^{page 582 note 1} See Vergote, J., ‘Grec Biblique’, DBSup 3 (ed. Pirot, L.; Paris: Librairie Letouzey et Ane, 1938) cols. 1321–44;Google ScholarMaloney, E. C., mitic Interference in Marcan Syntax (SBLDS 51; Chico: Scholars, 1981)Google Scholar; and Silva, M., ‘Bilingualism and the Character of Palestinian Greek’, Bib 61 (1980) 199, whose article is one of the most perceptive on this topic, although Thompsondoes not use it.Google Scholar

^{page 582 note 2} Swete, H. B., The Apocalypse of St John (London: Macmillan, 1906) cxviii–cxx, cxxcxxiGoogle Scholar; Moulton, J. H., Prolegomena, vol. 1 of A Grammar of NT Greek, by Moulton, J. H. (3rd ed.; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark [1908]) 8–9Google Scholar; idem, ‘NT Greek’, Essays on Some Biblical Questions of the Day (ed. Swete, H. B.; London: Macmillan, 1909) 488–91.Google Scholar

^{page 583 note 1} Torrey, C. C., The Apocalypse of John (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1958) 13–48Google Scholar. On the Gospels and Acts see e.g. his The Four Gospels: A New Translation (London: Hodder and Stoughton, n.d.);Google ScholarThe Composition and Date of Acts (HTS 1; Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1916).Google Scholar

^{page 583 note 2} See e.g. Gehman, H. S., ‘The Hebraic Character of Septuagint Greek’, VT 1 (1951) 81–90Google Scholar; ‘Hebraisms of the Old Greek Version of Genesis’, VT 3 (1953) 141–8Google Scholar; and ‘Αγιος in the Septuagint, and its Relation to the Hebrew Original’, VT 4 (1954) 337–48Google Scholar. Turner, N., ‘The Unique Character of Biblical Greek’, VT 5 (1955) 208–13Google Scholar; Syntax, vol. 3 of A Grammar of NT Greek, by Moulton, J. H. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1963) 1–9Google Scholar; Style, vol. 4 of A Grammar of NT Greek, by Moulton, J. H. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1976) 1–10Google Scholar; Grammatical Insights into the NT (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1965) 174–88Google Scholar; The Language of the NT, Peake's Commentary on the Bible (ed. Black, M. and Rowley, H. H.; London: Nelson, 1962) 659–62Google Scholar; ‘Second Thoughts — VII. Papyrus Finds’, Exp Tim 76 (1964–1965) 44–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Biblical Greek — the Peculiar Language of a Peculiar People’, Studia Evangelica (vol. 7; ed. Livingstone, E. A.; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1982) 505–12Google Scholar; cf. ‘Were the Gospels Written in Greek or Aramaic?’ EvQ 21 (1949) 42–8Google Scholar, where his ideas are forming.

^{page 583 note 3} See Vergote, ‘Grec;’, cols. 1326–7. Cf. Turner, Syntax, 9; idem, ‘Biblical Greek’, 505–12, however, regarding the question of a ‘Holy Ghost language;’,Google Scholar

^{page 583 note 4} Turner, , Syntax, 2.Google Scholar

^{page 583 note 5} Turner, , Grammatical Insights, 183.Google Scholar

^{page 583 note 6} Turner, , Grammatical Insights, 183.Google Scholar

^{page 584 note 1} Black, M., ‘The Biblical Languages’ The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1: from the Beginnings to Jerome (ed. Ackroyd, P. R. and Evans, C. F.; Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1970)11.Google Scholar

^{page 584 note 2} Charles, R. H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1920) cxliii.Google Scholar

