Nouns with Diminutive Endings in the New Testament

Nouns with Diminutive Endings in the New TestamentAuthor(s): Keith ElliottSource: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 12, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1970), pp. 391-398Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1559935 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 17:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.49 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 17:44:41 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1559935?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


NOUNS WITH DIMINUTIVE ENDINGS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

BY

KEITH ELLIOTT Leeds

Diminutive suffixes tend to lose their effectiveness if the new noun formed does not thereby gain a diminutive meaning. As a language is debased in dialect or popular speech, so diminutive suffixes often lose their force. In Swiss German for example the diminutive ending -li does not necessarily always denote dimi- nution or even endearment. Good style or archaic style will therefore tend to dispense with meaningless diminutive suffixes.

Koine Greek uses diminutive suffixes more frequently than the classical language. The New Testament has more nouns with these suffixes than some comparable texts of the period. RADERMACHER 1) says that 'Diminutiva fehlen im hohen Stil wie der attischen Tra- godie ganzlich'. HOWARD writes 2) 'During the Hellenistic period the intimate language of the home and the speech of the lower social strata forced its way up into the vocabulary of literature. Words which originated in the nursery and the streets lost their hypocoristic meaning or became "faded diminutives" in many cases superseding the primitive noun'. It is therefore not surprising to find that Atticist stylists like Phrynichus objected to the proliferation of -Lto -capov endings in Greek and sought to eliminate these forms 3). D. C. SWANSON in an article 4) complains that New Testament

grammars do not deal adequately with the diminutive forms, and he seeks to examine the frequency and force of nouns with diminutive endings in the New Testament. His article does not take fully into account textual variants involving diminutives. Variants however

1) L. RADERMACHER, Neutestamentliche Grammatik, 2nd edition (1925), P. 37.

2) In J. H. MOULTON'S A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 2 by W. F. HOWARD (I929), p. 345.

3) E.g. The New Phrynichus, edited by W. G. RUTHERFORD (I88I) ? LX, ? CLXXXII.

4) 'Diminutives in the Greek New Testament', JBL LXXVII (I958), p. I34 ff.



KEITH ELLIOTT

can aid a study of the diminutives. The purpose of this paper is to show the extent to which scribes copying the New Testament were influenced by stylists like Phrynichus, and to show how far they succeeded in eliminating 'faded diminutive' forms from the mss. they were copying.

One clear example of variation is the elimination of the non- classical hapax viaCov from Acts xxvii i6 by cursive 915, which reads viaov.

More significant is the noun vzaviaq which occurs in the New Tes- tament at Acts vii 58 and is the only firm example of the noun in the New Testament. The diminutive form voavLaxoq occurs as a variant for vSocvocs at Matthew xix 20; Mark xvi 5; Acts xx 9, xxiii 17, Is, 22.

The noun v?ovwacq has been substituted for the diminutive form by scribes influenced by Atticism. In all these places the diminutive form should be read. The v.l. veravixoS in D at Acts xx 12 is also possibly original. ocvz?0oxoq occurs without variant in the New Testa- ment at Matthew xix 22; Mark xiv 5I; Luke viii 4; Acts ii 17, v 10, I John ii 13, 14. There is no difference in the meaning of vcavaocS in Acts vii 58 and the meaning of vsxv[cxoS in the verses cited above. The two words are synonymous and translators should not differentiate between them. The formation of the diminutive vsxvcaxo&pLov in Epict. ii I6.29 shows that vvaovwxoq was a faded diminutive.

The ending -laxo0 was eliminated by scribes elsewhere. At John iv 46, 49 the non classical dimunitive form paca,XaxoS is avoided by most mss., but it is read by D at both places and is printed in the W. + H. margin. This noun is probably a genuine diminutive i.e. 'princelet'. The variant is not paoaXsu6 (which occurs in John) but paXalx6q. The adjective does not occur elsewhere in John but is found in the New Testament at Acts xii 20, 21 and James ii 8. The reading pacrXotaxo at John iv 46 is favoured by the fact that if aXaLcXix6o were read, this would be an unusual use of the adjective.

