CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Volume 56: Numbers 2-3 APRIL-JULY 1992 The Linguistic Milieu of the Early Church James W. Voelz ....................................................................... 81 Catechesis: The Quiet Crisis William E. Thompson ............................................................. 99 The Chorale: Transcending Time and Culture Robin A. Leaver ...................................................................... 123 Johann Michael Reu and Inerrancy Paul I. Johnston ................................................................. 145 Rabinowitz and Lichtenstein Kai Kjaer-Hansen .................................................................. 187 Books Received ......................................................................... 194 Theological Observer .. .... .... .... . ... .... .... .... ... . .... . . . . . . . . 195 Book Reviews ............................................................................ 209 Index of Homiletical Studies .................................................... 219 The Linguistic Milieu of the Early Church James W. Voelz The New Testament is written in Greek, as virtually everyone knows. But what can we say about this language? What was it like? How many spoke it? Where was it spoken? Indeed, the whole matter is a complicated one. The earliest Christians were Jews, yet their canonical religious writings are not in Hebrew or Aramaic. The earliest Christians were from Palestine, yet the authoritative documents of their new testament were not in a language native to their land. How do we understand the language of the New Testament against the background of the early church? We will attempt to find some answers in the paragraphs which follow. I. The Language of the New Testament Socially Considered A. The Mediterranean Milieu The New Testament, as previously said, is written in Greek. While that fact may surprise the casual observer, in reality it is not so odd. The key is Alexander the Great. In the fourth century B.C. he conquered the Persian empire, and the aftermath of this conquest unleashed upon the Mediterranean world an influence of things Hellenic-that is, of things Greek-which it is hard to overestimate. Indeed, it is not too much to say that, in an incredibly short period of time (not centuries but decades), a new civilization spanning nations and even continents was created-a new civilization which was simultaneously promoted and enforced by the conquerors, on the one hand, and eagerly embraced by the conquered, on the other. Now Greek law codes were enforced; Greek cities were established; and Greek education was made available. Inhabitants throughout the land of Greece flocked to new lands, ready to take advantage of new opportunities and eager to travel and to explore places until then unknown. On their own part, the conquered nations adopted eagerly Greek styles and habits of life, including Greek dress, Greek names, and Greek architecture, as vibrant and full of life.' One element of this new civilization was the Greek language. Indeed, we should say the chief element! For, not only did Alexander and the rulers use Greek as the official language of diplomacy? but the subjected, anxious to fit in and to acclimatize themselves to their new situation, both because they desired survival 82 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY and because they were attracted to things Greek, adopted Greek as an important means of communication. In the words of the noted historian Moses Hadas: In the beginning natives may have learned [Greek] out of necessity for the uses of commerce or government, or by the compulsion of snobbery, but they continued to use it out of choice, and it soon became at least a second vernacular among a considerable proportion of the population. Upper- class natives . . . spoke to each other in Greek and were literate only in Greek . . . even books written by natives as propaganda for native values and intended mainly for a native audience were written in Greek, and . . . even books written in native languages were affected, in form and content, by Greek models3 Perhaps the greatest testimony to the power of Hellenism in the ancient world in general, and of the Greek language in particular, is the Septuagint, involving the translation of the Old Testament into Greek. B. The Palestinian Milieu The situation was no different in Palestine. There, too, Greek culture, including the Greek language, was promoted and absorbed. To be sure, all was not received with open arms. Enforced Helleni- zation by the Seleucid successors to Alexander in Syria, especially the efforts of Antiochus IV, engendered stiff resistance, most notably the Maccabean revolt-the revolt really of the Hasidim, the holy ones, the cultural and religious conservatives of the time, in the second century B.C. The march of things Greek continued nonethe- less. Especially as far as language was concerned, Greek was alive and well in Palestine in the first