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