Chapter 1 - Introduction

This study utilises a commercially available tagged corpus of ancient Greek to investigate a group of words that originated in Proto-Indo-European and show a number of interesting and diverse features in the modern descendants of that language, including Greek and English. I establish a statistical method for use in a corpus-linguistic, quantitative approach to the collection and interpretation of data, and use the results to develop and test hypotheses about the nature and cause of language change and to identify variations possibly unobservable by other methods, thus making them available for further study.

Why study Greek?

Ancient Greek continues to be learnt and studied because of the importance and prestige of

Classical Greece and its literature, philosophy and polity to the history of western civilisation.

Within Greece it has usually also been a compulsory school subject for reasons of national consciousness and identity. As long as interest in ancient history and the roots of our culture continues, it will be desirable for a linguistic approach to the study of the language to be maintained as one of the necessary tools for understanding ancient documents and culture. But, like Chinese, Greek is a language with a long and near-continuous recorded history, offering a unique source for the study of language change in general. At least in its written form, today’s

Greek is recognisable as a version of the language of Homer nearly three thousand years ago.1

This conservatism is unusual in the world’s languages and deserves investigation, but at the

1 Substantial sound changes are obscured by historical spelling, but there is a high degree of retention of lexical items and of morphology (particularly in the nominal system). Homer is cited as an exemplar of the oldest known form of Greek because the language of the orally transmitted Homeric poems preserves many linguistic features that are thought to be more archaic than the language of the earliest Greek documents, the Linear B tablets dating from approximately 1400 BC. 3 same time Greek has a history of great variation, both diachronic and synchronic, that can contribute to our knowledge of how and why languages change. The particular group of words studied in this thesis, which are interesting for their diverse and little understood behaviour in many of the related languages of Europe, can be traced back through Greek to their common origins in Proto-Indo-European.

Greek is one of the foundational languages in the history of linguistics. It was the observation of similarities and of the regularity of differences between Greek, Latin and Sanskrit that led to the postulation of family relationships between languages and so allowed the development of the comparative method of historical linguistics. This method has since been profitably applied to the identification and study of other language families and sub-families. Nineteenth century linguistic progress both arose from and stimulated further intensive study of Ancient Greek. The subsequent decline in classical studies does not diminish the importance of Greek, either as a vehicle for access to the ancient world or as a rich linguistic resource for the study of language change.

From the perspective of the modern language, the long continuous history and the relative accessibility of the written Greek of most earlier periods to the speaker of Modern Greek make it both a natural and useful area of study.2 For Greeks it is also sometimes a matter of national pride not only to be familiar with what they regard as their own heritage but also to be active participants in scholarly debate over issues that concern Greece and Greek, such as the pronunciation of the ancient language by modern scholars.3

2 This accessibility is due to several sociological factors, including a minimum-hours requirement in school curricula, general familiarity with the conservative language of the Orthodox liturgy, and a long history of diglossia in which until the 1970s much education and written communication was conducted in an archaising form of Greek (known as Katharevousa, ‘purifying’). 3 This remains a contentious issue, and practice differs from country to country. The origins of the reconstruction of the ancient pronunciation and its introduction into teaching practices in England are 4 Apart from general interest in history, culture and language, there is another reason why Greek has been studied, and outside Greece it is now the principal cause why Ancient Greek is still learnt: it is the language of the New Testament. This collection of first-century documents, the earliest extant Christian writings, has been intensively studied since its beginning and has been hugely influential as the sacred text of a major world religion. The project of translating these scriptures into the world’s languages began very early4 and is still in progress, with the Summer

Institute of Linguistics the largest and best-known trainer of translators.5 The majority of recent linguistic studies of Ancient Greek are contributions to the study of the New Testament and the world of early Christianity and Second Temple Judaism, although Mycenaean Greek and dialectology are also popular research areas.

For a number of cultural reasons, then, as well as linguistic ones, study of the Greek language is rewarding. This study looks at a specific group of words and traces their origin and use in

Homeric and Classical Greek, as detailed in recent studies, with the aim of comparing their use in the subsequent period of the language known as the Koine, to see whether changes can be discerned, and if so whether reasons for the changes can be suggested and verified.

outlined by Allen 1987: 140-9. Petrounias 2007: 1266-79 contrasts practices in western countries and in Greece and lists the advantages and disadvantages of the opposing positions. 4 The first large-scale translation project in history was the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, beginning in the early third century BC (Dines 2004). Versions of the New Testament in Latin, Syriac, Armenian and other languages are known from about AD 180, which is approximately the beginning of the period of decline of Greek in the western empire (Aland & Aland 1989: 185ff). 5 Many translators work from English or other modern-language versions, but most agencies require translators to be familiar with Greek; it is also a compulsory subject in many theological colleges. 5 Outline of this study

Chapter 2 surveys the history of the Greek language diachronically from its antecedents in

Proto-Indo-European to the classical period, with particular reference to prepositional and preverbal particles (‘P-words’).6 After a brief survey of the evidence for Mycenaean Greek, the earliest attested stage of the language, I review two studies of the P-words in relation to two synchronic states of the language, Homeric and Classical Greek, and give examples of the different usages in the two periods.

In Chapter 3 I trace the development of the next stage of the language, the Koine or ‘Common

Language’ of the hellenistic period, and look at the use of prepositions and preverbs in the New

Testament (NT), with particular attention to the problem of developing a method of evaluating large sets of raw data. Comparisons are made with the data presented in Chapter 2 and in two other hellenistic Greek corpora, the Septuagint (LXX) and Apostolic Fathers (AF). P-word usage in the later Koine period, the era of the New Testament writings, is described in the context of establishing whether significant changes since the classical period can be detected and accounted for. (The individual documents comprising the three corpora are described in

Appendix A, along with other data sources referred to.)

In Chapter 4 I review the results of the comparisons and statistical tests made and the success of the methodologies used, and outline areas for further research.

6 Following O’Dowd’s use of the term for English (1998: passim), I call this group ‘P-words’ as a convenient superordinate term for the group of adverbs, prepositions and preverbs. They are called ‘particles’ by Luraghi when she wants to leave their lexical class unspecified (2003: 76), but this may be potentially confusing as the term ‘particle’ is used in Greek grammars for other parts of speech, such as conjunctions (and appears as ‘PTC’ in Luraghi’s morphemic glosses for some non-P-words). The class of prepositions that are also P-words is known as ‘proper prepositions’, to be distinguished from ‘improper prepositions’, which have a more restricted functional range; but this terminology fails to capture their other functions as preverbs and adverbs. 6 Methodology

The basis of this study is the language of the middle Koine period as realised in the New

Testament. Three corpora are used for a quantitative analysis of the usage of the P-word group, with a view to establishing the degree of variation, if any, in their usage over time and the statistical probability that such variation is not due to mere chance or insufficient data. Where a variation is shown to be statistically significant, grammaticalisation theory is used to suggest hypotheses about the usage of the P-words and the possible paths of change they could be expected to undergo.

a. Corpus linguistics7

The corpora used for this study are grammatically tagged texts available in a database called

Accordance, Version 7.0.3 of August 2006, produced by OakTree Software, Inc, in Florida.8 The principal corpus used is the group of 27 New Testament documents, in the most recent edition of

Nestle-Aland known as NA27.9 It is fully tagged at the lexicogrammatical level using the

GRAMCORD system developed by The GRAMCORD Institute of Vancouver, Washington.10

Two other corpora are also used: a selection of texts from the Septuagint (LXX),11 Greek

7 General information about the field of corpus linguistics in this section is drawn from O’Donnell 2005, which applies corpus linguistics to the study of the NT. The history of the field is described in Kennedy 1998: 1-87, mainly with reference to studies of English but also acknowledging the origins of corpus- based research in the development of bible concordances from the 18th century on. 8 http://www.accordancebible.com. 9 Two editions were produced by identical editorial committees headed by Kurt Aland for different institutions. The texts are identical, but the punctuation and apparatus are different because UBS4 is produced by the United Bible Societies for the use of translators, while NA27 (1991) is a critical edition with a full apparatus for textual criticism. For the history of editions see Aland & Aland 1987, and for a critique of UBS4 and its apparatus see Clarke 1997. 10 http://www.gramcord.org 11 The text used in the database is that of Rahlfs 1935. 7 translations of Hebrew scriptures made from the mid-second century BC, and the Apostolic

Fathers,12 a collection of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament. Both these sets of documents are available in searchable tagged form from Accordance. The approximate time periods of the three corpora are: 3rd to first century BC (LXX), second half of first century

AD (NT) and first half of second century AD (AF).

Statistical information about earlier periods of Greek is much more difficult to obtain. Indexes and concordances to some classical authors exist, but in book form with data obtained without computer assistance. A searchable electronic archive of all Greek writing from the earliest documents and inscriptions to the end of the Byzantine period, the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae

(TLG),13 returns unreliable information for some kinds of search, because it is not grammatically tagged or even lemmatised (coded so that inflected forms can be retrieved by a search for the citation form). The online version of the standard lexicon of Ancient Greek, known as LSJ, gives word counts which sometimes do not resemble those obtained from TLG.14 Online LSJ through

12 The text used is the edition of Holmes 1999. 13 The TLG databank is available to subscribers as a CD and now also online. A free trial version is available at http://www.tlg.uci.edu/demo.html. The version I have used is the CD, Version E (February 2000). The TLG project is based at the University of California, Irvine; information about the development of the data bank is given on the project’s website (http://www.tlg.uci.edu) and in Berkowitz & Squitier 1986, which is a list of the authors and works in TLG (a later edition of this reference tool is available with free search access on the TLG website). Unfortunately the search programs developed to assist users of TLG have to be acquired separately. The best one is Pandora, for Macintosh, but Fisher Library has a more primitive search facility and TLG is not available on Macintosh there. 14 The usage counts which LSJ online provides are based on the bank of citations it uses in its definitions, not on whole texts; sometimes the usage rates may be similar to those obtained by token counts in TLG (difficult as they are to achieve), but there is no way to guarantee commensurability of the two sets of results. As an indication of the difficulties of using the LSJ site, consider this comment at http://www.greek-language.com/lexical.aids: ‘You may access the Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon at the Perseus site. (If response is slow, try the mirror site.) While this electronic edition of LSJ is tremendously useful, it is not as up-to-date as the ninth edition. For serious lexical study it is still necessary to consult the paper-and-ink version.’ The site is slow (as is the mirror site!) and cumbersome to use, and certain words simply do not appear to be retrievable (for example, the preposition katav kata). The Perseus 8 the Perseus Project also offers a collocation tool, and lists words with similar definitions to the headwords being consulted.

Many older grammars and other studies provide quantitative information, and some of the early counts, made without the aid of computers, are surprisingly accurate. It is common to find comments in grammars that presuppose a statistical study of the phenomenon being discussed, but the actual data is rarely given.15 A partial exception is the vibrant tradition of concordances: data is presented in such a way that the user can, with some effort, extract quantitative information as required. For example, a Greek concordance to the New Testament lists every occurrence of a particular word, and the user can manually retrieve whatever information is wanted, such as the number of times a given preposition is followed by a particular case.

However, this procedure is very laborious and liable to error. And a concordance is arranged by words, like a dictionary, so it does not enable the user to retrieve, for example, every instance of the use of a particular case or tense.

O’Donnell defines corpus linguistics as ‘a series of methodological and theoretical characteristics guiding the computational investigation of examples of naturally occurring language’ (2005: 1).

The major preliminary requirement is the construction of a representative corpus. The issue is complicated for the study of any past period of a language by the lack of samples of speech, the

Project, which runs the online LSJ site, is described at www.perseus.tufts.edu and on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseus_Project). 15 An exception is Moulton, whose qualitative judgments, as for example on the increasing use of prepositions and the relationship between changing uses of ejn en and eijV eis (1908: 62-3), are based on his tables in Moulton & Geden 1897. Another exception is Turner 1963, who gives a lot of frequency data but often in a misleading way: although continuing the descriptive syntax project of Moulton, he has reversed Moulton’s emphasis on the evidence for NT Greek as normal hellenistic Greek. Turner’s primary concern is to demonstrate that NT Greek is a peculiar Jewish Greek variety suffering the influence of Hebrew and Aramaic. See note 19 below for references to this debate. The fact that older grammars are based on different editions from those regarded as standard today makes some of the detailed information incompatible with computer-aided searches. 9 frequent lack of situational clues and the impossibility of consulting native-speaker competence.16 It has to be immediately recognised that any corpus of a dead language will be limited to written language samples and that production errors and other such phenomena of natural language may be unidentifiable.17 Ancient Greek is in a more fortunate position than many other epigraphic languages (such as Latin and Old English) in having a large body of surviving material, but the texts are neither random nor representative in the sense desired for corpus study. That is, they survive as accidents of copying and preservation, and some genres are over-represented (for example, historical narrative) while others may not have survived at all.

Further, our incomplete knowledge of the situations and cultures in which documents were produced means that some of the social-context-based tools of discourse analysis may be unavailable.

Criteria for selecting representative corpora depend partly on the use to which they are to be put.

In the case of Ancient Greek, only written texts are available so there is no opportunity to include samples of spoken language; and we have to make do with a further limitation: the texts are overwhelmingly the products of rich men and professional scribes. However, a variety of registers of the written language can be identified and should be included. For the purposes of linguistic analysis a corpus must be representative in some way relevant to what is being investigated: representative of the language of the period studied, of different genres and

16 The evaluation of grammaticality of a small group of sentences, as an analytical procedure such as is usual in generative grammar, would therefore seem to be very difficult for ‘dead’ languages. Nevertheless, attempts have been made to apply Chomskyan analysis to NT Greek, for example Schmidt 1981. Schmidt 1985 mentions other generative work on the NT and proposes a transformational grammar. However, the overwhelming majority of recent linguistic work on the NT takes a functional- based perspective, particularly Hallidayan grammar and systemic discourse analysis. 17 Some corpus-based studies of Greek have treated drama and philosophical dialogue texts as samples of spoken language (eg Duhoux 1997). While the studies are valid in seeking to compare the usage of different genres, it cannot be assumed that any such written evidence preserves spoken language in a way comparable to the data in modern corpora like Cobuild and the British National Corpus (described by Kennedy 1998: 46-48 and 50-54 respectively) . 10 registers, of different social occasions for writing etc. Data banks like TLG are not corpora in this sense: they are digital archives from which users can compile corpora according to their own criteria.18

Small sample sizes are adequate for some kinds of investigation, but in general larger sizes are preferable, especially for reliable investigations of authorship. Lexical studies require very large corpora, because significant vocabulary need not have high frequency; morphological phenomena recur at a much higher rate, allowing use of smaller samples. It is also desirable to include whole texts and not just extracts, particularly for study of discourse features.

Porter gives the following reasons for regarding the NT as a suitable corpus for linguistic study

(1989: 1):

* It includes a set of texts by at least 8 authors and of several genres.

* It is large enough to compare favourably with corpora used for analysis by others, being

similar in size, for example, to the Iliad and Thucydides (Romans is similar in size to

Plato’s Apology).

* Its language gives a fair representation of the common language variety of the hellenistic

world.19

* Little modern syntactic work has been done on it.

From the perspective of most work on hellenistic Greek, the NT (or NT and LXX) is the focus of study and other documents are examined for the light they throw on the language of the NT.20

18 Such compilation is facilitated by TLG’s classification scheme, which identifies the genre, date and geographical location of each text (Berkowitz & Squitier 1986: xiv ff). 19 The long-held and still occasionally repeated belief that the Greek of the NT was a creation of the early church, influenced by the Semitic background of its authors, resulted from the unrepresentativeness of the classical corpus being used to assess it. Once the contemporary papyrological evidence was known, it became clear that the language of the NT was the normal written language of literate speakers of the time. For evidence and discussions of this debate, see Horsley 1984, Porter 1989: 111-156, Porter 1991 and Horrocks 1997: 92-97. ON LXX Greek as vernacular Koine see Silva 1980 and Lee 1983: 1-30. 11 From a general linguistic perspective, the NT is still an important body of texts representing the ordinary language of the period and should be incorporated into any large corpus used to investigate that language. The difference in approach is apparent when compiling the corpus: a general-purpose corpus need not include the whole NT and might dispense with the shorter letters as too small to provide reliable results for some purposes. But even within NT studies some quantitative or stylometric work compiles figures based on larger sections of text and occasionally ignores or aggregates the smaller documents.21

Computational investigation of language usage has obvious benefits where large data sets are available. An additional reason for a corpus-linguistic approach to hellenistic Greek is that it can help to identify patterns and trends that are imperceptible even to close reading.22 This is particularly important for study of texts produced in bilingual and diglossic situations, as in the case of Greek, where frequency alone is sometimes the only indication of interference from another language or of departure from previous usage.23

20 For example, this is the rationale behind the publication of papyrus letters from Egypt in White 1986: ‘The primary purpose of this collection of letters ... is to provide a comparative body of texts for assessing the epistolary character of the early Christian letter tradition found in the New Testament and the Early Church Fathers’ (3). Similar statements are found throughtout the book of the same title by Meecham (1923). 21 For example, Kenny in some tables omits Jude and 1-3 John (eg Table 8.1, 1986: 50), but more often adds them to James and 1-2 Peter as ‘Catholic Epistles’ (eg Table 5.2, 1986: 26). In my use of the NT as a corpus I have divided the text into author-groups (with no implication of acceptance or otherwise of the traditional ascriptions of authorship) for the purpose of creating manageable samples for statistical analysis. 22 For instance, corpus-linguistic research has been able to identify differences in the practice of native- and non-native English student writing, so as to help second language learners avoid unnatural-sounding English; the features so identified are generated subconsciously and are not visible to readers except as vague impressions. See for example Berglund & Mason 2003 on the successful use of such parameters as frequency of pronoun use to identify subconscious stylistic features. 23 Hebrew influence on the Jewish and Christian Greek of the hellenistic period may be detected, for instance, in an increased use of parataxis, which is a natural phenomenon of spoken language but may also be a result of literal translation of the Hebrew ‘waw-consecutive’ construction (in which the particle 12 The present study is based on the NT as a corpus, totalling 138,167 words. As it is not my purpose to consider issues of authorship, I have for convenience divided the 27 NT books according to traditional author, giving 9 samples of varying size. The two other corpora used have been similarly divided into unequal sized samples. The AF corpus is made up of 8 samples by traditional author, consisting of letters, narrative accounts and theological treatises similar in genre to the NT writings; its total size is 64,640 words. For the much larger group of writings in the LXX, I have extracted a corpus of 5 samples of different sizes but comparable generic features, totalling 204,929 words. For descriptions of the individual texts, including their date, genre and linguistic register, see Appendix A.

In addition to the generally reliable data extracted from Accordance, I have obtained frequency counts of some prepositions from TLG and LSJ. Although they return different raw numbers, the relative figures are in most cases similar, and may be useful where other data is unavailable.

b. Grammaticalisation

The term ‘grammaticalisation’’24 refers to processes of syntactic change and to observed tendencies of language variation over time. In recent usage it describes not only how lexical items become grammatical morphemes but more generally how grammatical encoding of

meaning ‘and’ is part of the verb), or in extended use of prepositions in permissible but rare meanings (such as ejn en used in instrumental PPs). These may be what Moulton calls ‘secondary Semitisms’, the over-use of good Greek expressions under the influence of Hebrew and Aramaic usage (vol II, p 15). 24 Also know as ‘grammaticisation, ‘grammatisation’, ‘syntacticisation’ and ‘morphologisation’ (each of these having a variant spelling with ‘z’). In recent publications ‘grammaticalization’ has become the most common term. The invention of the term is attributed to Antoine Meillet, who defined it as ‘the attribution of grammatical character to a previously autonomous word’ (Meillet 1912; 385, translated in Brinton & Traugott 2005: 24). Surveys of recent work on grammaticalisation are provided in Harris & Campbell 1995, Heine 2003 and Hopper & Traugott 2003. 13 meaning emerges from lexical and collocational meanings. Metaphors like bleaching, fading, weakening and erosion are used to describe processes of change, but without any implication that language change represents degeneration; it is emphasised that loss in one area through a grammaticalisation process is always offset by gain in another. For example, in the development of adpositions from adverbial particles, the loss of lexical content is offset by a gain in the argument structure of the adpositional phrase.25

Grammaticalisation is often a result of pragmatic inferencing and is typically accompanied by semantic reduction, phonetic reduction or generalisation of the context in which a meaning can occur. At the morphosyntactic level the processes of grammaticalisation are reanalysis and analogy. Reanalysis is the reinterpretation of a surface form that is capable of more than one analysis. It changes the underlying syntactic structure so that the surface form is understood differently even though it has not changed. The textbook example of this is the development in

English of ‘be going to’ from a verb expressing directional motion to one expressing purposive motion and then to an auxiliary verb expressing futurity. These developments are possible because the pragmatic implications of utterances in context allow the same surface structure to carry extra meaning, which is reanalysed as inherent in the structure rather than in the context.

In this case, as often, the reanalysis is accompanied by wider contexts of use (for example, ‘be going to’ is no longer obligatorily accompanied by a locative expression) and phonetic reduction

(‘gonna’ is possible for the auxiliary but not for the motion sense). This process of generalising a word or rule so that it can be used in more contexts than before is analogy. It involves the removal of limitations on the environments in which a word or construction can occur. Often reanalysis and analogy operate together. In the ‘be going to’ development, the extension of the meaning of the construction was possible because after reanalysis of the surface form, to include purposive and not simply directional meaning, the environment in which it could occur

25 Vincent 1999. 14 was generalised to include contexts in which no direction was expressed. Reanalysis reinterprets ambiguous forms, and analogy regularises existing structures.

In Greek the adverbial particles, which originally had full lexical value and unrestricted word order, came to be reanalysed as grammatical words, through the reinterpretation of surface structures in which they frequently co-occurred with other content words, particularly nouns and verbs. This led to their becoming fixed as either prefixes or prepositions. In the case of prepositions a further development led to their association with one or more case and to the preposition being eventually interpreted as the determiner of the case of its noun phrase, instead of the inherent meaning of the case being independent as previously. (For example, the use of the genitive case to express ablative meaning was replaced by a prepositional phrase: the case- only means was no longer available. But the two parallel means of expressing locative meaning, by a noun phrase in the dative case or by a prepositional phrase, co-existed as alternatives much longer.)

It has long been noticed that there are trends in language change, such that certain types of development occur often and in unrelated languages. For instance, English is one of many languages that have formed future markers from a verb of motion.26 The development of Indo-

European adverbial particles to adpositions, apparently independently in its daughter languages, results from reanalysis of underlying structures and is a very early development of configurational syntax in the language family.27

Grammaticalisation theory is weakly predictive, in that it suggests possible paths of change without prescribing which paths a particular language will take or how far along the path a change will go. In this paper I will bring quantitative data to bear on hypotheses thrown up by

26 Bybee et al 1994. 27 Hewson & Bubenik 2006: 1-27. 15 known trends in grammaticalisation and developments in earlier forms of Greek, in the expectation that large data samples will reveal trends not visible to the ordinary reading of texts.

c. Statistical analysis28

Much of the quantitative data compiled in this study is in the form of word counts or ratios of usage (for example, number of preverb forms as a percentage of all verbs). However, for large- scale comparison of different sample sizes it is desirable to provide more elaborate calculations, to ensure that differences in raw number counts are really statistically significant and not merely the result of normal variations in the samples. Significance, as used in this technical sense, is an indication that the difference or relationship postulated between the samples is not due to chance.

Because I have used corpora of different sizes, consisting of populations with different numbers of samples, it is necessary to adjust the counts to allow for the variations caused by these differences. The procedure I have used to test for significance first calculates the mean and standard deviation of the samples and uses these to characterise a population of occurrences that one would normally expect to observe. The mean and standard deviation for each population are then used to calculate the probability that differences between the two populations are due to chance. Where more than two populations are being compared, this calculation has to be made for each pair of populations. The resulting p-value (probability value) is used to determine which differences can reliably be considered significant. In the physical sciences a p-value of 0.02 or under is considered conclusive; for most purposes 0.05 or under is conclusive, 0.10 is reliable and 0.15 is still likely to be significant. Setting the significance level is a necessary preliminary to reading a p-value. For this study I have chosen the conservative

28 For information on the choice of an appropriate statistical method I am indebted to Dr Simon Angus, School of Economics, University of NSW (personal communication). 16 option of 0.05; this means that a result is considered significant if there is at least 95% probability that it is not due to chance.

The t-stat is calculated from the deviations of the samples from the mean and tells how many standard errors the sample mean (X- bar) is from the hypothesised value for the mean. The formula for the t-value is Xbar1 - Xbar2 / standard error of the difference among the means:

where Xbar is the mean of the samples and S is the standard deviation, calculated as:

S = square root of the sum of the squares of the deviations from the mean divided by the number of samples minus one.

The p-value is the area in the two tails that is outside t-stat and minus-t-stat. Where the direction of divergence of the hypothesised relation is known, a one-tailed test is conducted. (The ‘tail’ is the portion of the distribution which in a bell curve graph appears as the narrow section to the right and left of the area of normal distribution.) If the hypothesis merely suggests a difference without predicting whether it is greater or less than the population being treated as the norm, a

2-tailed test for p-value is used: this divides the p-value between the two tails.

The p-value is not the probability that the null hypothesis is true, but only that obtaining a result as extreme as the one being considered is the result of chance alone. It is used to test hypotheses: that is, it calculates the probability that a hypothesised relation is due to chance,

17 with a p-value below the agreed significance level being interpreted as confirming the hypothesis that the relation is not due to chance.

An example of testing a hypothesis using the t-test and p-value:

Null hypothesis: that the 3 populations LXX, NT and AF are the same with respect to preverb frequency.

Hypothesis A: that the frequency of preverbs in NT and AF is greater than in LXX

This hypothesis is based on comments by Morgenthaler, cited by Kenny,29 that the absence of preverbation in Hebrew and Aramaic suggests the possibility of using frequency of preverbation in individual writers as a diagnostic of their familiarity with Greek. An implication of this suggestion is that translations from Hebrew to Greek might be likely to show less preverbation than independent compositions in Greek by native speakers. (This is just a test hypothesis; the assumption of a relation between the Greek of native-speakers or bilinguals writing translations and that of writers in Greek with a poor grasp of the language due to their Semitic background is not a necessary one; nor has it been established that any of the writers of the NT were not

Greek-speakers (whether as first language or not).)

We begin with raw percentages (word counts are unsuitable because the sample sizes are very different).

Table 1.1: Preverbs as percentage of verbs Jude 38.82 Clement 29.53 Martyrdom 36.40 Matthew 27.50 Pentateuch 35.34 Diognetus 27.37 Polycarp 35.00 Pauline 26.93 Proverbs 33.93 Ignatius 25.08 Luke-Acts 33.56 Shepherd 24.98 Hebrews 32.68 James 24.65 Chronicles 31.58 Barnabas 23.44 Mark 31.08 Ecclesiastes 19.31 Peter 30.40 Didache 19.29 Isaiah 30.17 Johannine 15.59

29 Kenny 1986: 49. 18 These counts need to be arranged into the populations which are being compared to each other.

To test the hypothesis, we list the percentage of preverbs to verbs in each sample of each population, then calculate the mean and the standard deviation within each population.

Table 1.2 - LXX

All PVs A: PV % verbs B: =A-m C: =B2 Pentateuch 35.34 5.27 27.78 Chronicles 31.58 1.51 2.29 Proverbs 33.93 3.86 14.94 Ecclesiastes 19.31 -10.76 115.69 Isaiah 30.17 0.11 0.01 n=5 150.33 160.71 m 30.07 40.18 SD 6.34

Table 1.3 - NT All PVs A: PV % verbs B: =A-m C: =B2 Matthew 27.50 -1.52 2.32 Mark 31.08 2.06 4.23 Luke-Acts 33.56 4.54 20.61 Johannine 15.59 -13.44 180.57 Pauline 26.93 -2.09 4.38 Peter 30.40 1.37 1.89 James 24.65 -4.37 19.13 Jude 38.82 9.80 96.03 Hebrews 32.68 3.66 13.38 n=9 261.22 342.53 m 29.02 42.82 SD 6.54

Table 1.4 - AF All PVs A: PV % verbs B: =A-m C: =B2 Clement 29.53 1.90 3.59 Ignatius 25.08 -2.55 6.52 Polycarp 35.00 7.36 54.20 Martyrdom 36.40 8.76 76.74 Didache 19.29 -8.34 69.62 Shepherd 24.98 -2.66 7.07 Barnabas 23.44 -4.19 17.59 Diognetus 27.37 -0.27 0.07 n=8 221.10 235.40 m 27.64 33.63 SD 5.80

The values n, m and SD are the input to the calculation of p-value by the formulas given above.

A full set of calculations for individual preverbs is given in Appendix B, Table 25.

19 When the t-stat and p-value are calculated for each pair of populations, three results are obtained, which are conventionally displayed in a grid in which each population is listed twice, in a row and in a column. To avoid confusion the values are listed only once for each pair, with the cells that would duplicate this information left empty.

