Greek version was the final version from God which could not be changed. Origen later attempted to demonstrate that the LXX was not without error in his Hexalpa which contained the LXX, a Greek transliteration, and four Greek translations all in subsequent parallel columns. He indicated all parts that were either added to or not in the

Hebrew Bible. While all biblical scholars recognize the significance of the LXX for the study of

27 the New Testament there is much disagreement as the relationship that it holds. Silva (1983, 52) concludes that “the influence of the LXX on New Testament language should be understood as largely restricted to stylistic elements.” Additionally, like other translations it must be understood that there is no one LXX text, and that translations of it vary just as they do for any translation of texts.

In studying the LXX, Harrison (I 346) quotes Moulton in saying “A single hour lovingly devoted to the text of the Septuagint will further our exegetical knowledge of the Pauline

Epistles more than a whole day spent over a commentary.”

The Language Jesus Used

According to Edersheim (112) Jesus would have taught in Aramaic, although he would also have used and quoted the original Hebrew. The use of Hebrew would have been required as it was the only authoritative language the Pharisees and Scribes would have recognized.

Concerning the Mishnah, he remarks that the “books [of Scripture] differ from phylacteries and

Mezuzahs only in that the Books may be written in any language, while phylacteries and

Mezuzahs may be written in the Assyrian writing only” (112) Edersheim asserts that this was limited to some use of writing in Greek as the Greek was still not a defensible language for a rabbi to write in. Simeon, the son of Gamaliel (Paul’s teacher) did apparently write in Greek.

Turner (1991, 181) points out that the words of Jesus on the cross are obviously Aramaic

(Mt. 5:39-40) and uses this as evidence of Jesus use of Aramaic. He concludes concerning

Hebrew “ The argument concerning Hebrew may well be sound as far as isolated country districts or communities, like Qumran, are concerned, but only if it was something rather less refined than classical Hebrew, and probably in Judaea rather than in Galilee”

And so there were two worlds in Jerusalem, side by side. On the one hand, was Grecianism with its theatre and amphitheater; foreigners filling the Court, and crowding the city; foreign tendencies and ways, from the foreign King downwards. On the other hand, was the old Jewish world, becoming now set and

28 ossified in the Schools of Hillel and Shammai, and overshadowed by Temple and Synagogue. And each was pursuing its course, its two police magistrates in Jerusalem, the only judges who received remuneration. If Herod judged cruelly and despotically, the Sanhedrin weighed most deliberately, the balances always inclining to mercy. If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been understood and spoken by most in the land the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic. It seems strange, that this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek , seems almost a contradiction in terms. We know, that the language of the Temple and the Synagogue was Hebrew, and that the addresses of the Rabbis had to be ‘targumed’ into the vernacular Aramaean - and can we believe that, in a Hebrew service, the Messiah could have risen to address the people in Greek, or that He would have argued with the Pharisees and Scribes in that tongue, especially remembering that its study was actually forbidden by the Rabbis? (Edersheim 1997, 91-2).

While it is evident that the later evangelists used Greek that does not in itself mean that Jesus did.. Schaff (25) says it was a time of a Greek body animated by a Hebrew soul, and inspired by a Christian spirit. From all the evidence, however, it seems that on certain occasions Jesus probably did speak

Greek. While Lamsa would no doubt argue that the government officials would have known Aramaic there is just as much evidence for the fact that Jesus would have been able to converse in Greek. Hence Jesus was most likely tri-lingual. He knew Hebrew for the synagogue, Aramaic for the translations and everyday language, and Greek for the marketplace and merchants. His common, everyday language was most certainly Aramaic.

Linguistics

Linguistics is the scientific study of language (Black 379) and the theories behind this type of research has many changes due to the discovery of new texts in recent years. Major contributions have been made by Blass-Debrunner, Moulton-Howard-Turner, Robertson, etc.

Deissmann’s discoveries, however, played a major part in changing the underlying theory in this field. In fact it was largely due to his work that Moulton changed his opinion of the New

29 Testament being in Hebraic Greek to being in Common Greek (Schmidt 28-30). This commonness is in view when Nida and Louw (21) indicate “language is essentially a set of internalized vocal habits shared by a speech community.” (For contemporary studies, those by

Silva, Nida, and Louw are highly recommended - see bibliography).

Concerning the relationship that languages have on one another Stambaugh remarks that there is little evidence for the Greek influence on Aramaic but conversely, Aramaic clearly influenced the Greek used by the Jews (88). Since both Greek and Aramaic were obviously in use in first century Palestine the issue at hand is to what extent did they influence each other.

Aramaic certainly affected the Greek used by Jews. However, there is little evidence that Greek effected the Aramaic, and none of it is from the first century (Fitzmyer 192, 152-3).

