It was because of the wide diffusion of this language
that the New Testament was written in Greek. Its diction is not,
however, that of the classical Greek, but it was chosen, no doubt, with
a view to greater usefulness. In the age which succeeded Alexander the
Great, the Greek language underwent an internal change of a double
nature. In part, a prosaic language of books was formed, ἡ κοινὴ
διαλεκτὸς, which was built on the Attic dialect, but was intermixed with
not a few provincialisms; but a language of popular intercourse was also
formed, in which the various dialects of the different Grecian tribes,
heretofore separate, were more or less mingled together, while the
Macedonian dialect was peculiarly prominent. The latter language
constitutes the basis of the diction employed by the LXX, the writers of
the Apocrypha, and of the New Testament. The style of the New Testament
has a considerable affinity with that of the Septuagint version which
was executed at Alexandria, although it approaches somewhat nearer to
the idiom of the Greek language; but the peculiarities of the Hebrew
phraseology are discernible throughout: the language of the New
Testament being formed by a mixture of oriental idioms and expressions
with those which are properly Greek. Hence it has, by some philologers,
been termed _Hebraic Greek_, and (from the Jews having acquired the
Greek language, rather by practice than by grammar, among the Greeks, in
whose countries they resided in large communities) _Hellenistic Greek_.
The propriety of this appellation was severely contested toward the
close of the seventeenth, and in the early part of the eighteenth,
century; and numerous publications were written on both sides of the
question, with considerable asperity, which, together with the
controversy, are now almost forgotten. The dispute, however interesting
to the philological antiquarian, is after all a mere “strife of words;”
and as the appellation of Hellenistic or Hebraic Greek is sufficiently
correct for the purpose of characterizing the language of the New
Testament, it is now generally adopted. A large proportion, however, of
the phrases and constructions of the New Testament is pure Greek; that
is to say, of the same degree of purity as the Greek which was spoken in
Macedonia, and that in which Polybius wrote his Roman history. It should
farther be noticed, that there occur in the New Testament, words that
express both doctrines and practices which were utterly unknown to the
Greeks; and also words bearing widely different interpretations from
those which are ordinarily found in Greek writers. It contains examples
of all the dialects occurring in the Greek language, as the Æolic,
Bœtic, Doric, Ionic, and especially of the Attic; which, being most
generally in use on account of its elegance, pervades every book of the
New Testament.
2. A variety of solutions has been given to the question, why the New
Testament was written in Greek. The true reason is, that it was the
language most generally understood both by writers and readers; being
spoken and written, read and understood, throughout the Roman empire,
and particularly in the eastern provinces. To the universality of the
Greek language, Cicero, Seneca, and Juvenal bear ample testimony: and
the circumstances of the Jews having long had political, civil, and
commercial relations with the Greeks, and being dispersed through
various parts of the Roman empire, as well as their having cultivated
the philosophy of the Greeks, of which we have evidence in the New
Testament, all sufficiently account for their being acquainted with the
Greek language. And if the eminent Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus,
had motives for preferring to write in Greek, there is no reason, at
least there is no general presumption, why the first publishers of the
Gospel might not use the Greek language. It is indeed probable, that
many of the common people were acquainted with it; though it is also
certain the Christian churches being in many countries composed chiefly
of that class of persons, some did not understand Greek. But in every
church, says Macknight, there were persons endowed with the gift of
tongues, and of the interpretation of tongues, who could readily turn
the Apostles’ Greek epistles into the language of the church to which
they were sent. In particular, the president or the spiritual man, who
read the Apostle’s Greek letter to the Hebrews in their public
assemblies, could without any hesitation render it into the Hebrew
language, for the edification of those who did not understand Greek. And
with respect to the Jews in the provinces, Greek being the native
language of most of them, this epistle was much better calculated for
their use, written in the Greek language, than if it had been written in
the Hebrew, which few of them understood. Farther, it was proper that
all the apostolical epistles should be written in the Greek language,
because the different doctrines of the Gospel being delivered and
explained in them, the explanation of these doctrines could with more
advantage be compared so as to be better understood, being expressed in
one language, than if, in the different epistles, they had been
expressed in the language of the churches and persons to whom they were
sent. Now what should that one language be, in which it was proper to
write the Christian revelation, but the Greek, which was then generally
understood, and in which there were many books extant; that treated of
all kinds of literature, and on that account were likely to be
preserved, and by the reading of which Christians, in after ages, would
be enabled to understand the Greek of the New Testament? This advantage
none of the provincial dialects used in the Apostles’ days could pretend
to. Being limited to particular countries, they were soon to be disused;
and few (if any) books being written in them which merited to be
preserved, the meaning of such of the Apostles’ letters as were composed
in the provincial languages could not easily have been ascertained.
