[B-Greek] Turner's Grammar

R Yochanan Bitan Buth ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il
Fri Nov 26 19:21:19 EST 2004


> With the recent discussion of Greek grammars

> (Robertson, B-D-F, Smythe, Zerwick, and Caragounis),

> do Carl and others have an opinion about Nigel

> Turner's Grammar (Vol. III of Moulton)?

> 

>>From the little I have seen, he does overdo the

> Aramaic influence on Greek. But it would be nice to

> have the opinion of experts!

> 

> Thanks!

> 

> William Smith

 

Shalom William

Yes, OK, Turner, v 3 and 4, misses something everyone seems to miss/ignore: 

Semitic influence in Mark and Luke cannot be from second-temple period
Aramaic, since all our second-temple Judean Aramaic used edayin as a
narrative conjunction. This shows up in semitized Greek as TOTE, something
lacking in Mark and Luke, though they both have a semitized syntax in places
and in varying influences.  So for semitic syntax read 'Hebrew'. Yes,
Hebrew, just like Qumran and 1st century rabbis would lead us to expect. See
Buth in _Maarav_ 1990, "Edayin/tote anatomy of a semitism in Jewish Greek". 

While the correct semitic language may seem irrelevant, if people miss that,
then qal vaHomer, how can you trust the little details? 

 

errwso

Randall Buth

 

Randall Buth, PhD

Director, Biblical Language Center

www.biblicalulpan.org

and Director, Biblical Studies in Israel

Hebrew University, Rothberg International School

ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il

 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list