This poses some slight difficulties in parts of Black’s thesis of a first century Aramaic lingua franca (Fitzmyer 1991, 154). Black (1967) uses evidence of Greek influence in the

Aramaic as part of his evidence. There are two problems with this. First, as Fitzmyer (1991,

154) points out, there is no evidence of such a phenomenon in the first century and secondly, this hypothesis seems to contradict Silva’s proclamation on the way language generally works

(although evidently later in the century this influence into the Aramaic did increase in frequency and nature).

Etymology

Concerning etymology Silva (1990, 89 ff.) indicates that “authors cannot have in mind what they and their audiences are unaware of, etymology seldom has a role to play in the interpretation of text” (it does have a larger role to play in Old Testament studies where more words are unknown). “To a large extent word meaning is constituted by the relationships that exist with language itself. Range of meaning, and therefore the potential sentence use, of a word is established by its opposition to semantically neighboring words” (see appendix). One should

30 “treat with healthy skepticism discussions of biblical synonyms that fail to indicate the specific contexts in which the supposed similarities and differences among the words occur (91).” There is necessarily ambiguity in most if not all words. Without such ambiguity the number of words in the language would simply be astronomical. The context helps to exclude irrelevant choices of meanings of words, and therefore one should resist assigning new meanings to words. As a warning in this area Silva says (95) “the reality of lexical ambiguity can not become a pretext for overworked imagination.” Nida and Louw (39) indicate that it is a “serious mistake to always begin with a so called ‘basic meaning,’ because there may not even be such a core meaning.”

The more specific the marking of a word the more peripheral the meaning is. If a word always occurs in a specific manner, it may simply be part of an idiom. While this information may seem contrary to non-linguistic thinking if one is to be an exegete, it must be dwelt upon. Contrary to interpreting the Old Testament, etymology is hardly ever needed in interpreting the Greek language of the New Testament. Etymology should only be regarded with seriousness if it can be shown that the biblical writers intended for it to be taken etymologically (Silva 1983, 34). As

Wallace notes (4) the priority of synchrony (language use at a specific time) over diachrony

(language over time) has been well documented, hence the most important resources for interpreting the New Testament are those Greek texts of the Hellenistic Period (330 Bc to 330

Concerning etymology and the Septuagint Silva says that “before using a LXX passage as evidence for the meaning of a Greek word, the relation of that word to its corresponding

Hebrew word must be responsibly determined, the meaning of the whole passage in the Greek text must be ascertained, and the possibility of distinctive ideas and methods in the Greek translation should be made” (1983, 52).

Some dangers to be avoided in the study of etymology are: settling on false etymology

31 (similar sound or meaning does not necessitate similar derivation), overemphasizing root meanings, and of course it must be kept in mind that words do change in meaning over time and therefore may lose the significance they once had to their derivation (Boyer 25-30).

Textual Criticism

Textual Criticism involves determining the actual texts that were originally written

(which are not extant) and developing a trail to current texts and their use today. The benefits of such studies are evident in various disciplines as will be seen. For the purpose of this paper this form of study will help determine more accurately what was going on in the first century in the

Palestinian area. How can some scholars claim Hebrew originals (Fields), others Aramaic

(Lamsa, Black), and still others Greek? Textual Criticism will help sort out this dilemma.

According to Metzger (1993, 36) there are over 6,000 languages in the world and yet by

600 AD the four Gospels were translated into only eight of these languages. “These eight were

Latin and Gothic in the West, and Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, and Sogdian in the East. By 1456 only 33 languages had any part of the Bible. By the end of 1991 the entire

Bible had been made available in 318 languages and dialects, and portions of the Bible in 1,946 languages and dialects. It is estimated that today four out of five people in the world, or 80 percent, have at least one book of the bible in their mother tongue.”

The first translation was the Greek Septuagint dating from the second and third centuries

BC. While the Letter of Aristeas and its surrounding legend is held to be mythical by all scholars it claims (depending on the version) a more supernatural origin of the LXX involving 72 translators who in the same number of days completed a work of such quality they all agreed

(whether in part or whole) and the version soon held the place of an infallible and inspired version. This same allusion has also been held by adherents of the Latin Versions (Vulgate most recently) and by English versions as well (KJV especially). It is generally agreed that the LXX

32 was actually produced over many years beginning with the Pentateuch. Since the Greek language used is closer to that of Alexandria than to Palestine it is thought that it was translated in Alexander which would make sense since that was a more Hellenized area and hence would have a greater need for such a Greek version of the Bible.

The LXX was the basis (Metzger 1993, 40) for all other subsequent translation for the next several years. This includes the Old Latin, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic,

Arabic, and Slavonic. The LXX is still the authoritative Bible of the Greek Orthodox Church.