^{page 584 note 3} Thompson, S., The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax (SNTSMS 52; Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1986) 108. Cf.Google Scholar however, p. 47, where he states: ‘We are led to the conclusion that here we are dealing with translation Greek…’ (References to this work are cited in the body of the text.) Several reviews of Thompson's work have appeared. See esp. Lindars, B., JSS 30(1985) 289–91Google Scholar; Porter, S. E., JSNT 29 (1987) 122–4Google Scholar; Wilcox, M., JTS 38 (1987) 510–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 584 note 4} See e.g. Burres, K. L., Structural Semantics in the Study of the Pauline Understanding of Revelation (Ph.D. thesis, Northwestern Univ., 1970)Google Scholar; Silva, M., Biblical Words and their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983)Google Scholar; idem, ‘The Pauline Style as Lexical Choice: ΓΙΝΩΣΚΕΙΝ and Related Verbs’, Pauline Studies (ed. Hagner, D. A. and Harris, M. J.; Exeter: Paternoster, 1980) 184–207Google Scholar; idem ‘Semantic Borrowing in the NT’ NTS 22 (1976) 104–10Google Scholar; idem, ‘New Lexical Semitisms’, ZNW 69 (1978) 253–7Google Scholar; and Erickson, R. J., Biblical Semantics Semantic Structure, and Biblical Lexicology: A Study of Methods, with Special Reference to the Pauline Lexical Field of ‘Cognition’ (Ph.D. thesis, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1980).Google ScholarCf. Thiselton, A. C., ‘Semantics and NT Interpretation’, NT Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods (2nd ed.; ed. Marshall, I. H.; Exeter: Paternoster, 1979) 75–104.Google Scholar

^{page 585 note 1} An excellent reassessment of attempts to find the underlying Aramaic structure in Jesus– words is found in Hurst, L. D., ‘The Neglected Role of Semantics in the Search for the Aramaic Words of Jesus’, JSNT 28 (1986) 63–80Google Scholar. He makes three trenchant criticisms: (1) scholars who make such attempts fail as linguists to appreciate the problems of polysemy in vocabulary; (2) many biblical scholars have a naive view of translation theory, failingto realize that ‘since words are polysemic the word which [a translator] chooses will represent only one meaning of the original word by only one of its own meanings’ (64); (3) these same scholars have a naive view of language, until very recently misconstruing Aramaic as essentially static overfour or five centuries.

^{page 585 note 2} Implausible reconstructions such as the rendering in Rev 13. 3 are not discussed here.Google Scholar

^{page 586 note 1} Lindars, , JSS 30 (1985) 289.Google Scholar

^{page 586 note 2} Payne, D. F., ‘Semiticisms in the Book of Acts’, Apostolic History and the Gospel (ed. Gasque, W.W. and Martin, R. P.; Exeter: Paternoster, 1970) 136.Google Scholar

^{page 587 note 1} Munck, J., ‘Deux notes sur la langue du NT’, Classica et mediaevalia 5 (1942) 127Google Scholar ff. passim; Payne, ‘Semiticisms’, 136 (‘It requires a reasonable quantity of Semiticisms before deciding that a particular passage was clearly influenced by a Semitic language’); and Reiser, M., Syntax und Stil des Markusevangeliums im Licht der hellenistischen Volksliteratur (WUNT 2.11; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1984) 13 (‘Eine sprachliche Erscheinung im Neuen Testament, sei sie lexikalischer, phraseologischer, syntaktischer oder stilistischer Natur, sollte mit Hilfe des Semitischen erst dann erklart werden, wenn sie aus dem Griechischen nicht hinreichend erklärbar ist’)Google Scholar

^{page 587 note 2} This differs for treatment of the LXX, since the LXX is a translated document, and discussion of Semitic influence may begin from this assumption and means of comparison. This is a distinction which Thompson fails to make.Google Scholar

^{page 587 note 3} Cf. Hdt. 4.136: αι…ήμέραι ύμîν το άριθμο (your numbered days)Google Scholar. See Moulton, J. H. and Howard, W. F., Accidence and Word-Formation, vol. 2 of A Grammar of NT Greek, by Moulton, J. H. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1929) 440Google Scholar; cf. Porter, S. E., ‘The Adjectival Attributive Genitive in the NT: A Grammatical Study’, Trinity Journal NS 4 (1983) 3–17.Google Scholar

^{page 587 note 4} This is similar to Moulton's distinction of primary (b) and secondary (c) Semitisms (Moulton/Howard, Accidence, 16)Google Scholar. Cf. de Zwaan, J., ‘The Use of the Greek Language in Acts’, The Beginnings of Christianity, Part 1: The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 2: Prolegomena II, Criticism (ed. Jackson, F. J. Foakes and Lake, K.; London: Macmillan, 1922) 54Google Scholar. Munck, ‘Deux notes’, 149, suggests a category of ‘good Greek’ even for language used by those whose mother tongue is Semitic. This emphasizes that Semitic interference in Greekis not merely a matter of circumstances but of measurable alteration.

