CHAPTER III.
The Periods of the Greek Language.

Both the time when, and the place where, a given Greek word had a given meaning, constitute such an important factor in the making of Greek lexicons, that Liddell and Scott found it necessary to place Demosthenes and Aristotle, although both of these illustrious men were born the same year and both died the same year, in different epochs. Of course the same formative and revolutionary influences, which produced such an effect on the language of strictly contemporaneous speakers and writers, would operate with still greater effect through the long process of centuries.

In the Preface to their Greek lexicon, Liddell and Scott say:

The date of each author's "floruit" is added in the margin; and, by oomparing this with the short summary of the chief Epochs of Greek literature prefixed to the Catalogue, it will be easy to determine the time of a word's first use, and of its subsequent changes of signification. It will be understood, however, that the age of a word does not wholly depend on that of its Author. For, first, many Greek books have been lost; secondly, a word of Attic stamp, first occurring in Lucian, Alciphron, [19] or later imitators of Attic Greek, may be considered as virtually older than those found in the vernacular writers of the Alexandrian age. Further, the language changed differently in different places at the same time; as in the cases of Demosthenes and Aristotle, whom we have been compelled to place in different Epochs. And even at the same place, as at Athens, there were naturally two parties, one clinging to old usages, the other fond of what was new. The Greek of Thucydides and Lysias may be compared in illustration of this remark.--Page VI.

Referring to the radical changes and modifications of the Greek language in the different epochs of its history, Sophocles, in the Introduction to his great lexicon, says:

In the second century of our era the language had deviated perceptibly from the ancient standard. Old words and expressions had disappeared, and new ones succeeded them. In addition to this, new meanings were put upon old words. The syntax, moreover, was undergoing some changes. Further, Latinisms and other foreign idioms were continually creeping into the language of common life. The purists of the day made an effort to check this tendency, but they were steadily opposed by usage, and not infrequently by good sense.--Page 6.

Then, on page 8, the same author says:

The writers of the New Testament, and of the Apocrypha, strictly so called, were Hellenists. They used the Common Dialect as spoken by Jews of limited education. And as there was a great gulf between [20] the doctrines propagated by the Apostles and the religion of the Greeks, these writers were sometimes obliged to give new meanings to old words and expressions.

Edwin Hatch, in "Essays in Biblical Greek," says:

The differences between the language of Athens in the fourth century before Christ and the language of the New Testament may be roughly described as differences of time and differences of country. I. Many differences were the natural result of the lapse of time. For Greek was a living language, and a living language is always in movement. It was kept in motion partly by causes external to itself and partly by the causes which are always at work in the speech of all civilized races.--Page 3.

Explaining his purpose in giving frequently in his New Testament lexicon an exposition of classic usage, Thayer says:

The frequent references in the discussion of synonymous terms, to the distinctions holding in classic usage (as they are laid down by Schmidt in his voluminous work) must not be regarded as designed to modify the definitions given in the several articles. On the contrary, the exposition of classic usage is often intended merely to serve as a standard of comparison by which the direction and degree of a word's change in meaning can be measured. When so employed, the information given will often start suggestions alike interesting and instructive.--Preface to Thayer's Lexicon, p. VII.

I have no wish to multiply authorities beyond the legitimate demands of the case, but cannot resist giving the reader the benefit, in this connection, of the following significant quotation from the scholarly Preface to Dr. Robinson's lexicon. A careful study of this learned author's Preface not only throws light on the purpose of lexicons in general, but it shows the minute and extended labor which he bestowed upon his own lexicon. Discussing the different Epochs of the Greek language and the various changes and modifications to which it was subject, Dr. Robinson says:

A full and scientific lexicon of any language embraces a wide field of inquiry. The scholar who would pursue the study of a language critically and philosophically, does not rest until be has traced each word to its origin; investigated its primitive form and signification; noted the various forms and senses in which it has been current in the different epochs and dialects of the language, and the manner and order in which all these are deduced from the primitive one and from each other; and last, though not least, has observed the relations in which it stands to other words, in constructions and phrases, and the various modifications which it has undergone in these respects.--Page IV.