The Syriac translations probably arose out of the spread of Christianity from Antioch

(where they were first called Christians) into Syria. This Peshitta first translated the Old

Testament from the Hebrew and was completed in the later 2nd or 3rd century. The New

Testament of the Peshitta did not contain all 27 of our books. It left out 2 Peter, 2, 3 John, Jude and Revelation. These were later added when the Syriac as it now stands was completed in 506-

8 AD. At this point it must be understood that the field of textual criticism is a highly technical and specialized field replete with assumptions and presuppositions. In the area of the Peshitta for example, George Lamsa ascribes originality. He claims that this Aramaic-Syriac text is the language Jesus spoke and the texts which were copied have been kept intact without error. He has personally translated this into the Aramaic Bible in English and argues that Western scholars for the most part are not aware of Eastern history and therefore do not know the roots of the

Bible. He has been severely critiqued by Yamauchi for his views. Yamauchi’s critique argues that not only is the Syrian in the wrong style (Eastern instead of Western - also cf. Neusner 52) but that Lamsa is simply attempting to perpetuate the dogma and authority of his eastern church.

Furthermore, Yamauchi claims that Lamsa’s translation is defective in certain areas, hardly

“inspired” in the fullest sense. Lamsa does appear to be correct, however, in the confusion over

Peshitta/Peshitto (the historical transmission of the Peshitta) as a cursory observation in studies

33 on texts will show. Metzger, himself, as well as Aland and Aland must postulate by way of an educated guess the date of the Peshitta.

The Latin translations have had a greater impact on the Western culture than most other translations. This is very evident in Roman Catholic liturgy. The Latin translations must have arisen in communities where Latin prevailed since the early church was mostly Greek speakers.

The Latin texts fall into three categories. The African Text (Cyprian), the European (Irenaeus

130-200), and the Italian (Augustine). In 383 Jerome was asked by Pope Damascus to revise the current texts to produce a unified and dependable text for use. Jerome was the reputed and most learned scholar of his time. Over time, however, Jerome began to understand the need to go back to the Hebrew and Greek and make a new translation. Over the process of his endeavors he started over many times as he progressively came to this realization. In his opinion he thought that quotations of the apostles were to be regarded as more accurate than the LXX. There appeared to be no historical evidence to support the claim that the LXX was inspired. This reversion to the Hebrew and Greek was met with more resistance by the masses than his simple revisions. Augustine, imparticular felt that the LXX was inspired and was therefore greatly disturbed by Jerome’s references to Hebrew. (cf. Metzger 1993; Sparks 1993, Aland 1989).

Sparks (1993, 103) points out that early translations were quite haphazard. Scribes were attempting to fill a current need (available scriptures) not be textual scholars. “There was no universally recognized list of Scriptural books in the West before the Council of Carthage pronounced such in 397, and the use varied” as to what texts were used and what was translated.

The parts considered most important probably would have been translated first, such as the

Gospels. Since there is no extant codex of the entire Old-Latin Bible evidence must be collected of the extant manuscripts of single books and parts of books. The total Latin evidence amounts to over 8,000 mss, more than the number of extant Greek mss (approximately 5,000). Among

34 Latin scholars, three different places are slated as to holding the first translation; Syria, Africa, and Rome. Sparks holds that it is most likely Africa (109).

The oldest complete Latin New Testament dates to c. 500 and of the entire Bible to the eighth century. For the purposes of interpretation Sparks seems to say that in some cases (maybe more than not) the Latin, especially the Old-Latin can be used to correct mis-translations of the

Greek. Many additions are due to the work of scribes, who considered themselves to be editors as well as copyists (Sparks 1993, 124-7).

One thing does seem clear, most of the scholarship that regards Aramaic or especially

Hebrew as underlying, in written form, the New Testament comes from the East. From this we can infer either that they are more ignorant than Westerners in their scholarship, or we can infer that the Westerners, by and large are missing at least a piece of the puzzle. In Fields’ review

(1984, 276) he indicates that many of these Eastern scholars view traditional Western hypotheses such as Markan priority and late (and faulty) Greek manuscripts as “liberal” viewpoints. This needs to be further researched.

The Importance of the Hebrew and Aramaic for NT Interpretation

As Fields (1984 273) points out “the key to understanding a number of sayings in the gospels has been lost, unless one finds it in Jewish and Hebrew sources.” In his review Fields illustrates the place that Hebrew must have in the interpretation of the New Testament. The Old

Testament Hebrew alone makes up 78% of our Biblical literature. While Fields understands that much of the New Testament was also written in Hebrew and thereby moves the percent to between 90 and 100, for the purpose of this paper, suffice it to say that the vast majority of the

Bible is written in Hebrew and the remainder continues the thoughts and mannerisms of a group of people who were in core Hebrews.