Table 3: One-tailed test All PVs (as % LXX NT AF of all verbs) LXX 0.29 0.71 m=30.07 0.388 0.245 NT 0.46 m=29.02 0.326 AF m=27.64

To read this display, begin at the first row (in this case LXX). To see its relation with the other populations, read across the row to the first filled cell (the cell that redundantly compares LXX to

LXX being left empty): this shows that in relation to LXX, NT has a t-stat of 0.29 and a p-value of

0.388. The t-stat is listed because it shows the direction of any change: a negative value would show an increase, but here the positive value shows that NT has less preverbation than LXX.

None of the p-values falls under the significance level of 0.05, which means that Hypothesis A of an increase in preverbation in the original-Greek texts over the translation-Greek texts is not supported.

Note that the mean as shown is the average of the percentages in each population. Because the samples are of different sizes, this is not the same as the percentage in the population as a whole. The overall rate of preverbation in the 3 populations is:

LXX 33.47%, NT 27.33%, 26.22%

The variation here is greater than that listed as the mean in the test above. The purpose of the test is to reduce the effect of variations in samples of unequal sizes in order to produce a more reliable estimate of probability. In this case it suggests that the populations show less difference

20 from each other than seems apparent from the raw counts and the overall percentages. This procedure produces an important caveat: claims about usage must be based on clear standards and not simply on impressionistic readings.

A hypothesis that the populations are different that does not predict the direction of difference would produce a different result. In this case, the hypothesis critical p-value is halved, since this area is now split between the upper and lower tails (or to express it the other way round, the probability that the null hypothesis is correct is doubled):

Table 4: Two-tailed test All PVs (as % LXX NT AF of all verbs) LXX 0.29 0.71 m=30.07 0.775 0.490 NT 0.46 m=29.02 0.653 AF m=27.64

Calculation of probability-values by this method is appropriate for the comparison of groups of data where each group is to be compared to the others and each group consists of several samples of different sizes. It does not apply to the comparison of single-sample groups; for example, when considering the usage of tense forms with preverbation in Classical Greek and in the New Testament, we have insufficient data to obtain p-values, since comparable verb-counts are not available for different authors (see Chapter 3 on data from the classical author Lysias).

d. Transliteration

The Greek alphabet has a number of characters that do not correspond to roman letters.

Throughout this study I have used a simple transliteration scheme, in which the Greek characters that represented an aspirated stop are rendered by the roman stop character and ‘h’: ph, th, kh. Vowels are not distinguished by length even though Greek has separate characters

21 for two of its long vowels (the phonetic distinction maintained in the spelling was lost by the later

Koine period). Where the roman alphabet has a single character that represents a Greek letter,

I use it in preference to a more phonemic spelling; x instead of ks for x, but ps for y which has no roman equivalent. Iota subscript is written linearly in the roman script. In most places in the text I give the Greek word followed by a transliteration, but in lists and tables I give just the transliteration, in order to make the presentation of data less cluttered. I have not usually reproduced the accent diacritics in the transliterations, except where accent placement is relevant to the discussion. When giving sample sentences I give the Greek in the first line, then a transliteration aligned with a gloss and/or morpheme breakdown for each word, and finally a translation. I have not attempted to provide a phonetic or phonological representation of the

Greek, since the historical spelling conceals significant changes over the long time-span discussed, and some of the changes are not securely dated.30 The Greek font used in the body of this study is ‘Galilee’. In Appendix C (where the data is not transliterated), the font is ‘Helena’, as used in Accordance.

Summary

In this chapter I have offered reasons for continuing to make the Greek language an object of linguistic investigation and for using the New Testament as a corpus for quantitative study of hellenistic Greek. I have suggested that a combination of corpus linguistics and grammaticalisation theory is likely to provide a viable method of discovering facts about the language that would be difficult to perceive by other forms of analysis, and I have outlined a basic statistical method that is designed to increase the reliability of quantitative analyses. In the next chapter I turn to the history of Greek and trace the origins and development of the prepositions and preverbs that will be studied in Chapter 3.

30 For phonetic transcriptions of Greek texts from all periods, see Horrocks 1997. 22 Chapter 2 – From Proto-Indo-European to Classical Greek

In this chapter I outline what is known of P-words from the earliest period for which there is evidence, namely the Proto-Indo-European language as it has been reconstructed by historical linguistics, and trace the changes in their usage, particularly in the development of configurational syntax, through all attested periods of Greek to the end of the classical period.

The P-words are a distinctive feature of most of the daughter languages of Proto-Indo-European and offer a rich source of data for cross-linguistic, diachronic and typological studies. Greek with its three thousand year written history is a unique resource for the study of the origins and development of this significant and still inadequately understood group of words.

Indo-European and Pre-Greek

Greek is the sole representative of one of the ten branches of Proto-Indo-European (PIE),31 a language or group of dialects spoken about 4500 BC in an area of eastern Europe to the north and east of the Black Sea.32 The language as reconstructed by the comparative method is

31 There are ten branches in Fortson’s diagram (2004: 10); Campbell’s has only 8 (2004: 190-1), as he combines Italic and Celtic as one sub-group and Greek and Armenian as another. If Greek and Armenian form one sub-group that diverged very early it would mean that the centum-satem phonological divide in IE languages was to some extent an areal feature and not just a matter of different innovations in different family groups. There are several known ancient languages that cannot be securely affiliated with any of the major branches. 32 According to the Kurgan hypothesis of PIE origins, which appears to be the majority view at present. Other suggested homelands are Anatolia, Armenia, India and even the North Pole (Fortson 2004: 36, quoting Mallory 1989). Different theories have been proposed on linguistic, archaeological, geographic and population-genetics grounds; it seems these disciplines rarely point in the same direction. The Kurgan hypothesis is based on a combination of archaeology and linguistics, principally the nature of the vocabulary that can be reconstructed for PIE and what this tells us about the culture of its speakers. See the discussions of Beekes 1995 Chapter 3, Fortson 2004 Chapter 2 and Campbell 2004: 401-2. 23 extensively described by Fortson.33 It had a large inventory of consonants (for example, 15 stops) and at least 8 vowels. Word-roots consisted of a limited number of combinations of consonants with a fundamental vowel and often other vowels or syllabic consonants.

Polysyllabic words had at least one syllable characterised by a higher pitch. The pitch accent was mobile and cannot always be reconstructed; it is generally believed that verbs in PIE were clitics, without their own accent.34 A central feature of morphology was ablaut (usually termed apophony in relation to Greek), a system of vowel alternations in which different vowels appeared in roots according to the type of word being derived; inflections and other suffixes could also ablaut. Words typically consisted of a root, a suffix (or ablaut) and an ending.

Compounding and prefixation also occurred, with reduplication of an initial syllable being common. PIE was richly inflected, with 8 or 9 cases, three numbers, three persons and several tenses, all occurring in an older athematic (no vowel) or less archaic thematic (e or o before the inflection) form.

The word categories that will concern us in our study of Greek prepositions and preverbs are verbs and adverbs. The PIE verbal system was morphologically complex. It contrasted tense and aspect, but without a full system in which all tenses occurred in all aspects. Imperfective present and imperfect tenses existed in aspectual contrast to an always perfective aorist tense, along with a stative aspect that probably had its own past form (the traditionally termed perfect and pluperfect);35 there was no future tense. There were two voices (active and middle or

33 Fortson 2004: phonology Ch 3; morphology Ch 4; syntax Ch 8. The following information on the characteristics of PIE is derived from these chapters. On the comparative method see Beekes 1995 Ch 10, Fortson 2004: Ch 1 and Campbell 2004 Ch 5. 34 Fortson 2004: 99, who notes that in Greek the accent rules for verbs resemble those of clitics rather than nouns (though of course Greek verbs were no longer clitics as postulated for PIE). 35 This is the view of Jasanoff, who proposes a slightly different reconstruction of the PIE verbal system from the traditional one on the basis of his investigation of Hittite (the IE language with the earliest attestation after Vedic Sanskrit) (2001: 215). The view of Porter 1989 that the Greek verbal system was built around aspect and not tense is incompatible with most reconstructions of the PIE system. 24 perhaps mediopassive; the passive developed from the middle in the daughter branches), four or five moods, three numbers and three persons with two sets of personal endings. An originally independent particle became attached to past tense forms as an ‘augment’; it survived in Greek,

Armenian, Phrygian and Sanskrit.36 It bore the stress and in Greek is responsible for a large amount of allophony in compound verbs, where it comes between the preverb and the root.37

The Greek particles ana, anti, amphi, ek, en, epi, kata, peri, pros, huper, hupo are all reflexes of known IE adverbial particles.38 In PIE they functioned as independent adverbs, but in collocation with nouns they were (primarily) postpositions; most of the daughter languages, however, have prepositional reflexes. These particles could modify verbs without being restricted to the preverbal position; in some IE descendants the compound verb (combination of preverb and verb) can have an intervening clitic, or the morphemes can be detached, or the preverb can be fronted for emphasis.39

We next meet the P-words in Mycenaean Greek, which is chronologically the earliest attested form of the language. However, there is a three thousand year gap between PIE and

Mycenaean, which can be only partially bridged by reconstruction of Proto-Greek on the basis of

36 Beekes 1995: 226. Phrygian is an IE language spoken in central Asia Minor, with texts from 800 BC to AD 600; its affiliation if any with other IE languages is not known. 37 The allophony, due to interactions between adjoining vowels and between vowels and aspirates, is reflected in the spelling; this is one of the reasons the unlemmatised TLG archive is difficult to search. 38 These were not full adverbs of the type commonly formed from adjectives in many IE daughter languages. In PIE certain case-forms of nouns or adjectives could function adverbially, but the particles we are considering were mostly independent not derived words (Beekes 1995; 218). It is thought, however, that even some of these particles can be traced back to case-inflected nouns in an earlier stage of PIE; for instance, Greek ajntiv anti ‘against’ may come from a word meaning ‘face’ (Hewson & Bubenik 2006: 381). 39 See Fortson 2004: 140 for examples from Old Irish and Gothic, Modern German and Dutch, and Avestan. 25 comparison of ancient dialects. All such reconstructions remain controversial because of the difficulty of matching up linguistic and archaeological data.40

Little is known of the migration patterns of the groups of IE speakers into Europe. Greek has been spoken in the southern Balkan peninsula continuously since the arrival of Proto-Greek speakers in several waves of migration from approximately the beginning of the second millennium BC. The earliest documents in Greek date from about 1500 BC (only slightly later than Old Hittite). Traces of pre-Greek languages remain in some elements of vocabulary, especially place-names, but substrate influence cannot be identified in phonology or morphology because of the lack of attestation for the languages. The early, widespread and partly discontinuous range of dialects confirms the archaeological evidence for a period of mass migrations, which are not securely datable but may have continued through most of the second millennium BC; however, it should be noted that the earliest Greek documents do not take us back as far as a form of Common Greek or Proto-Greek. We still do not know where or when

Greek broke away from IE and how long it existed as a separate language before its speakers entered the Balkans.

Mycenaean Greek

The earliest Greek documents, palace records preserved on accidentally fired clay tablets and written in the syllabary known as Linear B, are in a ‘supraregional administrative language’

(Palmer 1980: 57) based on an Arcado-Cyprian dialect. As a chancellery language it is far more uniform than we might expect from the high level of dialect variation known to have existed, and so perhaps represents an early Koine.41 The tablets have been found in Crete and in the

40 See Adrados 2005: Chapters 1 & 2 for a contested reconstruction and references to the debate. 41 The Mycenaean documents span several centuries and have been found in diverse areas: the north- western and eastern Peloponnese and Crete. It was the unanimous opinion of Greeks in antiquity that the large range of dialects never diverged to the point of mutual unintelligibility. However, it is possible that 26 northeast and southwest Peloponnese, but the language shows little diversity for such a geographically wide range. The Mycenaean language, so named because the palace of

Mycenae is one of the centres of the civilisation that produced the Linear B tablets, has preserved some of the phonology of IE not found in later Greek, such as the series of labiovelar stops; it shares many features otherwise known only from the Homeric writings, and yet is notably lacking in other features characteristic of Homer.42 The reason for this anomaly is that the tradition of orally transmitted epic poetry preserved archaic features that were already obsolete in the spoken language of the Mycenaean civilisation; Homer and the Linear B texts share some features of early Greek lost by the classical period, but the language of epic is deliberately archaic and conservative and preserves some even earlier features.43

the continuum of ancient dialects had mutually unintelligible extremities. On the ancient dialect continuum and what it tells us about population movements of Greek speakers see Finkelberg 1994; see also Horrocks 1997: 7-16. Dialect diversity was always accompanied by a range of regional Koines that had a standardising tendency, and frequent and regular interactions between speakers of different dialects was the norm (Bubenik 1993), with the partial exception of the ‘Dark Ages’ (1200-800 approx). 42 Note that it is conventional to refer to the composer(s) of the Iliad and Odyssey by the name of the traditional author, Homer, without implication that there was one figure or one stage of composition behind the poems. One of the significant features shared by Mycenaean and Homeric Greek is the lack of the definite article, which developed in Greek (considerably earlier than in any other IE language) only shortly before the classical period. In the Linear B documents the relative pronoun is rare and may be an adverb (‘thus’) (Vilborg 1960: 101, 125); in Homer what look like articles are relative and personal pronouns (from which the article later developed) (Hewson & Bubenik 2006: 3-4, 55-56). 43 On the use of archaic formulas in oral composition of epic poetry see Nagy 1996 and Horrocks 1997: 18. According to the Parry-Lord hypothesis (as presented for instance in Lord 1960), poetry was composed in performance and employed a stock of key phrases in various metrically useful forms. As Householder put it: ‘The interplay of formulas ... is ... advantageous to diachronic perspective because of its conservative effect on the linguistic heritage. Configurations which otherwise would have long ago become extinct remain embedded in this or that expression preserved by the formulaic structure. It is to the Epic that we owe the perpetuation of the most archaic words in the Greek repertory, often coexisting side-by-side in the same line with the most recent.’ (Householder & Nagy 1972: 20-21.) Some of the poetic formulas are thought to date back to PIE, providing evidence of very early cultural practices such as myths and religious rituals. See Householder & Nagy 1972: 48-58 for examples of striking parallels in Homeric, Hittite and Sanskrit verbal collocations. 27 Some of the P-words are attested in Mycenaean but do not exhibit the IE-like behaviour that is seen in Homer. In the Linear B texts there are prepositions and preverbs but no postpositions or tmesis (separation of verb and preverb). (See below on Homer’s use of P-words.) In the light of the development of the P-words in other IE languages, there is no reason to suppose that the usage in Mycenaean was far different from what became the norm in classical times. Homer, though intermediate (in terms of when the poems were finally committed to writing) between the

Mycenaean and classical periods, represents an earlier stage of the language in respect to the usage of the P-words.

The nature of the Linear B documents precludes a full analysis of the Mycenaean language. The script is inadequate for Greek, as it makes phonetic distinctions Greek does not have and fails to make others that are significant in Greek. It cannot represent consonant clusters, so either deletes a consonant or inserts a vowel. Word-final consonants are not shown, which leaves significant morphology unrepresented. Many words are not securely identified with known

Greek words, as there are often multiple possible conversions to later Greek spelling. The vocabulary of the tablets consists mostly of personal and place-names, and there are few verbs and function words and very little clause-level syntax. Nevertheless, the P-words amphi, apo, epi, sun, meta and para are attested as prepositions; ana, en, peri, pro and huper as preverbs; and anti and kata as elements of personal names. The only aspect of their usage inconsistent with classical usage is that hupo is found as an adverb.44

44 This information is from Vilborg 1960: 119-123. A dictionary of Linear B is available on-line at www.explorecrete.com/archaeology/linearB.pdf. It lists several P-forms, among them the prepositions a- pu (ajpov apo), e-pi (ejpiv epi), pa-ra (parav para), the adverb u-po (uJpov hupo) and the compound verbs a-pi- e-ke (ajmfievcei amphiekhei ‘contains’ [hold around]) and e-pi-ko-wo (ejpivkoƒoi epikowoi ‘pay attention’ [look on]). (The conventional transcription of Linear B is to separate syllables by hyphens. Every character represents a syllable of V or CV type.) 28 The destruction of the centralised Mycenaean civilisation during the twelfth century led to a long period of population decline, illiteracy, social and linguistic regionalism and economic depression. There is almost no trace of writing for four centuries. Political and linguistic unification did not reoccur until the hellenistic period. Alphabetic inscriptions appear from the early eighth century BC, and shortly after this the Homeric epics reached the form in which they have been handed down: ‘essentially an archaic eastern Ionic but with an admixture of Aeolic, and a number of conspicuous archaisms not characteristic of any one historical dialect or region’

(Horrocks 1997:18). The language of epic was thus not an actual spoken dialect but a conventionalised form that developed in a manner typical of orally transmitted poetry and later became a prestigious literary variety. Nevertheless, as is clear from comparison with other ancient IE languages, the peculiarities of the Homeric Dichtersprache are not all merely the result of its poetic form, and therefore offer some reliable evidence for developments in the language between PIE and Mycenaean.

Homeric Greek and the P-words

The P-words in Homer have been studied by Horrocks in Space and Time in Homer:

Prepositional and Adverbial Particles in the Greek Epic (1981) and by Luraghi in On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases: The Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek (2003).45

Horrocks begins from the position that:

... the language of the Iliad and Odyssey is regarded as a unitary dialect to be treated from a synchronic point of view ... despite the chronologically and geographically disparate origins of vocabulary items, grammatical forms, etc, I take the view,

45 Horrocks 1981 is a type-script with hand-written Greek examples; it gives no transliterations or glosses. Frequent citations in French are untranslated. There are few headings or breaks in the text, and no index, making it difficult to go back to sections of interest. Luraghi’s book is explicitly intended for general linguists with no knowledge of Greek script, and gives all Greek examples in roman transliteration with lexical glosses and morphemic analysis. 29 consistent with the interpretation of the poems as products of a long and sophisticated oral tradition, that this amalgam was put to use as a coherent and self-contained system by individual singers, without assuming knowledge on the part of those singers of the history and origins of the material employed. (1981: 1)

However, this is to regard the conscious mixture of vernacular and archaic language as representing a unified linguistic system, whereas no such coexistence is known outside this literary or performance dialect. Some of Horrocks’ findings regarding the usage and syntactic character of P-words in Homer depend on this assumption, relying on a spurious synchronic unity.46 For example, he argues that in Homeric Greek the P-word is an adverbial particle even where it occurs with a noun phrase in an oblique case, on the grounds that if the P-word is not always a preposition then it cannot ever be the head of a prepositional phrase. But this disregards the fact that competing systems were present in the same semi-artificial dialect due to the deliberate use of older patterns; there is no need to claim that only one system (P as head of dependent NP, or N as head of NP accompanied by adverb) was synchronically possible in the language of performance. The older IE system used case to indicate spatial relations, and any accompanying P-word added meaning without taking over the case function; but both

Mycenaean and classical Greek increasingly used prepositional phrases with the preposition governing the noun phrase and determining its case, even though (from a diachronic perspective) it had been the case functions which originally determined what cases a preposition would govern.47 In Homer both systems (independent case and configurational syntax) are still present, and to insist that one system is still underlyingly the other is to perform the classical

46 This seems somewhat akin to arguing that the hymn writers of the nineteenth century, who regularly used obsolete morphology and word order, had only a single underlying synchronic grammar, instead of recognising that their conscious archaism was a separate system within the genre, which allowed ‘normal’ as well as archaic usage. 47 On case-syncretism in Mycenaean (particularly the fusion of PIE dative and locative) see Horrocks 1981: 128ff: he concludes that prepositional syntax had replaced case as the usual expression of locative relations. 30 grammarians’ error in reverse: they viewed Homer’s usage as a departure from their own,48 while Horrocks appears to deny that the developments have yet taken place in the epic language.49 In any case, a different but still strictly synchronic view of the data is possible if the variation is viewed as the normal outcome of grammaticalisation processes, which typically generate changes which may coexist with the original constructions. Greek speakers must have been able to recognise and produce both free and syntactically restricted uses of P-words for some time while the reanalysis of the constructions was taking place, just as English speakers can use ‘going to’ in two different syntactic constructions.

Whether Horrocks’ views on the dependency relations of prepositional phrases are accepted or not, his attempt to find a theoretically rigorous explanation for the variation in Homeric usage is an improvement on older treatments, which typically are unable to find a unified classification for the facts of usage.50 However, his analysis is unnecessarily complex. He interprets independent adverbial uses of particles as ‘implicitly prepositional, since a noun phrase can, in principle, always be supplied ... adverb phrases consisting of independent particles are interpreted as pro-forms of full adverb phrases, i.e. as incorporating a covert adverbial element meaning something like “here”/”there” which is qualified by the particle and construed anaphorically as co-referential with some previously mentioned adverbial noun phrase (1981:

20). It seems gratuitous to introduce covert elements in this manner. And, like the older grammarians, he treats differences of positioning of P-words in relation to verbs as different

48 This is clear from their use of the term ‘tmesis’ (‘cutting’) as a description of the phenomenon by which, as it seemed to them, a preverb became separated from its host verb. 49 He does not of course deny the actual usages, but denies that the configurational patterns in Homer have syntactic meaning at this stage. He treats the Homeric language in effect as a stage completely prior to Mycenaean rather than as showing a mixture of older and newer patterns (1981: 18-19). As noted above in relation to the definite article, there are some features of the two stages which are identical and do not allow such a complete separation. 50 Horrocks takes Chantraine 1953 as ‘typical of the traditional view of the subject; similar accounts appear in all the standard grammars and works of reference’ (1981: 10). These accounts note the differences from classical usage without offering an explanatory account of their development. 31 kinds of syntactic phenomena (phrasal verbs, compound verbs etc), when it accounts for the facts just as well to regard them as coexisting different stages on the well-known grammaticalisation path from free lexical items to more restricted function words.51

Horrocks briefly notes that P-words can be associated with verbs in such a way as to make them transitive (1981: 41). The examples he gives show that the P-word is free to associate with verb or NP:

(1) a. ton;; d‘ au\te proseveipe qea; glaukw:piV ‘Aqhvnh

ton d’ aute proseeipe thea glaukopis Athene

PRN.ACC PTC again P towards.spoke goddess gleaming-eyed Name

‘The goddess Athena with gleaming eyes addressed him again’ (A.206)

(1) b. pro;V d’ Eujrukleivan e[eipen

pros d’ Eurykleian eeipen

P towards PTC Name.ACC spoke

‘he addressed Eurykleia’ (u.128)

Here the P-word provides the means to give the verb a direct object (shown in both examples by the accusative case); normally the verb ‘speak’ can have as an object only words like

‘something’ or ‘a word’. As yet it is still the spatial meaning of the P-word that is doing the work, rather than a fixed P-word/verb combination where the verb has different properties of transitivity. The collocation of a verb of speaking with provV pros + ACC as PP remained an

51 It should be noted that Horrocks was writing from a generativist (transformationalist) rather than functional perspective, before the modern predominantly functionalist renewal of interest in grammaticalisation. 32 option in classical and later Greek. Nevertheless it is clear how a transitive verb could develop from this configuration.

Horrocks has a short final section in which he examines the use of the P-words ajpov apo and ejpiv epi in phrasal and compound verbs. While noting that the meanings of such verb combinations are typically not compositional, he traces stages in Homeric usage where the parts seem to retain their separate semantic contributions to the whole, and developments in which the collocation of verb and particle appears to restrict the options available for accompanying noun phrases in a way that suggests that the environment in which they are used has changed.

Some uses of the P-words are found to be ‘purely aspectual, with very little of the literal meaning retained’ (1981: 277). The most common aspectual meanings for ajpov apo are resultative and intensive, but he finds some examples of inceptives. Interestingly, he finds a difference in the resultative uses of the PVs ejpiv epi and ajpov apo:

While ajpov is characteristically used in perfective function with the nuance of ‘removal’,

and so tends to appear with destructive verbs, ejpiv is generally associated with

‘creative’ verbs describing an action whose performance ‘to a result’ brings the affected

object ‘onto the scene’ in a state of completion ... availability for some purpose, etc.

(1981: 283-4)

Another resultative sense of ejpiv epi occurs in verbs of ‘urging on’; but it also occasionally has a durative or repetitive sense. This is consistent with the stronger correlation of the preverb ajpov apo with perfective aspect, in comparison with ejpiv epi, in verbs in the New Testament (Table

B.23) and suggests that this aspectual correlation will be found throughout the intervening period

(between Homer and late Koine) when data on individual preverb usage becomes available.

On the development of P-words into aspect-related function words Horrocks concludes with a statement that is entirely consistent with a grammaticalisation approach:

33 ... a great many linguistic oppositions to do with notions such as inception, duration,

completion and so on are learned as a kind of analogical extension of oppositions first

learned in connection with concepts such as location, movement and orientation. It

cannot be entirely accidental that the same set of particles are used to express both

types of relationship. (1981: 287)

Horrocks goes on to investigate the semantics of the P-words in relation to their interaction with case, particularly the originally locative meanings of the cases and their metaphorical extensions. His componential approach to the semantics of case is expressed in the terminology later used in Cognitive Linguistics, including the explicitly cognitive approach taken by Luraghi 2003, who extends the description to include classical Greek usage. Her emphasis is on establishing the meanings of the preposition-case configurations in Homer, which she argues are primarily the prototypical spatial meanings, and then showing from a selection of classical texts how the temporal and other metaphorical extensions of meaning developed from the spatial ones. Both Horrocks and Luraghi employ the terminology of Source, Path and Goal and provide plausible reasons for the often slight or apparently imperceptible differences in usage between prepositions, and between the cases governed by a preposition.

Horrocks’ work is an early attempt to bring current linguistic understanding to bear on issues that had previously been the domain of philologists and classicists. He rightly rejects approaches that see the classical language as the standard and earlier stages as merely incomplete versions of it, an attitude that is implicit in many descriptions of Homeric Greek which fail to notice that words and constructions that have a surface similarity to classical Greek in fact have different underlying structures (as in the pronouns that look like articles, and the P-words that look like preverbs and prepositions). Nevertheless, he overstates the case when he argues that all the configurational patterns of P-words, for which he has a complex categorisation, are either merely optional or idiosyncratic collocations and that prepositions are not yet heads of their PPs.

34 The Mycenaean evidence suggests rather that the variety of P-word usage in Homer is due to the retention of archaisms which can be used simultaneously with more recent systems of configuration. It is evidence of an earlier form of Greek but exists only in a mixed form of the language in which older and newer patterns coexist. Horrocks’ work remains valuable for its general approach and its wealth of examples, but it has now been superseded by Luraghi 2003, where the data is much more accessible to general linguists and is organised around a more theoretically consistent approach.

Luraghi begins by stating the theoretical assumptions of Cognitive Linguistics, that grammatical forms are meaningful and that abstract meaning usually derives from metaphorical extension of spatial meaning, space being the basic domain of human experience (2003: 11-12). Unlike

Horrocks she considers that this cognitive approach ‘necessarily implies the integration of a diachronic dimension in the analysis of meaning’, although it does not imply that an original spatial meaning is synchronically available as a ‘basic’ meaning (2003: 12). She shows however that in Homer the spatial meaning is still available for almost all the prepositions, whereas by classical Greek the meanings are less specific and often wholly metaphorical. The prototypically spatial prepositions en ‘in’ (+dative), ek ‘out of’ (+genitive) and eis ‘into’ (+accusative) are the most stable and show the least metaphorical extension (2003: 315); they also retain the most synchronically accessible semantic connection with the locative, ablative and allative functions of

PIE cases.

Luraghi is only incidentally concerned with the P-words’ association with verbs. However, her summary of Homeric usage is more accessible than Horrocks’, and her wealth of examples of all the combinations of preposition and case usage is a valuable resource, and includes instances of all the types of verb and P-word combination found in Homer. Her study is used as the

35 source for Hewson & Bubenik’s discussion of the development of prepositions in Ancient Greek

(2006: Chapters 1 & 3).52

These studies may differ in their reconstructions of the exact paths of change from PIE to Greek, but they are united in arguing that the traditional classical-oriented view of Homeric usage as an aberrant one is anachronistic, and that Homer represents an intermediate stage in the development of P-words from free to configurational elements.

P-words could appear in four configurations in Homer:53

(A) Preposed before a Noun Phrase

(2) ejpi; gai:an ajp’ oujranovqen protravphtai

epí gaian ap’ ouranothen protrapetai

P to earth.ACC P from heaven.[GEN] P.turn.3SG

‘to earth from heaven he turns’

(3) ejpi; cevrsou

epí khersou

P.near shore.GEN

‘near the shore’

(4) ejpi; krotavfoiV ajrarui:a

epí krotaphois araruia

P to temples.DAT.PL suited

‘ f i t t i n g m y h e a d ’

52 In refreshing contrast to Horrocks 1981 and Luraghi 2003, this study always gives the tradtional script as well as transliterations and glosses, making it convient for both Greek specialists and general linguists. 53 Examples (2) to (13 from the Iliad and Odyssey all show the P-word ejpiv epi and are taken from Hewson & Bubenik 2006: 4-7. The P-forms are printed in red in the transliterations. 36 In these examples the meaning of the P-word comes from its interaction with the case of the NP.

