1
Silvia Luraghi and Eleonora Sausa - University of Pavia
NEW APPROACHES TO NEW TESTAMENT GREEK LINGUISTICS
ABSTRACT
In this paper we provide an overview of new approaches to New Testament Greek linguistics,
in light of recent linguistic trends. The New Testament may be of interest for linguists in
many respects: it can be studied from a sociolinguistic, synchronic, and diachronic point of
view, and it plays a relevant role also for developments in language contact research,
translation studies, corpus linguistics, and digital humanities. Here, we briefly discuss the
importance of New Testament Greek in a sociolinguistics perspective and within the history
of the Greek language. We also take into account some syntactic changes from Classical
Greek in a diachronic perspective, adopting insights from Construction Grammar. Within the
same perspective, we observe the issue of language contact through translation. Finally, we
show some digital resources for the study of New Testament Greek and its translations, such
as electronic corpora, parallel corpora, and Treebanks, together with an exemplification of
what kind of research can be carried out on such resources.
1. INTRODUCTION
New Testament Greek has been the subject of extensive linguistic research aimed to different
purposes. In the first place, it has raised the interest of sociolinguists, because it mostly
features a low register variety of Greek, and attests to language contact. In the second place,
together with the other Biblical texts, it is the first instance of translations that has had such a
large diffusion, and has triggered the development of various translation theories and of
translation studies (see for example Nida, Taber, 1982). Finally, the New Testament is an
interesting text in itself, and, in very much the same way as other texts, it can be studied (and
has been studied) under different theoretical perspectives. In this paper, we aim to give some
simple examples of what kind of research questions can be formulated and answered when the
New Testament is considered under different perspectives, in the light of the earliest linguistic
trends and approaches.
2
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we give a brief overview of some
sociolinguistic issues concerning New Testament Greek, limited to features relevant to the
discussion in the following sections. In section 3 we adopt a diachronic perspective, and
describe some differences between Classical Greek and the language of the New Testament
that have been variously interpreted in the literature. We show how such changes can be
described in terms of processes that involve whole constructions, rather than individual forms.
In section 4 we extend the approach outlined in section 3 to language contact through
translation, and show how constructions typical of New Testament Greek spread to several
languages of Europe after having been adopted in the Latin translation. In section 5 we
introduce some recently developed digital resources, and show how a quantitative analysis
can be carried out using the methods of corpus linguistics. Section 6 contains the conclusions.
2. NEW TESTAMENT GREEK
The New Testament is the most important and the richest document of non-literary Hellenistic
Greek, and gives us, more than other texts of the same period, a great amount of information
about the spoken koiné Greek of the daily life, providing an essential source for retracing the
history of the Greek language.
Although the Greek of the New Testament shows a number of peculiar features, from
a general perspective it reflects and is part of the Greek language of this period (presumably
1th-2
th century CE), that is, Hellenistic Greek or koiné.
New Testament bears witness to the language written by a variety of different Greek
speakers within the context of Greek koiné: some attempt at a more literary style (e.g.
Hebrews, Luke-Acts, parts of Paul), others write on a more vernacular level with many
Semitisms (e.g. Revelation, the Gospel of Mark); for some authors Greek was their native
tongue and they composed in it (e.g. Paul), while other documents suggest Greek was the
author‟s second language next to Aramaic (e.g. Revelation). Nevertheless, the writings of the
New Testament collectively betrays much of the contours and nuances of the koiné period,
bearing an important witness to the shades of the koiné as a whole. Thus, from a general
perspective, following Horrocks (1997: 92), we can consider New Testament Greek, in many
respects, as “a reasonably close reflection of a range of everyday Greek styles in the early
centuries AD”.
3
The New Testament was, at least partially, written in an area where Aramaic, a West-
Semitic language related to, but different in many respects from Biblical Hebrew, was the first
language of the majority of the population. The authors had a good knowledge of Greek as
second language and wrote in a variety close to the spoken Greek of the time. Nonetheless,
New Testament Greek is rich of Semitic influences at different levels (lexical and syntactic,
above all), which have been considered an evidence of the fact that at least some books are
the translations from Aramaic originals. For the authors involved, one must also assume a
good knowledge of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, which influenced
above all their religious vocabulary, and, as we will see in section 3, the choice of some non-
classical constructions. (cf. Blass, Debrunner, 1961: 3). In particular, among the synoptic
Gospels (Marc, Luke and Matthews), various Semitisms in the Gospel of Marc and Luke
show that the mother tongue of their authors was not Greek but Aramaic, but there is no clear
evidence of translation from an Aramaic original version (cf. Wikenhauser, 1966: 152).
Concerning Matthews‟s Gospel, according to an ancient tradition it was originally written in
Aramaic for the Hebrew people of Palestine and Syria and translated later, but today this
hypothesis has also been challenged1 (cf. Wikenhauser, 1966: 165, Köster 2000).
