contra Deissmann
Mike Sangrey
msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Wed Sep 4 17:36:54 EDT 2002
On Tue, 2002-09-03 at 22:35, Michael D. Marlowe wrote:
<snip>
> 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?
Well, since you said, "anyone", let me offer what is pure opinion.
I've often thought that what we have in the GNT is masterfully
constructed content presented in the language of the people. The
content of Romans, for example, was probably presented 1000's of times,
before Paul penned the letter.
I've wondered if what experts (and otherwise) see as grammatical
problems are simply artifacts of the difference between the way people
talk and the way strict grammar connoisseurs prescribe the language. I
also sometimes think some of the "better" (in the FORM sense) Greek
writing was done not only for its content, but also as works of art.
The GNT, I suspect, was not so much focused on the art form, though this
existed, of course (eg, Phil 2:6-11), as it was on the masterful,
communicative delivery of the content. It's a short step from there to
accept that the documents were intended to be "published" and
circulated.
So, in my perspective, there's no contradiction between Deissmann and
Gamble.
Like I said, though, just an opinion.
--
Mike Sangrey
msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Landisburg, Pa.
"The first one last wins."
"A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth."
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list