The use of idioms (normal usage of a word) in language are mainly stylistic in character

35 and imply nothing in particular about the mental process of the user (Caird 109-111). A fixed idiom (a dead metaphor), for instance, is simply “a metaphor which has become so much a part of the language that the original impetus for its usage may even be forgotten. A live metaphor or simile, on the other hand is a comparison which is new, made for the occasion, and thus originally capable of being understood immediately without any background information” Fields

(1981, 195) . Caird adds that the Hebrews (Jews) tended to think in extremes without qualification, things were more black and white to them. In other words if the phrase “I prefer A to B” was said. The equivalent English thought would be along the lines of “I love A and I hate

36 In Application

Concerning the New Testament Evans (164) indicates that sometimes an Old Testament passage is re-applied in a new manner and sometimes an Old Testament passage is interpreted and applied in two different ways. He uses the example of Genesis 15:6 as it is used in Galatians

3:6 and James 2:23. He also mentions the use of Psalm 27 in Acts 13:33 and Mark 1:11. He calls these new meanings of the Old Testament resignification.

Additionally, Archer’s analysis of Old Testament quotations in the New Testament indicates that the vast majority of the quotations agree with both the Majority Text (Hebrew) and the LXX. Very few of the quotations are actually in dispute as to which of the readings should be accepted. This means that for practical purposes there are fewer problems than first imagined, if the research and exegesis are done correctly. One must constantly ask, what does this mean in the source language? and how does one convey the same meaning in the receptor language

(Fields 1981, 202).

Snodgrass (415-6) remarks that the key to understanding the New Testament writers’ use of the Old Testament is in understanding the presuppositions and exegetical methods by which they operated. The first presupposition…corporate solidarity. This expression refers to the oscillation or reciprocal relation between the individual and the community that existed in the Semitic mind. The act of the individual affects the community and vice versa. The second presupposition is correspondence in history, which is sometimes referred to as “typology.”. The important point about correspondence in history is that the text is not used up by a single event. A third presupposition of the early church is that they lived in the days of eschatological fulfillment.

37 Additionally Snodgrass (425-6) lays out the following guidelines for interpreting these passages: (1) Determine the original intention of the Old Testament passage (2) Analyze the form of the text (exact quote, paraphrase, etc.) (3) Determine how the Old Testament text was understood and used in Jerusalem. (4) Determine the hermeneutical or exegetical assumptions that enabled the use of the Old Testament text. (5) Analyze the way the New Testament writer used the Old Testament text (proof, enlighten). (6) Determine the theological significance and relevance of the use of the Old Testament text. (7) Note which Old Testament texts are used in the New Testament and which are not.

Helpful Hints for Exegesis

What is really at stake for a conservative hermeneutic is definitive prepositional truth

(Mare 17).

Questions that Metzger (54) pose for the exegete are: Have the Greek words acquired a different shade of meaning as compared with classical Greek? How far has its use by Jews whose Bible was the Old Testament in Greek, the Septuagint, including the Apocrypha, colored its meaning?

And has the early church given it a new and distinctively Christian significance?

Nida and Louw (39) indicate that it is “essential to begin with the empirical evidence of the texts and use an inductive approach with as few apriori theological presuppositions as possible.” In the study of Greek, Silva indicates that word order is not as crucial as it is to

English because of the use of endings (suffixes). The endings will help determine order regardless of the written order. Additionally, he warns exegetes to be wary of drawing undue influence from previous states of a language, hence the importance of knowing where the language came from and its current use at the time of writing. Concerning “tense” Silva says

(108, 118) that the writers “intention is not to ‘chose’ a particular of ‘of’ from among a list of possibilities, but to communicate a certain truth concerning what happened…An interpreter is unwise to emphasize an idea that allegedly comes from use of a tense unless the context as a

38 whole clearly sets forth the idea.” In fact if the context does not support the interpretation, the grammatical detail is insignificant. Grammar is at best a pointer to, and not the basis of, the correct interpretation. While grammatical knowledge may not directly result in a sensational new truth, it may play a key role in preventing interpretive mistakes (Silva 190, 143).

Additionally, when delving into the practice of translation, Silva (1990, 134) remarks that successful translation requires the mastery of the source language, superb interpretation skills and knowledge, and a high aptitude for writing in the target language.

Conclusion

Obviously, the language and literary of the New Testament are essential to correct exegesis. Additionally the intent of the writers must be discovered. Since no book of the New

Testament is extant in exactly the same manner as it was when it left the hands of the writer there is much work to be done by the exegete. As the conflicting proposals by eminent scholars illustrates the technical nature of this field, it is important than the Biblical exegete is not scared off by the conflicting research. Rather, he should have that much greater determination to find the truth. Current scholarship has the benefit of synthesizing the works of Robertson, Silva,

Rydbeck, Wallace, Dalman, Torrey, Black, Wilcox, and Turner and arriving at a workable hypothesis. Since language is ever changing it may be impossible to dogmatically say exactly to what extent each language was or wasn’t used at a specific point in time but the exegete has available to him today so many resources that he can confidently determine with great accuracy all but the minutest details of the Bible.