However, it is not easy to gauge to what extent Semitic knowledge influenced New
Testament diction and, consequently, to decide which peculiar features of New Testament
Greek are Semitisms2 and which are not. We can conclude, together with Moulton (1906: 4),
that New Testament Greek, in spite of Semitic influence, “was simply the vernacular of daily
life”. (Note that Semitic influence on the syntax of New Testament Greek is highly overstated
in the Syntax volume of Moulton‟s grammar, which was written by Turner 1963, as noted in
Horsley, 2014.) One of the features of New Testament Greek which is most often taken as a
Semitism, the usage of the preposition en to express instrument, will be discussed in section 3
(see also Regard, 1919: 328-329).
Several other constructions that are quite typical of the New Testament, such as the
preference for coordination over subordination and the reduction of case variation with
prepositions, are better regarded as features of the spoken koiné, rather than outcomes of
Semitic influence.
4
3. NEW CONSTRUCTIONS IN NEW TESTAMENT GREEK
In this section, we describe some constructions that are, to various extents, typical of New
Testament Greek. We concentrate on the usage of cases with prepositions, and show that the
language of the New Testament partly shares developments that are also attested in other non-
literary sources. In some cases, new constructions arise from the challenges of translation.
However, they do not always or only reflect foreign influence: rather, they must better be
regarded as extensions of constructions aimed at accommodating new meanings.
Changes in the usage of cases and of cases with prepositions are among the most
frequently described instances of innovation in New Testament Greek. Typically, they are
treated as concerning the meaning of isolated forms. In this section, we would like to propose
a different approach, by which we consider cases and prepositions as parts of wider
constructions, which constitute holistic units and bear a specific meaning. We aim to show
that individual changes are better explained when whole constructions are taken into account,
rather than single parts. In doing so, we follow general principles of Construction Grammar, a
family of theories that share the tenet of a lexicon-syntax continuum, by which constructions
must be regarded as conventionalized pairings of form and meaning, in much the same way as
lexemes (see Lakoff, 1987, Goldberg, 1995).
Both in the New Testament and in non-literary papyri, case variation with prepositions
is highly reduced with respect to Classical Greek. The counting in Regard (1919) and Luraghi
(1996: 66-69) show that government of the dative by hupó and perí, already infrequent in
Attic prose, was lost, as was government of the genitive by prós (Regard mentions a single
occurrence in his corpus). In addition, there is a frequent confusion of eis (direction) with en
(location). It indicates that the coding of the two semantic relations tended to merge, that is, to
be indicated by the same preposition, as it eventually became common in Middle Greek (the
same holds for the similar confusion between prós with the accusative and the dative).
Consider:
(1) ṑn eis tòn kólpon toû patrós
„Who is in the bosom of the father.‟ (John 1.18).
This confusion apparently reflects some uncertainty in actual usage: as discussed in
5
Humbert (1930:,66-73), confusion between the two prepositions displays different patterns in
the four Gospels. In Mark‟s Gospel, in particular, it is only eis that is sometimes extended in
the place of en, and not the other way around. This overextension is partly confirmed by
contemporary papyri, and seems to point to an ongoing change, as outline above.
Remarkably, in Modern Greek the preposition s (from eis) indicates both direction and
locative. However, the above changes cannot be regarded as directly reflecting the loss of en,
even though this preposition eventually disappeared. As we discuss below, in spite of its
partial replacement by means of eis in locative expressions, en is widely used in the New
Testament in a new construction, that is, as marker of the instrumental relation. The change
described above, then, must be considered in terms of constructions, rather than single
prepositions: it points to the extension of the direction construction (eis or another preposition
with the accusative) to the coding of the locative relation. In other words, the type of
argument structure construction used with motion verbs in Classical Greek is extended to
verbs of rest.
Another possible hint to later developments is the extension of apó „from‟ to functions
earlier expressed by other prepositions, and its increased usage with respect to ek (which
however remains frequent, see below). In this case, too, the New Testament seems to
anticipate Middle and Modern Greek, in which apó is the only inherited preposition that
indicates the ablative relation. Even in this case, however, one gains better insights by
examining changes in terms of constructions. In general, one can remark that plain cases tend
to be substituted by prepositional phrases, which increasingly become the preferred pattern.
An example is the occurrence of prepositional phrases with apó or ek in the place of the
partitive genitive, as in:
(2) hóti ephágete ek tôn ártōn
„Because you ate (of) the bread.‟ (John 6.26)
In Middle and Modern Greek, the partitive meaning once expressed by the genitive came to
be encoded by means of prepositional phrases, and ultimately only by apó. Thus, examples
such as (2) reflect the increasing semantic restriction of this case, and the extension of a
prepositional construction in the place of a plain case construction. The prepositional
construction involved, at its onset, both ek and apó, and only later became limited to the latter.
6
Several classical usages of the plain dative are limited in the New Testament, but it is
doubtful that one can detect the first signs of the decay of this case, which was eventually lost
in Byzantine Greek (see Humbert, 1930). In particular, the instrumental dative is often
replaced by en phrases. Even though some occurrences of instrumental en also occur in the
papyri, its spread seems to reflect a real Semitism, as in Semitic languages the same
preposition that indicates locative also indicates instrument. We come back to instrumental en
below, in section 4. Here it must be stressed that its occurrence does not seem to be connected
with the decline of the dative: in the first place, because the preposition en itself took the
dative, in the second place because it is connected with the Semitic background of the
authors.