^{page 588 note 1} See Ericksson, K., Das Präsens Historicum in der nachklassischen griechischen Historiographie (Lund: Hakan Ohlsson, 1943) for discussion of the historic present during the hellenistic period. It is noteworthy that usage in the LXX is relatively lowGoogle Scholar. See Hawkins, J. C., Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem (2nd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon [1909], 1968) 213, contra Turner, Style, 20.Google Scholar

^{page 588 note 2} See esp. Porter, S. E., Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the NT, with Reference to Tense and Mood (Studies in Biblical Greek 1; Bern: Peter Lang, 1989).Google Scholar

^{page 588 note 3} ‘The Abused Aorist’, JBL 91 (1972)‘222–31Google Scholar. See also Smith, C. R., ‘Errant Aorist Interpreters’, Grace Theological Journal 2 (1981) 205–26Google Scholar; McKay, K. L., Greek Grammar for Students: A Concise Grammar of Classical Attic with Special Reference to Aspect in the Verb (Canberra: Australian National University, 1974); and Porter, Verbal Aspect, chapt.Google Scholar

^{page 588 note 4} for the most important recent statements.Google Scholar

^{page 589 note 1} Recent discussion has reevaluated the definition of the perfect, with several grammarians makingan important distinction between the stative aspect, which may or may not refer to some antecedentevent, and temporal reference. Thus the perfect may be used to refer temporally to the same time-frame as an aorist or a present, but just because it shares this temporal reference does not mean that its aspect is negatedGoogle Scholar. See esp. Louw, J. P., ’Die Semantiese Waarde von die Perfektum in Hellenistiese Grieks’, Acta Classica 10 (1967) 23–32Google Scholar; McKay, K. L., ‘On the Perfect and Other Aspects in NT Greek’, NovT 23 (1981) 289–329Google Scholar; idem, ‘The Use of theAncient Greek Perfect down to the End of the Second Century A.D.’, Bulletin of the Instituteof Classical Studies 12 (1965) 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘On the Perfect and Other Aspects in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri’, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 27 (1980) 23–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Porter, Verbal Aspect, esp. chapt. 5.

^{page 589 note 2} So even Hettrich, H., Kontext und Aspekt in der altgriechischen Prosa Herodots (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1976) 77–83, who attempts to impose a temporal schemeGoogle Scholar. See also Oguse, A., Recherches sur le participe circonstanciel en grec ancien (Wetteren, Belgium: Cultura, 1962) esp. 26Google Scholar; Rose, J. L., The Durative and Aoristic Tenses in Thucydides (Language Dissertations 35, Supplement to Language; Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America, 1947) 34–35Google Scholar; Burton, E. D. W., Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in NT Greek (3rd ed.; Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press; rpt. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1976) 54 and ff.;Google ScholarMcKay, Grammar, esp. 219–20Google Scholar; Robertson, A. T., A Grammarof the Greek NT in the Light of Historical Research (4th ed.; Nashville: Boardman, 1934) 1111: ‘It may be said at once that the participle has tense in the same sense that the subjunctive, optative and imperative have, giving the state of the action as punctiliar, linear, completed. In the beginning this was all that tense meant in the participle. The participle was timeless. Indeed the participle in itself continued timeless, as is well shown by the articular participle.’Google Scholar

^{page 590 note 1} See Tate, J., Grammarian's Progress (Inaugural Lecture, Univ. of Sheffield, 1946) 1–4.Google Scholar

^{page 591 note 1} See esp. Magnien, V., Le futur grec, vol. 2: Emplois et origines (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1912) v–viiGoogle Scholar; Schwyzer, E., Griechische Grammatik auf der Grundlage von K. Brugmanns Griechische Grammatik, vol. 2: Syntax und Syntaktischer Stilistik (ed. Debrunner, A.; Munich: Beck, 1950) 290–4Google Scholar; Humbert, J., Syntaxe grecque (Collection de philologie classique 2; 3rd ed.; Paris: Klincksieck,1960) 151–3Google Scholar; Palmer, L. R., ‘The Language of Homer’, A Companion to Homer (ed. Wace, A.J. B. and Stubbings, F. H.; Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1962) 153Google Scholar; Rijksbaron, A., The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction (Amsterdam: Gieben, 1984) 33.Google Scholar