Concerning the debate over the languages of the first century let it suffice to say that there is a growing body of evidence that indicates that both Hebrew and Aramaic were used to varying extents in this time period. It appears that the Alexandrian areas were more Hellenized than the Palestinian areas, however, it is clear that even there the Greek language was in use.

39 They key to remember is that the language was constantly changing.

For the purposes of the exegete the earliest extant manuscripts are mainly in Greek which means that most of his time should be spent in the Greek language. As further discoveries are made, depending on the portion of the Bible one is exegeting, there is also importance is studying the extant Semitic texts. Where areas of uncertainty are involved the study of Greek,

Hebrew, Aramaic, and even Latin may be required. Since the Bible, in its entirety is written in a

Semitic background it is of the utmost importance that history, both of language and in general be thoroughly researched. Additionally much study must be made in the area of linguistics to better understand how language works.

Hoskyns and Davey write (19) that all the New Testament books were written in Greek within one hundred years of Jesus death and therefore there is “no accurate study (reconstruction of Primitive Christian thought) which does not rest upon an accurate study of grammar and syntax of Greek during the first century AD and an accurate knowledge of Greek words used by

Christians writers for their readers.” The language and thought of the Greek language was a rapidly changing process. Before the findings of the examples of other New Testament era writings, the New Testament was pressed into the mold of the Classical Greek writings. This must not occur today.

Lastly but certainly not least, hermeneutics must be fully integrated into all areas of exegesis. While hermeneutical principles have been briefly touched upon in various sections of this paper it is crucial for an in depth discussion of correct hermeneutical principles beyond the cliché “contextual-grammatical-historical-linguistical” interpretation. All that has been previously discussed with be useless without correctly putting the information together and assigning an interpretation to the text in question. In light of that, it must be asked how current hermeneutical principles differ from the ancient Jews and what implications that has on current

40 exegesis. This issue, however, will have to be a topic for another paper.

For the synthesis of this paper let it be said that it is of the utmost importance that full blown research is done by the Biblical exegete into the areas that have been discussed. Context involves all of these areas and more. The areas of language and its offshoots, semantics, linguistics, etc. though technical at times, are crucial to understanding how the languages being studied actually function. If the functioning of the languages is not understood how can one possibly hope to correctly exegete the very same words. Above all, the exegete must be a first class researcher of context.

41 Works Cited

Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament. 2nd ed. 1981. Trans. Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989.

Archer, Gleason L. & G. C. Chirichigno. Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.

Barrett, C. K. (Ed.). The New Testament Background: Selected Documents. NY: Harper & Row Publishers, 1961.

Black, David Alan. Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek: A Survey of Basic Concepts and Applications. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.

---“The Study of New Testament Greek in the Light of Ancient and Modern Linguistics.” Eds. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery. New Testament Criticism & Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.

Black, Matthew. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. Rpnt. 1971.

--- “Aramaic Studies and the Language of Jesus.” Ed. Stanley E. Porter. The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 60. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. pp. 112-125.

--- “Rabbula of Edessa and the Peshitta.” Ed. Ferguson, Everett The Bible in the Early Church , vol. 2 NY: Garland publishing, Inc., 1993: 203-210.

Bock, Darrell L. Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Part 1. BibSac 142.567 (July 1985): 210-221. Galaxie Software: The Theological Journal Library Version 2, 1997.

--- Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Part 2. BibSac 142.568 (Oct. 1985): 307-317. Galaxie Software: The Theological Journal Library Version 2, 1997.

Bohak, Gideon. “Hellenism” Eds. Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi and Geoffrey Wigoder. The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion. NY: Oxford, 1997. pp. 315-6.

Boyer, James L. Semantics in Biblical Interpretation. Grace Journal 3.2 (Spring 1962): 26-34. Galaxie Software: The Theological Journal Library Version 2, 1997.

Bruce, F. F. The New testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 1943. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994.

Caird, G. B. The Language and Imagery of the Bible. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1980.

Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996.

42 Cheilik, Michael. Ancient History: From its Beginnings to the Fall of Rome. NY: Barnes & Nobles Books, 1969.

Colwell, Ernest Cadman. The Greek Language. Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 2. NY: Abingdon, 1962. pp. 479-87.

Dana, H. E. The New Testament World. 3rd ed. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1951

Davids, P. H. “Authority, Hermeneutics, And Criticism.” Eds. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery. New Testament Criticism & Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.

