[B-Greek] Alleged Semitic idiom and TurnerRe: KATALUSAI and PLHRWSAI
Dr A. Nyland
nyland at tsn.cc
Fri May 19 23:24:40 EDT 2006
Hi Dave and all,
Turner's idea of extensive Semitic idioms in the N.T. has been discredited -
be most wary of Turner's work. G.D. Kilpatrick, in his review of Turner's
Syntax and Style (at TLZ 104 [1979] 10), notes that Turner's work ignores
modern developments in research. On Turner's work, N.T. lexicographer
Horsley, NDIEC 5.68, 71, states, "Turner...begins his entry with a bald and
inaccurate statement... Turner's decision to take little account of
non-literary evidence is borne out strikingly by his bibliography...The
impression left with the reader is that Turner's reading of documentary
texts had ceased before the Second World War." Horsley, NDIEC 5.64, states,
"The question ought to be pondered, whether the failure of much NT
philological research to keep abreast of relevant linguistic developments
may be due in part to the continuing acceptance and popularisation of the
misconceived hypothesis that 'Jewish Greek' was an actual, spoken dialect of
the koine."
Turner was responsible for the Syntax volume of Moulton's Grammar of New
Testament Greek, a volume considered to be seriously deficient. Turner was
appointed to assist H.G. Meecham (and to continue after Meecham's death,
Meecham being appointed after W.F. Howard who had assumed responsibility
upon Moulton's death), when his views were at odds with those of Moulton.
Horsley, NDIEC 5.50, states, "Despite the fact that the book appeared in the
1960s it reflects XIXth -century attitudes in its approach to grammar. There
is no awareness of recent developments in general Linguistics in the areas
of syntax and semantics, even of those books written specifically within the
sphere of Biblical Studies...Thus, although the book was not begun until the
mid-1950's, the reader is left with the impression that it is an already
outmoded product of the late 1930s which was not published for a further
generation."
Turner's position is that the Greek of the Bible was different from secular
Greek, and is "a unique language with a unity and character of its own".
(Syntax, 4.) Syntax has no basis in sound evidence, and Horsley, NDIEC
5.54,55,61, states, "His stance has become increasingly extreme...Yet even
here there are disturbingly inaccurate claims about such straightforward
matters as NT frequencies... Turner's contribution to NT syntax fails to
meet the required standard of an authoritative and clear guide to its
subject... In this respect, the comments made above about Turner's Syntax
being out of date are applicable also to other NT grammar work of the last
generation. With the increasing separation of Classics and Biblical Studies
the proverb, 'Out of sight, out of mind', unfortunately sums up the
disregard which much of NT Studies has shown for documentary publications
since roughly the 1930s."
I'm simply saying to be wary of Turner's work. N.T. lexicographer G.H.R.
Horsley, who with J.A. Lee (both of Australia) has been working on the N.T.
lexicon of documentary sources to replace Moulton and Milligan, does write
extensively about Turner's errors, as do others. It is also worth reading
Max Wilcox on supposed Semitisms in the N.T. That has been his area of
research for decades.
Ann Nyland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Smith (REL110, 211,212)" <rel21x at charter.net>
To: <gfsomsel at juno.com>
Cc: <B-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] KATALUSAI and PLHRWSAI
> Though we are not dealing with what some pre-20th century writers called
> Holy [Ghost] Greek, or some such term, we do deal with Semitic idioms,
> Semitic inference, loan words, loan translations, and Semitic influence.
> Some of these, like the loan translation PERI hAMARTIAS => sin offering,
> occur in the LXX, some do not. Circumlocutions for God, common in Jewish
> circles and appearing in the NT, Kingdom of Heaven/God, do not appear
> otherwise, but are common in Jewish Aramaic literature. There is some very
> un-Greek Greek in Mark's gospel, most of which has been explained in
> reference to Semitic influence or idioms (An Aramaic Approach to the
> Gospels
> and Acts, Black, OUP). Nigel Turner, in Christian Words, also touches upon
> this matter from a lexical viewpoint. The NT uses technical terminology,
> which cannot be explained with recourse to non-religious koine sources.
> There are also content areas that are only explained from non-Greek,
> religious sources, such as II Timothy 3:8 that refers to a gloss from the
> Targums of the Pentateuch, not the Hebrew Text or LXX.
>
> Some of the common words in Jewish exegesis are Peshat and Midrash/derash.
> I
> think NT writers use both, at times. Now Matthew, along with St. John's
> gospel, are most directly connected with Judaism and Jewish ideology.
> Though
> to be honest, there was a great deal of Jewish, and thus Semitic,
> influence
> on the whole first generation of Christians, Jew and Gentile. So, I would
> not ignore Jewish/Semitic insight. On the other hand, in the NT, PLHROW is
> very frequently used with the simple idea of fulfilling/accomplishing
> [prophecy] or observing a mitzvah (commandment), along with THREW and
> FULASSW. I would think, if there is a Semitic inference here, it is a
> little
> backwards. KATALUW may possibly be used for correct interpretation of a
> difficult matter, as in untying a knot, but I don't think it is used for
> misinterpreting. In Mat. 5:17 it sure looks like the antithesis of
> fulfill,
> which would be tear down or destroy/break a commandment. It almost looks
> like the idiom of either destroying a vessel or filling it with some
> substance. In this, I think George is correct. With divergent schools of
> thought in Israel in the first century, such as Shammai and Hillel, and
> latter with the Talmud, it is hard to see how there could be such a thing
> a
> misinterpretation in Jewish circles, unless it would be grammatical. There
> were later arguments between Jews and Christians, where Jews accused
> Christians of misinterpretation, especially in reference to the LXX. But
> even the LXX was translated by Jews, many years before the advent of
> Jesus.
>
> David Smith
> Hudson, NC
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list