At Acts xii 21 and James ii 8 3XaL?X!x6o qualifies nouns and at Acts xii 20 paxallXx6s virtually does no insofar as XCoP;q is understood. If paroXix6k were read at John iv 46 we would have a rare example of TL5 + adjective in the New Testament. Similarly at John iv 49 6 pca&X&aTxoq is more usual than 6 paocLXLx6os in view of the New Testa- ment usage of this adjective.

Just as the diminutive form of veavlac is avoided by scribes, so too are the diminutive forms of xocS and rSxvov. The diminutive

392



NOUNS WITH DIMINUTIVE ENDINGS IN THE N.T.

TacLSio which is synonymous with xorZq, occurs in the New Testa- ment at Matthew ii 8, 9, xv 38, xviii 2, 3, 4, 5, xix 13, 14; Mark v 39, 40, (bis), 41 vii 30, ix 36, 37, x I3, 15, Luke i 59, 66, 76, 80, ii 17, 27, 40, vii 32, ix 47, 48, xi 7, xviii 17; John xvi 21, xxi 5; I Cor. xiv20; Hebr. ii 13, 14, xi 23; i John ii I3, i8.1) These are firm

examples of the diminutive. However in the following places some scribes have attempted to eliminate the diminutive form andre- place it by caxq: Matthew ii II, 13 (bis), 14, 20 (bis), 21, xiv 21; Mark vii 28; John iv 49. The Latin versions sometimes translate as 'puer' sometimes as 'infans'. The New Testament authors did not differentiate between xciq and roaSLov. HOWARD2). is correct to say that xa8Liov is 'a faded diminutive' and that no consideration of size distinguishes it from its primitive. At ijohn ii 12 I accept as original the reading TrxvcL against the v.1. TrxvO. xocxaoc occurs in some mss. here but is probably due to assimilation to v. 13. ,sxvic is also to be read at I John iii 7 where there is a v.l.traL8oc. Scribes have not been overscrupulous in avoiding xat8iov but they do try to eliminate 7raL8iapLo consistently. 'The decline and disappearance of the diminutives in these -apeov formations becomes evident from their use in the papyri' says HOWARD 3). 7xapiov occurs as a variant at Matthew xi i6 (by 251, 372, lect. 184); at Mark ix 24 (by W), Mark x 14 (surprisingly by D* which is a ms. that avoids the diminutive xc8Ctov at Mark vii28) and Luke xviii i6 (by 659). At John vi 9 7roa8LapLov occurs supported by most mss., but the v.1. 7ao8Lov occurs in 2I3. 7raclapLov is probably original in these examples. Although, as we have seen, the -laxoq form is avoided by scribes influenced by Atticism, the noun xLut&ax) occurs without variants in the New Testament because the word acquired a separate meaning ('maid') and as in English is not only a diminutive form 4).

Texvov is a frequent noun in the New Testament. The diminutive form Trxviov is less frequent: it occurs without variant at John xiii 33; i John ii I, 28, iii i8, v 2I. As argued above rexvia ought to be read at I John ii 12 and probably at I John iii 7. Scribes have attempted to eliminate the diminutive form at Gal. iv 19 where several

1) &a8?pol is read instead of 7traiti at i John ii i8 by [1838 through assimilation to i John ii 7 where a large number of mss. read a8,ecpoi.

2) Op. cit., p. 345 f. 3) Op. cit., p. 347. cf. G. CR6NERT, 'Memoria Graeca Herculanensis'

(I904), P. 293. 4) 'The deteriative force of this diminutive is constant in the New Testa-

ment', says HOWARD, op. cit., p. 380.