The accusative case is associated with movement, while the oblique cases are not. In (2) there are 3 P-words: two preposed to NPs and one preposed to the verb. As in classical Greek ajpov apo governs the genitive case, but in (2) there is an older genitive morpheme -qen –then instead of the classical case form oujranou: ouranou.

(B) Postposed after a Noun Phrase

(5) o{ssa te gai:an e[pi pneivei

hossa te gaian épi pneiei

what.NOM.PL and earth P on breathe.3SG54

‘whatever on the earth breathes’

(6) ajletreuvousi muvlh/V e[pi mhvlopa karpovn

aletreuousi muleis épi melopa karpon

grind.3PL millstone.DAT.PL P on yellow grain.ACC

‘they grind the yellow grain on the millstone’

The accent on the first syllable of the P-word indicates that it is not a free adverb or preverb.

This accent placement (termed anastrophe) is of ancient origin, but as accents were not regularly written until the middle Koine period it cannot be definitely asserted that it represents a phonetic reality. It is possible, for instance, that it is an early attempt by grammarians conscious of the anomaly of Homeric usage to differentiate graphically the two types of adposition.

However, Hewson & Bubenik treat the accent placement as genuinely diagnostic: ‘the inner core prepositions are marked phonologically by lack of accent ... the outer core prepositions are marked by an accent on the ultimate syllable ... the peripheral prepositions are accented on the

54 The singular verb with a neuter plural subject is normal in Greek, although usually the subject is not animate. The Greek neuter plural suffix derives from a PIE collective marker (Fortson 2004: 118, 143). 37 antepenultimate’ (2006: xi). The poetic metre is no help here because the pitch accent was only indirectly related to metre, which was based on syllable quantity.

Note that the P-word with accusative case in (5) cannot have the same meaning as in (2) and does not mean ‘breathes on the earth’.

(C) Tmesis (belonging with the verb but not preposed)

(7) kai; ejpi; knevfaV iJero;n e[lqh/

kai epí knephas hieron elthe

and P on darkness sacred come.3SG

‘and the sacred darkness closes in’

(8) hjd’ ejpi; sh:m’ e[ceen

ed’ epí sem’ ekheen

and P on barrow heap.IMPF.3SG

‘and heaped a barrow on (him)’

(9) oi|sin ejpi; Zeu;V qh:ke kako;n movron

hoisin epí Zeus theke kakon moron

who.DAT.PL P on Zeus.NOM put.AOR.3SG evil.ACC doom.ACC

‘on whom Zeus put an evil doom’

In (7) the verb is intransitive and there is no oblique NP. In (8) the NP is the direct object of the verb, and there is no overt locative or indirect object. In (9), it would be unusual to have a P- word postposed after a prosodically weak word like a pronoun, and the accent supports reading the P-word as a preverb in tmesis, as it is the usual final accent for the preposition rather than

38 anastrophe as would be required if it collocated with oi|sin hoisin (but note the caveat mentioned above on example (6) regarding the reliability of accent judgements).

(D) Preverb

(10) kefalh/: d’ ejpevqhke kaluvptrhn

kephale d’ epetheke kaluptren

head.DAT PRT P on.put.AOR.3SG veil.ACC

‘and on her head she put a veil’

(11) puvrgwn hJmetevrwn ejpibhvseai

purgon hemeteron epibeseai

wall.GEN.PL our.GEN.PL P on.mount.FUT.2SG

‘you shall mount upon our walls’

(12) nho;V ejpiqrw/vskwn

neos epithroskon

ship.GEN.SG P on.leap.PRES.PTCP.3MSG

‘as he leapt aboard his ship’

In (9) there is a direct object and an oblique NP that relates semantically to the PV. According to

Hewson & Bubenik the dative in (10) is more closely locative than the genitive in (11) and (12), where the location is a space that people can move around in; but they do not report whether this genitive construction can occur where there is a direct object (2006: 8), and it may be that the difference in case assignment relates to the transitivity of the verb, or to the particular

39 semantics of ejpitivqhmi epitithemi ’put on’, which requires an extra argument (on this verb see

Appendix C).

The following example from Hewson & Bubenik is said to be an example of adverbial usage of the P-word, but they also call it a post-posed preverb, which seems more likely (notwithstanding the oxymoron). It is the same verb ejpevlqein epelthein ‘come upon’ as in (7) above.

(13) h[lq’ e[pi yuch; jAgamevmnonoV

elth’ épi psukhe Agamemnonos

come.AOR.3SG P on soul.NOM Name.GEN

‘the soul of Agamemnon approached’

The P-words in classical Greek

This then is the range of usage of P-words in Homer; their position in regard to verbs and noun phrases is not fixed, and nor is their association with specific cases. By the classical period (the fifth and fourth centuries BC) they have become much more grammatical, in the sense that their meaning is more dependent on their syntactic behaviour. Only one P-word, periv peri, retains the option of being postposed to a noun phrase (a construction called anastrophe; note the regression of the accent as discussed under example (6)), as in:

(14) a. Homer

Acilleu;V a[stu pevri Priavmoio posi;n tacevessi diwvkei

Achilleus astu péri Priamoio posin

Name.NOM city.N/A P around Name.GEN foot.DAT.PL

takheessi diokei

swift.DAT.PL pursue.PRES.3SG (Iliad 22:172-3, from Luraghi 2003: 273)

‘Achilles is pursuing him with swift feet round the city of Priam’ 40 (14) b. classical Greek

dikai:wn pevri kai; ajdivkwn

dikaion péri kai adikon

just.M/N.GEN.PL P about and unjust.M/N.GEN.PL

‘and about the just and the unjust’ (Plato Gorgias 455a (LSJ s.v. peri))

So by the classical period the P-words are restricted to configurational and not independent use.

When associated with verbs they are preverbs, not adverbs, and when associated with NPs they are prepositions, rarely postpositions and never adverbs. Verbs with preverbation have a tendency to be associated more strongly with perfective or imperfective aspect, according on the meaning that the preverb contributes to the collocation. (See below for evidence of the association of preverbation and aspect in Lysias.) Prepositions, on the other hand, have a much clearer association with case, although again the semantics of the P-word also contributes to the formal features of PPs. From the situation in PIE and to a lesser extent in Homer, where case contributed the distinctions of locative meaning and the P-word modified this meaning as an optional adjunct, we have arrived at a stage of grammaticalisation where the collocation of P- word and case is no longer optional, and the preposition is the determiner of the meaning of the

PP, with case as a secondary contributor.

Table 2.1, taken from Luraghi 2005, shows the ‘proper prepositions’ with the cases they govern in classical Greek. The glosses given are of course over-simplified, but they enable us to appreciate at a glance the high degree of near-synonymity: some prepositions have nearly the same meaning when followed by one or another case; and some prepositions have nearly the same meaning as others.55 For example, periv peri has the same meaning when followed by accusative as by dative case, and parav para and provV pros with the dative have similar

55 For an extremely fine-tuned analysis of the semantics of each preposition and its case uses, see Luraghi 2003: 82-313. 41 meanings. LSJ online lists words with similar definitions to each headword; for eijV eis it gives ejn en and ejpiv epi, for example. This degree of redundancy will eventually lead to loss of case as a means of signifying meaning, leaving it as a purely formal feature which will be simplified to the point where (during the medieval period) the spoken language began to use accusative after all prepositions (see Appendix B.25).

Table 2.1 Primary adpositions in Classical Attic (Luraghi 2005:49)

ACCUSATIVE DATIVE GENITIVE amphí ajmfiv around aná ajnav up antí ajntiv in exchange for apó ajpov from diá diav for (cause) through eis eijV to, into ek/ex ejk ejx out of en ejn in epí ejpiv against on on hupér uJpevr beyond above hupó uJpov under under by (agent) katá katav about down metá metav after with pará parav to, along (near)by from perí periv around around about (topic) pro prov before, instead pros provV toward, against (near)by from sun suvn with

The three core prepositions eijV eis, ejn en and ejk ek are monosyllablic, unaccented and hence probably proclitic, and able to govern only one case (Hewson & Bubenik 2006: 71). They express the core spatial relations and govern the cases which expressed the same core relations. eijV eis was a post-IE development from ejn en; in Cypriot the older two-way opposition is preserved, in which ejn en (like its cognates in German and Latin) alternates between accusative and dative according to meaning. ejk ek and ejx e x are phonetically conditioned allomorphs.

Just as eijV eis developed from ejn en, provV pros developed from prov pro and adds the sense of movement to the static location meaning of the base form, acquiring new case relations in the 42 process. Of the non-core prepositions only suvn sun occurs with dative case alone, and only ajmfiv amphi and ajnav ana with accusative alone, while ajntiv anti, ajpov apo and prov pro take genitive only.

There is no preposition that governs both dative and genitive but not accusative. This lends support to Hewson & Bubenik’s conclusion that the primary opposition in the classical configurational syntax of the PP is between orientation from the landmark (ablative meaning expressed by genitive case) and orientation towards the landmark, whether static (dative) or including movement (accusative) (2006: 68-70). However, this distinction by orientation is not always apparent. As an example of the extremely fine distinction between genitive and dative with ejpiv epi, Luraghi provides the following minimal pair from a single passage in Herodotus:

(15) a. with dative case

a[ggoV ejpiv th/: kefalh/: e[xousan

angos epi te kephale exousan

vessel.ACC P on ART.DAT head.DAT have.PRTC.F.SG.ACC

‘having a jar on her head’

(15) b. with genitive case

fevrousa to; u{dwr ejpi; th/:V kefalh/:V

pherousa to hudor epi tes kephales

carry.PTCP ART.ACC water.ACC P on ART.GEN head.GEN

‘bearing the water on her head’ (Luraghi 2003: 308)

43 and a similar minimal pair within a sentence, also from Herodotus:

(16) e[cei de; hJ movscoV ou{toV oJ :ApiV kaleovmenoV shmei:a toiavde ejw;n mevlaV, ejpi; me;n

tw/: metwvpw/ leukovn ti trivgwnon, ejpi; de; tou: nwvtou aieto;n eikasmevnon

ekhei de ho moskhos houtos ho Apis

have.PRES.3SG PTC ART.NOM calf.NOM DEM.NOM ART.NOM Name.NOM

kaleomenos semeia toiade eon

call.PRTC.PRES.PASS.M.NOM mark.N/A.PL INDEF.N/A.PL be.PRTC.PRES.NOM

melas epí men toi metopoi leukon ti

black.NOM P on PTC ART.DAT forehead.DAT white.NOM/ACC INDEF.N/A

trigonon epi de tou notou aieton eikasmenon

triangle.N/A P on PTC ART.GEN back.GEN eagle.ACC represent. PRTC.PF.M.PL.ACC

‘this calf called Apis has these marks: he is black, and has on his forehead a three-

cornered white spot, and the likeness of an eagle on his back’

(Luraghi 2003: 309)

Luraghi argues that the uses differ in that the genitive profiles a vertical orientation while the dative does not specify orientation (2003: 309-10). Hewson & Bubenik on the other hand consider the difference in the water-jar passage to hinge on whether the empty jar or the (jar full of) water is being profiled (2006: 75-6). Either or both are possible, even plausible subtleties of subconscious native-speaker usage, but we are not in a position to judge.

It is likely that quantitative data may provide a means to assess such hypotheses about native- speaker intuitions, as frequency of use of features that writers and especially speakers are

44 usually unaware of can identify both common patterns and trends, and also anomalous usages or distinctive stylistic preferences. Without such data for classical Greek we can do no more than guess at reasons for the variation displayed in (15) and (16).

Table 2.2 shows the frequency of most of the prepositions in Greek. The number given is for tokens per ten thousand words, and is taken from LSJ online.56 Although incomplete and not without a significant margin of error, this information may be used as a rough generalisation by which to compare frequencies at different periods and note any changes. However, in the absence of a breakdown of these frequencies by case, which is unobtainable with the present state of grammatical tagging, qualitative analysis must depend on small studies of individual texts.

Table 2.2 Frequency of prepositions

195.92 eis 89.37 en 71.78 pros 65.23 epi 51.33 ek 40.49 dia 35.59 hupo 28.67 para 28.11 apo 27.80 meta 10.56 huper 5.38 sun 4.25 pro 3.48 anti

56 Some prepositions are not listed because faulty links on the Perseus site prevented the searches. (This is a permanent difficulty with LSJ online.) The counts are for prose texts and refer to the whole of the data bank used by LSJ: that is, they cover all periods of Greek covered by LSJ, up to early medieval times, but are drawn from usage citations not whole texts (see Ch 1 note 14); since the citations are overwhelmingly from the earlier periods of Greek, it is likely that the counts give a rough estimation of usage over the classical and Koine periods but do not show differences with the periods. For counts specific to individual authors or periods see Chapter 3. 45 Comparison of this table with the data in Appendix B.8.a (frequency order of prepositions in the three Koine corpora), shows that eis, en, ek and epi remained in frequent use but pros (possibly because of its partial synonymy with epi) declined.

Usage counts for preverbs are even harder to obtain than for prepositions, because searches retrieve many non-verbal P-word compounds and do not retrieve all the possible orthographic forms of prefixes. The study by Duhoux (1995) which is discussed in the next chapter gives statistics for preverbs in Lysias but does not break them down into individual preverbs, so that study of the semantic contribution of each P-word to the aspect of the verb is not possible.

Nevertheless it gives support to the suggestion noted above by Horrocks that P-words in configuration with verbs contribute aspectual meaning. This correlation will be pursued in

Chapter 3, where the more detailed data on the Koine is studied.

Summary

This chapter has surveyed the development of P-words from free adverbials in PIE to elements of configurational syntax in classical Greek. By the fifth century BC adpositions have become fixed as (almost exclusively) prepositions, and free adverbial use of P-words with verbs has all but disappeared. In the next chapter we survey the post-classical stage of the language, and look at prepositions and preverbs in the NT corpus and other near-contemporary documents.

46 Chapter 3 - Greek in the hellenistic age

The development of the Koine

The modern Greek language has its origins in the spoken Greek of the hellenistic period,57 the centuries following the conquests of Alexander the Great, which brought Greek political domination, administration and education to large areas of the Mediterranean, northern Africa, the Middle East and as far as northern India.58 Population movements brought about by military service, centralised administration and colonial and commercial settlements ensured that the language of Greek-speakers in widely separated areas was continuously exposed to the levelling effects of a unified administrative language and the need to communicate in a common dialect. This meant that a renewal of the previous situation of great dialect variety was slow to come about. The ‘Common Language’ or Koine was thus relatively homogeneous, and, with the

57 There are two principal ways the term ‘hellenistic period’ is used. It refers to the whole period of the Koine, the koinh; diavlektoV [Koine dialektos] or ‘common language’, from about 300 BC until at least 300 AD and often to 600 or 700 AD (since the end of the reign of Justinian and the Muslim conquests of substantial parts of the Byzantine empire both form natural historical endpoints). It can also refer to the first part of the period, from about 300 BC until the Roman occupation of Greece and the eastern Mediterranean (beginning in the mid-second century BC and complete in 31 BC); the rest of the Koine period is then known as the Roman period. However, from a linguistic perspective there was no distinct change. For the purposes of this thesis the period referred to as hellenistic or Koine is approximately 300 BC to 300 AD. This accords with O’Donnell’s definition of the language on which his proposed corpus is based: ‘Hellenistic Greek can be defined as the extant Greek written by native and non-native language users throughout the Hellenistic and Roman worlds from approximately the fourth century BCE to the fourth century CE’ (2006: 2-3). However, my corpora all fall within the period 285 BC to 155 AD. This account of the development and characteristics of the Koine is based on Horrocks 1997 and Browning 1987. 58 Although Alexander was Macedonian, his father Philip II had been an admirer of Greek culture and ensured that Greek was the language of his administration and of his son’s education. After the wars of succession following Alexander’s death, his conquests were divided among three Greek dynasties, the Ptolemies, Antigonids and Seleucids. (Whether Macedonian and Greek were related languages is not known (Horrocks 1997: 32).) 47 exception of an isolated dialect of the Peloponnese, all modern varieties of Greek have developed from the Koine.59

The basis of the Common Language was a variety of Attic that had been influenced by Ionic, a closely related dialect which was less conservative than Attic and more accepting of innovation.

Athens’ political dominance had made its dialect prestigious, but it also made Athens and its port

Piraeus centres for large communities of non-Athenians. Already in the writing of classical authors like Thucydides some concessions were being made to the needs of a wider readership than just Attic-speakers (Horrocks 1997: 27), and in the following century under Macedonian rule a ‘Great Attic’ variety was the language of administration and of much prose writing. A more conservative literary Koine became the spoken language of the educated, a large class of people in an empire that valued education and provided many opportunities for lucrative careers that required literacy.

The modern use of the term ‘Koine’ requires comment. The English technical term derives from the word the Greeks gave their own language. Koineisation is ‘a contact-induced process that leads to quite rapid, and occasionally dramatic, change’ (Kerswill 2002: 669). A koine is a new variety of a language brought about by contact between speakers of mutually intelligible varieties of that language, and typically occurs in new settlements to which people from different parts of a single language area have migrated. Koineisation is characterised by reduction (loss of meaningful difference; eg decrease in vocabulary) and simplification (an increase in regularity, such as loss of irregular case forms). There are two types of koine: regional and immigrant.

The Greek Koine was primarily a regional type, overlaying but not immediately replacing the local dialects, but in originally non-Greek-speaking areas it was an immigrant koine and became the vernacular of the colonists. In Palestine and Egypt, for instance, both areas that have

59 Tsakonian retains features of the ancient dialect Laconian, spoken in the area around Sparta. The modern dialects developed in the medieval period. 48 produced substantial Koine documents, bilingualism was widespread but the indigenous languages were maintained. However, bilingualism and substrate language influence are not necessary accompaniments of koineisation, and they appear to have had less effect on Greek than it had on other languages.

The early period of the Koine was a time of extensive phonological change. Both vowel and consonant systems underwent restructuring, probably beginning early in the classical period but obscured by the traditional historical orthography. A significant development was the change of word-accentuation from pitch to stress. The primary prosodic accent of a word was a raised or rising pitch on one syllable. When the accent became primarily one of stress (extra loudness and/or duration), the distinction between long and short vowels could not be maintained. The invention of accent marks, traditionally dated to about 200 BC at Alexandria, reflects the needs of the large numbers of Greek-as-a-second-language learners. The change of accent type was responsible for much homophony, which led to reorganisation of many paradigms, especially in the verbal system, and along with the loss of some final consonants contributed to the eventual loss of the dative case.

Restructuring of the consonant system began slightly later. With few exceptions a pronunciation very like that of Modern Greek was in general use by the sixth century AD, and most of the changes were current in many regions much earlier. Morphological and syntactic development was also rapid. Irregular nouns were replaced by synonyms or regular derivatives such as diminutives. Use of the dative case, especially with prepositions, continued to decline, with the exception of ejn en, which developed an instrumental sense (Luraghi 2003: 332) and was widely used in an ‘unclassical’ manner, possibly as a means of reinforcing the dative. ‘A particular feature of the ordinary Koine in [the Septuagint and] the immediately following period is the widespread use of ejn [en] + dative as a semantically ‘empty’ means of strengthening the flagging dative ... however, the accusative is already advancing as the primary prepositional case at the

49 expense of the dative’ (Horrocks 1997: 58-59).60 The bare dative NP survived longest as indirect object, but genitive pronouns in this function appear from the first century BC and genitive nouns from about the third century AD (Browning 1983: 37).

In vocabulary there are innovations not only from borrowings but from a distinct increase in the coining of compound verbs (including verbs with P-words, which were often synonymous with the simplex form) (Lee 1983: 92). For example, ejxapostevllw ex-apo-stello is formed by adding ejk ek to an already compound verb, and adds nothing to the meaning (‘send out, send away’): ek and apo are virtually synonymous here, and the new form, which is frequent from the third century BC but less so than ajpostevllw apostello, ‘has the same senses as Classical ajpostevllw, and is clearly just a more vigorous form of the older word’ (Lee 1983: 93).61 The phenomenon of reinforcing verbs with P-words, which then lost any additional meaning and were used in the same way as the simple word, is a well-attested grammaticalisation process and has similarities with the reinforcement of compound verbs with PPs (as in the cooccurrences of ejpitivqhmi epitithemi with ejpiv epi, on which see Appendix C). Another phenomenon of preverbation usage is the use of a simplex verb when repeated shortly after its compound: where the meaning of the two verbs is similar the repetition does not require the complex form, as in the following example from Mackay 1994: 14:

60 It is also possible that the instrumental use of ejn en in biblical Greek was influenced by the Hebrew preposition b b e in this sense, but this could be an example of increased frequency under Hebrew influence of an existing feature. Detailed study of the non-literary papyri is required to establish this. 61 In NT there are 132 tokens of ajpostevllw apostello (88 in aorist) and 13 of ejxapostevllw exapostello (12 aorist). In Luke 20:10 both occur. In the tables of preverb data in Appendix B, all such double preverbs are counted only once, as tokens of their first P-word. 50 (17) oiJ i[dioi aujto;n ouj parevlabon. o{soi de; e[labon aujtovn ...

hoi idioi auton ou parelabon. hosoi de

ART one’s own him not P from/beside.AOR.3PL.take PRN.M.PL.NOM PTC

elabon auton ...

AOR.3PL.take him

‘his own people did not accept him, but as many as did receive him ...’ (John 1:11-12)

Some of our evidence for the changes that took place in the Koine derives from the proscriptions of grammarians and rhetoricians, who began during the first century BC to reject the common language and press for a return to the ‘pure’ classical Attic standard. The discrepancy between the spoken language and the traditional texts that formed the curriculum of Greek education was becoming a problem for the large class of professional teachers, and Roman occupation fostered a sense of nostalgia for past glories that often expressed itself in the wish to imitate classical writers. The Atticist movement called for a return to classical models in preference to the literature of the intervening period. Their view was that the language of the best classical writers was the only correct form of Greek, and that change was decay and should be rejected.

They therefore spurned the living spoken language as a basis for literature and tried to imitate the (sometimes inadequately understood) language of their models. The effect of this was to maintain in artificial use some moribund features of the language that were dying out naturally, such as the dative case, and to obscure the evidence for changes in the spoken language, which is mediated to us almost solely through the distortions of a literacy which could rarely be obtained except through an Atticist-dominated education. As Browning puts it:

It is very hard to date ... changes, owing to the nature of our evidence, and the inevitable contamination of any written text by the purist language. In any case many [changes] are only extensions of features already existing in classical Greek. What is important is not this or that individual innovation, but the new system. And, as always in language, old and new systems coexisted side by side in living speech for a long time, until the distinctive features of the old became ‘desystematised’ and thus condemned to disappear 51 – except in so far as in Greek the prestige of the traditional purist language of writing and fine speech conferred upon some of them a factitious, zombie-like life. (1983: 35)

At the time the Attic revival was gathering steam, the New Testament and other Christian literature was being written in a register close to that of contemporary ordinary speech. Such literature ignored the prescriptions of pagan grammarians for some time, but, just when

Christianity was beginning to become widely accepted and its literature to gain prestige, its leaders succumbed to the pressure to conform to the by now well-entrenched Atticist standards of pagan literature. Thus the New Testament did not become the literary model it might have been, and the chance to limit the growth of the Atticist movement was lost.

This pagan-christian literary alliance, in combination with the changed political conditions which saw the western Roman empire fall to barbarians and the eastern administration move to

Constantinople, set the direction of Greek literature for a millennium and a half. The style of a text was no longer a matter of its genre but also reflected the choices and abilities of the writer to use a more or less archaising form of language, which could range from ordinary Koine with some ‘Attic’ diagnostic features added (such as a verb in the optative mood)62 to a serious attempt to recreate the language of Gorgias the rhetorical stylist. Thus the diglossia which had been a mild feature of Greek education since the adoption of administrative Attic by Philip II was extended to all spheres of public life, and spoken and written registers increasingly diverged. It is clear from the non-archaising texts of the Koine period, both literary and non-literary, that the developments in the spoken language had brought it to the point where it is fair to call it Early

Modern Greek, but all sources for the study of the spoken language are mediated in some way by the influence of Greek rhetorical education.

62 This is not the function of the optatives in the NT. Of the 68 tokens, almost all occur in formulaic expressions and prayers where their use is a natural preservation of an older idiom. 52 P-words in New Testament Greek

It is against this background of a recent change in literary standards and practice that we turn to look at the New Testament. Sources of language data that are early enough to be relatively free of Atticist influence can contribute valuable information about processes of language change and about the synchronic state of Greek before diglossia complicates the picture. This study aims to use quantitative methods to see whether trends can be discerned that would be difficult to observe or interpret by other methods, as well as to identify areas that would repay a more qualitative approach.

The data on which the following observations are based can be found in Appendix B. Lists of word counts and ratios have been compiled for each author-group in each of the three tagged corpora. In addition, some statistical information from other sources is given so that comparisons between corpora of different dates can be attempted, though this information is considered less reliable. The discussion will necessarily focus more on prepositions than on preverbs, because of the greater accessibility of data on uninflected words through the available search mechanisms. The purpose of collating quantitative data is to compare large sets of data from different corpora so as to identify changes in usage that might have been invisible to language users and therefore reflect natural usage rather than conscious Atticising. Although the available corpora are in many ways similar in date, genre and register, and so might not show significant differences, they can with detailed study reveal facts about the synchronic system under investigation and provide a basis from which to compare other periods and genres when comparable data is available.

Prepositions

We first notice from Table B.1 that if the preposition ejn en is excepted the dative case has a low usage compared to the other two cases. This is reported in all accounts of Koine usage. The

53 dative with periv peri and uJpov hupo is no longer used; suvn sun can only take dative, but is relatively rare; with parav para the case selected depends on the meaning; but with ejpiv epi and provV pros the dative and accusative have similar meanings, so the case assignment may be a matter of personal preference of the writer or have some nuance that we can no longer appreciate. Tables B.2-4 show the usage within each author-group. Only Paul uses epi+DAT more often than epi+ACC, but the difference (1.70 per thousand words for DAT compared to

1.57 for ACC) is small, and Table B.10 reveals that he uses ejpiv epi less than any other author except Jude (which is a very small sample). From Table B.1 we also see that avmfiv amphi, always rare, is not used in NT.

The most striking number in Table B.1 is the high frequency of ejn en. As suggested above, the decline in the dative case meant that a prepositional configuration was increasingly preferred to a bare dative. To see whether its increase is real and significant, we can compare token frequencies obtained from TLG. After obtaining the word counts and calculating probability- values for each pair of six populations (Classical, Early Koine and Late Koine as well as the three corpora LXX, NT and AF), Table 3.1 was compiled. It shows that on a hypothesis of an increase in the use of en (where the null hypothesis is that there was no change), statistically significant changes have occurred between most pairs of populations, but not in a consistent direction. The odd population is Later Koine, because of the dating, but the trend is that the TLG counts are much lower than the Accordance counts.

In view of the unreliable nature of the search method for TLG, it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions from this. Comparing figures reached by different methods is not recommended but is difficult to avoid. With this caveat in mind, we can tentatively conclude that the data supports the trend noted in the literature cited above that en increased significantly in frequency.

However, the decrease in the later Koine period is an oddity.

54 Table 3.1 En: Tokens per 1000 words (from TLG and Accordance)

TLG en Classical Early LXX NT Late Apostolic Koine Koine Fathers Classical 0.946 -3.429 -2.712 1.854 -2.439 m=10.24 0.186 0.003 0.008 0.050 0.015 0.372 0.006 0.017 0.101 0.030 Early -2.948 -2.427 0.951 -2.318 Koine 0.009 0.016 0.189 0.020 m=8.76 0.018 0.032 0.378 0.041 LXX 0.717 3.210 1.505 m=22.89 0.242 0.006 0.078 0.485 0.012 0.156 NT 2.680 0.809 m=19.81 0.010 0.215 0.020 0.430 Late -2.648 Koine 0.011 m=7.69 0.023 Apostolic Fathers m=17.11 (Top figure: t-stat, then one-tailed p-value, then 2-tailed p-value. P-values of 0.05 or under are highlighted.)

The data for the three Accordance corpora is reliable, and Table 3.2 shows the same information as Table 3.1 just for those three. Table 3.2 shows (as do Tables B.9-11 in Appendix B) that a slight decrease over time has occurred, with the LXX and AF, as expected from their dates, having a greater degree of difference; however, the p-values all exceed 0.05, which we have set as the significance level, leading to the conclusion that the populations do not differ sufficiently to draw any conclusions about their use of en.

Table 3.2 En: Tokens per 10000 words (from Accordance) en LXX NT Apostolic Fathers LXX 0.717 1.505 m=228.9 0.242 0.078 0.485 0.156 NT -0.809 m=198.06 0.215 0.430 Apostolic Fathers m=171.1

55 As a final attempt to see what might have been happening with en, we may repeat the p-value exercise with the figures obtained from LSJ. This produces a slightly different set of comparisons, and it cannot be assumed that the data retrieved is more accurate. There is no change in the relationships between LXX, NT and AF (other than the results of rounding), but the pattern of the two groups of three being like each other and unlike the other group is clearer.

