ATTIC VS. KOINE

Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Mon Dec 13 18:53:54 EST 1999


To: Pastor Jim Dewan,

<< This is a rather ignorant question, but I'm afraid I must ask it.  >>

Most questions are rooted in some sort of ignorance, else they would not be 
asked. But your question is not inappropriate, nor does it reflect upon you 
poorly, indeed, if anything it reflects a thoughtful and intelligent person.

<< My I hear what exactly the benefit is of learning Attic Greek for 
improving one's grasp of Koine Greek?  Is there a benefit?  Should I take 
the time and effort to learn it, or continue to learn Koine Greek? >>

IMO there is little difference (that is not to say "no difference") between 
Attic and Koine. In fact, there is more of a difference between Homeric 
Greek and Attic Greek than there is between Attic and Koine.

A brief history: The Macedonian king Phillip (the father of Alexander) 
adopted Attic Greek as the official language of Macedonia. Euripides and 
Aristotle, along with other famous artists of the period, helped Atticize 
the Macedonian aristocracy. Alexander's conquest of Persia ushered in the 
Hellenistic age, and Greek became the official language of much of the 
western end of the Mediterranean region. This Greek is referred to as Koine 
Greek (or: "Common Greek"). Thus Koine derives from and is an extension of 
Attic Greek.

IMO the problem is not Attic vs. Koine, rather the problem is that too 
often NT students limit their Greek studies to one book, namely the NT. 
Think of it this way, supposed you limited your whole knowledge of the 
English language to one English translation of the NT, do you feel that 
would be a sufficient knowledge of English to really understand this 
English translation? If NT Greek students really knew Koine and read 
Josephus, Polybius, Epictetus, etc., IMO there wouldn't be any real 
problem. Rather the problem IMO is that many NT Greek students don't learn 
Koine, rather they learn a sub-set of Koine.

My first year was from "Reading Greek" by the Joint Association of 
Classical Teachers (Cambridge UP). My third semester was reading the Gospel 
of John. My fourth semester was reading "Medea" by Euripides. I had the 
good fortune to be attending a Jesuit university, so in addition to reading 
Homer, Sophocles, Plato, etc., one semester we read "The Oecumenical 
Documents of the Faith" by T. Herbert Bindley and F. W. Green, which 
included various early creeds (e.g. the Nicene Creed), the Chalcedonian 
Definition, and three letters from Cyril to Nestorius. IMO that is the type 
of education in Greek which should be normative for NT students who are 
serious about learning to read the Greek NT. Only the other hand, I 
understand that in the real world some compromises have to be made. A 
person has to decide how much time (how many years) one has to devote to 
what is arguably a lifetime study.

In fact, one can still find beginning grammars which cover both. There is 
"Beginning Greek: A Functional Approach" by Stephen Paine (Oxford, 1961), 
which might still be in print. It uses readings from the Gospel of St. John 
for the first half, and readings from Xenophon's "Anabasis" for the second 
half. Not that I feel that one would need to go such a route. Personally, I 
would recommend either "Athenaze" (Oxford Press) or "Reading Greek" 
(Cambridge Press).

-Steven Craig Miller
Alton, Illinois (USA)
scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Disclaimer: "I'm just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), 
what do I know?"




More information about the B-Greek mailing list