In addition, some verbs that took a nominative-dative argument structure construction
in Classical Greek take a nominative-prepositional phrase argument structure construction in
the New Testament. Even in this case, however, one must consider specific verbs and their
meaning, before acknowledging a weakening of the dative. One such verb is peíthein „trust‟,
as in:
(3) tḕn panoplían autoû aírei eph’ hêi epepoíthei
„He takes from him all his armor wherein he trusted.‟ (Luke 11.22)
Indeed, this usage seems to be connected with a new meaning of the verb, and rather than be
taken in isolation, the dative here should better be regarded as part of a whole construction. In
the Septuagint, peíthein epí (or eis) translates the Hebrew verb bth, whose meaning is glossed
as “firmae spei plaenus fuit”, “be full of firm hope” in Zorell‟s lexicon (1940); another
possible translation of this Hebrew verb is with elpízein „hope‟. Remarkably, the latter verb
occurs in Biblical Hebrew with the same prepositional phrases as peíthein, and does not
conform to the Classical usage. Differently from peíthein, elpízein did not take the dative in
Classical Greek. Thus, the reason for the occurrence of prepositional phrases with the two
verbs must not be sought in a putative decline of the dative, but rather in the creation of a new
construction, nominative-epí/eis phrase. This construction occurred with the new meaning of
the two verbs, which did not correspond in a clear-cut manner to the meaning of the Hebrew
verb.
7
4. TRANSLATION AS A VEHICLE FOR LANGUAGE AND CULTURAL CONTACT
In section 3, we described the rise of a new argument structure construction with the verbs
peíthein and elpízein, and argued that this change was connected with the need of expressing a
new meaning for these verbs, partly influenced by the meaning of the Hebrew verb to which
they corresponded in the Old Testament. In this section we show how the creation of new
constructions extended outside Biblical Greek to translations in other languages, and
ultimately influenced the development of the modern languages of Europe (concerning New
Testament translations see also Luraghi, Cuzzolin, 2007).
New Testament Greek has always raised interest not only in itself, but also for its
influence on many other languages, as it served as the basis for several translations. Among
other early translations, Latin, Gothic and Old Church Slavonic were based on the Greek text.
The most influential of these was Jerome‟s Latin translation, commonly known as the
Vulgate.
When Jerome embarked on the translation of the Bible in the early 5th
century CE,
several Latin translations were available. These translations were highly unsatisfactory
because translators, in an attempt to avoid introducing changes into the original meaning,
often came up with grammatically incorrect and in some cases barely comprehensible Latin.
Jerome based his work on his own theory of translation, which he outlined in his famous
Letter on translation. According to his own statements, Jerome tried to translate verbum de
verbo „word from word‟. In general, this means that he tried to establish a (couple of)
translation equivalent(s), and use them as consistently as possible. In some cases, new usages
introduced by Jerome (and possibly other translators before him) in specific collocations gave
rise to new constructions. Among several examples, we will discuss three constructions,
which have spread to the languages of Europe, and could be considered, at their onset,
symbols of identity of the Christian community.
The first construction has to do with the instrumental usage of locative prepositions in
a phrase that can be considered a Biblical idiom, en/epì tō onómati + gen „in the name of‟.
Here, Greek en or epí reflect Hebrew b in its instrumental functions. The name of God gives
special strength to those who make use of it, as shown in:
(4) éphē autôi ho Iōánnēs: didáskale, eídomén tina en tôi onómatí sou ekbállonta
8
daimónia, hòs ouk akoloutheî hēmîn, kaì ekōlúomen autón, hóti ouk ēkoloúthei hēmîn.
John said to him: “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and
we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” (Mark 9.38)
As evidenced by the English translation, far from being confined to Biblical Greek,
this meaning has extended to the modern languages of Europe, in which it is now also used
outside religious discourse (as in the expression „in the name of the law‟). The vehicle for this
extension was Jerome‟s Vulgate, and Jerome‟s translation technique, by which he tried to
always use the same form for a given meaning. In this case, Jerome decided to always use in,
in spite of the occurrence of two different prepositions in Greek.
The second construction that we would like to discuss here concerns the verb „cry‟,
and is reflected in the English expression cry over. This usage that, again, is quite widespread
in the languages of Europe, originates in the Biblical expression klaíein epí, and the Latin
translation flere super, as in:
(5) idṑn tḕn pólin éklausen ep’ autḗn
videns civitatem flevit super illam
„When he saw the city he wept over it.‟ (Luke 19.41)
The verb klaíein „weap‟ did not take epí in Classical Greek (with this verb, cause was
expressed with diá and the accusative, as expected). However, this Greek construction was
already attested in the Septuagint. If one examines the Hebrew text, it can be seen that the
verb „cry‟ occurs with the preposition ’el „to‟ „towards‟, which, in its concrete spatial
meaning, corresponds to Greek eis or epí plus the accusative. Jerome also used super in
similar contexts in the translation of the Old Testament. In this case, his use of super seems to
be influenced by the Greek translation: Jerome opts to extend the meaning of super to the
same abstract contexts to which the meaning of epí had been extended in the Septuagint.
