BIBLICAL GREEK
Since the Renaissance, the difference between the Greek of classical, or Attic, literature and the Greek in which the NT had been written was pointed out. Erasmus, and other humanists, considered it an imperfect and deformed language.
On the other hand, others came to think that its peculiarities were due to the themes it dealt with in divine revelation. It was finally held that it was “a language of the Holy Spirit”, in which a large number of expressions and terms would have been coined especially for the role of transmitting the revelation of the New Testament. This position was held throughout the last century by various authorities, in view of the great divergence of the language of the NT from that of classical literature.
The discovery in 1896/97 of a large quantity of Greek papyri, in Oxyrhyncus, Egypt, provided a large amount of materials written in the vernacular Greek of the 1st century. A. Deissmann, who studied them deeply, discovered a close parallel between the language of these papyri and that of the NT.
Many of the terms known as “hapax legomena” (terms that appear only once in the NT) also appeared in these papyri, in commercial, domestic, etc. contexts. Thus, the language of the NT could be identified as the “koinë” (common) language of the Greco-Roman world.
The “koinë” was the language of relationship of the different peoples that bordered the Mediterranean. It was not, therefore, expressly coined for the purpose of expressing the revelation, but God used the terms and way of speaking of the people to give them his communication, using their daily and commonly known terms within the context of the revelation of spiritual and practical truths.
Thus, instead of erecting a linguistic barrier, God addressed the Greco-Roman world in a language that was perfectly understandable to them, a popular Greek, a perfect vehicle for a communication that would be quickly assimilated to them in terms of language.
In light of these discoveries, both A. Deissmann, J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, and many other authors, undertook comparative studies between the literary forms of the NT and the papyri.
However, Deissmann went to extremes in his denigrating stance of the quality of New Testament literature, admitting a literary elevation only in Hebrews. He goes so far as to say that Paul “wrote not epistles, but letters.” But before this gratuitous affirmation the Epistles to the Romans and the Ephesians arise.
Although it is true that Peter and John did not possess a literary culture (cf. Acts 4:13), the same cannot be said of Luke and Paul. They cannot be blamed for not using the Attic language. This was not necessarily superior.
In Paul’s eloquent passages there is a rhythm (cp. 1 Cor. 13, 15) born not of conformity to the rules of rhetoric, but of a soul that feels and lives deeply what it is expressing.
The literary quality of Luke and Paul cannot be denied without unduly narrowing the meaning of the term “literary.” Thus, we see in the NT God using different types of men, in his providence and foreknowledge, for different functions to be performed in different styles. Compared to Deissmann’s drastic assessments, Milligan’s assessment rises.
Deissmann, however, makes a positive contribution by identifying many of the “biblical” and “ecclesiastical” words as belonging to the common usage of the time (“Bible Studies” and other works). Examples of these terms that had been considered peculiar to the NT are: “apostols”, “baptismos”, “paroikos”, etc.
In the “koinë” the characteristic of NT Greek also appears to form compound words with one and two prefixed prepositions (e.g.: “antapokrinomai”, “sunantilambanomai”, etc.).
It is undeniable, however, a certain Semitic influence in some of the writings of the NT; The tendency to reject a characteristic as Semitic because it is found in the Egyptian papyri does not take into account the Jewish influence in the formation of the “koinë” language of Egypt, with an abundant Hellenized Jewish colony.
In a short article it is impossible to deal in a minimally adequate way with the entire topic of the literary characteristics of the writings of the NT. Suffice it to note that Hebrews is considered the most correct writing.
Luke and Paul see themselves as men of culture and ability, free of artificiality. In Pablo, you can guess the bilingual. Mateo uses language with correctness and dignity, although with a certain monotony.
In Marcos we see a narrator more concerned with giving expression and vividness to the story than with a constricted expression. The Gospel of John has an elevation and dignity without equal. Various explanations have been proposed to account for the difference in styles with Revelation and his letters.
Among them, that the Gospel could have been revised by the elders of Ephesus (cp. Jn. 21:24). The same goes for the differences between 1 and 2 Peter.
The latter has a style that evidences the Petrine style itself “without corrections”, while 1 Peter could have felt the effect of the hand of Silvanus (cp. 1 Pet. 5:12).
Similarly, the differences in style in Paul’s various writings can be attributed without a doubt to his own personal development throughout a life dedicated to preaching the cross of Christ, always facing new situations and new problems, demanding new emphases.
It must be taken into account that in the style of a writer, which is evidently peculiar to him, both the topic he deals with and the fact that the style evolves over time and the various influences to which it is subjected enter as modifying factors.
In the case of Paul, the possible interaction with his amanuenses must be taken into account. All of this does not diminish the action of the Holy Spirit in inspiration, but rather shows how He moves and acts using all circumstances to fulfill at all times his action in verbal revelation to men.
Recapitulating, studies have led to the conclusion that “biblical Greek” is none other, in essence, than the “koine Greek” that was used in common communication in the Greco-Roman world since 300 BC. until 300 AD
This shows how God prepares the dynamics of history to produce a linguistic vehicle admirably appropriate for his revelation, with all its conceptual content, which we find in the NT..