Again, this may be the result of obtaining data from different sources. Other hypotheses could be formed but are untestable without better information: for example, the texts chosen for the

TLG and LSJ searches could be insufficiently similar to the other corpora in critical respects. It is better to leave en to a more qualitative study, since the changes reported in its use relate not only to its frequency but to its function as an instrumental or a substitute for a bare dative NP. In view of its high token count such a study would have to concentrate on a small set of texts, perhaps using quantitative data from NT for comparison.

Table 3.3

En: Tokens per 10000 words (from LSJ and Accordance) en Classical Early LXX NT Late Apostolic Koine Koine Fathers Classical 0.238 -3.719 -2.973 1.599 -2.781 m=94.28 0.409 0.002 0.005 0.074 0.008 0.818 0.004 0.010 0.149 0.016 Early -2.858 -2.342 0.941 -2.208 Koine 0.011 0.019 0.192 0.025 m=91.05 0.021 0.037 0.383 0.049 LXX 0.718 3.180 1.505 m=228.9 0.242 0.007 0.078 0.484 0.013 0.156 NT 2.648 0.808 m=198.06 0.011 0.215 0.021 0.430 Late -2.607 Koine 0.012 m=78.33 0.024 Apostolic Fathers m=171.1

56 A similar pattern is obtained with the frequency counts of eijV eis (Table 3.4). This preposition was in the process of replacing ejn +dative in its locative function, although en was not yet significantly waning in frequency because it was being used in other functions.63 In Table 3.4 there is a statistically significant although small reduction in the frequency of eis between NT and

AF. Tables B.6 and B.7 show the frequencies as 127.9 for NT and 133.0 for AF – which looks like the reverse of the figures in Table 3.4. This is due to the technique of taking the mean of the samples in the population rather than the average in the whole population, so as to minimise any error due to different sample sizes.

Table 3.4 Tokens per 10,000 words (from LSJ) LSJ eis Classical Early LXX NT Late Apostolic Koine Koine Fathers Classical -0.076 3.281 3.020 -0.176 3.006 m=198.38 0.470 0.004 0.005 0.432 0.005 0.941 0.008 0.009 0.865 0.010 Early 6.732 3.714 -0.118 3.767 Koine 0.000 0.001 0.455 0.002 m=200.79 0.000 0.003 0.910 0.003 LXX -1.065 -2.132 -0.840 m=116.3 0.152 0.033 0.208 0.305 0.066 0.416 NT 0.201 2.149 m=132.51 0.421 0.027 0.843 0.055 Late -2.067 Koine 0.012 m=207.45 0.024 Apostolic Fathers m=129.5

So far we have not been able to put much confidence in the result of these probability tests, for reasons connected with the quality or unavailability of data. In the case of the reliably generated data from Accordance, there was little significant change to be found. When we apply the same tests to frequency counts of preverbs, some more interesting changes become visible.

63 For examples of the confusion of eis and en (at least from a purist point of view), see Mk 13:16, Mt 24:18 and Lk17:31, and others cited by Browning 1983: 36. 57 Preverbs

Table B.17 in Appendix B shows the order of frequency of preverbs in LXX, NT and AF.

Comparison with Table B.8 shows that there is no correlation between frequency of a P-word as preverb and as preposition. As is to be expected from the dates of the corpora there appears to more difference between LXX and the others than between NT and AF in preverb frequency.

Using the calculations at Table B.25 we can construct a display of p-values for the preverbs that meet the significance test, as in the following tables:

Table 3.5 Frequency of LXX NT AF PV apo LXX -1.90 -0.85 m=3.15 0.04 0.20 0.08 0.41 NT 1.02 m=5.29 0.16 0.32 AF m=4.30

Table 3.7 Frequency of LXX NT AF PV pros LXX -1.61 -1.78 m=1.05 0.06 0.05 0.13 0.10 NT -0.25 m=1.99 0.40 0.80 AF m=2.12

Table 3.8 Frequency of LXX NT AF PV epi LXX 1.75 2.75 m=10.09 0.059 0.013 0.119 0.079 NT 0.791 m=5.47 0.226 0.452 AF m=4.43

58 As this procedure shows, interesting-looking numbers do not always produce statistically significant results. Only 14 of the 54 preverb/corpus pairs compared in Table 25 show a significance value of 0.05 or under, and only 7 of these are significant if the direction of change is unknown (that is, in a two-tailed test). There is no need to present all 19 results as tables here; the data is easy to read in Table 25 since there are only three corpora to compare. The preverbs with a p-value of 0.05 or under in a two-tailed test are:

Between LXX and NT: hupo, meta and para

Between LXX and AF: hupo, meta, para and pro.

All of these are statistically significant increases in frequency, as shown by the negative t-stat value. The only significant decreases in frequency (shown only in the one-tailed tests) are for ek; this is likely to be associated with the increase of apo with similar meaning. There are no significant changes from NT to AF, except in the one-tailed test for ek, huper and sun. This data cannot be interpreted by the figures alone, even where they are judged significant by statistically appropriate and rigorous methods, but we can use these findings to identify areas that require further research. In particular, it is likely that the semantics of individual preverbs plays a role in their frequency, along with their relation to other preverbs of overlapping meaning, and identifying the areas of interest is a useful step towards organising qualitative research.

So far we have looked at individual preverbs. In the next tables we examine the incidence of preverbation as a proportion of verb usage.

Table 3.9 Preverb as percentage of all verbs

PVs LXX NT AF LXX 0.291 0.710 m=30.07 0.388 0.245 0.775 0.490 NT 0.458 m=29.02 0.326 0.653 Apostolic Fathers m=27.64

59 This set of figures (repeated here from Chapter 1) tells us that the proportion of preverbs to verbs in the three corpora is similar. However, it happens that the proportion of verbs to total vocabulary is significantly lower in the LXX than NT and AF, as shown in Table 3.6.

Table 3.10 Verbs as percentage of all words

PVs LXX NT AF LXX -2.199 -2.170 m=16.66 0.023 0.025 0.045 0.049 NT 0.495 m=19.90 0.314 0.627 Apostolic Fathers m=27.64

This is another example of how the corpus data can throw up questions for research. A reader might be unaware of a lower than usual number of verbs in a text, or might put it down to the style of the individual author without being able to assess the likelihood of its being a wider phenomenon. A number of hypotheses might now be formulated and tested to account for the unexpected aberration. For instance, genre could play a role (unlikely as a sole factor because the other corpora compared are of similar kinds of texts), or the low verb ratio could be a hidden effect of translation (suggesting the analysis of other translated texts if available), or a number of factors might present themselves as suitable for a multivariate analysis.

Another area for study that has been suggested by statistical analysis is the question of the correlation between preverbation and aspect. It has often been noticed that such a correlation exists (as for example by Horrocks, discussed in Chapter 2), and there is clear evidence in the word counts provided in Appendix B that there is a higher proportion of perfective verbs that have preverbs than in the total population of verbs. Study of this phenomenon is useful for cross-linguistic aspect studies and for cross-linguistic study of P-words, because the correlation

60 between aspect and P-words occurs in many languages but in different ways (O’Dowd 1998:

147-151), but it also has specific application to Koine Greek because it may interact with the reorganisation of the verbal system in the later Koine period (Browning 1983; 29-34). In addition, it has been suggested that the aspect-based verbal system of Hebrew may produce in the Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures a disproportionate frequency of some verb forms

(this question is discussed in detail in Evans 2001), and statistical analysis of early Koine documents could address this hypothesis.

In ancient Greek the aspect of verbs was not systematically correlated with tense, so that not every tense was available in every aspect. As is common cross-linguistically, the present tense is imperfective and does not have a perfective counterpart (and this is still the case in Modern

Greek). The future tense is built on the perfective stem of the verb, and is sometimes regarded as an aspect rather than a tense (eg McKay 1994: 8). The past tense has an imperfective

(imperfect) and a perfective (aorist) form, and the stative aspect has three tenses, past, present and future. By the NT period the aorist and perfect (earlier perfective and stative respectively) were becoming confused (Browning 1983: 30). Because the aspectual status of future and perfect tenses is unclear, and they and the imperfect tense are relatively infrequent, I have used the relative frequencies of present and aorist tenses as a diagnostic of correlation between preverbation and aspect.

A study of the verbs of the classical orator Lysias (Duhoux 1995) provides data which I have arranged in a format suitable for comparison with the NT verb data, but being a single-author study it is not suitable for the sort of comparative exercise that is possible with multiple-author corpora. A summary of the data given in Appendix B appears in Table 3.7:

61 Table 3.7 Comparison of Duhoux’s figures for Lysias with NT (adjusted: removal of unclear; 5 future perfect & 1 future aorist treated as future)

Present Future Imperfect Aorist Perfect Pluperfect Lysias No 418 109 111 1089 160 13 PVs % 22.00 5.74 5.84 57.32 8.42 0.68 NT No 2607 557 412 4418 356 15 PVs % 31.17 6.66 6.41 52.82 4.26 0.18 Lysias No 1426 242 263 1405 594 23 Non-PVs % 36.07 6.12 6.65 35.54 15.03 0.58 NT No 6847 1071 1267 7188 1215 71 Non-PVs % 45.28 5.42 6.41 36.38 6.15 0.36 Lysias No 1844 351 374 2494 754 36 All verbs % 31.51 6.00 6.39 42.61 12.88 0.62 NT No 11554 1628 1679 11606 1571 86 All verbs % 41.08 5.79 5.97 41.27 5.59 0.31

The data is not fully compatible: Duhoux did not count verbs that do not show aspect, whereas

Accordance counts the verb ‘to be’, for example, as imperfective.64 Correction of this would have the effect of decreasing the discrepancy between Lysias’ and NT‘s proportion of imperfective verbs, but the difference is still significant. The reduced use of the perfect in NT is consistent with the confusion of perfect and aorist in this period, which led gradually to the replacement of the single form by a periphrastic perfect (not complete until the medieval period).

The higher incidence of aorist with preverbs is striking in Lysias; the relative frequency of preverb aorists over present tenses in Lysias is similar to that of LXX and much higher than NT, where the difference is still substantial, and AF, where it is minimal (see Table B.22). This suggests that the correlation of preverbation and perfective aspect began to decline after the early Koine period, but as Table B.23 shows there is still in NT a strong association of individual preverbs with aspect and a general tendency for those associated with perfectivity to be more frequent than those associated with imperfectivity.

64 Whether the verb ‘to be’ is imperfective in Greek is controversial; Porter regards it as aspectually vague, while McKay considers that it is limited to imperfective and future, with givnesqai ginesthai ‘become’ suppletively doing duty for aorist and perfect (1994: 9). My figures for NT include eijmiv eimi ‘be’ and givnesqai ginesthai in the counts according to the GRAMCORD tagging of their tense. 62 It is evident that the semantics of individual preverbs is a significant factor in their aspect-linked behaviour and that the frequency of P-words as preverbs and prepositions does not correlate strongly (as the tables of order of frequency in Appendix B show). The non-componential meaning of compound verbs often makes them far less amenable to systematic analysis than the corresponding preposition, and it cannot be assumed that the two are related. More detailed study of usages, such as taking account of features not separated in the data collection because of the limitations of tagging (for instance, case assignment and transitivity), might reveal patterns of association between preverbs and prepositions that cannot be detected as yet.

Qualitative study of P-words

To turn to a more qualitative approach and continue with a P-word examined in Homer and classical Greek, let us examine the preposition and preverb epi in the NT. Along with pros, with which it shares some semantic and functional meanings, it is the most frequent of the non-core prepositions and is also a common preverb. Although it can take all three cases the dative has become rare. It continues to show variation of a kind that we saw in earlier Greek (Chapter 2 examples 15 and 16). The New Testament is a rich source of examples of apparently unmotivated variation, because it has a number of instances of multiple retellings of the same event. The following minimal pair features the verb ejpitivqhmi epitithemi that we met in Homer

(Example 10 in Chapter 2); the two accounts are of the same incident and they may even have a common literary source, but they use different strategies to express the locative argument of the verb, which has the preverb epi. (The collocation of epitihemi with ‘hand’ or ‘hands’ is a common one in NT; tithemi occurs only once in this sense, in Mark 10:16.)

63 (16) Mt 9:18 with PP

ajlla; ejlqw;n ejpivqeV th;n cei:rav sou ejp’ aujth;n kai; zhvseta

alla elthon epithes ten

but come.PTPL.ACT.M.SG.NOM put.2.SG.AOR.ACT.IMP ART.F.SG.ACC

kheira sou ep’ auten kai zesetai

hand.F.SG.ACC you.SG.GEN on her.ACC and live.3.SG.FUT.MID.IND

‘But come and lay your hand on her, and she will live’

(17) Mk 5:23 with DAT

i{na ejlqw;n ejpiqh:/V ta;V cei:raV aujth/: i{na swqh/: kai; zhvsh/

hina elthon epitheis tas kheiras

CONJ come. P on.put ART.ACC hand.ACC PART.M.SG.NOM 2.SG.AOR.SUBJ

autei hina sothei kai zesei

her.DAT CONJ .save.3.SG.AOR.PASS.SUBJ and live.3.SG.AOR.SUBJ

‘Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live’

All the NT collocations of epitithemi with epi are set out in Appendix C, along with the far fewer collocations of tithemi and epi.65 It can be seen that the detailed examination of collocations and syntactic choices is necessary, and cannot be done without more advanced methods of retrieval than are currently available in TLG (and in Accordance such searches return many tokens that do not meet the desired criteria and have to be manually separated from the data to be assessed). Research is both enabled and limited by the technologies available.

65 This is provided as a sample of the layout and detail of the answers that Accordance gives to queries: the translation is optional, but the full verse with identifying reference is always given, and the search term highlighted. It is a much more user-friendly display than traditional corpus outputs and is easily exportable to other software. 64 Summary

I have shown that the Koine period is a significant one for the development of the Greek language, both as the source of the modern forms of Greek and as an interesting stage of linguistic development in itself, including further developments in the usage of P-words. There is a large body of literature from the period, with diverse genres, from inscriptions and epigraphs, personal and commercial correspondence and religious tracts to philosophical treatises, novels and histories; this makes the Koine particularly suitable for corpus studies. However, only a small part of the material is available in a convenient, accessible digital format that provides ease of comparison with other research findings.

We have discovered that P-words show interesting changes from previous usages. Prepositions that governed more than one case now tend to be associated more strongly with certain cases than others (generally by less frequent use of dative). Preverbation has increased with the use of compound verbs as synonyms of simplex forms, but the association of preverbs with perfective aspect has decreased. (Whether these two facts are systematically related cannot be determined by the statistical analysis used in this study, but is a question for further research.)

Collocation of the same P-word as preposition and preverb is also a feature that suggests that

P-words were continuing a process of grammaticalisation, in which the semantic content of P- words was decreasing and their collocational significance increasing. All these developments have implications for corpus study of this and other periods of Greek and for cross-linguistic comparison of P-words.

65 Chapter 4 - Conclusion

‘The form of criticism that is perhaps the most underutilized and in its most rudimentary form of development for NT studies is linguistic criticism.’ (McDonald & Porter 2000: 34)

‘...the study of the language of the New Testament ... we find that the basic methodology of long standing has not been eclipsed significantly by new developments’ (Botha 1991: 71)

Such complaints are commonplace in the field of New Testament studies, which embraces a large number of specialisms. Linguistics is an obvious component of the intensive scrutiny that the biblical texts have received, and a necessary perspective. Since the retreat of classical studies the field of ancient Greek linguistics has been to a large extent populated by scholars with interests in the New Testament period. This has meant that a number of resources are available to anyone working on ancient Greek, because of the long tradition of biblical textual scholarship based on study of the ancient languages and collation of data about them. The availability of resources like TLG and powerful inexpensive Bible software puts Greek linguists in an enviable position in comparison with many other languages.

Corpus linguistics is an appropriate tool for studying a language with a large body of texts and no native speakers. It is particularly suited to probabilistic approaches, but all theories can benefit from access to reliable data. Much more work needs to be done on designing and tagging a suitable corpus for study of Greek, and on making any systems accessible, user- friendly and compatible with the goals of the diverse range of scholars interested in the hellenistic period.

But the very availability of the corpora I have used makes it tempting to do word counts and draw conclusions direct from raw numbers. Because of the diverse nature of the material, and the inherent interest of such diversity, it is imperative that viable methods be established of assessing the results of corpus searches and displaying them in a manner that does not hide the complexities and uncertainties involved. As we have seen from the probability-value method of

66 comparing otherwise intractable amounts of data, the results depend not only on the reliability of the input but also on the ability to ask questions and form testable hypotheses. In spite of the high level of integrity of the Accordance search facility, the three corpora used have not shown significant differences in many of the features examined, even though initial number counts suggested otherwise. This is a healthy corrective to an uncritical use of statistical data. The p- value method retains its appeal because it partly escapes the need to design corpora of fixed- length texts or specific genres, an approach that is unlikely to succeed in the field of New

Testament scholarship because of its permanent interest in a specific body of texts. It is a method that encourages the testing of hypotheses, instead of vague impressionistic generalisations, and is therefore also a desirable corrective to the tendency (already recognised and decried by many NT scholars) to give undue weight to non-linguistic (especially tendentious theological and sociological) evaluations of linguistic data.

Grammaticalisation is one theory that provides hypotheses. Whether something as specific as how an adverb might become a preposition or case ending, or as general as whether unidirectionality is a testable claim, it attempts to establish probable or possible paths of variation and change. Combining a theoretical drive with the means to organise large data sets and the safeguard of a statistical method that prevents rash judgments is a desirable goal; in the case of hellenistic Greek much progress has already been made but much more is possible.

This study has identified several areas where quantitative methods have produced unexpected questions for qualitative research to investigate. Corpus linguistics is not the only appropriate methodology for studying hellenistic Greek, but when combined with complementary approaches such as grammaticalisation and discourse analysis (as suggested by O’Donnell 2005) it offers good prospects for progress. The essential immediate need is for the development of standardised tagged digital corpora, and the early Christian documents now available are a good model of what could be done for this and other periods of Greek, and for other languages for which corpus study is a new direction. 67 Appendices

Appendix A Description of corpora 69

Appendix B Tables of data

Appendix C Case study of a P/PV collocation

68 Appendix A — Composition of the corpora used in this study

LXX66 The Septuagint, from Latin septuaginta ‘seventy’ (abbreviated LXX) (Greek JEbdomhvkonta hebdomekonta), is so called because of the ancient tradition that the translation was produced by a committee of 72 scholars. The searchable text in Accordance is the edition of Rahlfs 1935.

1. Pentateuch From Greek pentateuvcwV pentateukos ‘consisting of 5 books in one volume’. This is the name traditionally given to the first 5 books of the Hebrew Bible; it is also called the Torah (Hebrew ‘law, teaching’). The Greek translations of the Pentateuch are the earliest of the LXX translations and were made by different translators. 124,530 words. a. Genesis Heb tyvarb;; Bereshit ‘in the beginning’ Grk GevnesiV genesis ‘birth’

Probably the first book of the Pentateuch to be translated. Idiomatic Greek with occasional Hebrew influence. An account of the creation of the world, the lives of the first generations of humans, the calling of Abraham and the migration of his descendants to Egypt. 32,573 words. b. Exodus Heb twmv Shemot ‘names’, Grk [ExodoV exodos ‘going out’ Less literal translation than Genesis. An account of the struggles of the people of Israel to escape from Egypt, the life of Moses and the people’s wandering in the desert of Sinai. 24,818 words. c. Leviticus Heb arqyw Vayikra’ ‘and he called’, Grk Leui-tikovn leuitikon ‘Levitic’ Idiomatic Greek with creative solutions to translating Hebrew technical terms. Lists of laws and regulations, especially those relating to personal and communal holiness and to priestly and other cultic requirements. 19,085 words. d. Numbers Heb rbdmb Bemidbar ‘in the desert’, Grk jAriqmoiv arithmoi ‘numbers’ Fairly literal. An account of the census of the people at Mt Sinai, their journey to Moab and the sending of spies into the Promised Land. 25,059 words.

66 The following information about translations is taken from Dines 2004. On the rhetorical style of the LXX see Lee 1997. 69 LXX continued e. Deuteronomy Heb Myrbd Devarim ‘things, words’, Grk Deuteronovmion deuteronomion ‘second law’. Also a literal translation. Three sermons by Moses to the people in Moab as they wait to enter the Promised Land; the death of Moses. 22,995 words.

2. Chronicles Heb Mymyh yrbd Divrey hayyamim ‘events of the days’, Grk Paraleipomevnwn paraleipomenon ‘things left out, supplements’ Free translation style. Two books of genealogical lists and history of the reigns of David, Solomon and the kings of Judah to the time of the Babylonian exile. 37,600 words.

3. Proverbs Heb hmlv ylvm Mishley Shelomoh ‘proverbs of Solomon’, Grk Paroimivai paroimiai ‘proverbs’. Paraphrase style of translation. Proverbs about wisdom and the way to live according to knowledge of God. 11,166 words.

4. Ecclesiastes Heb tlhq Qohelet ‘assembler’, Grk jEkklhsiasthvV ecclesiastes ‘assembler’ Very literal translation, probably from 1 BC - 1 AD. Reflections on wisdom and the best way of life. 4546 words.

5. Isaiah Heb hyovy Yesha‘yah ‘Isaiah’, Grk jHsai-vaV Esaias (personal name) Free translation, probably later than mid-second century BC. Prophecies of judgments against the nations persecuting Judah and against Judah, and about the future messiah. 27,087 words.

70 NT The New Testament is a collection of 27 texts considered scripture in the Christian tradition. The searchable text in Accordance is the edition of Nestle-Aland 27 (1993). There is no evidence that any of the books were not written in Greek, though some may have been based on Aramaic documentary as well as oral traditions. It is probable that all the writers were bilingual in Aramaic and Greek, and Paul at least was educated in Hebrew. The corpus is divided into samples by traditional author. 138,167 words.

1. Gospel of Matthew A narrative of events in the life of Jesus including reported speeches.67 Non-literary language.68 Shares material with Mark and Luke (generally thought that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark or a common source). 70-80 AD. 18,363 words.

2. Gospel of Mark A narrative of events in the life of Jesus including reported speeches. Vulgar/non-literary language. 55-70 AD. Shares material with Matthew and Luke but usually considered prior to them. 11,313 words.

3. Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles Luke: narrative of events in the life of Jesus including reported speeches. Non-literary language.69 75-90 AD. Shares material with Mark and Matthew. 19,496 words. Acts: history of the origins and growth of the early church, including speeches, first- and third- person narrative. Non-literary language. 75-90 AD. 18,4471 words. The common authorship of these two books is relatively uncontroversial.

4. Gospel and Epistles of John, Revelation Gospel of John: narrative of events in the life of Jesus including reported speeches. Vulgar/non-literary language. 85-100 AD. 15,675 words.

67 On the generic nature of ‘gospels’ as belonging to the Greek Bios tradition, see Burridge 1997a and 1997b. 68 This categorisation of the language styles of the NT books follows that of O’Donnell 2006 (Chapter 3 Appendix A, 164-5). The dates given are also taken from O’Donnell’s list. (There is great variety of opinion about dates and authorship: a slightly earlier dating is argued for by Carson & Moo 2005.) The word counts given here differ from O’Donnell’s and are taken from Accordance’s count of NA27. 69 Luke’s language is usually considered more literary than O’Donnell’s classification suggests. Cf Browning (1983: 40): ‘St Luke ... has rather more literary pretensions than the other Synoptics [Matthew and Mark]’. But his ‘pretensions’ are literary rather than purist; his language is Koine not Atticising. 71 NT continued Epistles of John: 1 John – pastoral letter to a congregation. Vulgar/non-literary language. 85- 100 AD. 2141 words. 2 John: letter to a congregation warning about false teachers. Vulgar/non- literary language. 85-100 AD. 245 words. 3 John – letter to an individual. Vulgar/non-literary language. 85-100 AD. 219 words. Revelation (Apocalypse): A series of visions in the Jewish apocalyptic tradition, prefaced by seven short letters to churches, traditionally attributed to the apostle John. Vulgar language. 50-90 AD. 9856 words.

5. Epistles of Paul Non-literary language. 32,442 words. Romans – A theological treatise setting out Paul’s teaching, within a letter to the church in Rome. 55-50 AD. 7114 words. 1 Corinthians – A letter to the Corinthian church concerning internal problems and answering questions from them. 55-60 AD. 6842 words. 2 Corinthians – A letter to the Corinthian church defending Paul’s decision to delay his visit to them and giving teaching on various matters. 55-60 AD. 4488 words. Galatians – A letter to a church in Asia Minor defending Paul’s status as an apostle and restating his basic teaching. 50-55 AD. 2233 words. Ephesians – A letter to a church in Asia Minor about redemption in Christ and what this means for Christian living. ?55-65 AD. 2423 words. Philippians – A letter to a church in Macedonia commending certain elders and calling for perseverance. 55-65 AD. 1631 words. Colossians – A letter to a church in Asia Minor about the greatness of Christ and the danger of false teaching. 55-65 AD. 1582 words. 1 Thessalonians – A letter to a church in Macedonia recalling Paul’s stay in Thessaloniki and exhorting the church to live in light of Christ’s return. 50-55 AD. 1482 words. 2 Thessalonians – A letter to the same church encouraging them to stand firm under persecution. 50-55 AD. 823 words. 1 Timothy – A letter to a church elder warning against false teachers and explaining how to treat various groups in the congregation. 60-100 AD. 1591 words. 2 Timothy – A letter to the elder encouraging him to persevere in spite of the fact that Paul is now in prison facing death. 160-100 AD. 239 words. Titus – A letter to a church elder in Crete, encouraging him to appoint elders there and explaining criteria for such service. 60-100 AD. 55-65 AD. 659 words. Philemon – A letter to a friend encouraging him to treat his slave generously. 55-65 AD. 335 words.

72 NT continued 6. Epistles of Peter 1 Peter – a letter to persecuted Christians in Asia Minor. Non-literary/literary language. 65-90 AD. 1685 words. 2 Peter – a letter warning about false teachers. Includes some borrowing from the letter of Jude (or possibly vice versa). Non-literary language. 65-95 AD. 1099 words.

7. Epistle of James A letter to churches in Palestine concerning suffering, the law and good works and dealing with dissension. Non-literary/literary language. 45-50 or 90-100 AD. 1745 words.

8. Epistle of Jude A letter warning about false teachers. Shares some material with 2 Peter. Non-literary language. 70-95 AD. 461 words.

9. Epistle to the Hebrews A series of homilies on the supremacy of Christ showing how he fulfils various Old Testament concepts. Non-literary/literary language. 70-95 AD. 4956 words.

73 AF The Apostolic Fathers is a collection of some of the earliest extant writings of the Christian church. They were written not long after the New Testament, with a similar range of genres and topics. The edition used by Accordance is Holmes 1999. 64,640 words.70

1. Letters of Clement Clement was an elder of the church in Rome. 13,182 words. 1 Clement – a letter from the Roman church to the church in Corinth concerning a dispute there, written in 96 AD. 10127 words. 2 Clement - spuriously attributed to Clement, an anonymous sermon written about 140-160 AD. 3055 words.

2. Letters of Ignatius From Ignatius Theophorus of Antioch (died 107 AD). Seven of the 15 letters attributed to him are considered genuine; they were written to various churches while he was travelling through Asia Minor. Non-literary language. 7960 words. Ephesians – A letter from Smyrna about the dangers of docetism. 1822 words. Magnesians – A letter from Smyrna about the need for unity. 1084 words. Trallians – A letter from Smyrna about the dangers of docetism. 983 words. Romans – A letter embracing Ignatius’ approaching martyrdom. 1061 words. Philadelphians – A letter from Troas urging unity. 1026 words. Smyrnaeans – A letter from Troas about the dangers of docetism. 1184 words. Polycarp – A letter of advice from a senior to a junior church leader. 800 words.

3. Letter of Polycarp Letter from Polycarp of Smyrna (died 155 AD) to the church at Philippi in Macedonia. Non- literary language. Written after 107 AD. 1146 words.

4. Martyrdom of Polycarp A letter from the church in Smyrna to a Phrygian church, embodying an eyewitness account of the death of Bishop Polycarp, written shortly after 155 AD. Literary language. 2733 words.

5. Didache A treatise or catechism incorporating early Christian and pre-Christian material. Written 70-200 AD, probably 100-120 AD. Non-literary language. 2234 words.

70 The following information about the AF documents is taken from Staniforth 1968. 74 AF continued 6. Shepherd of Hermas A series of visions and parables. Written in the second century, possibly later than 155 AD. Vulgar language. 27,869 words.

7. Letter of Barnabas A theological tract in letter form, written between 70 and 132 AD. 6834 words.

8. Letter to Diognetus Anonymous treatise in letter form, written 124 AD or later. Literary language. 2682 words.

TLG and LSJ Corpora

In order to put information extracted from the TLG and LSJ databases into a usable form comparable with the three corpora described above, I have collected data on the following authors and divided them into three populations based on their dates:

Classical Herodotus 5 BC 189,489 words history Thucydides 5 BC 153,260 words history Plato 5-4 BC 585,531 words philosophy Lysias 5-4 BC 70,543 words rhetoric Aristotle 4 BC 1,104,731 words philosophy

Early Koine Polybius 3-2 BC 331,666 words history Diodorus Siculus 1 BC 486,054 words history Strabo 1 BC – AD 1 299,836 words geography

Later Koine Appian AD 1-2 491,292 words history Epictetus AD 1-2 233,587 words philosophy Cassius Dio AD 2-3 88,164 words history

Early Koine is roughly contemporaneous with the Septuagint, and Later Koine with the New

Testament and Apostolic Fathers.