that the New Testament was written in Greek. Its diction is not,
however, that of the classical Greek, but it was chosen, no doubt, with
a view to greater usefulness. In the age which succeeded Alexander the
Great, the Greek language underwent an internal change of a double
nature. In part, a prosaic language of books was formed, ἡ κοινὴ
διαλεκτὸς, which was built on the Attic dialect, but was intermixed with
not a few provincialisms; but a language of popular intercourse was also
formed, in which the various dialects of the different Grecian tribes,
heretofore separate, were more or less mingled together, while the
Macedonian dialect was peculiarly prominent. The latter language
constitutes the basis of the diction employed by the LXX, the writers of
the Apocrypha, and of the New Testament. The style of the New Testament
has a considerable affinity with that of the Septuagint version which
was executed at Alexandria, although it approaches somewhat nearer to
the idiom of the Greek language; but the peculiarities of the Hebrew
phraseology are discernible throughout: the language of the New
Testament being formed by a mixture of oriental idioms and expressions
with those which are properly Greek. Hence it has, by some philologers,
been termed _Hebraic Greek_, and (from the Jews having acquired the
Greek language, rather by practice than by grammar, among the Greeks, in
whose countries they resided in large communities) _Hellenistic Greek_.
The propriety of this appellation was severely contested toward the
close of the seventeenth, and in the early part of the eighteenth,
century; and numerous publications were written on both sides of the
question, with considerable asperity, which, together with the
controversy, are now almost forgotten. The dispute, however interesting
to the philological antiquarian, is after all a mere “strife of words;”
and as the appellation of Hellenistic or Hebraic Greek is sufficiently
correct for the purpose of characterizing the language of the New
Testament, it is now generally adopted. A large proportion, however, of
the phrases and constructions of the New Testament is pure Greek; that
is to say, of the same degree of purity as the Greek which was spoken in
Macedonia, and that in which Polybius wrote his Roman history. It should
farther be noticed, that there occur in the New Testament, words that
express both doctrines and practices which were utterly unknown to the
Greeks; and also words bearing widely different interpretations from
those which are ordinarily found in Greek writers. It contains examples
of all the dialects occurring in the Greek language, as the Æolic,
Bœtic, Doric, Ionic, and especially of the Attic; which, being most
generally in use on account of its elegance, pervades every book of the
New Testament.
2. A variety of solutions has been given to the question, why the New
Testament was written in Greek. The true reason is, that it was the
language most generally understood both by writers and readers; being
spoken and written, read and understood, throughout the Roman empire,
and particularly in the eastern provinces. To the universality of the
Greek language, Cicero, Seneca, and Juvenal bear ample testimony: and
the circumstances of the Jews having long had political, civil, and
commercial relations with the Greeks, and being dispersed through
various parts of the Roman empire, as well as their having cultivated
the philosophy of the Greeks, of which we have evidence in the New
Testament, all sufficiently account for their being acquainted with the
Greek language. And if the eminent Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus,
had motives for preferring to write in Greek, there is no reason, at
least there is no general presumption, why the first publishers of the
Gospel might not use the Greek language. It is indeed probable, that
many of the common people were acquainted with it; though it is also
certain the Christian churches being in many countries composed chiefly
of that class of persons, some did not understand Greek. But in every
church, says Macknight, there were persons endowed with the gift of
tongues, and of the interpretation of tongues, who could readily turn
the Apostles’ Greek epistles into the language of the church to which
they were sent. In particular, the president or the spiritual man, who
read the Apostle’s Greek letter to the Hebrews in their public
assemblies, could without any hesitation render it into the Hebrew
language, for the edification of those who did not understand Greek. And
with respect to the Jews in the provinces, Greek being the native
language of most of them, this epistle was much better calculated for
their use, written in the Greek language, than if it had been written in
the Hebrew, which few of them understood. Farther, it was proper that
all the apostolical epistles should be written in the Greek language,
because the different doctrines of the Gospel being delivered and
explained in them, the explanation of these doctrines could with more
advantage be compared so as to be better understood, being expressed in
one language, than if, in the different epistles, they had been
expressed in the language of the churches and persons to whom they were
sent. Now what should that one language be, in which it was proper to
write the Christian revelation, but the Greek, which was then generally
understood, and in which there were many books extant; that treated of
all kinds of literature, and on that account were likely to be
preserved, and by the reading of which Christians, in after ages, would
be enabled to understand the Greek of the New Testament? This advantage
none of the provincial dialects used in the Apostles’ days could pretend
to. Being limited to particular countries, they were soon to be disused;
and few (if any) books being written in them which merited to be
preserved, the meaning of such of the Apostles’ letters as were composed
in the provincial languages could not easily have been ascertained.