century of the Christian era (and for many years before). For Greek had supplanted Aramaic as the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean, the Levant-which meant that Greek was the language of trade and commerce also for Palestine (which was within that geographical sphere), even as Aramaic had been for so many centuries before. Indeed, it was more than the language of commerce and trade. Research, especially by Liebermam," ~itzmyer? Lapide: Gundry? and Sevenster? has The Linguistic Milieu 83 shown that Greek was in common use throughout Palestine in our Lord's time. Not only is this conclusion confirmed by rabbinic sources, but archaeology has brought to light wide use of Greek for inscriptions on monuments, on pottery, and on tombstones, as well as in letters and in official documents. If C. F. D. Moule is correct in his exegesis of Acts 6: 1: the Hellenistai of this important verse were Jews in Jerusalem and the surrounding countryside who habitually spoke Greek, to the virtual exclusion of Hebrew or Aramaic. This spread and use of Greek made the language situation in Palestine much more complex than is normally supposed. The common approach, common since the 1890's, is to assume quite simply that Aramaic was the dominant language of the land, and that Jesus spoke in Aramaic when He taught. Julius Wellhausen, for example, said: Jesus selber sprach aramiiisch, und seine Worte sowie die Erziihlungen iiber ihn liefen in der jerusalemischen Ge- meinde um, die gleichfalls aramiiischer Zunge war. Die miindliche ijberlieferung des Evangeliums war also von Haus aus aramCsch, und wenn sie uns nur in griechischer Niederschrift erhalten ist, so hat sie einen Sprachwechsel durchgemacht. Das steht historisch fest . . .lo Similarly, the sainted Martin Scharlemann often said in class: "The New Testament is in Greek; Jesus spoke Aramaic." But, not only was Greek a living language for the early believers in our Lord (Aramaic was also a living language, of course, having been so in Palestine for some six hundred years), but Hebrew was a living language as well. Research, again, has shown that Hebrew was a flourishing language in Palestine in the first century A.D. From the evidence presented by Birkeland," Grintz,12 Segal,13 Lapide,14 Fitzmyer,ls ~ilik,'~ and Emerton," we can see that Hebrew was both written and spoken extensively at the time of Christ. These are the words of,J. T. Milik: The copper rolls and the documents from the Second Revolt prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mishnaic Hebrew was the normal language of the Judaean population in the 84 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Roman period. Some Jewish scholars . . . had already suggested this on the basis of Talmudic anecdotes; addition- al evidence can be found in the inscriptions on contempo- rary ossuaries. The presence of Hebrew, beside Greek and Aramaic, on the ossuaries (which represent the use of the middle classes) surely attests that this was a natural lan- guage in that milieu. . . .I8 It is probable that many, if not most, of the inhabitants of the land of Israel were trilingual. More precisely, to follow the analysis of Pinchas Lapide in his outstanding study, "Insights from Qumran into the Language of Jes~s,"'~ it is probable that the inhabitants of the land of Israel were triglossic. That is to say, they spoke three languages, not interchangeably, but for discrete purposes--using Greek for political purposes and for converse, either with Gentiles or with Jews of the Diaspora; Hebrew for "religion, education, and other aspects of high culture"; and Aramaic, for "hearth, home, and livelihood." These thoughts are interesting and important in themselves. But they are of special importance when one proceeds to a linguistic analysis of the language of the New Testament as we have it, for the complicated social juxtaposition and interrelationship of three languages, as we have described it (in this case, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek) complicate an analysis of a single language (in this case, Greek), since many cross-cultural influences occur. Indeed, the history of the discussion of the language of the New Testament is bedeviled by the problem of the influence or lack thereof of the two Semitic languages (Hebrew and Aramaic) on the focus language (Greek).20 Yet such an analysis must be done, and to this analysis we now turn. 11. The Language of the New Testament Linguistically Considered Given our historical-social survey, what is the language of the New Testament like? That is to say, what can we say about it linguistically? The answer to this inquiry is in some ways "simple"; it has Hellenic (that is, Greek) characteristics and it has Semitic (in this case, Hebrew, Aramaic, or both) characteristics. But things are The Linguistic Milieu 85 really not as simple as they seem. Two problems exist. First, what are these characteristics exactly-these Hellenic and Semitic charac- teristics? Secondly, how do these