393



KEITH ELLIOTT

mss. read Tcxvoc; similarly at i John ii 12 and at i John iv 4 where rexva is read in a few mss. The variant T&xvov is secondary especially in I John where TxxVIov is a favourite form of address. TrxvLov does not necessarily bear a different meaning from T'xvov. TXxvov itself is used as a term of endearment at i Tim. i I8; 2 Tim. ii I just as TsxvLov is in i John. In this group of diminutives involving human relationships we also note the following: (a) xopcaLov, the diminutive of x6pn, occurs without v.ll. in the New Testament even though, according to BLASS-DEBRUNNER 1) it was rejected by Atticists. Note however that Luke viii 54 reads q raoZq (cf. parallels); (b) yuvocxapdpov occurs without v. 1. at 2 Tim. iii 6 as the meaning in the context differs from yuv ; (c) the diminutive OuyaTplov at Mark v 23 is original. The v.l. OuyaT-p has been introduced by assimilation to the parallels at Matthew ix 18; Luke viii 42. OuycTrpLov (without v.l.) occurs also at Mark vii 25.

A group of diminutives in the New Testament appertain to young animals. Generally these occur without variant such as 0p'Lov, actpouOov, ovocpov, X06u8Lov and xuvapLov. It is doubtful if all these forms bear a diminutive force, and they are synonymous with the nouns ocpv, GrrpouO6S, ovoS 2), X06u and xucv 3) all of which occur in the New Testament with the exception of 7apouO66. Variation, however, does occur over the diminutive form rpopadcov which is found in John xxi i6 and xxi 17. Variants at both verses read 7rp6opara, which is significant suggesting that scribes thought John was re- ferring to sheep and not lambs here. The diminutive form is probably original both for the reason given earlier in this paper and because of the character of these verses. John xxi 15 contains the diminutive noun apvLOa. There is no suggestion that these forms contain any special indication of endearment which the forms 7rp6opoov or Op-v do not. Variation also occurs over the form sptlpLov at Matthew xxv 32. Most mss. read Sppcpov. As the diminitive form would have been objected to, ep'pocov is probably original to the text here, especially

1) F. BLASS and A. DEBRUNNER, 'A Grammar of the New Testament', English translation of the gth-Ioth German edition by R. W. FUNK (1961) ?. II.3.

2) Literally 6ovapov is'little donkey', but it is usually diminutive in form only, cf. the 'double diminutive' ILLxpov ovocpLslov in P. RYL 239.21 (cf. also W. F. ARNDT and F. W. GINGRICH-translation of W. BAUER 'A Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament' (1957), ad loc.).

3) Pace comments suggesting the diminutive softens Jesus' statements; cf. V. TAYLOR'S and CRANFIELD'S commentaries on Mark, but see JOHNSON on Mark in the Black series.

394




as Matthew xxv 33 contains a firm example of the diminutive proving the New Testament used this form. At Luke xv 29 B and I355 read pi0plov (which is printed in the W + H. margin). If we follow our rule of thumb that scribes tended to eliminate meaningless diminutives and accept the originality of the non-classical

p(cpLtov here, there is no firm example of ?'p0poq in the New Testa- ment 1).

We turn now to (Jv[ia. and jtvv?0iov which are both used in the LXX to translate the same Hebrew nouns. It is interesting to note that the only firm example of jV,7o. in the New Testament is at Acts vii i6 where the LXX is quoted. In all the other occurrences, the v.l. vtp.?Zov is found with varying degrees of ms. support 2),

e.g. at Mark v 3 ~Vy[eoO4 (by many mss.): Mark v 5 PV^lZoS (by D 565 et al.), Mark xv 46 frVL4C (by most mss.), Mark xvi 2

iuv7p%ZLov (by most mss.); Luke viii 27 [LVTYLOL4 (by D 56 71 692), Luke xxiii 53 uvN,Z1c (by several mss.), Luke xxiv i Fv-%i?ov (by many mss.), Luke xxiv 22 W, ttiEZov (by nearly all mss.); John xi 31 VuPtTiov (by nearly all mss.) 3); Acts ii 29 pFv7FtELov (by D); Rev. xi 9 pvyiiZov (by C* 2019). The -etov form should be read in all the above. The occurrences of [vYeuiov not hitherto referred to are firm and fairly frequent as can be seen from a concordance.

