Article Review: The Sociolinguistic Context of the Early Church

 

Article Review: The Sociolinguistic Context of the Early Church

 

               VOELZ, James W. The Linguistic Milieu of the Early Church. "Concordia Theological Quarterly".

                            56 (1992), 81-97.

 

 
            The Greek culture had become popular in the Mediterranean context due to the Hellenization process leading especially to Alexander the Great at the end of the 4th century BC. In a way, a whole new civilization had been created, and language was one of the main factors that contributed to this condition. Greek was used especially in the commercial and political context. At first, perhaps out of necessity, but over time it has become a kind of second language in all affected regions.

            In Palestine this reality was also established. It faced a lot of resistance, as the Maccabean revolt proves. But the march of the Greek way of being, especially the language continued, and Greek had already become a common language in Palestine in the first century of the Christian era, especially as a language of commerce and business.

            This made the situation a little more complex than one would think. Historically, the truth has been accepted: the language of the NT is Greek and Jesus spoke Aramaic. Recent research, however, has pointed out that Hebrew continued to be widely used as a common language. It is even possible that most of the inhabitants were trilingual. Not interchangeably, but with specific purposes: Greek for commerce and conversation, Hebrew for religion and religious education, and Aramaic for personal matters and daily life.

 

The language of the NT considered linguistically

            In a simple way, we could say that the NT is written in Greek, but it also has Semitic characteristics (Hebrew and Aramaic). This simplicity becomes a little more complex though when we try to see what these characteristics are and how they interrelate. As it is a somewhat difficult adventure and opinions can be very different, Voelz informs that what he will at risk of giving his point of view on the subject.

 

Hellenic (Greek) features

It is known that the Greek of the NT is not Attic Greek , or classical, but Koine Greek, the flagship of Hellenization, as it is the Greek that Alexander and the Greek conquerors spread everywhere. And what was this Greek like? One would expect a simple patchwork of various dialects. But there is surprisingly consistency in its composition, being considered an evolution of Attic Greek, also absorbing features from other languages.

Some Comparisons with Classical Greek

a) There is addition of new words, such as new meanings attached to old words.

b) a tendency towards more explicit expression, with stronger phonetic forms and greater use of prepositions and pronouns, as well as a preference for direct speech.

c) A strong tendency towards simplicity, for example in the abandonment of more complex forms of Attic Greek, such as the optative.

            This means that Koine Greek, which has its origins in classical Greek, was strongly influenced by spoken Greek, especially that of Athens.

            When it comes to any given language, there is a vocabulary dominated by the most educated in a society, which is usually not grasped by the simplest people. The opposite also holds true, that there is a simpler vocabulary that the most cultured reject. And there is also a large area of interpolation, which both can understand and accept. In the NT, the vast majority of writers used vocabulary from this intersection area, an appropriate choice for writers who want to share the message of salvation with all kinds of people.

 

Semitic features

            Some of the indications of Semitic influence in the NT are: 1) Addition of new words and attribution of non-Greek meaning to Greek words. 2) constructions which are not familiar or organic to the Greek language. But there are even more subtle features. There is primary and secondary semitism. In the first, we have constructions that are totally unknown, which a native Greek would never say. In the second, we have constructions that, in themselves, are not bad Greek, but that are noted to be of Semitic influence.

            This is still a very open topic, always subject to research, as it is not easy at all to determine how frequent these occurrences are. Or even to determine how frequent the frequency must be to characterize a linguistic study.

            Finally, a question that can be raised is why this Semitic influence occurred. The answer is not so simple, but it may be due to external factors. For example, the influence of the Septuagint, which in itself brings many of these characteristics. Another example would be that in the internal features, beyond the LXX itself and its influence on the NT writers, the fact evidently remains that they were born Hebrew and Aramaic speakers, learning Greek later. No matter how fluent someone is in the other language, they will never completely eliminate their native sentence construction, just as a German speaker will never speak like a native American.

            Thus, about the relationship of the two sets of NT characteristics, each student will have to decide. But there seems to be no doubt that the Greek prevails in the end. For the NT is in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic disguised as Greek. It's pure Koine Greek, with a Semitic twist, for God uses tools to communicate his Word, and Greek was this essential tool. Even so, there is the presence of the language in which the AT was written and thus, the incarnational roots are noted not only in the doctrine and truths, but even in the very language in which the message is told.

 

Personal appreciation

            Voelz's text, despite not having definitive conclusions about the themes it presents, brings interesting information and indications regarding the sociolinguistic context of the Early Church and the construction of the New Testament. One characteristic that caught my attention was the fact that Koine Greek was not simply “vulgar Greek” of its time. Despite not being classical Greek with all its style, it was a well-wrapped and worked language, a natural linguistic evolution that happens whenever the spoken language is taken into account and starts to influence the way of writing and registering.

            I also found it very valid to notice the point about the language intersection area, where the culturally more and less educated classes meet. The authors' concern to communicate and record the Divine Word in terms that could be understood by the greatest possible number of people. At the same time, in a coherent and cohesive way, which resists time and allows reading and interpretation much later.

            Still, it was very useful to note the characteristics of the Semitic influence in more detail, as well as to receive the information that Hebrew is not entirely discarded from daily use in Palestine in the first century, as it is also part of the vocabulary, who knows, of the own Christ and his apostles.

            Getting to know more about the language is getting to know more about the Word of God. This brings an even clearer reaffirmation of His providence in transmitting his salvific Word in the human language, so that we can read, interpret and, above all, become wise for salvation.