^{page 591 note 2} See esp. Kühner, R. and Gerth, B., Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache: Satzlehre (2 vols.; 4th ed.; Leverkusen: Gottschalksche, 1955) 2. 105–7Google Scholar; Schwyzer, Grammatik, 403–14. See e.g. Hdt. 4.185.2; Thuc. 1.25.4; Plato Laws 686D; App. Civ. Wars 1.29; Plu. Marc. Cato 4.4.; P.Teb. 14.12–14; 42.5–6 (114 B.C.), etc.

^{page 591 note 3} See e.g. Moulton, , Prolegomena, 180–3, 223–5Google Scholar; Meecham, H. G., ‘The Use of the Participle for the Imperative in the NT’, ExpTim 58 (1946–1947) 207–8Google Scholar; Salom, A. P., ‘The Imperatival Use of the Participle in the NT’, AusBR 11 (1963) 41–9Google Scholar. Their results are endorsed by e.g. Robertson, Turner, Zerwick, Blass/Debrunner. Mayser, E., Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit (2 vols.; 2nd ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1906–1938) 2, 1.196–7.Google Scholar

^{page 592 note 1} Discussion of NT Greek is often conducted in the same terms as discussion of some modern languages. As Milroy, J. (‘Linguistic Equality and Speakers’, Sheffield Working Papers in Language and Linguistics 2 [1985] 66)Google Scholar says: ‘It is usual for linguistic scholars to adhere to some variant of the doctrine of linguistic equality, i.e. to claim that different languages, or different dialects of a language, cannot be shown to be “better” or “worse” than (or “superior” or “inferior” to) one another… Despite this, non-linguists have always believed that some languages, or dialects, are “superior” to others, and they have often been prepared to express their views very strongly indeed. Commonly, minor deviations from Standard English (for example) are branded as “barbarisms”, “illiteracies”, etc., and it is clear that most people regard some regional varieties of a language as inferior to the “standard”; views are also expressed on the superiority of one language to another, and these go back some centuries…’

^{page 593 note 1} Thumb, A., ‘On the Value of Modern Greek for the Study of Ancient Greek’, Classical Quarterly 8 (1914) 182CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Beu.rteilu.ng der KOINH (Strassburg: Trübner, 1901) 181.Google Scholar

^{page 593 note 2} Deissmann, A., The Philology of the Greek Bible: Its Present and Future (trans. Strachen, L. R. M.; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1908) 61Google Scholar. Moulton, J. H., An Introduction to the Study of NT Greek (Books for Bible Students; 2nd ed.; London: Charles H. Kelly, 1903) 9, calls people who make such statements ‘pedants of classical learning’.Google Scholar

^{page 593 note 3} Blass, F., Grammar of NT Greek (2nd ed.; trans. Thackeray, H. St. J.; London: Macmillan, 1911) 3.Google Scholar

^{page 593 note 4} As Silva (‘Bilingualism’, 199) states, ‘The views of Adolf Deissmann and others have received less than fair press…for example, the standard (and almost wearisome) characterization nowadays is that Deissmann made a major contribution to the field but that he took his views to an extreme and so they need considerable modification; yet when concrete instances of modifications are given, they often turn out to be items that had been readily admitted by Deissmann himself.’Google Scholar

^{page 594 note 1} Deissmann, A., Bible Studies (2nd ed.; trans. Grieve, A.; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1903) 67, 69–70. He contends further, ‘no one ever spoke, far less used for literary purposes’, the language of the LXX.Google Scholar

^{page 594 note 2} Deissmann, Philology, 49.Google Scholar

^{page 594 note 3} Moulton, Prolegomena, 25, 249.Google Scholar

^{page 594 note 4} Moulton, Prolegomena, 25, 249.Google Scholar

^{page 594 note 5} Moulton, Prolegomena, 80, 245–6.Google Scholar

^{page 594 note 6} Moulton, J. H./Howard, W. F., Accidence and Word-Formation, vol. 2 of A Grammar of NT Greek, by Moulton, J. H. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1929) 14.Google Scholar