The nouns 'silver' and 'gold' occur in two forms. Xpua6S occurs in the New Testament as does the diminutive form Xpuaoov: &pyupoS and Mpy6ptov also occur in the New Testament. The meaning of tpyupLov differs somewhat from &ayupob, but granting this, two of the four occurrences of apyupoS in the New Testament are with variant &pyuplov suggesting that some scribes found the nouns synonymous in these contexts. At Acts xvii 29 &pyupLct is read by many mss., and at Rev. xviii 12 the diminutive form is found in variants. In these and in the two firm examples of cpyupoS (Matthew x 9; James v 3) 'silver' is linked to 'gold'. Xpuao6 is used for 'gold' in all four examples but it is significant to note that at Acts xvii 29 and Rev. xviii 12 the same mss. which alter &pyupLov

1) &ptypo and eptLcpov are interchanged in mss. at Tob. iiI2-I3. 2) Cf. Ammonius, IIEPI OMOIQN KAI AIAOOPQN AEEEQ2N, edited

by K. NICKAU in Academia Scientiorum Germanica (I966) ?. 325 (p. 84). See also G. D. KILPATRICK on 'Style and Text in the Greek New Testament' in 'Studies in the History of the New Testament in Honour of K. W. Clark, Studies and Documents XXIX, p. I57.

3) If original ,vgxct would be the only occurrence of this form in John over against 14 firm examples of Uvt-%tiov in this gospel.

395



KEITH ELLIOTT

to &pyupo? alter Xpu?aov to xpuao6. Given our general rule, the diminutive form is more likely to be eliminated by stylistically conscious scribes than that the diminutive forms were written in for no obvious purpose. The v.1. Xpuaic occurs in many mss. at I Tim. ii 9 for xp6ac. In my book on the Pastorals 1) I argue for the originality of xpuaic4. There apy6Oup (no v.1.) is coupled with XpuaLcp. Xpualov occurs without variant at Acts iii 6, xx 33; I Peter i I8, iii 3; Rev. iii 18, xxi I8, 21 but with v. 11. at I Cor. iii I2

(Xpua6v by many mss.); I Peter i 7 (Xpua6v by B); Rev. xvii 4 (Xp6acp by many mss.), Rev. xviii I6 (XZpuS by several mss.). The variants are secondary.

The noun wiva occurs at Matthew xiv 8, II; Mark vi 25, 28; Luke xi 39 without v. 11. At Luke i 63 the form 7vcaxi8lov exists as a variant to nwvoxi. It is more likely that the -Lov form of the diminutive, out of favour with certain Atticist scribes, should be original to Luke here.

3LXALov occurs frequently in the New Testament without variant, but the other diminutive forms of i,BXoq in the New Testament are not firm. At Rev. x 2, 8, 9, Io the following variants are found: pLpXapi8Lov, L3Xpiov, PX&oApLov, RXcGipLov (and in P47 R3Xiov - another diminutive of a diminutive!). c,3XLov is likely to be secondary. Of the other forms PlRXapiSlov (which occurs only in the New Testament according to Liddell and Scott's lexicon) is possibly original to the text of Revelation in all four verses. This was reduced in form by some scribes to 3riXopolov and by others to RLiRXov or

R3lXiSLov. The form P3?X8OipLov may be an attempt to rewrite the word with the more characteristic diminutive ending -apLov. SWANSON (op. cit., p. 145) agrees saying that--aapLov is classical whereas the ending-apLsLov is with one exception entirely post- classical. LtXAo01CpLov is an attempt to restore a classical suffix. Note that the BFBS Greek New Testament (2nd ed.) reads Rt- RXap[8ov at Rev. x 2, 9, o1 and R3PiRov at v. 8.

KXlwi occurs several times in the New Testament without v. 1., but the diminutive form xXvislov occurs at Luke v 19 2) and at Luke v 24 2) (with v. 1 xXIvv). The reading XLviS8Lov is original at Luke v 24. Just as the diminutive forms L[XpAoplov and pl3riXLov

1) The Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, Studies and Docu- ments XXXVI (I968), p. 41.

2) Some mss. assimilate here to the Markan parallel by substituting xpacp- pa-rov.

396




exist in New Testament mss. of Revelation, so too do the forms xXtLvlLov and xXLvappov. At Acts v 15 xXLV0pLov occurs in many mss. with v. 1. xXivi in several mss. The former is original.