characteristics relate one to another? It may be noted that these are problems which have haunted scholarship, at least since the time of the Reformation21 (and even, in a tangentially related way, before22), and no easy answers exist. Scholars differ, and this difference is often extreme-as is proper for me to admit at the outset of this section, before my own views are made known. But I will hazard an ,analysis of my own, giving my own personal viewpoint on the matter, always recognizing that new evidence and, therefore, new formulations may lie just around the corner.23 A. Hellenic (Greek) Characteristics The language of the New Testament is Greek. But what sort of Greek is it? It is perhaps a truism, but it is worth saying, nonethe- less, that it is not Attic Greek-what is usually called Classical Greek--the Greek of Athens in the fifth century B.C., the Greek of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripedes, Lysias, and Thucydides. Rather, the Greek of the New Testament is Koine Greek, the Greek of Hellenistic times. That is to say, it is the Greek of the time coinciding with and following after the rise of Philip of Macedon and especially of his son, Alexander the Great-the Greek of the late fourth century B.C. and beyond, the Greek spread by the great conqueror and his soldiers drawn from every quarter of the Greek- speaking world. For this insight we are indebted principally to Adolf Deissmann." How may this Greek be described? In some ways, its nature is quite surprising. One might expect, given the historical circumstances, that it would be a ragged thing, a motley collection of various dialects (e.g., Ionian, Aeolic, Doric, and Arcadian), with no unifying characteristics at all. But such is not the case. One surprisingly unified language was in widespread use, called by the Greeks themselves the koine dialectos-and it is generally seen as a development of Attic (the Athenian sub-dialect of ~onian)?' flavored in large measure by broader Ionian influence.26 The spoken version of the Koine, a development, not of the language of the great literature of Athens but of the spoken Greek of that city, which itself had absorbed many foreign words and adopted many 86 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY constructions found in the later Koine?' exhibited the following characteristics, when compared to Classical Greek:z8 (1.) There are a multiplicity of new words, with new meanings attached to many old words. (2.) There is a tendency toward explicit expression. Lexically (as far as vocabulary is concerned), this tendency meant the preference for "fuller" and phonetically stronger forms. Syntactically it is seen chiefly in the increased frequency of prepositions (both proper and improper) and pronouns, and in the preference for direct, as opposed to indirect, discourse. (3.) There is a strong tendency toward simplicity. This tendency manifested itself in two ways. On the one hand, a firm movement toward uniformity is evident. Morphologically, this tendency meant elimination or modification of unusual forms of all parts of speech and the assimilation of potentially ambiguous forms to those more easily recognizable. On the other hand, the loss of fine distinctions is also apparent. Lexically, this tendency is seen in the free use of compound and diminutive vocables with no specifically compounded or diminutive meaning. Syntactically-and syntax is really more important (in fact, in many ways it is the most important item to discuss )-it is seen in the decline of the optative mood, the decline in the use of the present tense in moods other than the indicative, the decline in the number and rich combinations of particles, the increasing restriction of the middle voice to deponent usage, the expansion of the use of him, and the frequency of parataxisz9 (i.e., linked coordinate clauses) in place of hypotaxis (subordinate clauses dependent upon another). Examples from the New Testament would include the following: (1.) With regard to vocabulary changes: (a,) grEgore6, meaning "keep watch," in Mark 13:35, and romphaia, meaning "sword," in Revelation 1:16, which are new, Koine Greek, words. (b.) phthanii, meaning "arrive" instead of "antic- ipate," in 1 Thessalonians 2:16, and egkop- t6, meaning "hinder" instead of "cut," in Galatians 5:7, which are old words with new, Koine Greek, meanings attached. The Linguistic Milieu 87 (2.) With regard to the move toward explicit expression: (a.) probaton, meaning "sheep," in place of oi's (the Classical Greek word), in John 21:16, and akoloutheb, meaning "follow," in place of hepomai, in Matthew 8:1, both of which are phonetically "stronger" forms. (b.) pros auton, indicating indirect object ("to him"), in place of the dative form aut6(i), in John 3:4, which illustrates the increased use of prepositional constructions. (3.) With regard to the striving for simplicity: deiknM, meaning "show," in place of deik- numi (the Classical Greek form) in John 2:18, which changes an unusual form, assimilating