Contributions by Steve Long

[petegray]

> Standard histories of Greek, ... present a history of constant change, ...
> The ... historical periods (Mycenaean, Homeric, classical, Hellenistic, New
> Testament, Byzantine, and what not) [are] ... a convenience,

True.  The convenience is also inconvenient in that it hides shifts in
register or social context, which may give a distorted view if we think the
language actually developed linearly through these periods.   We know, for
example, that New Testament Greek is very different from literary Greek of
the same period (e.g. Philo), which is different again from the language of
contemporary papyri.   NT Greek had substantial influence from both Hebrew
(Old Testament - LXX) and Aramaic, which other forms of Greek at that time
did not.

The fact that one type of language is most readily available and attested
for a particular time should not blind us to the idea that other forms of
the language existed alongside it - even if these forms are unattested!

Despite its enormous subsequent influence, classical Greek has many forms
which are a dead end, a linguistic blind alley.   Some Attic forms or
constructions were so out of step with most other dialects, that they did
not survive into Koine, but were replaced either with a form from another
dialect, or with a hybrid.   Thus, although it is convenient, and at some
levels necessary, to talk of Greek developing linearly through the stages
mentioned, we should recognise that this is an over-simplification of the
actual complexity.

Peter