Discussion about *style*
Thomas J. Kraus
thomas-juergen.kraus at theologie.uni-regensburg.de
Wed May 19 02:30:23 EDT 1999
In recent posts to the list reference was made to Turner, pp. 140-142
disqualifying 2Peter as "cumersome," "vague and ambiguous," "tiresome
iteration" to name only a few of his subjective evaluation. What do such
qualifications tell about a text? They are more or less qualifications as
such and do not help in any way to describe the style of a text. One may
ask: what/where/when is the point for comparison set? "Classical" Greek?
Koine (Polybios etc.)? Papyri (ptolemaic, graeco-roman, byzantine)?
Furthermore, Nigel Turner holds a specific view towards what he calls and
describes as *Biblical Greek*. To him Greek as depicted via the Septuagint
and the writings of the NT are saturated by Hebraisms and Aramaisms which
can clearly be identified (isn´t that too positivistic; see Fitzmyer´s
reservations). Greek texts outside the NT (LXX) are regarded as being
worthless for describing the semantic and etymolgical field of vocabulary
and for evaluating the syntax of biblical texts.
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list