it to what is more recogniz- able. ananggelld instead of anggelld, meaning "announce," in John 4:25, and paidion, instead of pais, meaning "child," in Mat- thew 14:21, which illustrate the use of compounds and diminutives with the loss of specifically compound or diminutive mean- ing. hina clauses instead of infinitives in 1 John 1 :9 and 1 Corinthians 1 : 10, and of kai and de linking coordinate clauses (parataxis) in- stead of participles subordinating one clause to another (hypotaxis), as in Mark's ac- count of the crucifixion of our Lord in 15:23-26, all of which illustrate the stream- lining and simplifying of syntactical struc- ture. We may say that the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel and Epistles of John are composed in vernacular Koine Greek, as well as major portions of most other New Testament books. As far as the written Koine is concerned, it too was a develop- ment of the Greek dialect of Athens, but while it was always heavily 88 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY indebted to classical Attic, it often deviated quite markedly from it. In vocabulary especially it was influenced by the vernacular. Indeed, later Koine authors, notably Polybius, Epictetus, and Josephus, made considerable concessions to vernacular usage3'-- though their writings, taken together, exhibit great variety, since usage was not entirely standardized. Hence it may be said: . . . die verschiedenen Formen der hellenistischen Literatur- sprache . . . sind schliesslich nichts anders als fortwiihrende Compromisse zwischen der gesprochenen Sprache und alterer schriftlicher ~berlieferung, zwischen Leben und S~hule.~' And the degree of this compromiseidepended upon "the education, the purpose, and the nature of the work of each individual writer."32 Examples from the New Testament would include the following: (1.) The Classical Greek form kreittijn, meaning "bet- ter," appears in place of kreissGn, which is Koine Greek, in Hebrews 1:4. (2.) A hypotactic sentence structure, with complex subordination of phrases and clauses appears in place of simpler parataxis in Hebrews 6:4-6. (3.) The optative mood replaces the indicative in indi- rect discourse in a secondary sequence-a very classical usage-in Luke 1 :29, dielogizeto potapos eie ho aspasmos houtos. In the New Testament Hebrews, 1 Peter, James, and, at times, the writings of St. Luke and St. Paul may be said to employ literary Koine Greek to a greater or lesser extent. Thus, the Greek of the New Testament exhibits the full range of linguistic possibilities available to the writers of the first century A.D. Indeed, a useful diagram has been devised by W. L. Wonderly to portray the full range of speech in a society at large:33 The Linguistic Milieu 89 Uppa Level (educated speech) Lower Level (uneducated speech) Erudite vocabulary, litcrsly elaboration, etc.: not accessible to uneducated Overlap area: common language acceptable to educated, accessible to uneducated Slang, vulgar speech, "incorrect" usages: not acxptable to educated In society at large some linguistic usages are inaccessible to the uneducated (top of diagram), even as others are unacceptable to the educated (bottom of diagram), while the large middle portion is acceptable to all and accessible to all. As far as the New Testament is concerned, the vast majority of its writers employ language in such a way that it falls into the large, common, overlap area-most notably St. Matthew and St. Paul-which is appropriate for writers who wish to proclaim the message of salvation to all sorts and conditions of men. B . Semitic Characteristics As we noted at the beginning of this major section, the Greek of the New Testament, in addition to its Hellenic characteristics, possesses Semitic characteristics-almost inevitably, given the social and historical matrix of the early church. But what are these 90 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY characteristics? Again, as we have said, little agreement exists on these matters, but it is reasonable to assume Semitic interference in New Testament Koine in two substantial ways: (1.) lexically, both by the presence of foreign words and especially by the ascription of non-Greek meanings to Greek words and, (2.) syntactically, by constructions which are not congenial to basic forms of Greek. (1.) First, then, there is lexical interference. We find pascha, meaning "passover," in 1 Corinthians 5:7, and rabbi in John 1:38, which represent the irnpor- tation of foreign words directly into Greek. More importantly, doxa means "glory" in Romans 15:27, instead of "opinion," and eiddon means "idol" in 1 Corinthians 8:4, instead of "phantom" (the normal meaning in Koine), both of which represent the filling of Greek words with Hebrew-Aramaic meanings. (2.) Secondly, there is syntactical interference. Luke 20: 11 contains the words prosetheto heteron pemp- sai doulon, meaning, "and again he sent another slave," which corresponds to the Hebrew construc- tion using bs@h. Mark 