75 Appendix B – index of data tables

B.1. Prepositions in New Testament by case 77 B.2 NT prepositions by author a. 1-case prepositions 78 B.3 NT prepositions by author b. 2-case prepositions 79 B.4 NT prepositions by author c. 3-case prepositions 80 B.5. Prepositions in LXX – frequency by author 81 B.6. Prepositions in NT – frequency by author 82 B.7 Prepositions in AF – frequency by author 83 B.8. Comparison of frequency order of prepositions in each corpus 84 a. Frequency in LXX, NT & AF 84 b. Frequency as tokens per 10,000 words in LSJ and LXX, NT, AF 84 B.9. Prepositions in LXX 85 B.10. Prepositions in NT 86 B.11. Prepositions in AF 88 B.12 Preverbs in Lysias and NT 90 a. Table from Duhoux 1995 90 b. Amalgamation of Duhoux’s 6 tables of preverbs 90 c. Equivalent table of NT data 91 d. Comparison of data from Lysias and NT 91 B.13 P-values for comparison of data from TLG and LSJ with NT, LXX & AF 92 a. TLG & Accordance data for frequency of epi 92 b. TLG & Accordance data for frequency of pros 92 c. LSJ & Accordance data for frequency of eis 93 d. TLG & Accordance data for frequency of en 93 B.14 Preverbs in LXX: order of frequency 94 B.15 Preverbs in NT: order of frequency 95 B.16 Preverbs in AF: order of frequency 96 B.17 Comparison of frequency order of preverbs in each corpus 97 B.18 Preverbs in NT according to tense 98 B.19 Tenses in LXX, NT, AF 99 B.20 Present and aorist tenses of preverbs in LXX 100 B.21 Present and aorist tenses of preverbs in AF 101 B.22 Summary of PV usage by tense in LXX, NT, AF 102 B.23 Frequencies of PVs in NT accoding to tense 103 B.24 NT usage of PVs by author 104 B.25 Probability-value calculations for preverbs in LXX, NT, AF 107 B.26 Prepositions and preverbs in Modern Greek 109 a. Modern Greek reflexes of ancient prepositions 109 b. Katharevousa prepositions in Modern Greek 110

76 Each corpus has been divided into a number of samples of different sizes. For convenience these samples are referred to as author-groups, because they have for the most part been grouped according to the traditional author. However, this procedure is for the purpose of making statistical comparisons, and carries no implications on the matter of authorship ascription, which in some cases is controversial.

Table B.1 Prepositions in NT by case

ACC DAT GEN NOM ADVERB TOTAL 1 amphí 0 2 aná 12 12 3 antí 22 22 4 apó 618 1 27 646 5 diá 283 384 667 6 eis 1767 1767 7 ek/ex 913 1 914 8 en 2752 2752 9 epí 469 183 222 890 10 hupér 20 130 150 11 hupó 51 169 220 12 katá 395 74 4 473 13 metá 104 365 469 14 pará 59 53 82 194 15 perí 37 276 333 16 pro 47 47 17 pros 692 7 2 700 18 sun 128 128

The instance of ajpov apo + NOM is a construction in which a relative pronoun has retained its case as subject of its relative clause instead of being itself determined by the preposition. Cf ‘She who must be obeyed’, in which ‘she’ is not declined when the phrase follows a preposition.

The four cases of katav kata + NOM illustrate a shortcoming of the lemmatisation and morphemic tagging. The distributive pronoun kaq’ ei|V kath’ heis ‘one by one; each’ has been tagged as 2 words rather than a compound. The P-word kata is here more like a prefix, and the following nominative indicates that the P- word was adverbial rather than prepositional in this collocation. Where the neuter e{n hen ‘one’ follows the preposition in NT, Accordance tags it accusative (neuters are identical in nominative and accusative), but where the word ‘one’ is masculine it is clearly nominative in all but one instance (1 Cor. 14:31, where ‘one’ is accusative but the collocation kaq’ e{na kathena ‘one by one’ refers to the subject).

The adverbial uses of ajpov apo and ejk ek are instances where the preposition is followed by a non-case- bearing word, as in ajpo; tovte apo tote ‘since then’.

77 Table B.2 NT usage of prepositions by author: a. prepositions governing one case 2. aná 12 0.0869 7. ek/ex 914 6.6152 aná + Tokens / ek + Tokens / ACC 1000 words GEN 1000 words Matthew 3 0.1634 Matthew 82 4.4655 Mark 1 0.0884 Mark 67 5.9224 Luke-Acts 3 0.0790 Luke-Acts 171 4.5039 Johannine 3 0.1066 Johannine 337 11.9775 Pauline 2 0.0616 Pauline 208 6.4114 Peter 0.0000 Peter 13 4.6695 James 0.0000 James 13 7.4499 Jude 0.0000 Jude 2 4.3384 Hebrews 0.0000 Hebrews 21 4.2373 3. antí 22 0.1592 8. en 2752 19.9179 antí + Tokens / en + Tokens / GEN 1000 wds DAT 1000 words Matthew 5 0.2723 Matthew 293 15.9560 Mark 1 0.0884 Mark 135 11.9332 Luke-Acts 5 0.1317 Luke-Acts 640 16.8567 Johannine 1 0.0355 Johannine 474 16.8467 Pauline 5 0.1541 Pauline 1006 31.0092 Peter 2 0.7184 Peter 93 33.4052 James 1 0.5731 James 38 21.7765 Jude 0 0.0000 Jude 8 17.3536 Hebrews 2 0.4036 Hebrews 65 13.1154 4. apó 646 4.6755 16. pró 47 0.3402 apó + Tokens / pró + Tokens / GEN 1000 words GEN 1000 words Matthew 106 5.7725 Matthew 5 0.2723 Mark 42 3.7125 Mark 1 0.0884 Luke-Acts 235 6.1896 Luke-Acts 14 0.3687 Johannine 93 3.3054 Johannine 9 0.3199 Pauline 12 0.3699 Pauline 103 3.1749 Peter 2 0.7184 8 2.8736 Peter James 2 1.1461 James 6 3.4384 Jude 1 2.1692 Jude 2 4.3384 Hebrews 1 0.2018 Hebrews 23 4.6408 6. eis 1767 12.7889 18. sún 128 0.9264 eis + Tokens / sún + Tokens / ACC 1000 words DAT 1000 words Matthew 218 11.8717 Matthew 4 0.2178 Mark 168 14.8502 Mark 6 0.5304 Luke-Acts 528 13.9068 Luke-Acts 74 1.9491 Johannine 280 9.9517 Johannine 3 0.1066 Pauline 425 13.1003 Pauline 39 1.2021 Peter 53 19.0374 Peter 1 0.3592 James 15 8.5960 James 1 0.5731 Jude 6 13.0152 Jude 0 0.0000 Hebrews 74 14.9314 Hebrews 0 0.0000 Total 128 0.9264

78 Table B.3 NT usage of prepositions by author: b. prepositions governing two cases 5. diá 667 4.8275 diá + ACC Tokens/1000 words diá + GEN Tokens/1000 words Matthew 33 1.7971 26 1.4159 Mark 21 1.8563 12 1.0607 Luke-Acts 46 1.2116 66 1.7384 Johannine 66 2.3457 20 0.7108 Pauline 92 2.8358 200 6.1648 Peter 6 2.1552 19 6.8247 James 1 0.5731 1 0.5731 Jude 0 0.0000 1 2.1692 Hebrews 18 3.6320 39 7.8692 10. hupér 150 1.0856 hupér + ACC Tokens/1000 words hupér + GEN Tokens/1000 wds Matthew 4 0.2178 1 0.0545 Mark 0 0.0000 2 0.1768 Luke-Acts 3 0.0790 9 0.2370 Johannine 0 0.0000 16 0.5687 Pauline 12 0.3699 89 2.7434 Peter 0 0.0000 2 0.7184 James 0 0.0000 1 0.5731 Jude 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 Hebrews 1 0.2018 10 2.0178 11. hupó 220 1.5923 hupó + ACC Tokens / 1000 wds hupó + GEN Tokens/1000 wds Matthew 5 0.2723 23 1.2525 Mark 3 0.2652 9 0.7955 Luke-Acts 10 0.2634 62 1.6330 Johannine 1 0.0355 5 0.1777 Pauline 28 0.8631 48 1.4796 Peter 1 0.3592 6 2.1552 James 2 1.1461 5 2.8653 Jude 1 2.1692 2 4.3384 Hebrews 0 0.0000 9 1.8160 13. metá 469 3.3944 metá + ACC Tokens/1000 words metá + GEN Tokens/1000 wds Matthew 10 0.5446 61 3.3219 Mark 12 1.0607 44 3.8893 Luke-Acts 41 1.0799 87 2.2915 Johannine 26 0.9241 89 3.1632 Pauline 4 0.1233 69 2.1269 Peter 2 0.7184 1 0.3592 James 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 Jude 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 Hebrews 9 1.8160 14 2.8249 15. perí 333 2.4101 perí + ACC Tokens/1000 wds perí + GEN Tokens/1000 wds Matthew 8 0.4357 20 1.0891 Mark 10 0.8839 13 0.07081.1491 Luke-Acts 12 0.3161 105 0.57182.7656 Johannine 1 0.0355 78 0.42482.7722 Pauline 7 0.2158 44 1.3563 Peter 0 0.0000 7 0.23962.5144 James 0 0.0000 0 0.03810.0000 Jude 1 2.1692 4 0.00008.6768 Hebrews 0 0.0000 23 0.02184.6408 0.12530 79 Table B.4 NT usage of prepositions by author: c. prepositions governing three cases 9. epí 890 6.4415 epí + ACC Tokens / 1000 epí + DAT Tokens / epí + Tokens / words 1000 words GEN 1000 words Matthew 69 3.7576 18 0.9802 35 1.9060 Mark 35 3.0938 16 1.4143 21 1.8563 Luke-Acts 210 5.5311 62 1.6330 58 1.5276 Johannine 91 3.2343 22 0.7819 69 2.4524 Pauline 51 1.5720 55 1.6953 28 0.8631 Peter 9 3.2328 1 0.3592 2 0.7184 James 4 2.2923 2 1.1461 2 1.1461 Jude 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 1 2.1692 Hebrews 13 2.6231 10 2.0178 6 1.2107

12. katá 473 3.4234 (listed here for reasons of space: kata+NOM is not a true case government-see comments under Table B.1) katá + ACC Tokens / katá + GEN Tokens / katá + Tokens / 1000 1000 words 1000 words NOM words Matthew 21 1.1436 16 0.8713 Mark 16 1.4143 7 0.6188 Luke-Acts 111 2.9236 22 0.5795 Johannine 14 0.4976 5 0.1777 3 0.1066 Pauline 178 5.4867 15 0.4624 1 0.0308 Peter 12 4.3103 2 0.7184 James 3 1.7192 2 1.1461 Jude 2 4.3384 2 4.3384 Hebrews 38 7.6675 3 0.6053 14. pará 194 1.4041 pará + ACC Tokens / 1000 pará + DAT Tokens / pará + Tokens / words 1000 words GEN 1000 words Matthew 7 0.3812 6 0.3267 5 0.2723 Mark 7 0.6188 3 0.2652 7 0.6188 Luke-Acts 21 0.5531 15 0.3951 22 0.5795 Johannine 0 0.0000 10 0.3554 31 1.1018 Pauline 14 0.4315 14 0.4315 13 0.4007 Peter 0 0.0000 3 1.0776 2 0.7184 James 0 0.0000 2 1.1461 2 1.1461 Jude 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 Hebrews 10 2.0178 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 17. prós 700 5.0663 prós + ACC Tokens / 1000 prós + DAT Tokens / prós + Tokens / 1000 words 1000 words GEN words Matthew 42 2.2872 0.0000 0.0000 Mark 64 5.6572 1 0.0884 0.0000 Luke-Acts 297 7.8226 1 0.0263 1 0.0263 Johannine 117 4.1584 5 0.1777 0.0000 Pauline 146 4.5003 0.0000 0.0000 Peter 5 1.7960 0.0000 0.0000 James 2 1.1461 0.0000 0.0000 Jude 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hebrews 19 3.8337 0.0000 0.0000

80 Table B.5 Prepositions in LXX corpus - frequency in each group

Pentateuch Chronicles Proverbs Ecclesiastes Isaiah 1 2215 en 1001 en 200 en 160 en 459 en 1 2 1574 eis 507 eis 94 eis 51 eis 346 epi 2 3 1420 epi 452 epi 78 epi 34 apo 336 eis 3 4 963 pros 243 ek 53 apo 34 sun 206 apo 4 5 910 apo 215 apo 52 meta 33 epi 134 dia 5 6 903 ek 183 pros 49 ek 33 hupo 118 ek 6 7 559 kata 180 meta 42 para 29 huper 100 pros 7 8 492 meta 163 kata 22 dia 9 meta 76 meta 8 9 242 peri 59 dia 21 pros 9 pros 30 para 9 10 225 para 36 peri 20 hupo 7 para 29 kata 10 11 218 dia 35 anti 11 pro 6 pro 26 hupo 11 12 130 ana 30 para 8 kata 5 ek 23 peri 12 13 78 anti 16 huper 4 huper 5 peri 17 anti 13 14 74 pro 13 ana 3 ana 1 anti 9 huper 14 15 61 hupo 4 hupo 3 anti 1 dia 7 ana 15 16 53 sun 2 pro 3 peri 0 ana 5 pro 16 17 7 huper 2 sun 1 sun 0 kata 4 sun 17 10124 3141 664 417 1925

81 Table B.6 Prepositions in NT corpus - frequency in each group

Matt Mark Lk-Acts John Paul 1 293 en 168 eis 640 en 474 en 1006 en 1 2 218 eis 135 en 528 eis 337 ek 425 eis 2 3 122 epi 72 epi 330 epi 280 eis 292 dia 3 4 106 apo 67 ek 299 pros 182 epi 208 ek 4 5 82 ek 65 pros 235 apo 122 pros 194 kata 5 6 71 meta 56 meta 171 ek 115 meta 146 pros 6 7 59 dia 42 apo 133 kata 93 apo 134 epi 7 8 42 pros 33 dia 128 meta 86 dia 103 apo 8 9 37 kata 23 kata 117 peri 79 peri 101 huper 9 10 28 hupo 23 peri 112 dia 41 para 76 hupo 10 11 28 peri 17 para 74 sun 22 kata 73 meta 11 12 18 para 12 hupo 72 hupo 16 huper 51 peri 12 13 5 anti 6 sun 58 para 9 pro 41 para 13 14 5 huper 2 huper 14 pro 6 hupo 39 sun 14 15 5 pro 1 ana 12 huper 3 ana 12 pro 15 16 4 sun 1 anti 5 anti 3 sun 5 anti 16 17 3 ana 1 pro 3 ana 1 anti 2 ana 17 1126 724 2931 1869 2908

Peter James Jude Hebrews 1 93 en 38 en 8 en 74 eis 1 2 53 eis 15 eis 6 eis 65 en 2 3 25 dia 13 ek 5 peri 57 dia 3 4 14 kata 8 epi 4 kata 41 kata 4 5 13 ek 7 hupo 3 hupo 29 epi 5 6 12 epi 6 apo 2 apo 23 apo 6 7 8 apo 5 kata 2 ek 23 meta 7 8 7 hupo 4 para 1 dia 23 peri 8 9 7 peri 2 dia 1 epi 21 ek 9 10 5 para 2 pro 1 pro 19 pros 10 11 5 pros 2 pros 0 ana 11 huper 11 12 3 meta 1 anti 0 anti 10 para 12 13 2 anti 1 huper 0 huper 9 hupo 13 14 2 huper 1 sun 0 meta 2 anti 14 15 2 pro 0 ana 0 para 1 pro 15 16 1 sun 0 meta 0 pros 0 ana 16 17 0 ana 0 peri 0 sun 0 sun 17 252 105 33 408

82 Table B.7 Prepositions in AF corpus - frequency in each group

Clement Ignatius Polycarp Martyrdom 1 238 en 233 en 21 en 33 en 1 2 155 eis 127 eis 15 eis 31 eis 2 3 110 dia 78 kata 11 ek 22 kata 3 4 85 epi 71 dia 7 peri 16 ek 4 5 78 apo 31 apo 5 dia 14 dia 5 6 71 ek 20 ek 5 kata 11 epi 6 7 44 meta 20 peri 4 anti 11 hupo 7 8 42 hupo 18 epi 4 apo 11 meta 8 9 42 kata 18 huper 4 para 9 apo 9 10 42 pros 18 hupo 3 huper 8 sun 10 11 32 peri 16 pros 3 hupo 7 pros 11 12 18 para 15 meta 2 epi 4 peri 12 13 8 huper 8 para 2 pros 4 pro 13 14 7 pro 6 sun 1 meta 3 huper 14 15 4 anti 4 pro 1 pro 2 para 15 16 1 sun 1 anti 1 sun 0 ana 16 17 0 ana 0 ana 0 ana 0 anti 17 977 684 89 186

Didache Shepherd Barnabas Diognetus 1 37 eis 377 eis 132 en 43 en 1 2 32 en 264 en 100 eis 18 eis 2 3 17 apo 176 ek 73 epi 18 hupo 3 4 11 peri 164 apo 33 ek 12 dia 4 5 10 kata 153 meta 32 peri 9 ek 5 6 10 meta 125 epi 31 dia 7 huper 6 7 8 dia 117 dia 27 pros 7 kata 7 8 8 epi 89 peri 24 apo 7 para 8 9 8 huper 81 para 21 kata 7 pros 9 10 8 pros 71 hupo 18 meta 6 epi 10 11 7 ek 47 pros 10 huper 6 peri 11 12 3 pro 31 kata 7 hupo 5 apo 12 13 2 hupo 11 huper 7 para 4 meta 13 14 1 para 4 anti 1 pro 1 sun 14 15 0 sun 3 ana 0 sun 0 pro 15 16 0 anti 2 pro 0 anti 0 anti 16 17 0 ana 0 sun 0 ana 0 ana 17 162 1715 516 150

83 Table B.8.a Comparison of frequency order of prepositions in each corpus

Usage of each preposition as percentage of all prepositions per corpus

LXX NT AF 24.80 en 26.57 en 22.24 en 15.75 eis 17.06 eis 19.20 eis 14.31 epi 8.83 ek 8.22 dia 8.71 apo 8.59 epi 7.66 ek 8.10 ek 6.76 pros 7.41 apo 7.84 pros 6.44 dia 7.32 epi 4.97 meta 5.97 apo 5.72 meta 4.66 kata 4.57 kata 4.82 kata 2.67 dia 4.53 meta 4.49 peri 2.05 para 3.22 peri 3.84 hupo 1.90 peri 2.12 hupo 3.48 pros 0.94 ana 1.87 para 2.86 para 0.89 hupo 1.45 huper 1.52 huper 0.82 anti 1.24 sun 0.49 pro 0.60 pro 0.45 pro 0.38 sun 0.58 sun 0.21 anti 0.29 anti 0.40 huper 0.12 ana 0.07 ana 100.00 100.00 100.00

Note that, because spatial and other relations could sometimes be expressed by an oblique NP as well as by a PP, this percentage expresses only the actual and not all the possible uses of each preposition. For example, ejpiv epi has a higher usage rate in LXX than NT or AF, but this may be due to a lower incidence of the dative NP construction (which is examined in relation to the verb ejpitivqhmi epitithemi in the NT in Appendix C); only a detailed semantic analysis of each token in its context (taking account both of possible paradigmatic alternatives when it was used, and of contexts where it could have been used but was not) would reveal the reason for the difference between LXX and the other corpora.

B.8.b (Table 2.2) Frequency of prepositions in LSJ citations (tokens per 10,000) and in LXX, NT & AF (tokens per 10,000) LSJ LXX NT AF 195.92 eis 196.9 en 199.2 en 154.1 en 89.37 en 125.0 eis 127.9 eis 133.0 eis 71.78 pros 113.6 epi 66.2 ek 56.9 dia 65.23 epi 69.2 apo 64.4 epi 53.1 ek 51.33 ek 64.3 ek 50.7 pros 51.4 apo 40.49 dia 35.59 hupo 62.3 pros 48.3 dia 50.7 epi 28.67 para 39.5 meta 44.7 apo 39.6 meta 28.11 apo 37.0 kata 34.2 kata 33.4 kata 27.80 meta 21.2 dia 33.9 meta 31.1 peri 10.56 huper 16.3 para 24.1 peri 26.6 hupo 5.38 sun 15.1 peri 15.9 hupo 24.1 pros 4.25 pro 7.5 ana 14.0 para 19.8 para 3.48 anti 7.0 hupo 10.9 huper 10.5 huper 6.5 anti 9.3 sun 3.4 pro 4.8 pro 3.4 pro 2.6 sun 4.6 sun 1.6 anti 2.0 anti 3.2 huper 0.9 ana 0.5 ana

84 Table B.9 Prepositions in LXX

Pentateuch Chronicles Proverbs Word /1000 % of Word /1000 % of Word /1000 % of count words preps count words preps count words preps ana 130 1.04 1.28 13 0.35 0.41 3 0.27 0.45 anti 78 0.63 0.77 35 0.93 1.11 3 0.27 0.45 apo 910 7.31 8.99 215 5.72 6.84 53 4.75 7.98 dia 218 1.75 2.15 59 1.57 1.88 22 1.97 3.31 eis 1574 12.64 15.55 507 13.48 16.14 94 8.42 14.16 ek 903 7.25 8.92 243 6.46 7.74 49 4.39 7.38 en 2215 17.79 21.88 1001 26.62 31.87 200 17.91 30.12 epi 1420 11.40 14.03 452 12.02 14.39 78 6.99 11.75 huper 7 0.06 0.07 16 0.43 0.51 4 0.36 0.60 hupo 61 0.49 0.60 4 0.11 0.13 20 1.79 3.01 kata 559 4.49 5.52 163 4.34 5.19 8 0.72 1.20 meta 492 3.95 4.86 180 4.79 5.73 52 4.66 7.83 para 225 1.81 2.22 30 0.80 0.96 42 3.76 6.33 peri 242 1.94 2.39 36 0.96 1.15 3 0.27 0.45 pro 74 0.59 0.73 2 0.05 0.06 11 0.99 1.66 pros 963 7.73 9.51 183 4.87 5.83 21 1.88 3.16 sun 53 0.43 0.52 2 0.05 0.06 1 0.09 0.15 10124 81.30 100.00 3141 83.54 71.11 664 59.47 100.00

Ecclesiastes Isaiah Whole corpus Word /1000 % of Word /1000 % of Word /1000 % of count words preps count words preps count words preps ana 0 0.00 0.00 7 0.26 0.36 153 0.75 0.94 anti 1 0.22 0.24 17 0.63 0.88 134 0.65 0.82 apo 34 7.48 8.15 206 7.61 10.70 1418 6.92 8.71 dia 1 0.22 0.24 134 4.95 6.96 434 2.12 2.67 eis 51 11.22 12.23 336 12.40 17.45 2562 12.50 15.75 ek 5 1.10 1.20 118 4.36 6.13 1318 6.43 8.10 en 160 35.20 38.37 459 16.95 23.84 4035 19.69 24.80 epi 33 7.26 7.91 346 12.77 17.97 2329 11.36 14.31 huper 29 6.38 6.95 9 0.33 0.47 65 0.32 0.40 hupo 33 7.26 7.91 26 0.96 1.35 144 0.70 0.89 kata 0 0.00 0.00 29 1.07 1.51 759 3.70 4.66 meta 9 1.98 2.16 76 2.81 3.95 809 3.95 4.97 para 7 1.54 1.68 30 1.11 1.56 334 1.63 2.05 peri 5 1.10 1.20 23 0.85 1.19 309 1.51 1.90 pro 6 1.32 1.44 5 0.18 0.26 98 0.48 0.60 pros 9 1.98 2.16 100 3.69 5.19 1276 6.23 7.84 sun 34 7.48 8.15 4 0.15 0.21 94 0.46 0.58 417 91.73 100.00 1925 71.07 100.00 16271 79.40 100.00

85 Table B.10 Prepositions in NT

Matthew Mark Luke-Acts Word /1000 % of Word /1000 % of Word /1000 % of count words preps count words preps count words preps ana 3 0.16 0.27 1 0.09 0.14 3 0.08 0.10 anti 5 0.27 0.44 1 0.09 0.14 5 0.13 0.17 apo 106 5.77 9.41 42 3.71 5.80 235 6.19 8.02 dia 59 3.21 5.24 33 2.92 4.56 112 2.95 3.82 eis 218 11.87 19.36 168 14.85 23.20 528 13.91 18.01 ek 82 4.47 7.28 67 5.92 9.25 171 4.50 5.83 en 293 15.96 26.02 135 11.93 18.65 640 16.86 21.84 epi 122 6.64 10.83 72 6.36 9.94 330 8.69 11.26 huper 5 0.27 0.44 2 0.18 0.28 12 0.32 0.41 hupo 28 1.52 2.49 12 1.06 1.66 72 1.90 2.46 kata 37 2.01 3.29 23 2.03 3.18 133 3.50 4.54 meta 71 3.87 6.31 56 4.95 7.73 128 3.37 4.37 para 18 0.98 1.60 17 1.50 2.35 58 1.53 1.98 peri 28 1.52 2.49 23 2.03 3.18 117 3.08 3.99 pro 5 0.27 0.44 1 0.09 0.14 14 0.37 0.48 pros 42 2.29 3.73 65 5.75 8.98 299 7.88 10.20 sun 4 0.22 0.36 6 0.53 0.83 74 1.95 2.52

1126 61.32 100.00 724 64.00 100 2931 77.20 100.00

John Paul Peter Word /1000 % of Word /1000 % of Word /1000 % of count words preps count words preps count words preps ana 3 0.11 0.16 2 0.06 0.07 0 0.00 0.00 anti 1 0.04 0.05 5 0.15 0.17 2 0.72 0.79 apo 93 3.31 4.98 103 3.17 3.54 8 2.87 3.17 dia 86 3.06 4.60 292 9.00 10.04 25 8.98 9.92 eis 280 9.95 14.98 425 13.10 14.61 53 19.04 21.03 ek 337 11.98 18.03 208 6.41 7.15 13 4.67 5.16 en 474 16.85 25.36 1006 31.01 34.59 93 33.41 36.90 epi 182 6.47 9.74 134 4.13 4.61 12 4.31 4.76 huper 16 0.57 0.86 101 3.11 3.47 2 0.72 0.79 hupo 6 0.21 0.32 76 2.34 2.61 7 2.51 2.78 kata 22 0.78 1.18 194 5.98 6.67 14 5.03 5.56 meta 115 4.09 6.15 73 2.25 2.51 3 1.08 1.19 para 41 1.46 2.19 41 1.26 1.41 5 1.80 1.98 peri 79 2.81 4.23 51 1.57 1.75 7 2.51 2.78 pro 9 0.32 0.48 12 0.37 0.41 2 0.72 0.79 pros 122 4.34 6.53 146 4.50 5.02 5 1.80 1.98 sun 3 0.11 0.16 39 1.20 1.34 1 0.36 0.40

1869 66.43 100.00 2908 89.64 100.00 252 90.52 100.00

86 Table B.10 Prepositions in NT continued

James Jude Hebrews Word /1000 % of Word /1000 % of Word /1000 % of count words preps count words preps count words preps ana 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 anti 1 0.57 0.95 0 0.00 0.00 2 0.40 0.49 apo 6 3.44 5.71 2 4.34 6.06 23 4.64 5.64 dia 2 1.15 1.90 1 2.17 3.03 57 11.50 13.97 eis 15 8.60 14.29 6 13.02 18.18 74 14.93 18.14 ek 13 7.45 12.38 2 4.34 6.06 21 4.24 5.15 en 38 21.78 36.19 8 17.35 24.24 65 13.12 15.93 epi 8 4.58 7.62 1 2.17 3.03 29 5.85 7.11 huper 1 0.57 0.95 0 0.00 0.00 11 2.22 2.70 hupo 7 4.01 6.67 3 6.51 9.09 9 1.82 2.21 kata 5 2.87 4.76 4 8.68 12.12 41 8.27 10.05 meta 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 23 4.64 5.64 para 4 2.29 3.81 0 0.00 0.00 10 2.02 2.45 peri 0 0.00 0.00 5 10.85 15.15 23 4.64 5.64 pro 2 1.15 1.90 1 2.17 3.03 1 0.20 0.25 pros 2 1.15 1.90 0 0.00 0.00 19 3.83 4.66 sun 1 0.57 0.95 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00

