[B-Greek] Alleged Semitic idiom and TurnerRe: KATALUSAI and PLHRWSAI

Dave Smith (REL110, 211,212) rel21x at charter.net
Sat May 20 02:31:07 EDT 2006


Ann,

Thank you for the comments, but at least part of the information seems a
little difficult to apply. Now I need you to help me if I've missed
something, like not seeing the forest for the trees.

In Turner's Syntax, p. x, the biblography goes up through1958, not 1930.
Since the work was published in 1963, he was current with the latest
published books; he does not mention monographs or journals in this section.
The same will go for his Christian Words, that acknowledges the studies in
Papyri of the first half of the 20th century, including Moulton and
Milligan, and the contribution of Kittel down to 1949. His end notes, after
each entry, can be more extensive yet. Though Turner may have been
defective, I don't think he was ignorant of Koine studies and he should not
to be classed with those who did not recognize the character of 1st century
Koine. He may have attempted to moderate what he considered an over emphasis
on a monolithic envoriment for the NT, rather that the diversified viewpoint
encompassing both 1st century koine, previous Greek literature, and
religious (Jewish & Christian) technical terminology/phraseology. I have a
copy of Turner's work, dated October 1980 written to me in his own hand when
I was doing a dissertation on the Semitic influence on the Epistle to the
Hebrews. I corresponded with him, and went around and around on these ideas,
sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing. He did not believe in Holy
Greek, but he did believe in Christian and Jewish technical termonology
(T.T.) David Hill was author that performed similar research previous to
Turner's. Christian Words was somewhat parallel with the many theological
dictionaries/wordbooks of that time. He attempted to prove a thesis, to the
satisfaction of some, and to the dissatisfaction of others. It happens all
the time. There is at least one popular author today, promoting the
supposedly debunked theories of Walter Bauer's orthodoxy and heresy in the
early Church with great success. It's just that few realize that this is a
rerun.

Turner's volume on Style was never received very well, but it was a first
attempt in this arena. He may have gotten it wrong, but the chore was left
for another to complete. For instance, I noticed early on that the author of
John's gospel had a perchance for synonymy and all the popular preaching,
based on the Greek (as they would say), about the two words for love in the
last chapter ignored the two words for feed, and two words for sheep, and
the rest of the book that used synonymy as a literary device, though not
always intending to modify the meaning. Moises Silva touched on some of
these ideas in Biblical Words and their Meaning as early as 1983.

If it is claimed, on the basis of bibliography alone, though Horsley is in
error by 30 years (see Grammar of NTG, III, p. x), that Turner had little
acquaintance with 1st century Koine; what can be said of  J. H. Moulton, who
in the preface to the Prologomena stated, "Till three years ago, my own
teaching work scarcely touched the Greek Testament, classics and comparative
philology claiming the major part of my time," (p.ix). I own the copy of
Justin Martyr that once belonged to Moulton, in which he recorded completing
the Apologies on Feburary 1905 with J. N. Davies. The very references given
in his Volume I to Justin Martyr are underlined in my copy of the Apologies;
Volume I was printed in  December 1905, just 10 months later. Thus, he had
seen some of this literature, Justin Martyr for example, but once in his
lifetime up until then. Nor is J. N. Davies mentioned, who read and
discussed post NT literature with Moulton for several months right before
publication. I do not degrade the worth of the book based on this, but he
admits a great deal more lacuna in his research, at least at that time, than
Turner possessed when he wrote.

I wonder if "discredited" is too strong a word for Turner's work, especially
for those researching a new Moulton & Milligan, which should be, to some
extent, a rival in ideology. If the NT is to be totally explained by
reference to 1st century Koine, then from whence is MARONA THA or AMEN,
which I find in the Didache, but not in other Koine. We see PARRHSIA meaning
to speak without using a parable in John's gospel and hOTI for DIA TI,
neither of which appear in Koine.  Though St. Mark 2:16 uses hOTI; both
Matthew and Luke agree against Mark, having DIA TI for the same passage, and
although some English versions have missed this, the Peshitta correctly
translated it..The strange fact is that Mark can use proper grammar for this
same idiom at other times, just 2 verses away (Mark 2:18). Luke had problems
with Matthew and Mark's use of THALASSA for Lake, always using LIMNH, except
for the Mediterranean. Apparently both Mark and Luke avoid the wider usage
of PROSKUNEW (reserving it for divine worship), though Matthew does not.
These were 1st century writers that somehow did not like what the other guys
were doing sometimes.  It is hard to explain phenomena such as this without
acknowledging a certain amount of Semitic influence, loan translations, and
technical terms, which is not the same thing as Holy Greek. If certain
grammar, lexical connotations or denotations, or phrases only occur in NT
and later Christian literature, there is at least a percentage of
uniqueness. I don't think this phenomena in itself is unique, because it
happens in all fields where technical terminology and language exist:
medicine, computer science, engineering, and New Testament Studies. Have any
of us tried using hapax logomena in a sentence with anyone other than one
involved in biblical or linguistic studies lately? If that one worked, how
about haplography, dittography, or homoioteleuton? It just doesn't go over
very well at the grocery store!

Dave Smith
Hudson, NC


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dr A. Nyland" <nyland at tsn.cc>
To: <B-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 23:24
Subject: [B-Greek] Alleged Semitic idiom and TurnerRe: KATALUSAI and
PLHRWSAI


> 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
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>



More information about the B-Greek mailing list