8: 12 contains the words ei doth2setai t2 genea taut2 semeion, meaning "surely a sign will not be given to this generation," which corresponds to the Hebrew construction using 'im. John 16:17 contains the words, ek t5n rnathZt8n autou, meaning "some of His disciples," which corresponds to a Hebrew usage of min. All of these constructions are more Semitic than they are true Greek. It is important to note, however, that the problem is much more subtle than is generally supposed--especially with regard to syntacti- cal matters. For it is necessary to distinguish between what James Hope Moulton called "primary Semitisms," on the one hand, and "secondary Semitisms," on the other.34 A primary Semitism is a construction which is unnatural Greek, something a native Greek speaker would never say. It is what we have described so far. A secondary Semitism is a construction which is not bad Greek per se, The Linguistic Milieu 9 1 but which corresponds to a construction in Hebrew or Aramaic and, therefore, makes one suspect that Semitic influence is at work. Here frequency is key. A frequent usage of such a construction is often uncommon with native speakers of Greek but common with those working with a Semitic tongue. Examples would be the following: The use of en t6 with the infinitive in a temporal sense corresponds to the Hebrew beth, as in Luke 5: 1, egeneto de in td ton ochlon epikeisthai autd. The order of attributive adjectives and nouns some- times corresponds to the normal Hebrew pattern, namely, article, noun, article, adjective, as in Mat- thew 6:11, ton arton hh6n ton epiousion dos hhin sEmeron. Adjectival genitives correspond to the Hebrew and Aramaic tendency to use a noun in the genitive in place of an adjective to modify another noun, as in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, ho anthrdpos tEs anomias, ho uios tEs apdeias. The instrumental use of en corresponds to the Hebrew bEth, as in Revelation 2:16, polemesd met' autan en tE romphaia tou stomatos mou. In each of these cases, Greek examples may be found, but not in anything like the frequency which the New Testament enjoys. How extensive, then, is Semitic interference in New Testament Greek? The answer is not at all apparent. The issue, it should be quite clear, revolves around the matter of secondary Semitisms-which constructions may be so classified-and this is really an argument regarding frequency. How frequent is frequent for the sake of linguistic comparison? The evidence changes day by day. Stanley Watson, in a recent publication, has argued quite convincingly that several constructions thought to be rare in Greek and frequent in Hebrew and Aramaic-and, therefore, by virtue of frequent usage secondary Semitisms (e.g., the use of the future indicative in place of a tense of the subjunctive after hina [Luke 20:10] and the imperatival participle [I Peter 1 :1 8])35--are, in fact, frequent in the Koine Greek of Hellenistic times and, therefore, cannot be classified as Semitisms in any real sense at all.36 92 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Finally, it is right to ask what the cause of the Semitisms which do exist is, for it is a question which has importance for our understanding of the life of the early church. Again, there is little consensus on this matter, but the following may be noted. Some Semitisms seem to be directly attributable to external factors, to factors outside the mental world of the individual author himself. Aside from the obvious, a transliteration-taking over directly what a principal speaks in Hebrew or Aramaic (e.g., &li, dli, lema sabach- thani, in Matthew 27:46)--some Semitic interference may represent translations from other texts. On the one hand, we may think of written texts. Quotations from the Septuagint are obvious examples of such Semitic interference, for the Septuagint itself is a translation of a Hebrew text. But this point does raise the question of written Semitic texts, Vorlagen (whether in the form of logia collections or some other format),37 for certain portions of New Testament texts, such as sayings of our Lord, which contain Semitisms at every turn. On the other hand, unwritten texts may be translational sources for the same portions of the New Testament text-Semitic oral traditions which have now been rendered into Greek, such as those hypothe- sized for almost eighty years by form-critical studies. Other Semitisms are attributable to internal factors, to factors within the mental world of the individual author himself. And here two items may be noted. The first is the Old Testament translated into Greek in the Septuagint-meaning not quotations of the Septuagint (which were mentioned above) but, rather, the linguistic influence of the Septuagint on early Christian speech. The Septua- gint was surely widely known--quotations from New Testament authors of every type and stripe are proof of that-which means that the words and the structures of this work-itself heavily Semitic as translational Greek-impressed themselves upon the thought of early Christian writers, in the same way in which the King James Version has affected the speech of English-speaking Christians throughout the entire Indeed, Septuagintisms, both real (e.g., en t0 with the infinitive [Luke 5:1]) and imitational (e.g., anatok ex hupsous, "dayspring from on high" [Luke 1:78]), have been detected by Max ~ilcox~~ and several other^.