When this expression was extended to other languages through the translation of the Vulgate,
the meaning of the corresponding prepositions in the target languages was also extended. In
this way, a whole construction is created, whose meaning cannot be explained by the
meanings of its components. That the construction has a meaning of its own is shown by the
possibility of extending it to new collocations, as in English „cry over spilled milk.‟
9
Remarkably, such a meaning extension for over would otherwise be difficult to explain, as
shown by the fact that the use of over with cry remains unexplained in Brugman‟s study of
this preposition (Brugman, 1988).
Finally, periphrastic constructions with the auxiliaries be and have, which are
considered a common feature typical of the languages of Europe (cf. Haspelmath, 2001), also
developed out of Greek influence, and ultimately went back to translation strategies
developed in the Septuagint (see Ceglia, 1998). Drinka (2011) analyzed the usage of „be‟ in
periphrastic constructions and of „have‟ in perfect constructions. Especially the latter, through
the Latin translation, have served as a basis for the development of periphrastic patterns in the
Romance and Germanic languages. An example is:
(6) sukên eîkhén tis pephuteuménēn
arborem fici habebat quidam plantatam
„A certain man had a fig tree planted.‟ (Luke 13.6)
Here, the participle has a predicative function. Later, the complex have+participle was
reanalyzed as having a resultative function, and as constituting a compound verb form.
Drinka (2011) provides a detailed and compelling description of the influence of New
Testament Greek on other European languages, not limited to translation but reaching beyond
and affecting their development from late Antiquity onward. She shows how the influence of
New Testament Greek was reinforced by Latin influence on Germanic: this is indeed also
visible in the case of other constructions, which can be defined „sacral stamps‟, i.e. linguistic
features interpreted as signs of identity by the Christian community (Drinka, 2011: 41), such
as for example the expressions „in the name of‟ or „cry over‟ that we have analyzed above.
Thus, common developments of the languages of Europe connected with Bible translations
can be shown to precede by several centuries the birth of the Charlemagne area, usually
considered the cradle of Europe as a linguistic area (van der Auwera, 1998, 2011).3
5. NEW TESTAMENT GREEK IN THE DIGITAL AGE
5.1. Digital resources for the Greek New Testament
10
New Testament Greek has always been studied by linguists and grammarians within different
theoretical approaches. Recently, the availability of digitalized and annotated corpora has
provided the possibility of analyzing a greater amount of data in a limited processing time,
making quantitative and statistical analysis faster and easier. In this section, we provide an
exemplification of the type of analysis that can be carried out on New Testament texts using
an annotated corpus, starting from a simple linguistic research question. Before that, we
briefly discuss some recent digital resources available for the New Testament.
Digital editions of the Greek New Testament, and of the Bible in general, are
numerous. One such edition is the TITUS project (Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und
Sprachmaterialien), which was created in 1996 and is hosted by the University of Frankfurt. .
The linguistic content of the texts is accessible in two ways: either by reference to a given text
passage, or by using the word search engine. By means of the word query, one can find all
occurrences of specific tokens (that is, word forms), and, by using special query tools, of
lemmas. The text is digitalized, but not annotated: no grammatical or semantic information is
provided in the corpus. In Fig. 1, we give as an example the results of the query for the form
metoikesías:
FIGURE 1. A WORD QUERY IN THE TITUS CORPUS
The Perseus project, hosted by Tufts University (Medford, MA), contains a digital
11
library of annotated classical texts, which also includes the New Testament. Annotation is the
addition of metalinguistic information into the text: in the Perseus library we find POS (part-
of-speech) annotation and morphological analysis, at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/.
Each Greek word is further linked to the entry in the Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon. By using
the query tool, one can look up word forms or lemmas. In Fig. 2 we show the result of the
query for the form metoikesías. By clicking on the word form, one can access the
morphological analysis, which further connects to the online dictionary (Fig. 3); by clicking
on the reference, one can access the text, and also view the English and Latin translation (Fig.
4).
FIGURE 2. A WORD QUERY IN THE PERSEUS CORPUS
FIGURE 3. WORD STUDY TOOL IN THE PERSEUS CORPUS
12
FIGURE 4. THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT WITH THE ENGLISH AND LATIN TRANSLATIONS IN THE
PERSEUS LIBRARY
Among other existing digital resources for the New Testament, that of the project
PROIEL (Pragmatic Resources in Old Indo-European languages), hosted by Oslo University,
provides a parallel Treebank, which includes the Greek New Testament and a number of early
translations, and is available at: http://www.hf.uio.no/ifikk/english/research/projects/proiel/.
A Treebank, or parsed corpus, is a syntactically annotated corpus, that is, a corpus in
which “the sentences [are analyzed] into their constituents (groups or phrases, depending on
the grammatical nomenclature, that is, noun phrase, verb phrase, prepositional phrase, etc.),
function roles (e.g. Subject, Direct Object), and, occasionally, dependency relations (i.e.
argument structure).” (Freddi, 2013: 52; see further Freddi, Luraghi, 2013). The project
PROIEL was created starting in 2008 with the aim of comparing the Greek text of the New
Testament with the existing translations into Old-Indo-European languages, with particular
interest for information structure in discourse (cf. Haug, Jøhndal, 2008). With respect to other
treebanks, the PROIEL treebank also adds a level of annotation relative to information
structure (this level is not completely developed for the whole corpus yet).