Deissmann, G. Adolph. Bible Studies. Trans. Alexander Grieve. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901. Rpnt. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988.

--- “Hellenistic Greek with Special Consideration of the Greek Bible.” Ed. Stanley E. Porter. The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 60. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. pp. 39-59.

--- Light from the Ancient East. Trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980.

--- New Testament in Light of Modern Research. 1929. Ages Digital Library. Version 5.0., 1997.

Drijvers, Han J. W. “Greek and Aramaic in Palmyrene Inscriptions.” Eds. M. J. Geller, J. C. Greenfield, and M. P. Weitzman. Studia Aramaica: New Sources and Approaches. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 4. NY: Oxford: 1995.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah. New Updated Edition. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.

--- Sketches of Jewish Social Life. Updated Edition. Peaabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996.

Evans, Craig A. “The Function of the Old Testament in the New.” Ed. Scott McKnight. Introducing New Testament Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989. pp. 163-194.

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987.

Fields, Weston W. Rev. of Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard. Arcadia, CA: Makor Publishing, 1983. Grace Theological Journal 5.2 (Fall 1984): 272-289. Galaxie Software: The Theological Journal Library Version 2, 1997.

Fields, Weston W. Metaphors and Similes and Other Idioms. Grace Theological Journal 2.2 (Fall 1981): 192-205. Galaxie Software: The Theological Journal Library Version 2, 1997.

43 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. A Wandering Aramean: Collected Essays. Leander E. Keck (Ed.). Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series No. 25. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979.

--- “The Languages of Palestine in the First Century AD.” Ed. Stanley E. Porter. The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 60. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. pp. 126- 162.

Gehman, Henry S. “The Hebraic Character of Septuagint Greek.” Ed. Stanley E. Porter. The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 60. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. pp. 163- 173.

Goldstein, Jonathan. “Jewish Acceptance and Rejection of Hellenism.” Ed. E. P. Sanders. Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2. Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period. SCM Press LTD, 1981.

Greenfield, Jonas C. “Aramaic and the Jews.” Eds. M. J. Geller, J. C. Greenfield, and M. P. Weitzman. Studia Aramaica: New Sources and Approaches. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 4. NY: Oxford: 1995.

Greenlee, J. Harold. Scribes, Scrolls, & Scripture: A Student’s Guide to New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985.

--- “The Language of the New Testament.” Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1. 1979. pp. 409-416.

Harris, Stephen L. The New Testament: A Student’s Introduction. 2nd ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1995.

Harrison, Everett F. The Importance of the Septuagint for Biblical Studies. Part 1. BibSac 112.448 (Oct. 1955): 345-355. Galaxie Software: The Theological Journal Library Version 2, 1997.

--- The Importance of the Septuagint for Biblical Studies. Part 2. BibSac 113.449 (Jan. 1956): 38-45. Galaxie Software: The Theological Journal Library Version 2, 1997.

Head, E. D. New Testament Life and Literature as Reflected in the Papyri. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1952.

Heard, Warren. “New Testament Background.” Ed. Scott McKnight. Introducing New Testament Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989. pp. 21-52.

Hoskyns, Edwyn and Noel Davey. The Riddle of the New Testament. London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1931.

Jellicoe, Sidney. Prolegomenon. Ed. Harry M. Orlinsky. Studies in the Septuagint: Origins,

44 Recensions, and Interpretations. NY: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1974.

Josephus, Flavius. The Complete Works of Josephus. Trans. Wm. Whiston. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1981.

Kamsler, Harold M. Philo Judaeus: Linking Biblical Judaism and Hellenistic Beliefs. Jewish Biblical Quarterly 26.2 (1998): 111-115.

Keil, C. F. Introduction to the Old Testament. 2 vols. Trans. G. C. M. Douglas. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1869. Rpnt. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Kent, Homer A. Jr. The Qumran Community and New Testament Backgrounds. Grace Journal 3.2 (Spring 1962): 35-44. Galaxie Software: The Theological Journal Library Version 2, 1997.

Koester, Helmut. Introduction to the New Testament. 2 Vols. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.

Lamsa, George M. New Testament Origen. St. Petersburg Beach: The Aramaic Bible Society, Inc., 1947.

--- The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1957.

Latourette, Kenneth Scott. The First Five Centuries, vol. 1. NY: Harper & Row, 1971.

Louw, J. P. Semantics of New Testament Greek. PA: Fortress Press, 1982.

Machem, J. Gresham. The New Testament: An Introduction to its Literature and History. PA: Banner of Truth, 1976.

Mare, W. Harold. Guiding Principles for Historical Exegesis. Grace Journal 14.3 (Fall 1973): 15-24. Galaxie Software: The Theological Journal Library Version 2, 1997.

McKnight, Scott. “New Testament Greek Grammatical Analysis.” Ed. Scott McKnight. Introducing New Testament Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989. pp. 75-96.