105 60.17 100.00 33 71.58 100.00 408 82.32 100.00

Whole corpus Word /1000 % Count allpreps ana 12 0.09 0.12 anti 22 0.16 0.21 apo 618 4.47 5.97 dia 667 4.83 6.44 eis 1767 12.79 17.06 ek 914 6.62 8.83 en 2752 19.92 26.57 epi 890 6.44 8.59 hyper 150 1.09 1.45 hypo 220 1.59 2.12 kata 473 3.42 4.57 meta 469 3.39 4.53 para 194 1.40 1.87 peri 333 2.41 3.22 pro 47 0.34 0.45 pros 700 5.07 6.76 sun 128 0.93 1.24 10356 74.95 100.00

87 Table B.11 Prepositions in AF

Clement Ignatius Polycarp Word /1000 % Word /1000 % Word /1000 % Count allpreps Count allpreps Count allpreps ana 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 anti 4 0.30 0.41 1 0.13 0.15 4 3.49 4.49 apo 78 5.92 7.98 31 3.89 4.53 4 3.49 4.49 dia 110 8.34 11.26 71 8.92 10.38 5 4.36 5.62 eis 155 11.76 15.86 127 15.95 18.57 15 13.09 16.85 ek 71 5.39 7.27 20 2.51 2.92 11 9.60 12.36 en 238 18.05 24.36 233 29.27 34.06 21 18.32 23.60 epi 85 6.45 8.70 18 2.26 2.63 2 1.75 2.25 huper 8 0.61 0.82 18 2.26 2.63 3 2.62 3.37 hupo 42 3.19 4.30 18 2.26 2.63 3 2.62 3.37 kata 42 3.19 4.30 78 9.80 11.40 5 4.36 5.62 meta 44 3.34 4.50 15 1.88 2.19 1 0.87 1.12 para 18 1.37 1.84 8 1.01 1.17 4 3.49 4.49 peri 32 2.43 3.28 20 2.51 2.92 7 6.11 7.87 pro 7 0.53 0.72 4 0.50 0.58 1 0.87 1.12 pros 42 3.19 4.30 16 2.01 2.34 2 1.75 2.25 sun 1 0.08 0.10 6 0.75 0.88 1 0.87 1.12 977 74.12 100.00 684 85.93 100 89 77.66 100.00

Martyrdom Didache Shepherd Word /1000 % Word /1000 % Word /1000 % Count allpreps Count allpreps Count allpreps ana 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 3 0.11 0.17 anti 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 4 0.14 0.23 apo 9 3.29 4.84 17 7.61 10.49 164 5.88 9.56 dia 14 5.12 7.53 8 3.58 4.94 117 4.20 6.82 eis 31 11.34 16.67 37 16.56 22.84 377 13.53 21.98 ek 16 5.85 8.60 7 3.13 4.32 176 6.32 10.26 en 33 12.07 17.74 32 14.32 19.75 264 9.47 15.39 epi 11 4.02 5.91 8 3.58 4.94 125 4.49 7.29 huper 3 1.10 1.61 8 3.58 4.94 11 0.39 0.64 hupo 11 4.02 5.91 2 0.90 1.23 71 2.55 4.14 kata 22 8.05 11.83 10 4.48 6.17 31 1.11 1.81 meta 11 4.02 5.91 10 4.48 6.17 153 5.49 8.92 para 2 0.73 1.08 1 0.45 0.62 81 2.91 4.72 peri 4 1.46 2.15 11 4.92 6.79 89 3.19 5.19 pro 4 1.46 2.15 3 1.34 1.85 2 0.07 0.12 pros 7 2.56 3.76 8 3.58 4.94 47 1.69 2.74 sun 8 2.93 4.30 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 186 68.06 100.00 162 72.52 100.00 1715 61.54 100.00

88 Table B.11 Prepositions in AF continued

Barnabas Diognetus Whole Corpus Word /1000 % Word /1000 % Word /1000 % Count allpreps Count allpreps Count allpreps ana 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 3 0.05 0.07 anti 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 13 0.20 0.29 apo 24 3.51 4.65 5 1.86 3.33 332 5.14 7.41 dia 31 4.54 6.01 12 4.47 8.00 368 5.69 8.22 eis 100 14.63 19.38 18 6.71 12.00 860 13.30 19.20 ek 33 4.83 6.40 9 3.36 6.00 343 5.31 7.66 en 132 19.32 25.58 43 16.03 28.67 996 15.41 22.24 epi 73 10.68 14.15 6 2.24 4.00 328 5.07 7.32 hyper 10 1.46 1.94 7 2.61 4.67 68 1.05 1.52 hypo 7 1.02 1.36 18 6.71 12.00 172 2.66 3.84 kata 21 3.07 4.07 7 2.61 4.67 216 3.34 4.82 meta 18 2.63 3.49 4 1.49 2.67 256 3.96 5.72 para 7 1.02 1.36 7 2.61 4.67 128 1.98 2.86 peri 32 4.68 6.20 6 2.24 4.00 201 3.11 4.49 pro 1 0.15 0.19 0 0.00 0.00 22 0.34 0.49 pros 27 3.95 5.23 7 2.61 4.67 156 2.41 3.48 sun 0 0.00 0.00 1 0.37 0.67 17 0.26 0.38 516 75.50 100.00 150 55.93 100.00 4479 69.29 100.00

89 Table B.12 Preverbs in Lysias and NT

Table B.12.a. from Duhoux 1995 (Tableau 6: Temps et préverbation à l’indicatif chez Lysias, p 255)

Preverbs Non-preverbs Total % No % No % No Unclear 14 3 17 Aorist 52.9 383 33.2 493 39.6 876 Future 9.3 67 9.3 138 9.3 205 Future-Aorist 0.1 1 0.0 1 Future Perfect 0.3 5 0.2 5 Imperfect 11.3 82 17.7 263 15.6 345 Perfect 8.6 62 12.9 192 11.5 254 Pluperfect 1.8 13 1.5 23 1.6 36 Present 14.2 103 24.8 368 21.3 471 Total 100 724 100 1486 100 2210 This table shows the raw word count and the percntage of the total number of verbs of each indicative tense-form in the classical author Lysias (text of approx 50,000 words)

Table B.12.b Amalgamation of Duhoux’s Tables 6-11 (all moods. participles and infinitives)

Preverbs Non-preverbs Total % No % No % No Unclear 0.84 16 0.08 3 0.32 19

Aorist 56.84 1089 35.52 1405 42.47 2494

Future 5.69 109 5.97 236 5.88 345

Future-Aorist 0.00 0 0.03 1 0.02 1

Future 0.00 0 0.13 5 0.09 5 Perfect Imperfect 5.79 111 6.65 263 6.37 374

Perfect 8.35 160 15.02 594 12.84 754

Pluperfect 0.68 13 0.58 23 0.61 36

Present 21.82 418 36.05 1426 31.40 1844

Total 1916 3956 5872

This table is a composite of the separate tables Duhoux gives for preverbation according to the mood and finiteness of the verb. The figures are aggregated to make them comparable to my NT data (Table B.12.c overleaf).

90 Table B.12.c NT preverbation

Equivalent table for verbs in NT (all moods. participles and infinitives) removing Unclear, Future Aorist & Future Perfect NT verbs Preverbs Non-preverbs Total % No % No % No Aorist 52.82 4418 36.38 7188 41.27 11606

Future 6.66 557 5.42 1071 5.79 1628

Imperfect 4.93 412 6.41 1267 5.97 1679

Perfect 4.26 356 6.15 1215 5.59 1571

Pluperfect 0.18 15 0.36 71 0.31 86

Present 31.17 2607 45.28 8947 41.08 11554

Total 100.00 8635 100.00 19759 100.00 28124

This table organises the NT data into the same format as Duhoux’s Lysias data, as given in Table B.12.b

Table B.12.d Comparison of Duhoux’s data from Lysias with NT (adjusted: removal of unclear; 5 fut pf & 1 fut aor treated as fut)

Present Future Imperfect Aorist Perfect Pluperfect Lysias No 418 109 111 1089 160 13 PV % 22.00 5.74 5.84 57.32 8.42 0.68 NT No 2607 557 412 4418 356 15 PV % 31.17 6.66 6.41 52.82 4.26 0.18 Lysias No 1426 242 263 1405 594 23 Non-PV % 36.07 6.12 6.65 35.54 15.03 0.58 NT No 6847 1071 1267 7188 1215 71 Non-PV % 45.28 5.42 6.41 36.38 6.15 0.36 Lysias No 1844 351 374 2494 754 36 Total % 31.51 6.00 6.39 42.61 12.88 0.62 NT No 11554 1628 1679 11606 1571 86 Total % 41.08 5.79 5.97 41.27 5.59 0.31

91 Table B.13 – P-values for comparison of data from TLG and LSJ with LXX, NT, AF

P-values of 0.05 or under are hightlighted in pink (2-tailed) and green (1-tailed)

Table B.13.a Epi tokens per 1000 words in TLG TLG epi Classical Early LXX NT Late Apostolic Koine Koine Fathers Classical -2.025 -3.763 -1.167 -2.028 0.111 m=4.25 0.039 0.003 0.138 0.039 0.457 0.077 0.006 0.277 0.077 0.914 Early -3.166 0.042 -0.669 1.530 Koine 0.007 0.484 0.261 0.082 m=6.36 0.013 0.968 0.522 0.164 LXX 1.747 1.721 2.750 m=10.09 0.059 0.062 0.013 0.119 0.124 0.079 NT -0.290 0.791 m=5.47 0.390 0.226 0.779 0.452 Late 1.465 Koine 0.091 m=6.93 0.181 Apostolic Fathers m=4.43

Table B.13.b Pros tokens per 1000 words in TLG TLG pros Classical Early LXX NT Late Apostolic Koine Koine Fathers Classical -4.644 0.967 1.143 -0.877 4.509 m= 0.001 0.181 0.143 0.203 0.001 0.002 0.362 0.286 0.406 0.002 Early 3.414 3.662 1.577 5.595 Koine 0.005 0.003 0.077 0.000 m= 0.009 0.006 0.143 0.001 LXX 0.030 -1.162 0.915 m= 0.489 0.139 0.194 0.977 0.279 0.387 NT -1.271 1.006 m= 0.120 0.172 0.239 0.344 Late 1.845 Koine 0.051 m= 0.102 Apostolic Fathers m=

92 Table B.13.c Eis tokens per 10000 words in LSJ LSJ eis Classical Early LXX NT Late Apostolic Koine Koine Fathers Classical -0.076 3.281 3.020 -0.176 3.006 m=198.38 0.470 0.004 0.005 0.432 0.005 0.941 0.008 0.009 0.865 0.010 Early 6.732 3.714 -0.118 3.767 Koine 0.000 0.001 0.455 0.002 m=200.79 0.000 0.003 0.910 0.003 LXX -1.065 -2.132 -0.840 m=116.3 0.152 0.033 0.208 0.305 0.066 0.416 NT 0.201 2.149 m=132.51 0.421 0.027 0.843 0.055 Late -2.067 Koine 0.012 m=207.45 0.024 Apostolic Fathers m=129.5

Table B.13.d En tokens per 1000 words in TLG TLG en Classical Early LXX NT Late Apostolic Koine Koine Fathers Classical 0.946 -3.507 6.485 1.854 -2.410 m=10.24 0.186 0.004 0.000 0.050 0.021 0.372 0.008 0.000 0.101 0.043 Early -4.011 6.528 0.942 -3.044 Koine 0.002 0.000 0.187 0.008 m= 0.004 0.000 0.374 0.016 LXX 4.576 3.210 1.080 m= 0.001 0.006 0.156 0.002 0.012 0.312 NT -12.228 -6.233 m= 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Late -3.72 Koine 0.003 m= 0.006 Apostolic Fathers m=

93 Table B.14 Preverbs in LXX - order of frequency in each group

Pentateuch Chronicles Proverbs Ecclesiastes Isaiah 1 1115 apo 275 kata 118 apo 29 apo 260 apo 1 2 1061 ek 224 apo 104 kata 26 ek 236 kata 2 3 828 kata 208 ek 93 ek 26 epi 209 ana 3 4 645 epi 137 ana 87 epi 13 kata 188 ek 4 5 534 ana 120 epi 63 sun 11 sun 131 epi 5 6 501 pros 73 sun 46 para 9 ana 123 sun 6 7 412 sun 69 eis 42 dia 9 dia 92 para 7 8 370 eis 61 pros 35 hupo 9 peri 67 dia 8 9 361 para 60 dia 33 ana 7 pros 65 en 9 10 284 dia 57 para 33 pros 6 para 58 pros 10 11 251 en 41 en 21 en 3 hupo 38 anti 11 12 118 peri 19 pro 20 pro 2 anti 35 eis 12 13 79 hupo 16 hupo 18 peri 1 eis 24 peri 13 14 54 pro 12 anti 14 eis 0 en 15 hupo 14 15 40 anti 12 peri 10 meta 0 huper 12 pro 15 16 29 meta 9 meta 9 anti 0 meta 11 meta 16 17 22 huper 2 huper 9 huper 0 pro 4 huper 17 18 0 amphi 0 amphi 0 amphi 0 amphi 0 amphi 18 6704 1395 755 151 1568

94 Table B.15 Preverbs in NT - order of frequency in each group

Matt Mark Lk-Acts John Paul 1 292 apo 201 apo 455 apo 261 apo 189 apo 1 2 122 ek 109 ek 296 kata 122 kata 177 kata 2 3 119 pros 76 epi 295 epi 103 ana 168 para 3 4 107 kata 75 kata 281 ana 99 ek 130 epi 4 5 84 para 68 para 266 ek 53 peri 116 sun 5 6 67 sun 60 ana 215 para 46 hupo 104 ek 6 7 66 ana 44 pros 214 dia 41 pros 97 ana 7 8 63 epi 38 eis 182 sun 32 para 83 peri 8 9 41 dia 37 sun 172 pros 29 epi 81 en 9 10 39 eis 34 dia 119 hupo 28 sun 80 pro 10 11 28 hupo 26 peri 115 eis 21 eis 69 dia 11 12 23 peri 20 hupo 58 peri 18 meta 60 hupo 12 13 18 meta 12 en 46 pro 17 dia 49 pros 13 14 14 pro 12 pro 45 meta 9 en 29 anti 14 15 13 en 6 meta 27 anti 6 pro 27 meta 15 16 2 amphi 1 amphi 27 en 5 anti 22 huper 16 17 2 anti 0 anti 5 huper 0 huper 7 eis 17 18 0 huper 0 huper 2 amphi 0 amphi 0 amphi 18 1100 819 2820 890 1488

Peter James Jude Hebrews 1 25 apo 20 kata 6 apo 43 kata 1 2 20 epi 13 epi 6 epi 38 pros 2 3 16 kata 11 apo 4 para 36 apo 3 4 15 hupo 7 ek 4 pro 30 epi 4 5 14 para 6 hupo 3 dia 21 ana 5 6 10 ana 6 pros 3 ek 21 eis 6 7 9 dia 4 ana 2 hupo 21 para 7 8 9 ek 4 para 2 pros 19 ek 8 9 8 sun 3 anti 1 en 15 hupo 9 10 7 pros 3 dia 1 meta 13 dia 10 11 5 pro 3 eis 1 sun 11 sun 11 12 3 anti 3 meta 0 peri 9 en 12 13 2 peri 2 en 0 ana 9 meta 13 14 1 en 2 sun 0 anti 6 peri 14 15 1 huper 1 peri 0 eis 6 pro 15 16 0 eis 0 pro 0 kata 3 anti 16 17 0 meta 0 huper 0 huper 0 huper 17 18 0 amphi 0 amphi 0 amphi 0 amphi 18 145 88 33 301

95 Table B.16 Preverbs in AF - order of frequency in each group

Clement Ignatius Polycarp Martyrdom 1 93 apo 58 apo 19 apo 30 epi 1 2 84 epi 42 epi 7 epi 21 apo 2 3 80 ek 39 sun 6 hupo 21 pros 3 4 70 ana 35 kata 6 pro 20 kata 4 5 67 kata 31 para 5 ana 17 hupo 5 6 52 hupo 30 ana 4 para 17 sun 6 7 52 para 23 pros 3 eis 15 para 7 8 44 pros 21 hupo 3 ek 11 ana 8 9 40 dia 20 en 3 en 11 ek 9 10 35 sun 20 pro 3 kata 10 meta 10 11 26 meta 14 dia 3 peri 6 pro 11 12 19 eis 10 ek 3 sun 4 peri 12 13 16 en 9 huper 2 pros 3 anti 13 14 16 pro 9 meta 1 anti 3 dia 14 15 10 peri 7 peri 1 dia 3 eis 15 16 8 anti 5 anti 1 meta 2 en 16 17 3 huper 1 eis 0 huper 0 huper 17 18 0 amphi 0 amphi 0 amphi 0 amphi 18 715 374 70 194

Clement Ignatius Polycarp Martyrdom 1 13 apo 299 apo 41 kata 20 para 1 2 12 pros 223 epi 38 ek 18 apo 2 3 9 sun 210 kata 35 sun 18 kata 3 4 8 ek 105 meta 32 pros 17 epi 4 5 7 kata 97 ana 27 ana 16 pros 5 6 6 dia 85 para 27 apo 14 dia 6 7 5 epi 83 ek 24 epi 13 ana 7 8 5 pro 67 en 19 peri 7 sun 8 9 4 para 66 sun 16 en 6 en 9 10 3 ana 53 peri 15 para 5 hupo 10 11 3 hupo 48 dia 12 hupo 4 huper 11 12 2 en 41 pros 12 pro 4 meta 12 13 2 meta 38 hupo 8 dia 4 pro 13 14 1 eis 30 eis 7 huper 3 ek 14 15 1 huper 25 pro 5 eis 2 eis 15 16 1 peri 14 anti 3 anti 1 peri 16 17 0 anti 8 huper 3 meta 1 anti 17 18 0 amphi 0 amphi 0 amphi 0 amphi 18 82 1492 324 153

96 Table B.17 Order of frequency of preverbs in each corpus

Table B.17.a Order of frequency of PVs Table B.17.c Order of frequency of PVs in LXX corpus in AF corpus

% PVs % all % PVs % all Tokens verbs Tokens verbs apo 1746 16.51 5.53 apo 548 16.10 4.22 ek 1576 14.91 4.99 epi 432 12.69 3.33 kata 1456 13.77 4.61 kata 401 11.78 3.09 epi 1009 9.54 3.19 ana 256 7.52 1.97 ana 922 8.72 2.92 ek 236 6.93 1.82 sun 682 6.45 2.16 para 226 6.64 1.74 pros 660 6.24 2.09 sun 211 6.20 1.63 para 562 5.32 1.78 pros 191 5.61 1.47 eis 489 4.62 1.55 meta 160 4.70 1.23 dia 462 4.37 1.46 hupo 154 4.52 1.19 en 378 3.58 1.20 dia 134 3.94 1.03 peri 181 1.71 0.57 en 132 3.88 1.02 hupo 148 1.40 0.47 peri 98 2.88 0.75 pro 105 0.99 0.33 pro 94 2.76 0.72 anti 101 0.96 0.32 eis 64 1.88 0.49 meta 59 0.56 0.19 anti 35 1.03 0.27 huper 37 0.35 0.12 huper 32 0.94 0.25 amphi 0 0.00 0.00 amphi 0 0.00 0.00 Total 10573 100.00 33.47 Total 3404 100.00 26.22

Table B.17.b Order of frequency of PVs (On the statistical significance of these figures, in NT corpus see Chapter 1 Tables 3 and 4 and comments.)

% PVs % all Tokens verbs apo 1476 19.21 5.25 kata 856 11.14 3.04 ek 738 9.60 2.63 epi 662 8.62 2.35 ana 642 8.36 2.28 para 610 7.94 2.17 pros 478 6.22 1.70 sun 452 5.88 1.61 dia 403 5.24 1.43 hupo 311 4.05 1.11 peri 252 3.28 0.90 eis 244 3.18 0.87 pro 173 2.25 0.62 en 155 2.02 0.55 meta 127 1.65 0.45 anti 72 0.94 0.26 huper 28 0.36 0.10 amphi 5 0.07 0.02 Total 7684 100.00 27.33

97 Table B.18 Preverbs in NT according to tense

Present Future Imperfect Aorist Perfect Pluperfect All tenses amphi 60.00 3 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 40.00 2 0.00 0 100.00 5 ana 22.20 143 7.14 46 1.86 12 65.68 423 3.11 20 0.00 0 100.00 644 anti 48.61 35 9.72 7 5.56 4 30.56 22 5.56 4 0.00 0 100.00 72 apo 17.89 264 7.45 110 1.42 21 69.24 1022 3.93 58 0.07 1 100.00 1476 dia 35.96 146 4.68 19 15.76 64 38.67 157 4.19 17 0.74 3 100.00 406 eis 15.98 39 5.33 13 1.23 3 76.64 187 0.82 2 0.00 0 100.00 244 ek/ex 24.80 183 5.28 39 5.56 41 61.11 451 2.85 21 0.41 3 100.00 738 en 40.00 62 6.45 10 3.87 6 40.65 63 9.03 14 0.00 0 100.00 155 epi 30.06 199 6.50 43 7.40 49 53.78 356 1.96 13 0.30 2 100.00 662 huper 78.57 22 0.00 0 0.00 0 21.43 6 0.00 0 0.00 0 100.00 28 hupo 61.09 190 3.22 10 5.14 16 28.94 90 1.61 5 0.00 0 100.00 311 kata 41.96 360 7.23 62 4.66 40 42.31 363 3.85 33 0.00 0 100.00 858 meta 34.88 45 6.98 9 1.55 2 54.26 70 2.33 3 0.00 0 100.00 129 para 35.25 215 8.03 49 6.56 40 44.10 269 5.74 35 0.33 2 100.00 610 peri 53.57 135 2.78 7 6.75 17 29.76 75 6.75 17 0.40 1 100.00 252 pro 28.90 50 6.36 11 5.78 10 44.51 77 14.45 25 0.00 0 100.00 173 pros 36.40 174 4.39 21 5.02 24 52.51 251 1.67 8 0.00 0 100.00 478 sun 38.72 175 3.98 18 6.42 29 43.81 198 6.42 29 0.66 3 100.00 452

PVs 31.72 2440 6.16 474 4.91 378 53.04 4080 3.98 306 0.19 15 7693 7693 all Vs 41.10 11554 5.79 1628 5.97 1679 41.28 11606 5.59 1571 0.31 86 28124 28112 non- PVs 44.63 9114 5.65 1154 6.37 1301 36.86 7526 6.20 1265 0.35 71 20431 20419

Total of each tense-form of PVs as percentage of all PVs Total of each tense-form of PVs as percentage of all verbs Number of non-preverbed verbs in each tense Total of each tense-form of non-PVs as percentage of all non-PVs

Note on total verb count: There is an error in the way Accordance reports the number of tense- forms. Although the total verb count is 28112, the sum of the individual tense-forms comes to 28124 (after omission of the single NT token of future perfect). The twelve extra verbs are aorist forms (there are 2 types aorist, and some verbs may have tense tagged twice), but I have not been able to identify them individually, except to rule out error in the less frequent preverbs and the smaller author-groups. The corrected figure for the percentage of PVs in the aorist is 52.88%, an insignificant difference from 53.04% given in the table.

98 Table B.19.a Tenses in LXX Corpus Pentateuch Chronicles Proverbs Ecclesiastes Isaiah Total present 3529 18.60 724 16.39 1233 55.42 248 31.71 1301 25.03 7035 22.27 imperfect 546 2.88 237 5.37 24 1.08 3 0.38 59 1.14 869 2.75 future 4711 24.83 257 5.82 400 17.98 140 17.90 1629 31.35 7137 22.59 aorist 9371 49.39 3052 69.10 487 21.89 360 46.04 1942 37.37 15212 48.15 perfect 775 4.08 143 3.24 79 3.55 31 3.96 257 4.95 1285 4.07 pluperfect 40 0.21 4 0.09 2 0.09 0 0.00 9 0.17 55 0.17 All Vs 18972 100.00 4417 100.00 2225 100.00 782 100.00 5197 100.00 31593 100.00

Table B.19.b Tenses in NT Matthew Mark Luke-Acts John Paul present 1420 35.48 977 37.06 2724 32.41 2475 43.31 3057 55.30 imperfect 142 3.55 293 11.12 784 9.33 332 5.81 85 1.54 future 355 8.87 124 4.70 419 4.99 302 5.29 323 5.84 aorist 1964 49.08 1142 43.32 4110 48.90 2094 36.65 1655 29.94 perfect 113 2.82 92 3.49 335 3.99 475 8.31 407 7.36 pluperfect 8 0.20 8 0.30 33 0.39 36 0.63 1 0.02 All Vs 4002 100.00 2636 100.00 8405 100.00 5714 100.00 5528 100.00 Actual Vs 4000 2635 8402 5710 5525

Peter James Jude Hebrews Total present 238 49.90 197 55.18 41 48.24 425 46.15 11554 41.08 imperfect 11 2.31 3 0.84 2 2.35 27 2.93 1679 5.97 future 27 5.66 26 7.28 1 1.18 51 5.54 1628 5.79 aorist 167 35.01 112 31.37 32 37.65 330 35.83 11606 41.27 perfect 34 7.13 19 5.32 9 10.59 87 9.45 1571 5.59 pluperfect 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 86 0.31 All Vs 477 100.00 357 100.00 85 100.00 920 99.89 28125 100.00 Actual Vs 477 357 85 920 As noted under Table B.18, there is an error in the tense-counts for NT. The ‘Actual Vs’ line shows where the error affects each author-group. Ony the larger groups are affected, by overcounting of aorists. The percentage of 99.89 for verbs in Hebrews is due to omission of a future perfect (the only token of this form in NT).