Thus, the advantage of the PROIEL New Testament corpus is constituted by the
number of annotation layers: part-of-speech and morphological annotation, syntactic
annotation based on dependency grammar (cf. the syntactic annotation guidelines at:
http://folk.uio.no/daghaug/syntactic_guidelines.pdf), as well as tags to signal information
structure, concerning for example word order, topic-focus contrast, elliptical elements, etc. In
the PROIEL interface, different layers of annotation are given separately. In Fig. 5 we show
the POS and morphological annotation for Matthew 1.17. Fig. 6 shows the dependency tree
(syntactic annotation), and Fig. 7 shows the tags based on information structure. By clicking
on word forms, we further retrieve all occurrences of a lemma, in this case metoikesías, as
13
shown in Fig. 8.
FIGURE 5. POS AND MORPHOLOGICAL ANNOTATION IN PROIEL
FIGURE 6. DEPENDENCY TREE IN PROIEL
FIGURE 7. TAGS FOR INFORMATION STRUCTURE IN PROIEL
14
FIGURE 8. OCCURRENCES OF METOIKESÍAS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT (PROIEL QUERY)
As we remarked above, the PROIEL project contains a parallel treebank, and, besides
the Greek New Testament, it also includes the Latin, Gothic, Old Church Slavic, and Classical
Armenian translations. As all texts are annotated in a similar manner, this corpus allows for
in-depth study of parallel constructions in the five languages. The fact that the texts are
completely digitalized and annotated makes it possible to compare a large number of
occurrences through the query tool.
5.2 Studies on the New Testament parallel corpus: a contrastive approach
The PROIEL New Testament parallel corpus, as we pointed out above, provides elaborated
levels of annotation (POS, morpho-syntactic and pragmatic), and allows for easy queries on
contrastive analysis at various levels. The stylistic uniformity among parallel texts is one of
the features that make it particularly suitable for comparative studies. Among other things,
this complex annotation makes it possible to analyze the interaction of grammar and discourse
structure at various levels. Welo (2011) contains a collection of papers on a variety of issues,
most of which are approached through the contrastive study of this annotated parallel corpus,
based on the original New Testament and on its early translations. Among other topics, the
emergence of a definite article from the demonstrative in Classical Armenian is described by
Müth (2011) in comparison with the highly grammaticalized definite article in New
Testament Greek. The author analyzes the increasing usage of the demonstrative as definite
articles in Classical Armenian contrastively, comparing the same constructions in New
Testament Greek and evaluating at which stage of grammaticalization the Armenian
demonstrative lies in the New Testament translation. Müth concludes that they are at the stage
of a determiner demonstrative, expressing pragmatic definiteness (see Müth, 2011: 21-23).
Another contrastive analysis based on Greek, Gothic, Classical Armenian, Old Church
Slavonic Gospels, is the study on negation and polarity by Klein (2011: 152). He reviews the
type of negation in the four languages providing a detailed comparison of parallel passages
15
containing negation with similar patterns in the different languages. The translation of Greek
prepositional phrases with en and eis into Gothic, Old Church Slavonic, and Classical
Armenian constitutes the topic for Thomason‟s study on *EN-phrases (Thomason, 2011).
Thomason shows, through an accurate contrastive analysis of single occurrences, that the two
prepositions do not have a single and fixed translation equivalent in any of the three
languages: rather, their translation depends on semantic and pragmatic factors, which is why a
wide range of variation is available.
These are only some representative examples of the several potentialities of a parallel
corpus annotated at the morpho-syntactic and pragmatic layers.
5.3. A corpus-based linguistic analysis
The best way to explore the potentialities of a Treebank, in our case the PROIEL Treebank
based on the digital edition of the New Testament, is to investigate it with a linguistic query.
Thus, we have thought of a simple research question and, using the search tool in the PROIEL
interface, we have extracted the quantitative data that we discuss in this section. The PROIEL
query tool allows for queries based on the annotated information, thus, among other things, it
is possible to select words by part of speech and relation.
The research questions that we used for our query are: (a) what kind of verbs occur
with the name of Jesus as a subject within the four Gospels? (b) And what kind of verbs occur
with the names of Peter and Paul as subjects in the Acts of the Apostles? These questions
could be at the basis of different kinds of linguistic analyses and could answer many
interesting linguistic problems: for example, these data could be helpful to measure the degree
of control and thus of agentivity exercised by these types of subjects, or to detect if these
subjects occur in the same type of constructions and, measuring their frequency, to evaluate if
they occur in fixed and idiomatic expressions within the New Testament.
5.3.1. What did Jesus do?
The word Jesus in the Gospels is, of course, rather frequent; however, we are not looking for
all its occurrences, but just for the ones in which it functions as subject, as we want to know
with which verbs it most frequently occurs. This will tell us what type of actions Jesus
typically performed in the Gospels. In order to find the data we need, we employ the
16
information available at the syntactic layer of annotation. With the search tool available in the
PROIEL website, as we noted above, it is possible to search a word as lemma and, among
other things, to select its syntactic function. In our case, we looked for Iēsoûs as lemma and
for „subject‟ as syntactic function. The query yielded the following results: within the four
Gospels the word Iēsoûs occurs 400 times as subject, for a total of 429 verb tokens (this
includes coordinated verbs with the same subject).4 Turning now to verb lemmas we found
43 different verbs in the Gospels. The distribution among the four Gospels is highly uneven.