^{page 594 note 7} Moulton/Howard, Accidence, 15.Google Scholar

^{page 594 note 8} See Moulton, J. H., ‘Characteristics of NT Greek’, The Expositor Sixth series 9 (1904) 67, who notes that his beginner's Greek grammar, published in 1895, included a definition of hellenistic Greek as ‘Hebraic Greek, colloquial Greek, and late Greek’, changed to ‘Common Greek’ in subsequent editions. Moulton himself proposed the appendix on Semitisms for vol. 2, Accidence, though because of his untimely death he was unable to write it.Google Scholar

^{page 594 note 9} E.g. a recent linguistics textbook remarks, ‘Linguistically, the world is a true mosaic…. and any attempt to draw boundaries beyond the individual forces ultimately arbitrary decisions…. It is difficult to specify criteria for distinguishing between a dialect and a language. Probably the two most commonly cited (though misguided) criteria are mutual intelligibility and possession of literature…’Google Scholar See Atkinson, M., Kilby, D., and Roca, I., Foundations of General Linguistics (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1982) 346–8Google Scholar. Cf. also Haugen, E., ’Dialect, Language, Nation’, Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings (ed. Pride, J. B. and Holmes, J.; Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971) 98–9, who traces the problematic nature of the distinction between language and dialect back to the Greeks.Google Scholar

^{page 595 note 1} Turner, , Syntax, 2, 3, 4, respectively. As McKnight understates, ‘It seems fair to say thatDr. Turner sees Biblical Greek as a unique language comparatively unrelated to the previous development of Greek and possibly influencing its later development’Google Scholar (McKnight, E. V., ‘Is the NT Written in “Holy Ghost” Greek?’ BT 16 [1965] 91).Google Scholar In fact, Turner does argue that Jewish Greek continued to be used, witness the 3rd century A.D. ‘Testament of Abraham’ (‘The “Testament of Abraham”: Problems in Biblical Greek’, NTS 1 [1954–1955] 219–24),Google Scholar though he claims here that ‘in numerous cases an Hebraic idiom has popularized and extended one which was already fairly familiar in Greek’. Examples of enhancement do not justify calling the Greek ‘unique’.

^{page 595 note 2} Pronunciation probably varied according to region. Though difficult to determine, this alone cannot be what Turner means.Google Scholar

^{page 595 note 3} This is a difference of degree and not of kind, since Turner cites hellenistic and earlier Greek parallels (though with differing ratios of usage) in his largest grammatical study, containing treatments of έκενος, ἓνεκα and πᾱς (Turner, ‘Unique Character’, 203–18;Google Scholaridem, Syntax, passim). But in atest of repetition of prepositions he shows that the NT books have approximately the same ratio as Thucydides 1, contra LXX Ezekiel (B text) (idem, Syntax, 275). What does this mean?

^{page 596 note 1} See Haugen, , ‘Dialect’, 99, who states that ‘“language” [is] always the superordinate and “dialect” the subordinate term’.Google Scholar

^{page 596 note 2} Lyons, J., Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics (Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1968) 33–6. Cf. Thumb, Sprache, 162–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 596 note 3} See Buck, C. D., The Greek Dialects: Grammar, Selected Inscriptions, Glossary (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1955) 141–72;Google Scholar and Costas, P. W., An Outline of the History of the Greek Language, with Particular Emphasis on the Koine and the Subsequent Periods (Chicago, 1936; rpt. Chicago: Ares, 1979) 32–40,Google Scholar on their changing fortunes. Buck (136) states: ‘syntactical differences between the dialects are much less striking than those of phonology and inflection. To a considerable extent they consist merely in the conservation in some dialects of early forms of expression which have become rare or obsolete in literary Greek, and in a less strict formalization of usage’; and Hainsworth, J. B., ‘The Greek Language and the Historical Dialects’, The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 3 part 1 (ed. Boardman, J. et al. ; 2nd ed.; Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1982) 865:Google Scholar ‘The idea of dialectal difference could not have failed to be universally familiar…. At the deeper level of syntax, and even in lexicon, the Greek dialects remained very similar. There is almost no evidence that local dialect ever formed a barrier to communication.’ As Herodotus says (8.144.2): τ⋯ ‘Ελληνικ⋯ν ⋯⋯ν ὃμαιμόν τε κα⋯ ⋯μόγλωσσον (the Greeks being of one blood and of one tongue); cf. Thuc. 3.94.

