contra Deissmann

Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Wed Sep 4 07:37:14 EDT 2002


[The following message has been heavily edited to remove MIME/multi-part/HTML 
formatting. PLEASE don't use this formatting for messages sent to the list! cwc]

In a message dated 9/4/2002 7:00:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, abe at tusco.net 
writes:

Question: Would anyone here care to comment on the statement that the NT
was largely written in the "professional prose of the day," contra
Deissmann?
___________________________________

I'm not sure that the position was ever that the Greek of the NT was without 
literary merit.  In his Grammar A.T. Robertson (who was a strong supporter of 
Deissmann) stated 

"The papyri often show the literary KOINH and all grades of variation, while 
the lengthy and official inscriptions "often approximate in style to the 
literary language."  Long before many words are used in literature they 
belong to the diction of polite speech.  In a word, the N. T. Greek "occupies 
apparently an intermediate position between the vulgarism of the populace and 
the studied style of the litterateurs of the period."   
p. 84 

and

"Paul and Seneca have often been compared as to style and ideas, but a 
pertinent linguistic parallel is Arrian's report of the lectures of 
Epictetus. "
p. 128 

He also notes

"Farrar suggests that Paul had a teacher of rhetoric in Tarsus."
p. 130 

Thus, it is nothing new to say that the Greek of the NT was not simply poor 
Greek as exhibited by the less educated strata of society.

gfsomsel



More information about the B-Greek mailing list