The number of different verbs in John‟s and in Matthew‟s Gospel is much higher as compared
to the other two Gospels: we have 25 different verbs in John, 21 in Matthew, 14 in Mark, and
12 in Luke.
From a general perspective, around 63% of verb tokens (268 tokens out of 429)
occurring with Iēsoûs as a subject is divided among four verbs that belong to the same
semantic field: verbs of saying. In particular, we find verbs that often introduce direct speech,
such as „say‟, „tell‟, „answer‟ and „call‟: 50% of the total verb occurrences are tokens of the
verb légō „say, tell‟ and its suppletive aorist form eîpon (218 tokens); the verb apokrínomai
„answer‟, very often in its aorist form, is the second most frequent verb, with 42 tokens. In
addition, we found six tokens of the verb phemí „tell‟ and two of the verb kaléō „call‟. Below,
we give an example of the verb légō „say, tell‟ introducing direct speech, occurring in a very
frequent, formulaic sentence:
(7) tóte légei autoîs ho Iēsoûs: pántes humeîs skandalisthḗsesthe en emoì têi nuktì taútēi
„Then Jesus tells them: all of you will fall away on account of me tonight.‟ (Matt.
26.31)
The verbs apokrínomai „answer‟ and légō „say, tell‟ very often appear in coordination,
in an idiomatic construction particularly frequent in John‟s Gospel, frequently introducing
direct speech (not quoted below), as in the following passage:
(8) apekríthē Iēsoûs kaì eîpen autô […]
„Jesus answered and told him […]‟ (John 14.2)
Another well represented semantic area in the Gospels is that of motion: we counted
17
27 occurrences of the verb érkhomai „go, come‟ (included the suppletive aorist form êlthon,
and the preverbed forms parérkhomai „go by‟, exérkhomai „go out of‟, apérkhomai „go away
from‟, prosérkhomai „go to‟), four occurrences of the verb anabaínō „go up‟ and one
occurrence of the verb pheúgō „flee‟, for 32 occurrences in total, 7.4% of verb tokens. An
example of a typical occurrence of the verb érkhomai „go, come‟ is given in (9):
(9) êlthen ho Iēsoûs eis tḗn Galilaían
„Jesus came to Galilee.‟ (Mark 1.14)
Other miscellaneous occurrences of verbs that take Jesus as subject make up for the remaining
30% of occurrences. In their case, we mostly found an average of 4:1 correspondence
token/verb for 128 token occurrences of 30 verbs. Among these verbs we find, for example:
poiéō „make‟, didáskō „teach‟, baptízō „baptize‟, thaumázō „wonder‟, horáō „see‟ etc.
In conclusion, the figures show us that the main activity of Jesus was talking: this is
not surprising, as he was a teacher and a preacher, and the Gospels are the testimony of his
teaching. Jesus mostly preached addressing an audience, but he quite often also answered
questions, as shown by the frequency of the verb „answer‟. In addition, the frequency of
motion verbs is in accordance with the well known fact that Jesus teaching was carried out in
different places in Palestine. However, Jesus did not limit his activities to teaching: he
performed a wide variety of other actions, as shown by the high number of other different
verbs. Even though he might have performed other actions (such as baptizing or healing)
many more times in his life, the Gospels only report of a few (most often one) exemplar
instance of each. This, too, is hardly surprising: the main interest of the Evangelists was to
report of Jesus‟ teaching.
5.3.2. Were Peter and Paul good Apostles?
In the Acts of the Apostles, the same kind of verbs that occur in the Gospels taking Jesus as
their subject take Peter or Paul as subject most frequently than other verbs. Indeed, out of 94
verbs in terms of token occurring with Pétros or Paûlos verbs of saying have the highest
absolute frequency: the verb légō „say‟ occurs 29 times, the verb phemí „tell‟ and
apokrínomai „answer‟ seven times, dialégomai „converse with‟ and parakaléō „call in‟ twice,
and apologéomaié „refuse‟ once, for a total of 48 occurrences. This makes up for more than
18
the half of total occurrences (51%).
In (10) we give an example with direct speech, very similar to the ones described
above with Jesus as the subject of a verb of saying:
(10) Pétros en mésōi tôn adelphôn eîpen […]
„Peter among his brothers said […]‟ (Acts 1.15)
The other frequent verb class in the Acts of the Apostles occurring with Paul and Peter
as subjects is constituted by motion verbs, exactly as in the case of Jesus in the Gospels. We
have a total of 13 occurrences belonging to the semantic area of spatial movement, partly
forms of the same verbs found in the Gospels, as érkhomai „go, come‟, eisérkhomai „go into‟
exérkhomai „go out of‟, diérkhomai „go through‟, sunérkhomai „go together‟, eîmi „go‟,
anabaínō „go up‟. An example is given in (11):
(11) hoútōs ho Paûlos exêlthen ek mésou autôn
„At that, Paul left the council.‟ (Acts 17.33)
The remaining 33 occurrences distribute over 30 verbs, which means that the token/verb
correspondence for these occurrences is around 1:1 and that their frequency is very low.