^{page 596 note 4} Palmer, L. R., The Greek Language (The Great Languages; London: Faber and Faber, 1980) 175;Google Scholar cf. Costas, Outline, 43, 49–50; Browning, R., Medieval and Modern Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1983) 23, who cites Strabo (8.1.2) on the loss of distinct varieties in Italy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 597 note 1} Palmer, , Language, 194.Google Scholar

^{page 597 note 2} See Gregory, M.Carroll, S., Language and Situation: Language Varieties and their Social Contexts (Language and Society; London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978) 75–85;Google ScholarFawcett, R. P., Cognitive Linguistics and Social Interaction: Towards an Integrated Model of a Systemic Functional Grammar and the Other Components of a Communicating Mind (Heidelberg: Julius Groos and Exeter Univ.,1980) esp. 245Google Scholar; M. Halliday, ‘Register variation’, 60–75, in Halliday, M. and Hasan, R., ‘Text and Context: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective’, Sophia Linguistica 6 (1980)Google Scholar; and Milroy, ‘Equality’, esp. 66, 69–70, who makes a useful distinction between the speaker and the linguistic system to which he has access. Silva, ‘Bilingualism’, 216–18, invokes de Saussure's problematic distinction between langue and parole.

^{page 597 note 3} Lyons, Introduction, 52.Google Scholar

^{page 597 note 4} Gregory/Carroll, Language, 75.Google Scholar

^{page 597 note 5} Gregory/Carroll, Language, 84; cf. 64–74 on register. Cf.Google ScholarHudson, R., Sociolinguistics (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1980) 48–53, who distinguishes register from dialect, although he is sceptical about the status of both; and Halliday, ‘Register variation’, 66–7, 74, in Halliday/Hasan, ‘Text’, who sees register as focusing on semantics, and dialect upon phonology, vocabulary, grammar, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 598 note 1} Dover, K. J., Greek Word Order (Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1960) 66.Google Scholar

^{page 598 note 2} E.g. Deissmann, Robertson, Moulton, Thumb, Torrey, Radermacher, Turner, Rydbeck, Rabin, Sawyer, J. A. F., among others.Google Scholar

^{page 598 note 3} Thomson, G., The Greek Language (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Heffer, 1972) 36.Google Scholar

^{page 598 note 4} Collinge, N. E., ‘Some Reflexions on Comparative Historical Syntax’, Archivum Linguisticum 12 (1960) 82. See also Halliday, ‘Register variation’, 62–3, in Halliday/Hasan, ‘Text’.Google Scholar

^{page 598 note 5} Hudson, Sociolinguistics, 51.Google Scholar

^{page 598 note 6} See Perry, B. E., The Ancient Romances: A Literary-Historical Account of their Origins (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1967) 3–43, esp. 33, where he calls the romance of ‘humble and demotic character’ (Chariton may be an exception).Google Scholar

^{page 598 note 7} See Reiser, Syntax, 31–5.Google ScholarCf. Frösén, J., Prolegomena to a Study of the Greek Language in the First Centuries A.D.: The Problem of Koini and Atticism (Helsinki: Univ. of Helsinki [diss.], 1974) 185, for a graphic representation of a similar scheme for spoken Greek. This scheme is not meant to be definitive, merely suggestive.Google Scholar

^{page 599 note 1} Wifstrand, A., ‘Stylistic Problems in the Epistles of James and Peter1, ST 1 (1947) 170–82.Google Scholar

^{page 599 note 2} Wifstrand asserts that the language of James and 1 Peter, since it was the language of ‘common ground’ and the language of the Greek synagogue and not a special dialect, was in phonology, accidence, syntax, word formation and vocabulary-ordering hellenistic Greek (even though they display Semitic elements) and ideally suited for later use by the Church Fathers. Cf. Turner, ‘Language’, 659, who admits a division along Wifstrand's lines can be made.Google Scholar

^{page 600 note 1} See Judge, E. A., ‘The Reaction Against Classical Education in the NT’, Evangelical Review of Theology 9 (1985) 167–8.Google Scholar