Metzger, Bruce M. Important Early Translations of the Bible. BibSac 150.597 (Jan. 1993): 36- 49. Galaxie Software: The Theological Journal Library Version 2, 1997.

--- “The Language of the New Testament.” The Interpreters Bible, vol. 7. NY: Abingdon, 1951- 57. pp. 43-59.

Metzger, Bruce M. & Michael D. Coogan (Eds.). The Oxford Companion to the Bible. NY: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Moulton, James Hope. “New Testament Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery.” Ed. Stanley

45 E. Porter. The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 60. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. pp. 60-97.

Moulton, James Hope. Prolegomena. A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 1. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908. Rpnt. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988.

Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.

Muller, Mogens. The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 206. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

Neusner, Jacob. Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period, vol. 1. NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan,

Nida, Eugene A. and J. P. Louw. Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament: A Supplement to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. GA: Scholars Press, 1992.

Patzia, Arthur G. The Making of the New Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995

Pfeiffer, Robert H. History of New Testament Times. NY: Harper Brothers Publishers, 1949.

Pike, Kenneth L. A Stereoscopic Window on the World. BibSac 114.454 (April 1957): 142-157. Galaxie Software: The Theological Journal Library Version 2, 1997.

Porter, Stanley E. “The Greek of the New Testament as a Disputed Area of Research.” Ed. Stanley E. Porter. The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 60. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. pp. 11-38.

Robertson, A. T. and W. Hersey Davis. A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament. NY: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1933.

Rydbeck, Lars. “On the Question of Linguistic Levels and the Place of the New Testament in the Contemporary Language Milieu.” Ed. Stanley E. Porter. The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 60. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. pp. 191-204.

Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. NY: Penguin Books, 1993.

Schaff, Philip. A Companion to the Greek Testament and English Version. 4th ed. NY: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1887.

Schmidt, Daryl. “The Study of Hellenistic Greek Grammar in the Light of Contemporary Linguistics.” Ed. Talbert, Charles. Perspectives on the New Testament: Essays in Honor of Frank Stagg. Mercer University Press, 1985. pp. 27-38.

46 Schurer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Christ, vol. 2. Rev. and Ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979.

Schwartz, W. “Discussions on the Origin of the Septuagint.” Ed. Harry M. Orlinsky. Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations. NY: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1974.

Scott, Ernest Findlay. Records of Civilization: The Literature of the New Testament. NY: Columbus University Press, 1936.

Seltzer, Robert M. Jewish People, Jewish Thought: The Jewish Experience in History. NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1980.

Sevenster, J. N. Do You Know Greek? Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968.

Silva, Moises. Biblical Words & Their Meanings. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.

--- “Bilingualism and the Character of Palestinian Greek.” Ed. Stanley E. Porter. The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 60. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. pp. 205- 226.

--- God, Language and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the Light of General Linguistics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.

Simcox, William Henry. The Language of the New Testament. Rpnt. Winona Lake:Alpha Publications, 1980.

Snodgrass, K. “The Use of the Old Testament in the New.” Eds. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery. New Testament Criticism & Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.

Sparks, H. F. D. “The Latin Bible.” Ed. Everett Ferguson. The Bible in the Early Church, vol. 3 NY: Garland publishing, Inc., 1993: 100-127.

--- “The Semitisms of St. Luke’s Gospel.” Ed. Harry M. Orlinsky. Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations. NY: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1974.

Stambaugh, John E. and David L. Balch. “The New Testament in Its Social Environment.” Ed. Wayne A. Meeks. Library of Early Christianity, vol. 2. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986.

Taylor, Vincent. The Text of the New Testament: A Short Introduction. 2nd ed. London: MacMillan & Co. Ltd., 1963.

Torrey, Charles C. “The Aramaic of the Gospels.” Ed. Stanley E. Porter. The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 60. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. pp. 98-111.

47 Toussaint, Stanley D. A Method of Making a New Testament Word Study. BibSac 120.477 (Jan. 1963): 35-41. Galaxie Software: The Theological Journal Library Version 2, 1997.

Turner, Nigel. Grammatical Insights into the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965.

--- “The Language of Jesus and His Dicsiples.” Ed. Stanley E. Porter. The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 60. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. pp. 174-190.

Unger, Merrill F. The papyri and the Critical Evaluation of the New Testament. BibSac 117.465 (Jan. 1960): 20-23. Galaxie Software: The Theological Journal Library Version 2, 1997.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Weitzman, M. P. “Lexical Clues to the Compositions of the Old Testament Peshitta.” Eds. M. J. Geller, J. C. Greenfield, and M. P. Weitzman. Studia Aramaica: New Sources and Approaches. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 4. NY: Oxford: 1995.

Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi and Geoffrey Wigoder (Eds.). The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion. NY: Oxford, 1997.

Woodard, Branson L. Jr. Rev. of God, Language, and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the Light of General Linguisics by Moises Silva. Grace Theological Journal 12.1 (Spring 1991): 147-150. Galaxie Software: The Theological Journal Library Version 2, 1997.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. A Critique of the Claims of G. M. Lamsa for the Syriac Peshitta. BibSac 131.524 (Oct. 1974): 321-330. Galaxie Software: The Theological Journal Library Version 2, 1997.

Zuck, Roy B. Basic Bible Interpretation. Colorado Springs: Victor Books, 1991.

48 Appendix A

The following is a list of some of the issues that are involved in studying the Koine Greek of the New Testament (Silva 1991, 206-7).

Regarding the Koine in general: 1. The place of the Koine in the history of the Greek Language; 2. The possibility of dialectal differentiation within the Koine.

Regarding the Koine in Alexandria: 3. The nature of the Greek spoken by native Egyptians; 4. The nature of the Greek spoken by Alexandrian Jews; 5. The nature of ‘Septuagintal’ Greek (insofar as it is a unity); 6. The relation between ‘Septuagintal’ Greek and the language of Alexandrian Jews.

Regarding the Koine in Palestine: 7. The general linguistic situation in Palestine (more specifically: which language did Jesus speak?); 8. The nature of the Greek spoken by Palestinian Jews; 9. The nature of NT Greek (insofar as it is a unity); 10. The relation between NT Greek and the language of Palestinian Jews (including the possibility of ‘translation Greek’); 11. The influence of the living Aramaic (or Hebrew) substratum on NT writers; 12. The influence of the Septuagint on the NT writers.

______Silva, Moises. “Bilingualism and the Character of Palestinian Greek.” Ed. Stanley E. Porter. The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 60. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. pp. 205- 226. Appendix B

49 The following chart from Wallace (28) illustrates the relationship between the various aspects of New Testament Greek. To summarize, the Greek is conversational in its syntax, Semitic in its style, and its vocabulary stock is largely shared with ordinary papyrus, though at times by the LXX and Christian experience as well.

Semitic Background

THE NEW TESTAMENT

LEXICAL SYNTAX STOCK

Vernacular Literary Koine Koine

______Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. pp. 28. Appendix C

The following chart illustrates the various degrees of difficulty in different types of borrowing. In the case of a loan word we have an elementary form of linguistic exchange, for

50 which no real knowledge of the foreign language is needed (even though loan words are also common among fluent bilinguals). To imitate a foreign usage, however, some familiarity with both languages is necessary. Now whereas the degree of familiarity required may be relatively low as long as there is strong phonetic resemblance between the native and the foreign word, the special case of calque [borrowing] demands “awareness of a semantic pattern in a foreign language as well as one’s own combined with a perception of the semantic relationship that exists between the two languages.” further, we should probably differentiate between apparently unconscious identification (such as qavloassa = ‘lake’ after Aramaic yama) and more sophisticated, deliberate imitations such as diaqhvkh = berit) (Silva 1983, 90).

Degree of linguistic sophistication

low ------high phonetic resemblance unconscious deliberate phonetic dissimilarity loan words semantic loans

An example of the available choices that go into forming a sentence is illustrated below. For each word note the intent of the author is selecting one word over and against another. This has greater implications for some word choices over others, but for all words, a choice has been made. The meanings of the words are determined by the available meanings available for each specific word and how they relate to each other.

Some tall men ate slowly. Sentence

all short women chewed fast Available choices many tall men ate hurriedly within each category. few fat boy quickly some skinny dogs slowly

______Silva, Moises. Biblical Words & Their Meanings. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983. pp.90.

51 Appendix D

The Relationships Between Words

III. warmth cold

sense II. heater IV. fire heating radiator

symbol referent

I. feet V. vacation meat summer

We may note that the word in group I are related to each other only formally by having similar symbols, that is, they sound alike. The words in group V are related to each other “extralinguistically,” that is, in the physical world the things (referents) denoted by theses words have some kind of association. For our purposes we may dispense with both of these groups, even though formal and extralinguistic associations sometimes do have a bearing on semantic relations. The other three groups, however (and especially group III), contain words whose connection has a more direct semantic basis. In group II, the connection is both semantic and formal; group IV contains words that relate extralinguistically but whose semantic connection is more evident than in the case of group V. The words in group III are related exclusively on the basis of meaning, and so this set will become our major concern (Silva 1983, 113).

______Silva, Moises, Silva. “Bilingualism and the Character of Palestinian Greek.” Ed. Stanley E. Porter. The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 60. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. pp. 113.

52 Appendix E 1

1 ABS maps, e-Sword version 7.5.2, 2005.