Continuing our investigation of the tendency by scribes to avoid -tov -apLov endings, we turn now to the diminutive forms of ogS. o5q itself occurs frequently without variants in the New Testament, but in the story of the arrest in Gethsemane Matthew xxvi 51 uses the diminutive form roov (no v.1.). John xviii Io reads LYropLov (v. 1. oHov): oirptov is likely to be what John wrote, lrtov is due to assimilation to Matthew. This argument helps us

to decide on the originality of orMapLov at John xviii 26 (v.1. crtLov) if John is consistent in his choice of vocabulary in this chapter. At Mark xiv 47 (rU,ptov is also original: the v. 1. ohxtov has been introduced into the text by assimilation to Matthew xxvi 5I or Luke xxii 51. The occurrence of c,TLov in Luke xxii 51 is firm. At Luke xxii 50, however, it is interesting to note that the v. 1. o56 occurs for tLov. MOERIS 1) objects to 'Lov: o5S 'ArTLx6L: Wtoov "EXX?VL. As above, it is likely that the author has been consistent in his vocabulary, and the v. 1. o5S has been introduced into the text by Atticist scribes influenced possibly by MOERIS' statement 2). It is unlikely that the diminutive forms differ significantly in meaning from o3S although some lexicographers insist that rtLov denotes the outer ear and o5s the organ of hearing 3). It is difficult to argue this from the New Testament evidence and HOWARD, op. cit., p. 346 calls oLtov a faded hypocorism 4). In the healing miracle in Mark vii 33 oiS is used (cf. Mark xiv 47 above).

The diminutive form 7rXoL0pLov is also avoided by certain scribes. This form occurs at Mark iii 9; John vi 22a (no v. 11.) but at Luke v 2; John vi 22b, 23, 24, xxi 8 the form rXoZov occurs in some mss. as a variant. The diminutive form is likely to be original. The BFBS Greek New Testament, VON SODEN, SOUTER, etc. print 7rXoL0pLov at John vi 22a, 23, 24 but not at vi 22b. There is no differ-

1) In Harpocration et Moeris, ed. I BEKKER (1833), p. 205, line 25. 2) Note that BLASS-DEBRUNNER (op. cit.) ? II I:3 says that Luke is

atticising by writing o5q in v. 50 and that Srtov in v. 5I is 'emotionally charged'!

3) Cf. HOWARD, op. cit., p. 346. 4) Cf. also C. H. TURNER on 'Markan Usage', JTS, vol. 29 (I928-29),

p. 352: 'At least with obraplov and 7corCLov [q.v.] and perhaps other words he [Mark] uses such forms without any necessary diminutive force about them.'

397



398 ELLIOTT, NOUNS WITH DIMINUTIVE ENDINGS IN THE N.T.

ence in the meaning in the context and unless it can be proved that John deliberately varies his language for stylistic purposes the diminutive should be maintained throughout this passage. (trXooov is used without variant in the preceding pericope).

Of the remaining diminutives, many denote a small article such as (a) XTpuyLtov which occurs without v. 1. because it bears a different meaning from ntrepu[ which also occurs in the New Testament; (b) ropLdov which occurs four times in John without variant. co[LJ6s does not occur in the New Testament; (c) tXZLOV which occurs three times in the New Testament at Matthew xv 27 and parallel Mark vii 28, and at Luke xvi 21 (where the words are erroneously omitted in some mss.). In these three examples D avoids the diminutive (which is not classical) and writes ixZov (and erroneously Xzco)V at Matthew xv 27); (d) &yyoQ occurs at Matthew xiii 48 with v. 1. &yyi~c. The diminutive ought to be read. It occurs elsewhere in Matthew at xxv 4 (no v. 1.).

Other diminutives in the New Testament listed by SWANSON tend to have special meanings e.g. Oup[s, xYapoCXq, xzparLov and therefore are not usually subject to scribal alteration on Atticist grounds.



Date post:	24-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	keith-elliott
View:	214 times
Download:	1 times