^{page 600 note 2} On the genre of the Apocalypse, see recently Aune, D. E., ‘The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of Genre’, Semeia 36 (1986) esp. 86–91.Google Scholar

^{page 600 note 3} See Silva, ‘Bilingualism’, 206–10, who compares modern multilingual situations. Moulton, Prolegomena, 6–8; Vergote, ‘Grec’, cols. 1360–7, esp. cols. 1366–7, recognize this issue as important.Google ScholarSee also Oksaar, E., ‘Bilingualism’, Current Trends in Linguistics 9 (1972) 476–511, esp. bibliography;Google Scholar and Beardsmore, H. Baetens, Bilingualism: Basic Principles (Clevedon, England: Tieto, 1982) 149–69, bibliography.Google ScholarCf. Mohrmann, C., ‘General Trends in the Study of NT Greek and of Early Christian Greek and Latin’, Classica et Iberica (ed. Braunan, P. T.; Worcester, Massachusetts: n.p., 1975) 95–105. There are many variables I cannot address directly, e.g. degree of language contact, development oflinguistic sense, age of language acquisition.Google Scholar

^{page 600 note 4} See Haugen, E., ‘Problems of Bilingualism’, Lingua 2 (1950) 278, on prestige language;Google ScholarToedorsson, S.-T., The Phonology of Ptolemaic Koine (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 36; Gothenburg: Acta Universitata Gothoburgensis, 1977) esp. 13–35Google Scholar; and Kapsomenos, S. G., ‘Das Griechische in Aegypten’, Museum Helveticum 10 (1953) 220 ff., on Greek in Egypt.Google Scholar

^{page 601 note 1} Brock, S. P., ‘The Phenomenon of the Septuagint’, The Witness of Tradition (ed. van der Woude, A. S.; OTS 17; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 34, does not give full credit to the likelihood of thenative language of the translators being Greek. The fact that a translation into Greek was necessary at all increases the likelihood immeasurably.Google ScholarHorsley, G. H. R., ‘Divergent Views on the Nature of the Greek of the Bible’, Bib 65 (1984) 400 n. 8, claims that the alternative to thetranslators of the LXX being a well-educated elite who knew koine Greek well is that they spoke a Semitized Greek indicative of a ‘ghetto mentality’, whose existence is highly unlikely.Google Scholar

^{page 601 note 2} Baetens Beardsmore, Bilingualism, 37.Google Scholar

^{page 601 note 3} Rabin, C., ‘Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century’, Compendia Rerum Judaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, section 1: The Jewish People in the First Century, vol. 2 (ed. Safrai, S. and Stern, M.; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976) 1024.Google Scholar

^{page 601 note 4} Baetens Beardsmore, Bilingualism, 47–8.Google Scholar

^{page 601 note 5} Baetens Beardsmore, Bilingualism, 49.Google Scholar

^{page 601 note 6} Brennan, P. W., The Structure of Koine Greek Narrative (Ph.D. thesis, The Hartford Seminary Foundation, 1968) 16.Google Scholar

^{page 601 note 7} Weinreich, U., Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems (Publications of the Linguistic Circleof New York 1; New York: n.p., 1953) 56. Cf. Hudson, Sociolinguistics, 46–7.Google Scholar

^{page 601 note 8} See e.g. Dalman, G., The Words of Jesus: Considered in the Light of Post-Biblical Jewish Writingsand the Aramaic Language (trans. Kay, D. M.; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1902) 41, who admits this regarding Luke.Google Scholar

^{page 602 note 1} See Weinreich, Languages, 29.Google Scholar

^{page 602 note 2} Gehman, ‘Character’, 90.Google Scholar

^{page 602 note 3} Haugen, ‘Problems’, 287–8.Google Scholar

^{page 602 note 4} Haugen, ‘Problems’, 280.Google Scholar

^{page 602 note 5} Munck, ‘Deux notes’, 139.Google Scholar

^{page 602 note 6} Oksaar, ‘Bilingualism’, 499.Google Scholar

^{page 603 note 1} Weinreich, Languages, 30, 42–3, 41.Google Scholar

^{page 603 note 2} Weinreich, Languages, 104–6.Google Scholar