The analysis carried out in the Acts of the Apostles shows quantitatively something
that could easily be expected: exactly as Jesus in the Gospels, the most frequent activities of
the apostles Peter and Paul is connected with the act of speaking and with movement. As their
teacher, the good disciples went around to spread the euaggélion, the good message, and their
main activities were of course moving around, as an important presence of motion verbs
shows us, and talking about Jesus, his deeds and his teaching, as the great frequency of verbs
of saying reveals (51%). Remarkably, if we compare the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles,
we find that we are dealing with almost the same types of verbs of saying and motion verbs.
All these elements lead us to the conclusion that Paul and Peter performed actions similar to
those performed by their teacher, that is, talking and moving around the world to spread his
word, doing exactly what their teacher did and taught them to do.
Other miscellaneous verbs distribute among different semantic fields, such as poiéō
„make‟, boúlomai „want‟, lambánō „take‟, apodeíknumi „show‟. Their very low frequency,
19
almost one token for one type, indicates that these other verbs mostly denote actions that are
used as links to connect the events to each other, do not constitute significant „acts‟. This
analysis constitutes essentially a further piece of evidence that the main „act‟ of the apostles
was giving testimony of Jesus‟ life, and travelling, in order to reach more people with their
new message.
To conclude, the two parallel analyses on verbs occurring with Jesus in the Gospels
and with Peter and Paul in the Acts of the Apostles are an example of the kind of quantitative
data that can be extracted from an annotated corpus. We showed, then, a possible qualitative
interpretation of the extracted data. In our case, the data provided quantitative evidence to
show what type of activities Jesus and the Apostles were mostly engaged in.
6. CONCLUSION
In this paper we have discussed a number of issues concerning New Testament Greek, and
have shown how they can be better understood when seen in the light of recent advances in
linguistics. In the first place, we focused on some changes in verb argument structure, which
are often connected, in other studies, with developments in the meaning of cases or
prepositions. Following Construction Grammar, we have argued that such changes should
better be taken as involving the meaning of whole constructions. In the second place, we have
observed how the creation of new constructions extended outside Biblical Greek to
translations in other languages, and ultimately influenced the development of the modern
languages of Europe. We have shown to what extent the translations of the New Testament
can be considered as a vehicle for cultural and linguistic contact.
Finally we have presented some digital resources for the Greek New Testament and its
translations, and their possible use in linguistic analysis. In particular, we focused on the
importance of the creation of the parallel Treebank for the New Testament within the
PROIEL project, which includes the Greek, Latin, Gothic, Old Church Slavonic, and
Classical Armenian versions. The syntactic and pragmatic annotation of such parallel corpora
allows and simplifies different kinds of linguistic investigations, both intra-linguistic and
contrastive ones. In the last part of our paper we have shown a concrete example of a
quantitative analysis answering to a syntactic-semantic question based on the Greek
20
Treebanks of the Gospels and of the Acts of the Apostles, and a possible qualitative
interpretation.
In conclusion, our contribution provides an overview of some different perspectives
under which it is possible to study the New Testament in the light of recent linguistic
advances, emphasizing, once more, the richness of these texts for linguistic research, along
with the importance of linguistic advances for the study of the New Testament.
REFERENCES
Blass, Friedrich and Albert Debrunner. 1961. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and
other early Christian literature. Translated and edited by Robert Funk.
Cambridge/Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Brugman, Claudia. 1988. The story of Over: Polysemy, semantics and the structure of the
lexicon. New York/London: Garland Publishing.
Bubenik, Vit. 1989. Hellenistic and Roman Greece as a sociolinguistic area. Amsterdam:
Benjamin.
Ceglia, Gian Luca 1998. L‟evoluzione della costruzione perifrastica verbale nel greco del
Nuovo testamento. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 83, pp. 20-44.
Drinka, Bridget. 2011. The sacral stamp of Greek: Periphrastic constructions in New
Testament translations of Latin, Gothic, and Old Curch Slavonic. In Eirik Welo (ed.)
2011, pp. 41-73.
Freddi, Maria and Silvia Luraghi. 2013. Appendix – Resources in Syntax. In Silvia Luraghi
and Claudia Parodi (eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax. London/New York:
Bloomsbury, pp. 463-468.
Freddi, Maria. 2013. Corpus Methods in Syntax. In Silvia Luraghi and Claudia Parodi (eds.),
The Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax. London-New York: Bloomsbury, pp. 51-62.
Goldberg, Adele. 1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Köster, Helmut. 2000 [1982]. Introduction to the New Testament: History and Literature of
Early Christianity (2 ed.). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In
Language Typology and Language Universals (Handbücher zur Sprach- und
21
Kommunikationswissenschaft vol. 20.2). Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1492-1510.
Haug, Dag, T. T. and Marius Jøhndal. 2008. Creating a Parallel Treebank of the Old Indo-
European Bible Translations. Proceedings of the Sixth International Language
Resources and Evaluation (LREC'08). Paris: European Language Resources
Association (ELRA).
Horrocks, Geoffrey. 1997. Greek: a history of the language and its speakers. London/New
York: Longman.