Table B.19.c Tenses in AF Corpus Clement Ignatius Polycarp Martyrdom Didache present 1014 41.88 855 57.34 99 49.50 196 36.77 198 46.59 imperfect 58 2.40 27 1.81 1 0.50 38 7.13 1 0.24 future 214 8.84 41 2.75 12 6.00 6 1.13 95 22.35 aorist 978 40.40 433 29.04 74 37.00 263 49.34 120 28.24 perfect 147 6.07 135 9.05 14 7.00 27 5.07 11 2.59 pluperfect 10 0.41 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 0.56 0 0.00 all Vs 2421 100.00 1491 100.00 200 100.00 533 100.00 425 100.00

Shepherd Barnabas Diognetus Total present 2899 48.54 638 46.16 335 59.93 6234 48.01 imperfect 286 4.79 30 2.17 8 1.43 449 3.46 future 438 7.33 175 12.66 23 4.11 1004 7.73 aorist 2002 33.52 456 33.00 155 27.73 4481 34.51 perfect 327 5.47 83 6.01 36 6.44 780 6.01 pluperfect 21 0.35 0 0.00 2 0.36 36 0.28 all Vs 5973 100.00 1382 100.00 559 100.00 12984 100.00

99 Table B.20 Present and aorist tenses of PVs in LXX Corpus Pentateuch Chronicles Proverbs Present Aorist Present Aorist Present Aorist ana 5.42 50 36.23 334 2.93 27 9.87 91 1.63 15 0.65 6 anti 4.95 5 11.88 12 0.00 0 10.89 11 3.96 4 0.00 0 apo 5.73 100 37.63 657 0.63 11 10.82 189 2.92 51 2.52 44 dia 12.77 59 27.49 127 1.52 7 9.09 42 4.55 21 1.30 6 eis 12.27 60 42.94 210 1.84 9 8.59 42 0.61 3 1.64 8 ek/ex 6.98 110 37.75 595 1.97 31 10.34 163 2.86 45 1.90 30 en 14.81 56 39.42 149 0.00 0 10.05 38 3.70 14 0.79 3 epi 5.65 57 34.79 351 1.78 18 9.02 91 4.66 47 2.87 29 huper 10.81 4 37.84 14 0.00 0 2.70 1 10.81 4 8.11 3 hupo 20.27 30 25.68 38 4.73 7 5.41 8 14.19 21 6.76 10 kata 9.34 136 28.71 418 3.91 57 13.26 193 3.64 53 1.58 23 meta 1.69 1 37.29 22 0.00 0 15.25 9 10.17 6 5.08 3 para 8.01 45 40.21 226 1.96 11 7.12 40 4.98 28 1.78 10 peri 6.08 11 29.28 53 3.87 7 0.55 1 4.97 9 3.31 6 pro 20.95 22 17.14 18 3.81 4 12.38 13 0.00 0 5.71 6 pros 12.88 85 32.27 213 1.21 8 6.21 41 2.73 18 1.36 9 sun 6.16 42 39.00 266 0.88 6 9.53 65 6.16 42 1.17 8 8.26 873 35.02 3703 1.92 203 9.82 1038 3.60 381 1.93 204 11.17 3529 29.66 9371 2.29 724 9.66 3052 3.90 1233 1.54 487 12.64 2656 26.96 5668 2.48 521 9.58 2014 4.05 852 1.35 283 19.08 80.92 16.36 83.64 65.13 34.87

Ecclesiastes Isaiah Whole Corpus Present Aorist Present Aorist Present Aorist ana 0.33 3 0.22 2 2.06 19 89 12.36 114 56.62 522 anti 0.99 1 0.99 1 20.79 21 8.91 9 30.69 31 32.67 33 apo 0.23 4 0.92 16 2.00 35 7.62 133 11.51 201 59.51 1039 dia 0.22 1 0.65 3 4.33 20 4.55 21 23.38 108 43.07 199 eis 0.00 0 0.20 1 0.61 3 4.50 22 15.34 75 57.87 283 ek/ex 0.57 9 0.70 11 1.71 27 6.35 100 14.09 222 57.04 899 en 0.00 0 0.00 0 6.61 25 6.08 23 25.13 95 56.35 213 epi 0.40 4 1.78 18 3.07 31 4.86 49 15.56 157 53.32 538 huper 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 21.62 8 48.65 18 hupo 1.35 2 1.35 2 4.73 7 4.73 7 45.27 67 43.92 65 kata 0.21 3 0.48 7 3.91 57 6.25 91 21.02 306 50.27 732 meta 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 6.78 4 11.86 7 64.41 38 para 0.53 3 0.36 2 4.80 27 7.12 40 20.28 114 56.58 318 peri 3.31 6 1.66 3 0.00 0 6.63 12 18.23 33 41.44 75 pro 0.00 0 0.00 0 1.90 2 2.86 3 26.67 28 38.10 40 pros 0.30 2 0.61 4 3.03 20 3.03 20 20.15 133 43.48 287 sun 0.00 0 0.88 6 2.93 20 6.45 44 16.13 110 57.04 389 0.36 38 0.72 76 2.97 314 6.31 667 17.11 1809 53.80 5688 0.78 248 1.14 360 4.12 1301 6.15 1942 22.27 7035 48.15 15212 1.00 210 1.35 284 4.70 987 6.07 1275 24.86 5226 45.31 9524 33.33 66.67 32.01 67.99 24.13 75.87

PV tense-form as percentage of all PVs in whole corpus All verb tense-forms as percentage of all verbs in whole corpus All non-PV tense-forms as percentage of all non-PVs in whole corpus Each tense as percentage of sum of present and aorist forms in its group (a ‘two-party-preferred’ rate)

100 Table B.21 Present and aorist tenses of PVs in AF Corpus Clement Ignatius Polycarp Martyrdom Present Aor Present Aorist Present Aor Present Aor ana 10.94 28 12.11 31 3.91 10 7.03 18 0.78 2 1.17 3 0.78 2 3.13 8 anti 14.29 5 2.86 1 8.57 3 5.71 2 5.71 2 0.00 0 5.71 2 2.86 1 apo 4.93 27 9.85 54 2.92 16 6.02 33 0.91 5 1.09 6 0.91 5 2.55 14 dia 9.70 13 14.93 20 3.73 5 5.22 7 0.75 1 0.00 0 0.75 1 0.75 1 eis 1.56 1 21.88 14 1.56 1 0.00 0 1.56 1 4.69 3 1.56 1 3.13 2 ek/ex 2.54 6 2.97 7 3.81 9 0.85 2 0.42 1 0.42 1 0.42 1 0.42 1 en 11.36 15 38.64 51 3.79 5 1.52 2 3.03 4 0.76 1 3.03 4 5.30 7 epi 8.56 37 8.33 36 2.55 11 6.25 27 2.78 12 0.69 3 2.78 12 3.47 15 huper 9.38 3 0.00 0 21.88 7 6.25 2 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 hupo 20.63 33 9.38 15 9.38 15 3.75 6 3.75 6 2.50 4 3.75 6 5.00 8 kata 3.99 16 9.48 38 2.99 12 3.49 14 1.25 5 0.50 2 1.25 5 3.24 13 meta 2.50 4 10.63 17 1.88 3 3.75 6 1.25 2 0.00 0 1.25 2 5.00 8 para 7.08 16 9.73 22 8.85 20 4.42 10 3.10 7 0.88 2 0.88 2 2.21 5 peri 4.08 4 3.06 3 7.14 7 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 7.14 7 1.02 1 pro 3.19 3 7.45 7 10.64 10 4.26 4 2.13 2 3.19 3 0.00 0 1.06 1 pros 8.90 17 10.99 21 7.85 15 2.09 4 5.76 11 0.00 0 1.05 2 5.24 10 sun 2.84 6 8.53 18 9.48 20 5.69 12 1.42 3 0.95 2 5.21 11 5.69 12 6.86 234 10.41 355 4.96 169 4.37 149 1.88 64 0.88 30 1.94 66 3.14 107 7.81 1014 7.53 978 6.59 855 3.33 433 1.51 196 0.57 74 1.51 196 2.03 263 8.15 780 6.51 623 7.17 686 2.97 284 1.38 132 0.46 44 1.36 130 1.63 156 39.73 60.27 53.14 46.86 50.82 49.18 37.43 62.57

Didache Shepherd Barnabas Diognetus Present Aor Present Present Aorist Present Aor Aorist ana 0.39 1 0.39 1 10.55 27 23.83 61 3.91 10 4.30 11 2.73 7 1.95 5 anti 0.00 0 0.00 0 8.57 3 25.71 9 2.86 1 5.71 2 2.86 1 0.00 0 apo 1.09 6 0.36 2 11.68 64 30.84 16 1.28 7 1.64 9 1.82 10 1.46 8 dia 1.49 2 0.75 1 11.94 16 14.18 199 2.99 4 1.49 2 5.97 8 0.75 1 eis 0.00 0 1.56 1 6.25 4 23.44 15 3.13 2 4.69 3 0.00 0 3.13 2 ek/ex 0.85 2 0.00 0 7.20 17 14.41 34 2.54 6 1.69 4 0.85 2 1.69 4 en 2.27 3 0.76 1 22.73 30 25.76 34 9.09 12 12.88 17 0.76 1 1.52 2 epi 0.23 1 0.23 1 16.44 71 23.15 10 2.31 10 2.31 10 1.62 7 1.85 8 huper 0.00 0 3.13 1 25.00 8 0.00 0 9.38 3 6.25 2 9.38 3 0.00 0 hupo 0.63 1 0.63 1 11.25 18 10.63 17 0.63 1 5.63 9 1.25 2 1.25 2 kata 1.25 5 0.50 2 22.19 89 19.45 78 4.24 17 4.24 17 2.49 10 0.75 3 meta 0.63 1 0.63 1 14.38 23 41.25 66 0.00 0 1.88 3 1.25 2 0.63 1 para 0.00 0 0.88 2 10.18 23 19.47 44 1.33 3 2.65 6 6.19 14 2.21 5 peri 1.02 1 0.00 0 31.63 31 12.24 12 6.12 6 6.12 11 1.02 1 0.00 0 pro 0.00 0 4.26 4 10.64 10 5.32 5 4.26 4 11.70 4 2.13 2 2.13 2 pros 4.19 8 0.52 1 7.85 15 10.99 21 10.47 20 2.09 8 6.28 12 1.57 3 sun 0.95 2 2.37 5 12.80 27 14.22 30 7.11 15 3.79 9 2.84 6 0.00 0 0.97 33 0.70 24 13.96 476 20.94 71 3.55 121 3.72 127 2.58 88 1.35 46 1.52 198 0.92 120 22.33 289 15.42 204 4.91 638 3.51 456 2.58 33 1.19 155 1.72 165 1.00 96 25.31 2429 13.45 1202 5.40 517 3.44 329 2.58 245 1.14 109 57.89 42.11 40.003 60.0088 48.79 51.21 65.677 34.33

PV tense-form as percentage of all PVs in whole corpus All verb tense-forms as percentage of all verbs in whole corpus All non-PV tense-forms as percentage of all non-PVs in whole corpus Each tense as percentage of sum of present and aorist forms in its group (a ‘two-party-preferred’ rate)

101 Table B.22 Summary of PV usage by tense in three corpora

PV usage for each tense as percentage of total usage of each PV NT LXX AF Present Aorist Present Aorist Present Aorist ana 22.20 65.68 12.36 56.62 16.80 23.83 ana anti 48.61 30.56 30.69 32.67 28.57 11.43 anti apo 17.89 69.24 11.51 59.51 11.68 19.89 apo dia 35.96 38.67 23.38 43.07 16.42 21.64 dia eis 15.98 76.64 15.34 57.87 4.69 31.25 eis ek/ex 24.80 61.11 14.09 57.04 8.05 4.66 ek/ex en 40.00 40.65 25.13 56.35 20.45 46.97 en epi 30.06 53.78 15.56 53.32 15.05 18.98 epi huper 78.57 21.43 21.62 48.65 31.25 9.38 huper hupo 61.09 28.94 45.27 43.92 35.00 21.25 hupo kata 41.96 42.31 21.02 50.27 9.73 17.21 kata meta 34.88 54.26 11.86 64.41 6.88 20.00 meta para 35.25 44.10 20.28 56.58 17.70 18.14 para peri 53.57 29.76 18.23 41.44 22.45 4.08 peri pro 28.90 44.51 26.67 38.10 17.02 20.21 pro pros 36.40 52.51 20.15 43.48 23.04 18.85 pros sun 38.72 43.81 16.13 57.04 18.48 23.22 sun 31.72 53.04 17.11 53.80 15.54 19.50 41.10 41.28 22.27 48.15 48.01 34.51 44.78 36.98 24.86 45.31 59.58 39.86 37.42 62.58 24.13 75.87 44.35 55.65

PV tense-form as percentage of all PVs All verb tense-forms as percentage of all verbs All non-PV tense-forms as percentage of all non-PVs Each tense as percentage of sum of present and aorist forms (a ‘two-party-preferred’ rate)

102 Table B.23 Frequency of PVs in NT according to tense

Present tense - least to most Aorist tense – most to least frequent frequent 15.98 eis 76.64 eis 17.89 apo 69.24 apo 22.20 ana 65.68 ana 24.80 ek 61.11 ek 28.90 pro 54.26 meta 30.06 epi 53.78 epi 34.88 meta 52.51 pros 35.25 para 44.51 pro 35.96 dia 44.10 para 36.40 pros 43.81 sun 38.72 sun 42.31 kata 40.00 en 40.65 en 41.96 kata 38.67 dia 48.61 anti 30.56 anti 53.57 peri 29.76 peri 61.09 hupo 28.94 hupo 78.57 huper 21.43 huper

The four preverbs at each end of the table (printed in red) correlate very strongly with one tense and appear in the same order, while the others are more evenly distributed between the tenses.

103 Table B.24 NT usage of PVs by author

PV PV % all PV % all PV PV % PV % all 1. amphi count verbs words 4. apo count verbs words Matthew 2 0.050 0.011 Matthew 292 7.300 1.590 Mark 1 0.038 0.009 Mark 201 7.628 1.777 Luke-Acts 2 0.024 0.005 Luke-Acts 455 5.415 1.198 Johannine 0.000 0.000 Johannine 261 4.571 0.928 Pauline 0.000 0.000 Pauline 189 3.421 0.583 Peter 0.000 0.000 Peter 25 5.241 0.898 James 0.000 0.000 James 11 3.081 0.630 Jude 0.000 0.000 Jude 6 7.059 1.302 Hebrews 0.000 0.000 Hebrews 36 3.909 0.726 5 0.018 0.004 1476 5.250 1.068

PV PV % PV % all PV PV % PV % all 2. ana count verbs words 5. dia count verbs words Matthew 66 1.650 0.359 Matthew 41 1.025 0.223 Mark 60 2.277 0.530 Mark 34 1.290 0.301 Luke-Acts 281 3.344 0.740 Luke-Acts 214 2.547 0.564 Johannine 103 1.804 0.366 Johannine 17 0.298 0.060 Pauline 97 1.756 0.299 Pauline 69 1.249 0.213 Peter 10 2.096 0.359 Peter 9 1.887 0.323 James 4 1.120 0.229 James 3 0.840 0.172 Jude 0 0.000 0.000 Jude 3 3.529 0.651 Hebrews 21 2.280 0.424 Hebrews 13 1.412 0.262 642 2.284 0.465 403

PV PV % PV % all PV PV % PV % all 3. anti count verbs words 6. eis count verbs words Matthew 2 0.050 0.011 Matthew 39 0.975 0.212 Mark 0 0.000 0.000 Mark 38 1.442 0.336 Luke-Acts 27 0.321 0.071 Luke-Acts 115 1.369 0.303 Johannine 5 0.088 0.018 Johannine 21 0.368 0.075 Pauline 29 0.525 0.089 Pauline 7 0.127 0.022 Peter 3 0.629 0.108 Peter 0 0.000 0.000 James 3 0.840 0.172 James 3 0.840 0.172 Jude 0 0.000 0.000 Jude 0 0.000 0.000 Hebrews 3 0.326 0.061 Hebrews 21 2.280 0.424 72 0.256 0.052 244 0.868 0.177

104 PV PV % PV % all PV PV % PV % all 7. ek count verbs words 10. huper count verbs words Matthew 122 3.050 0.664 Matthew 0 0.000 0.000 Mark 109 4.137 0.963 Mark 0 0.000 0.000 Luke-Acts 266 3.166 0.701 Luke-Acts 5 0.060 0.013 Johannine 99 1.734 0.352 Johannine 0 0.000 0.000 Pauline 104 1.882 0.321 Pauline 22 0.398 0.068 Peter 9 1.887 0.323 Peter 1 0.210 0.036 James 7 1.961 0.401 James 0 0.000 0.000 Jude 3 3.529 0.651 Jude 0 0.000 0.000 Hebrews 19 2.063 0.383 Hebrews 0 0.000 0.000 738 2.625 0.534 28 0.100 0.020

PV PV % PV % all PV PV % PV % all 8. en count verbs words 11. hupo count verbs words Matthew 13 0.325 0.071 Matthew 28 0.700 0.152 Mark 12 0.455 0.106 Mark 20 0.759 0.177 Luke-Acts 27 0.321 0.071 Luke-Acts 119 1.416 0.313 Johannine 9 0.158 0.032 Johannine 46 0.806 0.163 Pauline 81 1.466 0.250 Pauline 60 1.086 0.185 Peter 1 0.210 0.036 Peter 15 3.145 0.539 James 2 0.560 0.115 James 6 1.681 0.344 Jude 1 1.176 0.217 Jude 2 2.353 0.434 Hebrews 9 0.977 0.182 Hebrews 15 1.629 0.303 155 0.551 0.112 311 1.106 0.225

PV PV % PV % all PV PV % PV % all 9. epi count verbs words 12. kata count verbs words Matthew 63 1.575 0.343 Matthew 107 2.675 0.583 Mark 76 2.884 0.672 Mark 75 2.846 0.663 Luke-Acts 295 3.511 0.777 Luke-Acts 296 3.523 0.780 Johannine 29 0.508 0.103 Johannine 122 2.137 0.434 Pauline 130 2.353 0.401 Pauline 177 3.204 0.546 Peter 20 4.193 0.718 Peter 16 3.354 0.575 James 13 3.641 0.745 James 20 5.602 1.146 Jude 6 7.059 1.302 Jude 0 0.000 0.000 Hebrews 30 3.257 0.605 Hebrews 43 4.669 0.868 662 2.355 0.479 856 3.045 0.620

105 PV PV % PV % all PV PV % PV % all 13. meta count verbs words 16. pro count verbs words Matthew 18 0.450 0.098 Matthew 14 0.350 0.076 Mark 6 0.228 0.053 Mark 12 0.455 0.106 Luke-Acts 45 0.536 0.119 Luke-Acts 46 0.547 0.121 Johannine 18 0.315 0.064 Johannine 6 0.105 0.021 Pauline 27 0.489 0.083 Pauline 80 1.448 0.247 Peter 0 0.000 0.000 Peter 5 1.048 0.180 James 3 0.840 0.172 James 0 0.000 0.000 Jude 1 1.176 0.217 Jude 4 4.706 0.868 Hebrews 9 0.977 0.182 Hebrews 6 0.651 0.121 127 0.452 0.092 173 0.615 0.125

PV PV % PV % all PV PV % PV % all 14. para count verbs words 17. pros count verbs words Matthew 84 2.100 0.457 Matthew 119 2.975 0.648 Mark 68 2.581 0.601 Mark 44 1.670 0.389 Luke-Acts 215 2.559 0.566 Luke-Acts 172 2.047 0.453 Johannine 32 0.560 0.114 Johannine 41 0.718 0.146 Pauline 168 3.041 0.518 Pauline 49 0.887 0.151 Peter 14 2.935 0.503 Peter 7 1.468 0.251 James 4 1.120 0.229 James 6 1.681 0.344 Jude 4 4.706 0.868 Jude 2 2.353 0.434 Hebrews 21 2.280 0.424 Hebrews 38 4.126 0.767 610 2.170 0.441 478 1.700 0.346

PV PV % PV % all PV PV % PV % all 15. peri count verbs words 18. sun count verbs words Matthew 23 0.575 0.125 Matthew 67 1.675 0.365 Mark 26 0.987 0.230 Mark 37 1.404 0.327 Luke-Acts 58 0.690 0.153 Luke-Acts 182 2.166 0.479 Johannine 53 0.928 0.188 Johannine 28 0.490 0.100 Pauline 83 1.502 0.256 Pauline 116 2.100 0.358 Peter 2 0.419 0.072 Peter 8 1.677 0.287 James 1 0.280 0.057 James 2 0.560 0.115 Jude 0 0.000 0.000 Jude 1 1.176 0.217 Hebrews 6 0.651 0.121 Hebrews 11 1.194 0.222 252 0.896 0.182 452 1.608 0.327

106 Table B.25 Data for calculation of p-values for comparison of preverb frequency in three corpora

B.25.a Means and standard deviations MEANS STDEVS n 5 9 8 5 9 8 A - LXX B - NT C - AF A - LXX B - NT C - AF ana 1.48 1.81 2.01 1.41 0.91 0.65 anti 0.17 0.31 0.30 0.12 0.30 0.18 apo 3.15 5.29 4.30 2.52 1.71 2.28 dia 0.88 1.57 1.12 0.65 0.97 0.70 eis 0.76 0.82 0.55 0.92 0.89 0.44 ek 2.90 2.60 1.76 2.41 0.88 0.95 en 0.49 0.63 0.96 0.60 0.47 0.41 epi 2.05 3.22 3.14 1.55 1.83 1.35 huper 0.05 0.07 0.29 0.05 0.14 0.28 hupo 0.29 1.51 1.63 0.31 0.82 1.02 kata 2.65 3.11 2.72 2.57 1.57 0.83 meta 0.09 0.56 0.90 0.09 0.38 0.62 para 0.88 2.43 2.01 0.74 1.18 0.88 peri 0.44 0.67 0.73 0.46 0.44 0.50 pro 0.18 1.03 1.17 0.19 1.45 0.80 pros 1.05 1.99 2.12 1.04 1.06 1.08 sun 1.16 1.38 1.97 0.86 0.60 0.76 All PVs 30.07 29.02 27.64 6.34 6.54 5.80

B.25.b Calculation of p-values between LXX & NT A - LXX B - NT mean sd mean sd t-stat p-value p-value n 5 9 1-tailed 2-tailed ana 1.48 1.41 1.81 0.91 -0.54 0.30 0.60 anti 0.17 0.12 0.31 0.30 -0.99 0.17 0.34 apo 3.15 2.52 5.29 1.71 -1.90 0.04 0.08 dia 0.88 0.65 1.57 0.97 -1.41 0.09 0.18 eis 0.76 0.92 0.82 0.89 -0.13 0.45 0.90 ek 2.90 2.41 2.60 0.88 0.34 0.37 0.74 en 0.49 0.60 0.63 0.47 -0.48 0.32 0.64 epi 2.05 1.55 3.22 1.83 -1.20 0.12 0.25 huper 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.14 -0.37 0.36 0.72 hupo 0.29 0.31 1.51 0.82 -3.18 0.00 0.01 kata 2.65 2.57 3.11 1.57 -0.42 0.34 0.68 meta 0.09 0.09 0.56 0.38 -2.68 0.01 0.02 para 0.88 0.74 2.43 1.18 -2.64 0.01 0.02 peri 0.44 0.46 0.67 0.44 -0.93 0.18 0.37 pro 0.18 0.19 1.03 1.45 -1.29 0.11 0.22 pros 1.05 1.04 1.99 1.06 -1.61 0.06 0.13 sun 1.16 0.86 1.38 0.60 -0.57 0.29 0.58 All PVs 30.07 6.34 29.02 6.54 0.29 0.39 0.78

107 B.25.c Calculation of p-values between LXX & AF A - LXX C - AF mean sd mean sd t-stat p-value p-value n 5 8 1-tailed 2-tailed ana 1.48 1.41 2.01 0.65 -0.93 0.18 0.37 anti 0.17 0.12 0.30 0.18 -1.42 0.09 0.18 apo 3.15 2.52 4.30 2.28 -0.85 0.20 0.41 dia 0.88 0.65 1.12 0.70 -0.62 0.27 0.55 eis 0.76 0.92 0.55 0.44 0.56 0.29 0.59 ek 2.90 2.41 1.76 0.95 1.22 0.12 0.24 en 0.49 0.60 0.96 0.41 -1.70 0.06 0.11 epi 2.05 1.55 3.14 1.35 -1.34 0.10 0.20 huper 0.05 0.05 0.29 0.28 -1.86 0.04 0.09 hupo 0.29 0.31 1.63 1.02 -2.80 0.01 0.01 kata 2.65 2.57 2.72 0.83 -0.07 0.47 0.95 meta 0.09 0.09 0.90 0.62 -2.86 0.01 0.01 para 0.88 0.74 2.01 0.88 -2.38 0.02 0.03 peri 0.44 0.46 0.73 0.50 -1.04 0.16 0.32 pro 0.18 0.19 1.17 0.80 -2.66 0.01 0.02 pros 1.05 1.04 2.12 1.08 -1.78 0.05 0.10 sun 1.16 0.86 1.97 0.76 -1.78 0.05 0.10 All PVs 30.07 6.34 27.64 5.80 0.71 0.25 0.49

B.25.d Calculation of p-values between NT & AF B - NT C - AF mean sd mean sd t-stat p-value p-value n 9 8 1-tailed 2-tailed ana 1.81 0.91 2.01 0.65 -0.52 0.31 0.61 anti 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.18 0.08 0.47 0.94 apo 5.29 1.71 4.30 2.28 1.02 0.16 0.32 dia 1.57 0.97 1.12 0.70 1.08 0.15 0.29 eis 0.82 0.89 0.55 0.44 0.79 0.22 0.44 ek 2.60 0.88 1.76 0.95 1.89 0.04 0.08 en 0.63 0.47 0.96 0.41 -1.56 0.07 0.14 epi 3.22 1.83 3.14 1.35 0.10 0.46 0.92 huper 0.07 0.14 0.29 0.28 -2.04 0.03 0.06 hupo 1.51 0.82 1.63 1.02 -0.26 0.40 0.80 kata 3.11 1.57 2.72 0.83 0.64 0.27 0.53 meta 0.56 0.38 0.90 0.62 -1.38 0.09 0.18 para 2.43 1.18 2.01 0.88 0.83 0.21 0.42 peri 0.67 0.44 0.73 0.50 -0.25 0.40 0.81 pro 1.03 1.45 1.17 0.80 -0.23 0.41 0.82 pros 1.99 1.06 2.12 1.08 -0.25 0.40 0.80 sun 1.38 0.60 1.97 0.76 -1.79 0.05 0.09 All PVs 29.02 6.54 27.64 5.80 0.46 0.33 0.65

108 B.26 Prepositions and Preverbs in Modern Greek

All the ancient P-words which were used as preverbs in ancient Greek are still productive as preverbs in Modern Greek, in spite of the fact that most are no longer used as prepositions. Holton et al 1997 provide examples of prefixation for the 12 prepositions most common in compound formation, along with their current meanings (1997: 179-181).71 amfiv amphi, eiV eis, en en, epiv epi, periv peri and proV pros are now less productive than the others.

Holton et al 1997 give a checklist of 39 prepositions in Modern Greek, of which 19 are in use in standard speech, the others being of Katharevousa origin (pp 407-8).72 Of the 19, only 9 are derived from the ancient proper prepositions (not counting compound prepositions). These are:

Table B.26.a Modern Greek reflexes of the ancient prepositions

MGk AncGk antiv andi ajntiv anti apov apo ajpov apo gia ya diav dia katav kata katav kata me me metav meta metav meta metav meta parav para parav para proV pros provV pros se se eijV eis

All these demotic prepositions govern the accusative case. Me me ‘with’ comes from the ancient metav meta + genitive, while metav meta ‘after’ is from metav + accusative. Both gia ya and se se exist alongside their ancient forms, which are still available in restricted usages. In Modern

Greek se, apov, gia and me are by far the most frequent prepositions, and se and apov are particularly common as elements of the many compound prepositions of the modern language.

71 Modern meanings often differ from the ancient meanings of the compound elements, which often results in Modern Greek words having a meaning unlike that of the equivalent word borrowed from ancient Greek or constructed from Greek elements in modern European languages (Janni 1993). 72 Katharevousa (‘Purifying [language]’) is the name of the archaising form of Greek developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and made the official language of the modern Greek state. It was formally abandoned in favour of demotic Greek in 1976. 109 The following prepositions derived from the ancient prepositions are available in formal registers or with specialised meanings in specific fields, and may take the genitive case or even the dative in fixed expressions (Holton et al 1997: 405-7). (In Modern Greek the dative case survives only in lexicalised expressions derived from Katharevousa.)

Table B.26.b Katharevousa prepositions in limited use in Modern Greek MGk AncGk anav ana ajnav ana diav !ya diav dia eiV is eijV eis ek ek ejk ek en en ejn en epiv epi ejpiv epi periv peri periv peri pro pro prov pro sun sin suvn sun upevr iper uJJpevr huper upov ipo uJpov hupo

110 Appendix C – NT uses of ejpitivqhmi epitithemi

First column is NT text (NA27), second column is NRSV translation, both from Accordance

Bold: verb epitithemi Red: Accusative direct object Purple: PP with epi + genitive Green: PP with epi + accusative Blue: dative NP (Corresponding words in translation in same colour)

Matt. 9:18 Tauvta aujtouv lalouvntoß Matt. 9:18 While he was saying these aujtoi!ß, i˙dou\ a‡rcwn ei–ß e˙lqw»n proseku/nei things to them, suddenly a leader of the aujtwˆ" le÷gwn o¢ti hJ quga¿thr mou a‡rti synagogue came in and knelt before him, e˙teleu/thsen: aÓlla» e˙lqw»n e˙pi÷qeß th\n saying, “My daughter has just died; but cei!ra¿ sou e˙p# aujth/n, kai« zh/setai. come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.”

Matt. 19:13 To/te proshne÷cqhsan aujtwˆ" Matt. 19:13 Then little children were being paidi÷a iºna ta»ß cei!raß e˙piqhØv aujtoi!ß kai« brought to him in order that he might lay his proseu/xhtai: oi˚ de« maqhtai« e˙peti÷mhsan hands on them and pray. The disciples aujtoi!ß. spoke sternly to those who brought them;

Matt. 19:15 kai« e˙piqei«ß ta»ß cei!raß Matt. 19:15 And he laid his hands on them aujtoi!ß e˙poreu/qh e˙kei!qen. and went on his way.

Matt. 21:7 h¡gagon th\n o¡non kai« to\n Matt. 21:7 they brought the donkey and the pw"lon kai« e˙pe÷qhkan e˙p# aujtw"n ta» colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he i˚ma¿tia, kai« e˙peka¿qisen e˙pa¿nw aujtw"n. sat on them.

Matt. 23:4 desmeu/ousin de« forti÷a bare÷a Matt. 23:4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard [kai« dusba¿stakta] kai« e˙pitiqe÷asin e˙pi« to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of tou\ß w‡mouß tw"n aÓnqrw¿pwn, aujtoi« de« twˆ" others; but they themselves are unwilling to daktu/lwˆ aujtw"n ouj qe÷lousin kinhvsai lift a finger to move them. aujta¿. Matt. 27:29 and after twisting some thorns Matt. 27:29 kai« ple÷xanteß ste÷fanon e˙x into a crown, they put it on his head. They aÓkanqw"n e˙pe÷qhkan e˙pi« thvß kefalhvß put a reed in his right hand and knelt before aujtouv kai« ka¿lamon e˙n thØv dexiaˆ" aujtouv, him and mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of kai« gonupeth/santeß e¶mprosqen aujtouv the Jews!” e˙ne÷paixan aujtwˆ" le÷gonteß: cai!re, basileuv tw"n #Ioudai÷wn, Matt. 27:37 Over his head they put the Matt. 27:37 Kai« e˙pe÷qhkan e˙pa¿nw thvß charge against him, which read, “This is kefalhvß aujtouv th\n ai˙ti÷an aujtouv gegramme÷nhn: ou$to/ß e˙stin #Ihsouvß oJ Jesus, the King of the Jews.” basileu\ß tw"n #Ioudai÷wn. Mark 3:16 So he appointed the twelve: Mark 3:16 [kai« e˙poi÷hsen tou\ß dw¿deka,] Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); kai« e˙pe÷qhken o¡noma twˆ" Si÷mwni Pe÷tron, 17 James son of Zebedee and John the 17 kai« #Ia¿kwbon to\n touv Zebedai÷ou kai« brother of James (to whom he gave the #Iwa¿nnhn to\n aÓdelfo\n touv #Iakw¿bou kai« name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder); e˙pe÷qhken aujtoi!ß ojno/ma[ta] boanhrge÷ß, o¢ e˙stin ui˚oi« bronthvß: Mark 5:23 and begged him repeatedly, “My Mark 5:23 kai« parakalei! aujto\n polla» little daughter is at the point of death. Come le÷gwn o¢ti to\ quga¿trio/n mou e˙sca¿twß e¶cei, and lay your hands on her, so that she may iºna e˙lqw»n e˙piqhØvß ta»ß cei!raß aujthØv iºna be made well, and live.” swqhØv kai« zh/shØ.