Finally, on page V., commenting on these general linguistic characteristics as exhibited in the Greek language in particular, the same author says:

In respect to the Greek, it should be borne in mind that there are three great epochs which mark the [22] progress of the language; through all or some of which, the different meanings and uses of a word can be traced with more or less distinctness. These are the youth, in the heroic or epic poems of Homer and Hesiod, with which may be joined the Ionic prose of Herodotus; its prime, in the palmy days of Attic elegance and purity, as exhibited in the great tragedians, and in the prose of Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato; and its decline, after the Macedonian conquest, and still later under the Roman dominion. In this latter period, the breaking up of the various independent states, the mingling together in armies of soldiers enlisted from every quarter, and the founding of colonies and large cities peopled with inhabitants from every part of Greece and also from foreign lands, could not fail to produce great changes in the languages of different communities; which, by natural consequence, would speedily be reflected in the language of books. Thus was formed the later Greek idiom (η κοινη διαλεκτος), which everywhere superseded the pure Attic; and of which Aristotle, Polybius, Diodorus, Plutarch, Aelian, and other later writers are the representatives.

Here is the combined testimony of the distinguished scholars who occupy the highest place as lexicographers in the estimation of present-day scholarship, all to the effect that when and where a word was used, often has much to do with its meaning. Accordingly, in the study of any Greek word, it is of the greatest importance to keep constantly in mind what these masters of the classics are pleased to term the different periods of the language. [23] These, as given by Sophocles in his lexicon, are as follows:

I. The Mythical Period, the time prior to Homer.

II. The Ionic Period, from Homer to B.C. 500.

III. The Attic Period, from B.C. 500 to B.C. 283.

IV. The Alexandrian Period, from B.C. 283 to B.C. 146.

V. The Roman Period, from B.C. 146 to A.D. 330.

VI. The Byzantine Period, from A.D. 330 to A.D. 1453.

Other scholars, notably Liddell and Scott, vary slightly from Sophocles both as to number and exact time of the periods, but they are all in substantial agreement on all essential matters and reach, practically, the same conclusion. There is not a dissenting voice among them touching the existence of such well-defined periods and the necessity for recognizing them in an attempt to arrive at the true meaning and history of a word. We are not to suppose that attention to these periods or epochs in the evolution of a language will disclose sudden changes in the meaning of words. Long periods sometimes elapse before a word is found to have undergone a complete change in meaning. On this point, Sophocles deposes as follows:

Changes in a language are not instantaneous, but come on by insensible gradations, and therefore it is impossible to fix the precise time of transition from one stage to another. Thus, although the period of the highest development of the language of [24] Athens coincides with the Persian, Peloponnesian, and Macedonian troubles, we are not to infer that it began on the day after the burning of Sardis and ended with the death of Alexander.--Introduction to Lexicon, p. 11.

It must now be evident to the thoughtful reader that, when the lexicons attach a given meaning to a word, we should still inquire, When did the word have that meaning? or, Did the word have that meaning at one time or place, and then cease to have it at another time or place? And hence, any argument based on our term psallo (ψαλλω) which does not take account of all these facts and considerations is unsound and misleading.

Now, it is a significant fact that all the authors quoted by the lexicons to sustain the assumption that instrumental music is involved in this word, belong, with three exceptions, to periods of the Greek language antedating the New Testament period; and the exceptions, as we shall see later on in our investigation, can be accounted for on theological grounds. Including all the authors quoted by all the lexicons to which we have been able to find access, there are Euripides, Plato, Aristotle, Athenaeus, Herodotus, Ion Chius, Aristophanes, Lucian, Macho, the Septuagint, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the New Testament, Josephus, and Plutarch. Here are fourteen authorities quoted by the various lexicons, and the entire list, with three exceptions, as previously stated, are embraced in the period from 450 years [25] B.C. to 30 years B.C. This fact speaks loudly, and speaks with significance, provided we can properly account for the exceptions. They shall receive due attention later on in the investigation.