Horsley, Gregory H.R. 2014. Christian Greek. In G. Giannakis et al. (eds.) Brill
Encyclopaedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. Leiden: Brill, 284-286.
Humbert, Jean. 1930. La disparition du datif en grec du Ièr au Xe siècle. Paris: Champion.
Klein, Jared. 2011. Negation and polarity in the Greek, Gothic, Classical Armenian, and Old
Church Slavic Gospels: A preliminary study. In Welo, Eirik (ed.) 2011, pp. 131-154.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about
the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Luraghi, Silvia and Pierluigi Cuzzolin. 2007. Mediating culture through language: Contact-
induced phenomena in the early translations of the Gospels. In Ramat, Paolo and Elisa
Roma (eds.), Europe and the Mediterranean as Linguistic Areas: Convergencies from
a historical and typological perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamin, pp. 133-
158.
Luraghi, Silvia. 1996. Studi su casi e preposizioni nel greco antico. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Luraghi, Silvia. 2014. Contact through translation. In Giannakis et al. (eds.) Brill
Encyclopaedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics. Leiden: Brill, pp. 379-382.
Mohrmann, Christine. 1951. Credere in Deum: Sur l'interprétation théologique d'un fait de
langue. Mélanges J. de Ghellinck, vol. 1 = Museum Lessianum, Section historique 13,
pp. 277-285.
Moulton, James, H. 1906. A grammar of New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T & T. Clarks.
Müht, Angelika. 2011. Definiteness in Classical Armenian. In Welo, Eirik (ed.) 2011, pp. 11-
26.
Nida, Eugene A. and Charles R. Taber. 1982. The theory and practice of Translation. Leiden:
Brill.
Regard, P. 1919. Contribution à l’étude des prépositions dans la langue du Nouveau
Testament. Paris: Leroux.
22
Thomason, Olga. 2011. *EN-phrases and their morphosyntactic and semantic particulars. In
Welo, Eirik (ed.) 2011, pp. 189-208.
Valgiglio, Ernesto. 1985. Le antiche versioni latine del Nuovo Testamento. Fedeltà e aspetti
grammaticali. Napoli: M. D‟Auria.
Van der Auwera, Johan (ed.). 1998. Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe.
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Van der Auwera, Johan. 2011. Standard Average European. In B. Kortmann and Johann van
der Auwera (eds.) The Languages and Linguistics of Europe: A Comprehensive Guide.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 291-306.
Welo, Eirik. (ed.). 2011. Indo-European syntax and pragmatics: contrastive
approaches. Oslo Studies in Language, Vol. 3, No 3.
Wikenhauser, Alfred. 1966. Introduzione al Nuovo Testamento. Brescia: Paideia.
Zorell, Franz. 1940. Lexicon hebraicum et aramaicum Veteris Testamenti. Romae:
Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.
SITOGRAPHY
The Perseus digital library [electronic resource]/Gregory Crane editor-in-chief. Medford:
Tufts University. Website: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/. Last access
03/03/2013.
PROEIL Pragmatic Resources in Old Indo-European Languages. Oslo: Oslo University.
Website: http://www.hf.uio.no/ifikk/english/research/projects/proiel/. Last access
03/03/2013.
TITUS Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien. Frankfurt: Universität
Frankfurt, eds. Jost Gippert, Javier Martínez, Agnes Korn. http://titus.uni-
frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/grie/gnt/gnt.htm Last access 03/03/2013.
1 Concerning a possible Aramaic original of Matthew‟s Gospel, most scholars see it as very doubtful that this
original ever existed (cf. Wikenhauser, 1966: 174, Köster 2000), not only because the presence of Semitisms and
Septuagintisms can be explained as due to interferences of the mother tongue of the author(s), and derive from a
thorough knowledge of the Greek Old Testament, but also because a comparison among the synoptic Gospels
shows that the author of Matthew‟s text took into account the texts written by Marc and Luke. Thus, this was not
the most ancient Gospel, and probably it was not written in Aramaic. Furthermore, traces of an Aramaic version
of any of the four canonical Gospels have never been found. 2 “[…] the decision for or against a Semitism in a specific instance often create difficulties. It is important,
therefore, to guard against two opposing errors: not everything which conforms to Semitic idiom is a Semitism,
23
nor is everything which appears somewhere or sometime in Greek is genuine Greek” (Blass, Debrunner, 1961:
4). 3 The construction described in sec. 3 found with the verbs peíthein also extended to Latin, in which we find the
newly created credere in. This construction, too, became a sign of Christian identity, as argued in Mohrmann
(1951); see further Luraghi (2014). 4 Note that this is not the total number of the occurrences in which the name of Jesus functions as subject, but
only of those in which the NP Iēsoûs is overtly expressed as a subject. As Greek allows for null, or ellyptical
subjects (i.e. the subject can be omitted when it is recoverable from the context), verbs that take Jesus as subject
are more, and they are not included in this counting. The only group of verbs that have ellyptical subjects
referring to Jesus which has been included is constituted by verbs in coordination, as remarked above (see
example (8)). Even though we only survey a part of verbs, the number of occurrences is relevant, and we
consider it representative of the whole corpus in terms of percentages.
Top Related