^ It is difficult to overestimate the influence of the Septuagint on the New Testament writers as a whole. The Linguistic Milieu 93 The second internal source of interference is Semitic linguistic competence on the part of those whose native language was the Hebrew or Aramaic tongue. A man grows up speaking and thinking Hebrew or Aramaic. Later, he also acquires Greek. But his Semitic patterns of expression never leave him altogether, although he becomes fluent in his second tongue--even as those born in Germany or France never speak English totally as a native, with total idiomatic command, exhibiting especially native language interference of the "secondary" kind. Such interference need not be harsh or frequent, but it is present nonetheless, being more or less in evidence in each individual case. In this observer's opinion, however, there is no clear and strong evidence for a special "Jewish- Greek" dialect spoken by Semitic people, a Jewish-Greek patois (which type of special dialect has been conjectured by many since Edwin ~atch?' most strongly by Nigel ~urner~' and most recently by Steven Thompson in his new study on the Book of Re~elation)."~ Indeed, sociolinguistic study itself would suggest that such would not be the case, for Greek was the "prestige" language of the Mediterranean world; and, in such a multilingual setting, linguistic transfer normally occurs in the direction from, not toward, the dominant language of the time.44 C. The Relationship between Hellenic and Semitic Features What is the relationship between the two sets of characteristics of New Testament Greek as we have noted them, the Hellenic and the Semitic? Each student must decide for himself on this matter but, as this observer reads the evidence, the Hellenic factors are dominant in the end. Yes, Semitic constructions do appear. Yes, Semitic vocabulary does abound. But the Greek of the New Testament is still Greek-true Hellenistic Greek-not basically Hebrew disguised as Greek nor Aramaic in Greek dress. It is truly Greek, Koine Greek with a Semitic tinge, a tinge which may be traced in large measure to the Septuagint, as has been said. And this phenomenon should not surprise us in the least. For our God is a God who works with tools, tools He has at hand, but tools appropriate to the task. And the language of the New Testament as we have it in our books is appropriate to this task. For it is truly Greek-the linguafranca of its time-able to reach many peoples and nations throughout the 94 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY ancient world, with no language barrier at all. Yet salvation is "of the Jews." The Old Testament is still me. And the incarnational rootsthe heritage from the Semitic past-are still present, not only in the thought, the doctrine, and the truths, but also in something of the very form by which that truth is told. Endnotes Moses Hadas, Hellenistic Culture: Fusion and Diffusion (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959; reprint, 1972), pp. 21- 42. Procope S. Costas, An Outline of the History of the Greek Language with Particular Emphasis on the Koine and the Subsequent Periods (Chicago: Ares Publishers, 1936; reprint, 1979), p. 42. Hadas, Hellenistic Culture, p. 34. Saul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish Palestine in the II-IV C.E. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942), and Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E.-IV Century C.E. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962). Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "The Languages of Palestine in the First Century A.D.," Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 32 (1970), pp. 507- 518. Pinchas Lapide, "Insights from Qumran into the Language of Jesus," Revue de Qumran, 8 (1972-75), pp. 498-501. Robert Gundry, "The Language Milieu of First Century Palestine: Its Bearing on the Authenticity of the Gospel Tradition," Journal of Biblical Literature, 83 (1964), pp. 404-408. Jan N. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First Jewish Christians Have Known? (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968). The Linguistic Milieu 95 C. F. D. Mode, "Once More, Who Were the Hellenists?" Expository Times, 70 (1959), pp. 100-102. Julius Wellhausen, Einleitung in die Drei Ersten Evangelien (Berlin: Reimer Verlag, 1905), p. 14 (cf. also p. 34). Harris Birkeland, The Language of Jesus (Oslo, 1954). Jehoshua M. Grintz, "Hebrew as the Spoken and Written Language in the Last Days of the Second Temple," Journal of Biblical Literature, 79 (1960), pp. 3247. Moses H. Segal, Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927). Lapide, "Insights from Qumran into the Language of Jesus," pp. 483-501. Fitzmyer, "The Languages of Palestine in the First Century A.D.," pp. 528-531. Joszef T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judea, trans. J. Strugnell (Napemille, Illinois: A. R. Allenson, 1959). J. A. Emerton, "The Problem of Vernacular Hebrew in the Fit Century A.D. and the Language of Jesus," Journal of Theological Studies, n.s., 24 (1973), pp. 1-23. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judea, pp. 130-131. Lapide, "Insights from Qumran into the Language of Jesus," pp. 485-50 1. Cf. James W. Voelz, "The Language of the New Testament," in Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt, 25:2, ed. Wolfgang Haase (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1984), 894-930. See especially Matthias Flacius, CIavis Scripturae S. seu de Sermone Sacrarum Literarum, 1 (Basel: P. Quecum, 1567). Early church fathers, such as Isidor of Pelusium (4, Epistle 67, in Migne, Patrologia Graece, 78, 1124-1 125), felt constrained to defend the ingenuous nature of New Testament Greek. A new study of no small significance has just been published: Stanley E. Porter, "The Language of the Apocalypse in Recent 96 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Discussion," New Testament Studies, 35 (1989), pp. 582-603. Porter also treats the historical and social milieu of New Testament Greek. See especially G. Adolf Deissmann, Biblical Studies: Contribu- tions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity, trans. A. Grieve (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1909), The Philology of the Greek Bible: Its Present and Future, trans. L. R. M. Strachan (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1908), and Licht vom Osten: Das Neue Testament and die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-rZimischen Welt, fourth ed. (Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1923). Cf. Voelz, "The Language of the New Testament," 932-933, note 232. Cf. Voelz, "The Language of the New Testament," 933, note 233. Cf. Voelz, "The Language of the New Testament," 934, note 240. Cf. Voelz, "The Language of the New Testament," 933. The latest treatment is contained in Porter, "The Language of the Apocalypse," p. 590. Costas, Greek Language Outline, p. 47. Albert Thumb, Die Griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus: Beitrage zur Geschichte und Beurteilung der Koine (Strassburg: K. J. Triibner, 1901; photocopy ed., Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1974), p. 8. Costas, Greek Language Outline, p. 47. William L. Wonderly, "Some Principles of 'Common Language' Translation," Bible Translator, 21 (1970), p. 127. James H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 2: Accidence and Word-Formation, ed. W. F. Howard (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1929), pp. 15-16. Porter, "The Language of the Apocalypse," pp. 590-592. The Linguistic Milieu 97 There is, further, the question of the Greek evidence per se. Has it-the secular Greek which is used as a standard for comparison in matters of Semitic influence in texts-been infected, so to speak, by Semitic influence itself? Evidence has been presented which would answer "yes" to such a question, especially for documents from the Egyptian desert, but again all the evidence is not in. See Voelz, "The Language of the New Testament," 919-920, note 157. Compare the comments of Papias regarding Matthew writing ta logia in hebraiiti dialekt6 (Eusebius, Historiae Ecclesiasticae, III, 39, 16). This idea has been growing in popularity. See Bruce M. Metzger, "The Language of the New Testament," in The Inter- preter's Bible, 7 (New York: Abingdon Press), p. 46, and J. C. Doudna, "The Greek of the Gospel of Mark," Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, 12 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961), p. 136, who speaks of Mark's mind being "stored with the expressions of the Septuagint," a description which surely describes St. Luke. Deissmann, the great pioneer of linguistic investigation of the New Testament, propounded a similar position in Biblical Studies, p. 76. Max Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965), p. 57. Cf. Voelz, "The Language of the New Testament," 927, note 200. Edwin Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford: Oxford IJniversity Press, 1889). James H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 4: Style, by Nigel Turner (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1976). pp. 4-8, and Nigel Turner, "Second Thoughts VII: Papyrus Finds," Expository Times, 76 (1964), p. 45: ". . . the language of the Old Testament translators and the New Testament writers was the same: a living dialect of Jewish Greek." Steven Thompson, The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax (Carn- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). Porter, "The Language of the Apocalypse," pp. 600-601.