111 Mark 6:5 kai« oujk e˙du/nato e˙kei! poihvsai Mark 6:5 And he could do no deed of power oujdemi÷an du/namin, ei˙ mh\ ojli÷goiß there, except that he laid his hands on a few aÓrrw¿stoiß e˙piqei«ß ta»ß cei!raß sick people and cured them. e˙qera¿peusen. Mark 7:32 They brought to him a deaf man Mark 7:32 Kai« fe÷rousin aujtwˆ" kwfo\n kai« who had an impediment in his speech; and mogila¿lon kai« parakalouvsin aujto\n iºna they begged him to lay his hand on him. e˙piqhØv aujtwˆ " th\n cei!ra. Mark 8:23 He took the blind man by the Mark 8:23 kai« e˙pilabo/menoß thvß ceiro\ß hand and led him out of the village; and touv tuflouv e˙xh/negken aujto\n e¶xw thvß when he had put saliva on his eyes and laid kw¿mhß kai« ptu/saß ei˙ß ta» o¡mmata aujtouv, his hands on him, he asked him, “Can you e˙piqei«ß ta»ß cei!raß aujtwˆ " e˙phrw¿ta aujto/n: ei¶ ti ble÷peiß; see anything?” Mark 8:25 Then Jesus laid his hands on Mark 8:25 ei•ta pa¿lin e˙pe÷qhken ta»ß cei!raß e˙pi« tou\ß ojfqalmou\ß aujtouv, kai« his eyes again; and he looked intently and die÷bleyen kai« aÓpekate÷sth kai« e˙ne÷blepen his sight was restored, and he saw thlaugw"ß a‚panta. everything clearly.

Mark 16:18 [kai« e˙n tai!ß cersi«n] o¡feiß Mark 16:18 they will pick up snakes in their aÓrouvsin ka·n qana¿simo/n ti pi÷wsin ouj mh\ hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it aujtou\ß bla¿yhØ, e˙pi« aÓrrw¿stouß cei!raß will not hurt them; they will lay their hands e˙piqh/sousin kai« kalw"ß eºxousin. on the sick, and they will recover.”

Luke 4:40 Du/nontoß de« touv hJli÷ou Luke 4:40 As the sun was setting, all a‚panteß o¢soi ei•con aÓsqenouvntaß no/soiß those who had any who were sick with poiki÷laiß h¡gagon aujtou\ß pro\ß aujto/n: oJ various kinds of diseases brought them to de« e˚ni« e˚ka¿stwˆ aujtw"n ta»ß cei!raß e˙pitiqei«ß him; and he laid his hands on each of them e˙qera¿peuen aujtou/ß. and cured them.

Luke 10:30 ÔUpolabw»n oJ #Ihsouvß ei•pen: Luke 10:30 Jesus replied, “A man was a‡nqrwpo/ß tiß kate÷bainen aÓpo\ going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and #Ierousalh\m ei˙ß #Iericw» kai« lhØstai!ß fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped perie÷pesen, oi% kai« e˙kdu/santeß aujto\n kai« him, beat him [put blows on him], and went plhga»ß e˙piqe÷nteß aÓphvlqon aÓfe÷nteß away, leaving him half dead. hJmiqanhv.

Luke 13:13 kai« e˙pe÷qhken aujthØv ta»ß Luke 13:13 When he laid his hands on her, cei!raß: kai« paracrhvma aÓnwrqw¿qh kai« immediately she stood up straight and e˙do/xazen to\n qeo/n. began praising God.

Luke 15:5 kai« euJrw»n e˙piti÷qhsin e˙pi« tou\ß Luke 15:5 When he has found it, he lays it w‡mouß aujtouv cai÷rwn on his shoulders and rejoices.

Luke 23:26 Kai« wß aÓph/gagon aujto/n, Luke 23:26 As they led him away, they e˙pilabo/menoi Si÷mwna¿ tina Kurhnai!on seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was e˙rco/menon aÓp# aÓgrouv e˙pe÷qhkan aujtwˆ" to\n coming from the country, and they laid the stauro\n fe÷rein o¡pisqen touv #Ihsouv. cross on him, and made him carry it behind Jesus.

112 John 9:15 pa¿lin ou™n hjrw¿twn aujto\n kai« John 9:15 Then the Pharisees also oi˚ Farisai!oi pw"ß aÓne÷bleyen. oJ de« ei•pen began to ask him how he had received aujtoi!ß: phlo\n e˙pe÷qhke÷n mou e˙pi« tou\ß his sight. He said to them, “He put mud on ojfqalmou\ß kai« e˙niya¿mhn kai« ble÷pw. my eyes. Then I washed, and now I see.”

John 19:2 kai« oi˚ stratiw"tai ple÷xanteß John 19:2 And the soldiers wove a crown of ste÷fanon e˙x aÓkanqw"n e˙pe÷qhkan aujtouv thorns and put it on his head, and they thØv kefalhØv kai« i˚ma¿tion porfurouvn dressed him in a purple robe. perie÷balon aujto\n

Acts 6:6 ou§ß e¶sthsan e˙nw¿pion tw"n Acts 6:6 They had these men stand before aÓposto/lwn, kai« proseuxa¿menoi e˙pe÷qhkan the apostles, who prayed and laid their aujtoi!ß ta»ß cei!raß. hands on them. Acts 8:17 Then Peter and John laid their Acts 8:17 to/te e˙peti÷qesan ta»ß cei!raß e˙p# aujtou\ß kai« e˙la¿mbanon pneuvma a‚gion. hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:19 le÷gwn: do/te kaÓmoi« th\n e˙xousi÷an tau/thn iºna wˆ— e˙a»n e˙piqw! ta»ß Acts 8:19 saying, “Give me also this power cei!raß lamba¿nhØ pneuvma a‚gion. so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” Acts 9:12 kai« ei•den a‡ndra [e˙n oJra¿mati] ÔAnani÷an ojno/mati ei˙selqo/nta kai« Acts 9:12 and he has seen in a vision a e˙piqe÷nta aujtwˆ" [ta»ß] cei!raß o¢pwß man named Ananias come in and lay his aÓnable÷yhØ. hands on him so that he might regain his sight.” Acts 9:17 #Aphvlqen de« ÔAnani÷aß kai« ei˙shvlqen ei˙ß th\n oi˙ki÷an kai« e˙piqei«ß e˙p# Acts 9:17 So Ananias went and entered the aujto\n ta»ß cei!raß ei•pen: Saou\l aÓdelfe÷, oJ house. He laid his hands on Saul and said, ku/rioß aÓpe÷stalke÷n me, #Ihsouvß oJ ojfqei÷ß “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who soi e˙n thØv oJdwˆ" hØ$ h¡rcou, o¢pwß aÓnable÷yhØß appeared to you on your way here, has sent kai« plhsqhØvß pneu/matoß agi÷ou. me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Acts 13:3 to/te nhsteu/santeß kai« proseuxa¿menoi kai« e˙piqe÷nteß ta»ß cei!raß Acts 13:3 Then after fasting and praying aujtoi!ß aÓpe÷lusan. they laid their hands on them and sent them off. Acts 15:10 nuvn ou™n ti÷ peira¿zete to\n qeo\n e˙piqei"nai zugo\n e˙pi« to\n tra¿chlon tw"n Acts 15:10 Now therefore why are you maqhtw"n o§n ou¡te oi˚ pate÷reß hJmw"n ou¡te putting God to the test by placing on the hJmei!ß i˙scu/samen basta¿sai; neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? Acts 15:28 e¶doxen ga»r twˆ" pneu/mati twˆ" agi÷wˆ kai« hJmi!n mhde«n ple÷on e˙piti÷qesqai Acts 15:28 For it has seemed good to the uJmi!n ba¿roß plh\n tou/twn tw"n e˙pa¿nagkeß, Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: Acts 16:23 polla¿ß te e˙piqe÷nteß aujtoi!ß plhga»ß e¶balon ei˙ß fulakh\n paraggei÷lanteß twˆ" desmofu/laki Acts 16:23 After they had given them a aÓsfalw"ß threi!n aujtou/ß. severe flogging, they threw them into prison and ordered the jailer to keep them securely.

Acts 18:10 dio/ti e˙gw¿ ei˙mi meta» souv kai« Acts 18:10 for I am with you, and no one oujdei«ß e˙piqh/setai÷ soi touv kakw"sai÷ se, will lay a hand on you to harm you, for there dio/ti lao/ß e˙sti÷ moi polu\ß e˙n thØv po/lei are many in this city who are my people.” tau/thØ. 113 Acts 19:6 kai« e˙piqe÷ntoß aujtoi!ß touv Acts 19:6 When Paul had laid his hands on Pau/lou [ta»ß] cei!raß h™lqe to\ pneuvma to\ them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and a‚gion e˙p# aujtou/ß, e˙la¿loun te glw¿ssaiß they spoke in tongues and prophesied kai« e˙profh/teuon. Acts 28:3 Paul had gathered a bundle of Acts 28:3 Sustre÷yantoß de« touv Pau/lou fruga¿nwn ti plhvqoß kai« e˙piqe÷ntoß e˙pi« brushwood and was putting it on the fire, th\n pura¿n, e¶cidna aÓpo\ thvß qe÷rmhß when a viper, driven out by the heat, e˙xelqouvsa kaqhvyen thvß ceiro\ß aujtouv. fastened itself on his hand.

Acts 28:8 e˙ge÷neto de« to\n pate÷ra touv Acts 28:8 It so happened that the father of Popli÷ou puretoi!ß kai« dusenteri÷wˆ Publius lay sick in bed with fever and suneco/menon katakei!sqai, pro\ß o§n oJ dysentery. Paul visited him and cured him Pauvloß ei˙selqw»n kai« proseuxa¿menoß by praying and putting his hands on him. e˙piqei«ß ta»ß cei!raß aujtwˆ" i˙a¿sato aujto/n.

Acts 28:10 oi% kai« pollai!ß timai!ß Acts 28:10 They bestowed many honors on e˙ti÷mhsan hJma"ß kai« aÓnagome÷noiß e˙pe÷qento us, and when we were about to sail, they ta» pro\ß ta»ß crei÷aß. put on board all the provisions we needed.

1Tim. 5:22 cei!raß tace÷wß mhdeni« e˙piti÷qei 1Tim. 5:22 Do not ordain anyone hastily, mhde« koinw¿nei amarti÷aiß aÓllotri÷aiß: and do not participate in the sins of others; seauto\n agno\n th/rei. keep yourself pure.

Rev. 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the Rev. 22:18 Marturw" e˙gw» panti« twˆ" words of the prophecy of this book: if aÓkou/onti tou\ß lo/gouß thvß profhtei÷aß touv anyone adds to them, God will add to that bibli÷ou tou/tou: e˙a¿n tiß e˙piqhØv e˙p# aujta¿, e˙piqh/sei oJ qeo\ß e˙p# aujto\n ta»ß plhga»ß person the plagues described in this book; ta»ß gegramme÷naß e˙n twˆ" bibli÷wˆ tou/twˆ,

Configurational syntax of ejpitivqhmi epitithemi:

A. with a PP ejpiv epi + ACC 12 ejpiv epi + GEN 2 (Mt 21:7, 27:29) + a different preposition 1 (Mt 27:37) (ejpavnw epano: compound preposition used only as an adverb in classical Greek)

B. with accusative NP (direct object) 32

C. with dative NP (locative oblique object) 23

A. and C. never co-occur. They are different strategies for expressing the same meaning. B and C frequently co-occur (20 times) (and the object is sometimes left unexpressed, as in Jn 19:1 and perhaps Ac 18:10) A. and B. is not uncommon (9 times)

From this brief survey it appears that, although both PP and dative NP are available, the dative NP is preferrred in a ratio of approximately 2:1.

114 Co-occurrences of tivqhmi tithemi and ejpiv epi in NT

Green: epi with accusative Purple: epi with genitive

Matt. 5:15 oujde« kai÷ousin lu/cnon kai« Matt. 5:15 No one after lighting a lamp puts tiqe÷asin aujto\n uJpo\ to\n mo/dion aÓll# e˙pi« it under the bushel basket, but on the th\n lucni÷an, kai« la¿mpei pa"sin toi!ß e˙n thØv lampstand, and it gives light to all in the oi˙ki÷aˆ. house.

Matt. 12:18 “Here is my servant, whom I Matt. 12:18 i˙dou\ oJ pai!ß mou o§n hØJre÷tisa, have chosen, my beloved, with whom my oJ aÓgaphto/ß mou ei˙ß o§n eujdo/khsen hJ yuch/ soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon mou: qh/sw to\ pneuvma¿ mou e˙p! aujto/n, him, kai« kri÷sin toi!ß e¶qnesin aÓpaggelei!. and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.

Mark 4:21 Kai« e¶legen aujtoi!ß: mh/ti Mark 4:21 He said to them, “Is a lamp e¶rcetai oJ lu/cnoß iºna uJpo\ to\n mo/dion teqhØv brought in to be put under the bushel basket, h£ uJpo\ th\n kli÷nhn; oujc iºna e˙pi« th\n lucni÷an or under the bed, and not [put] on the teqhØv; lampstand?

Mark 10:16 kai« e˙nagkalisa¿menoß aujta» Mark 10:16 And he took them up in his kateulo/gei tiqei«ß ta»ß cei!raß e˙p# aujta¿. arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them.

Luke 6:48 o¢moio/ß e˙stin aÓnqrw¿pwˆ Luke 6:48 That one is like a man building a oi˙kodomouvnti oi˙ki÷an o§ß e¶skayen kai« house, who dug deeply and laid the e˙ba¿qunen kai« e¶qhken qeme÷lion e˙pi« th\n foundation on rock; when a flood arose, the pe÷tran: plhmmu/rhß de« genome÷nhß river burst against that house but could not prose÷rhxen oJ potamo\ß thØv oi˙ki÷aˆ e˙kei÷nhØ, shake it, because it had been well built. kai« oujk i¶scusen saleuvsai aujth\n dia» to\ kalw"ß oi˙kodomhvsqai aujth/n.

Luke 8:16 Oujdei«ß de« lu/cnon a‚yaß Luke 8:16 “No one after lighting a lamp kalu/ptei aujto\n skeu/ei h£ uJpoka¿tw kli÷nhß hides it under a jar, or puts it under a bed, ti÷qhsin, aÓll# e˙pi« lucni÷aß ti÷qhsin, iºna oi˚ but puts it on a lampstand, so that those who ei˙sporeuo/menoi ble÷pwsin to\ fw"ß. enter may see the light.

Luke 11:33 Oujdei«ß lu/cnon a‚yaß ei˙ß Luke 11:33 “No one after lighting a lamp kru/pthn ti÷qhsin [oujde« uJpo\ to\n mo/dion] puts it in a cellar, but on the lampstand so aÓll# e˙pi« th\n lucni÷an, iºna oi˚ that those who enter may see the light. ei˙sporeuo/menoi to\ fw"ß ble÷pwsin.

John 19:19 e¶grayen de« kai« ti÷tlon oJ John 19:19 Pilate also had an inscription Pila"toß kai« e¶qhken e˙pi« touv staurouv: h™n written and put on the cross. It read, “Jesus de« gegramme÷non: #Ihsouvß oJ Nazwrai!oß oJ of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” basileu\ß tw"n #Ioudai÷wn.

115 Acts 5:15 w‚ste kai« ei˙ß ta»ß platei÷aß Acts 5:15 so that they even carried out the e˙kfe÷rein tou\ß aÓsqenei!ß kai« tiqe÷nai e˙pi« sick into the streets, and laid them on cots klinari÷wn kai« kraba¿ttwn, iºna e˙rcome÷nou and mats, in order that Peter’s shadow might Pe÷trou ka·n hJ skia» e˙piskia¿shØ tini« aujtw"n. fall on some of them as he came by.

Acts 21:5 o¢te de« e˙ge÷neto hJma"ß e˙xarti÷sai Acts 21:5 When our days there were ended, ta»ß hJme÷raß, e˙xelqo/nteß e˙poreuo/meqa we left and proceeded on our journey; and all propempo/ntwn hJma"ß pa¿ntwn su\n gunaixi« of them, with wives and children, escorted us kai« te÷knoiß eºwß e¶xw thvß po/lewß, kai« outside the city. There we knelt [put knees] qe÷nteß ta» go/nata e˙pi« to\n ai˙gialo\n down on the beach and prayed proseuxa¿menoi 2Cor. 3:13 not like Moses, who put a veil 2Cor. 3:13 kai« ouj kaqa¿per Mwu¨shvß over his face to keep the people of Israel e˙ti÷qei ka¿lumma e˙pi« to\ pro/swpon aujtouv from gazing at the end of the glory that was pro\ß to\ mh\ aÓteni÷sai tou\ß ui˚ou\ß #Israh\l ei˙ß to\ te÷loß touv katargoume÷nou. being set aside. Rev. 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet Rev. 1:17 Kai« o¢te ei•don aujto/n, e¶pesa as though dead. But he placed his right hand pro\ß tou\ß po/daß aujtouv wß nekro/ß, kai« on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the e¶qhken th\n dexia»n aujtouv e˙p# e˙me« le÷gwn: first and the last, mh\ fobouv: e˙gw¿ ei˙mi oJ prw"toß kai« oJ e¶scatoß Rev. 10:2 He held a little scroll open in his hand. Setting his right foot on the sea and Rev. 10:2 kai« e¶cwn e˙n thØv ceiri« aujtouv his left foot on the land... biblari÷dion hjnewˆgme÷non. kai« e¶qhken to\n po/da aujtouv to\n dexio\n e˙pi« thvß qala¿sshß, to\n de« eujw¿numon e˙pi« thvß ghvß

Apart from the double use in Rev. 10:2, only Luke uses PP+GEN, but he also uses (slightly more often) PP+ACC.

As a verb requiring a locative argument (like English ‘put’), tivqhmi tithemi frequently occurs with other prepositions (as in Lk 8:16 & 11:33 above); here only the occurrences with ejpiv epi are considered, because of the variation in case government displayed. Although epi + DAT occurs in NT almost as often as epi + GEN (but together less than epi + ACC), it never occurs with tithemi. The variation is only between ACC and GEN: contrast the variation between GEN and DAT in Chapter 2 examples (14) & (15). Clearly by the middle or later Koine period the distinction between orientation towards or away from the landmark, which previously distinguished accusative and genitive cases, is no longer active. Compare the loss of the distinction between motion and location in the confusion between eijV eis and ejn en.

116 References

ADRADOS 2005 Francisco Rodríguez Adrados, A History of the Greek Language from its Origins to the Present (translation by Francisca Rojas del Canto of Adrados, Historia de la lengua griega, Madrid 1999). Leiden: Brill.

ALAND & ALAND Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introducion to 1987 the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, second edition. Translated by Erroll F Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

ALLEN 1987 W Sidney Allen, Vox Graeca: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek, third edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BDAG Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, 2000, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, third edition, ed Frederick W Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

BEEKES 1995 Robert S P Beekes, Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

BERGLUND & MASON Ylva Berglund & Oliver Mason, ‘”But this formula doesn’t mean anything...!?”’, 2003 in Andrew Wilson, Paul Rayson & Tony McEnery (eds), Corpus Linguistics by the Lune: A Festschrift for Geoffrey Leech. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

BERKOWITZ & Luci Berkowitz & Karl A Squitier, Thesurus Linguae Graecae: Canon of Greek SQUITIER 1986 Authors and Works (with technical assistance from William A Johnson), second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

BOTHA 1991 J Eugene Botha, ‘Style in the New Testament: The Need for Serious Reconsideration’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43, 71-87.

BRINTON & Laurel J Brinton & Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Lexicalization and Language TRAUGOTT 2005 Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BROWNING 1983 Robert Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek, second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BUBENIK 1989 Vit Bubenik, Hellenistic and Roman Greece as a Sociolinguistic Area. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

BUBENIK 1993 Vit Bubenik, ‘Dialect contact and Koineization: the case of Hellenistic Greek’, in International Journal of the Sociology of Language 99 (1993) 9-23.

BURRIDGE 1997a Richard A Burridge, ‘Biography’, pp 371-392 in Stanley E Porter (ed), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 BC – AD 400. Leiden: Brill. BURRIDGE 1997b Richard A Burridge, ‘The Gospels and Acts’, pp 507-532 in Stanley E Porter (ed), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 BC – AD 400. Leiden: Brill.

BYBEE ET AL 1994 Joan Bybee, Revere Perkin & William Pagliuca, The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

CAMPBELL 2004 Lyle Campbell, Historical Linguistics: An Introduction (second edition). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

CARSON & MOO D A Carson & Douglas J Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (second 2005 edition). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

CHANTRAINE 1953 P Chantraine, Grammaire Homérique, Vol II Syntaxe. Paris: Klincksieck.

117 CHRISTIDIS 2007 A-F Christidis (ed), A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to late Antiquity, edited for the Centre for the Greek Language by A-F Christidis with the assistance of Maria Arapopoulou and Maria Chriti, Cambridge University Press; originally published in Greek, as Istoriva thV ellhnikhvV glwvssaV: Apov tiV arcevV evwV thn uvsterh arcaiovthta, by the Centre of the Greek Language and the Institute of Modern Greek Studies [Manolis Triandafyllidis Foundation], Thessaloniki, 2001. (Individual articles cited as ‘[Author] in Christidis 2007’.) CLARKE 1997 Kent D Clarke, Textual Optimism: A Critique of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. Sheffield: Sheffiels Academic Press. DINES 2004 Jennifer M Dines, The Septuagint. London: T & T Clark.

DUHOUX 1995 Yves Duhoux, ‘Études sur l’aspect verbal en grec ancien 1: présentation d’une méthode’, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 90.1, 241-99.

DUHOUX 1997 Yves Duhoux, ‘Grec écrit et grec parlé: Une étude contrastive des particules aux Ve-Ive siècles’, in Albert Rijksbaron (ed), New Approaches to Greek Particles. Amsterdam: Brill. EVANS 2001 T V Evans, Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference. Oxford: Oxford University press

FANNING 1990 Buist M Fanning, Verbal Aspect in the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

FINKELBERG 1994 Margalit Finkelberg, ‘The dialect continuum of Ancient Greek’, in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 96 (1994) 1-36.

FORTSON 2004 Benjamin W Fortson IV, Indo-European language and Culture: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

FUNK 1973 Robert W Funk, A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek (3 volumes), second edition. Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature.

GIGNAC 1981 Francis Thomas Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, Vol 1 (Phonology) & Vol 2 (Morphology). Milano: Istituto Editoriale Cisalpino-La Goliardica

HARRIS & CAMPBELL Alice C Harris & Lyle Campbell, Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic 1995 Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

HEWSON & BUBENIK John Hewson & Vit Bubenik, From Case to Adposition: The Development of 2006 Configurational Syntax in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

HEINE 2003 Bernd Heine, ‘Grammaticalization’, Chapter 18 (575-600) in Brian D Joseph & Richard Janda (eds), Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell

HOLMES 1999 Michael W Holmes (ed), The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, second edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

HOLTON ET AL 1997 David Holton, Peter Mackridge & Irene Philippaki-Warburton, Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language. London: Routledge.

HOPPER & Paul J Hopper & Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Grammaticalization (second edition). TRAUGOTT 2003 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

HORROCKS 1981 Geoffrey C Horrocks, Space and Time in Homer: Prepositional and Adverbial Particles in the Greek Epic. New York: Arno Press

HORROCKS 1997 Geoffrey Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers. London: Longman.

HOUSEHOLDER & Fred W Householder & Gregory Nagy, Greek: A Survey of Recent Work. The NAGY 1972 Hague: Mouton.

HORSLEY 1984 G H R Horsley, ‘Divergent Views on the Nature of the Greek of the Bible’, in Biblica 65 (1984) 393-403. 118 JANNI 1993 Pietro Janni, ‘On the Treatment of Some Greek Prepositions in Modern Language Dictionaries’, in Bela Brogyanyi & Reiner Lipp (eds), Comparative- Historical Linguistics: Indo-European and Finno-Ugric. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

JASANOFF 2001 Jay H Jasanoff, Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

KENNEDY 1998 Graeme Kennedy, An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman.

KENNY 1986 Anthony Kenny, A Stylometric Study of the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon

KERSWILL 2002 Paul Kerswill, ‘Koineization and Accommodation’, Chapter 26 of JK Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Blackwell: Oxford

LEE 1983 John A L Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch. Chico Ca: Scholars Press

LEE 1997 John A L Lee, ‘Translations of the Old Testament: 1 Greek’, pp 775-783 in Stanley E Porter (ed), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 BC – AD 400. Leiden: Brill.

LORD 1960 Albert B Lord, The Singer of Tales. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press. LSJ Henry George Liddell & Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones, with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie. 1940. (Oxford: Clarendon). Available online through the Perseus Project at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu. (The Supplements to LSJ of 1968 and 1996 are not yet freely available online.)

LURAGHI 2003 Silvia Luraghi, On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

LURAGHI 2005 Silvia Luraghi, Ancient Greek. Munich: Lincom Europa

MCKAY 1994 K L McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: AnAaspectual Approach. New York: Peter Lang.

MALLORY 1989 J P Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth. London: Thames and Hudson.

MANDILARAS 1973 Basil G Mandilaras, The Verb in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri. Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sciences

MEECHAM 1923 Henry G Meecham, Light from Ancient Letters: Private Corrrespondence in the Nonliterary Papyri of Oxyrhincus of the First Four Centuries, and its Bearing on New Testament Language and Thought. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock.

MEILLET 1912 Antoine Meillet, ‘L’évolution des formes grammaticales’, Scientia (Rivista di Scienza) 12, no.26.6: 384-400.

MORGENTHALER R Morgenthaler, Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes. Zurich: 1958 Gotthelf Verlag.

MOULTON I & II James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol 1: Prolegomena (1908), Vol 2: Accidence and Word Formation (1919). Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

MOULTON & GEDEN William Fiddian Moulton & Alfred Shenington Geden, Concordance to the 1897 Greek New Testament according to the Texts of Westcott and Hort. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. NA 27 Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition 1993, in the tradition of Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, edited by Barbara & Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M Martini, Bruce M Metxger. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. 119 NAGY 1996 Gregory Nagy, Homeric Questions. Austin: University of Texas Press.

O’DONNELL 2005 Matthew Brook O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament (New Testament Monographs 6). Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.

O’DOWD 1998 Elizabeth M O’Dowd, Prepositions and Particles in English: A Discourse- functional Account. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

PALMER 1980 Leonard R Palmer, The Greek Language. London: Faber & Faber.

PETROUNIAS 2007 E B Petrounias, ‘The pronunciation of Ancient Greek in modern times’ (translated by Andry Hendry), in Christidis 2007.

PORTER 1989 Stanley E Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. New York: Peter Lang

PORTER 1991 Stanley E Porter (ed), The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

PORTER & CARSON Stanley E Porter & D A Carson (eds), Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: 1993 Open Questions in Current Research (JSNT SS 80). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

RAHLFS 1935 A Rahlfs (ed), Septuaginta, id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX interpretes, 2 vol. Stuttgart.

SCHMIDT 1981 Daryl Schmidt, Hellenistic Greek Grammar and Noam Chomsky: Nominalizing Transformations. Chico CA: Scholars Press.

SCHMIDT 1985 Daryl Schmidt, ‘The Study of Hellenistic Greek Grammar in the Light of Contemporary Linguistics’, in Charles H Talbert (ed), Perspectives on the New Testament: Essays in Honor of Frank Stagg. Macon: Mercer University Press.

SILVA 1980 Moises Silva, ‘Bilingulaism and the Character of Palestinian Greek’, in Biblica 61 (1980) 198-219.

STANIFORTH 1968 Maxwell Staniforth (translator), Early Christian Writings: The Apostolic Fathers, Harmondsworth: Penguin. TLG Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: data bank of Greek texts available by subscription from University of California, Irvine.

TURNER 1963 Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol III: Syntax, by J H Moulton. Edinburgh: T & T Clark

VILBORG 1960 Ebbe Vilborg, A Tentative Grammar of Mycenaean Greek. Göteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag.

VINCENT 1999 Nigel Vincent, ‘The evolution of c-structure: prepositions and PPs from Indo- European to Romance’, Linguistics 37.6:111-115.

WHITE 1986 John L White, Light from Ancient Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

WEBSITES:

ACCORDANCE www.accordancebible.com

GRAMCORD www.gramcord.org

LINEAR B www.explorecrete.com/archaeology/linearB.pdf LSJ http://www.perseus.tufts.edu

PERSEUS PROJECT www.perseus.tufts.edu, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseus_Project TLG www.tlg.uci.edu, www.tlg.uci.edu/demo.html

120