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

Ann Nyland nyland at tsn.cc
Sat May 20 04:40:41 EDT 2006


Hi Dave,
Hopefully here's some trees.. or forest?...
Horsley wasn't out at all, he did not say Turner's work was published in the 
1930s - I quoted him as saying, "bibliography...The impression left with the 
reader is that Turner's reading of documentary texts had ceased before the 
Second World War."
That is documentary texts, that is, papyri and inscriptions, not "published 
books" (or journals etc).
Nevertheless, the chronological bibliography in Syntax lists 61 items, but 
only 10 of these are post 1945, the other 50 are from 1859-1939. He mentions 
not a single papyrus or isncription pubished later than the mid-1930s. He 
does not even mention Barr's Semantics of Biblical Language.
Turner draws very heavily upon E. Mayser's Grammatik der grieschischen 
Papyri aus der Ptolemaerzeit which appeared variously in editions from 
1906-1938, so heavily in fact, that it has been suggested (in journal) that 
Syntax is ltitle mroe than a rough translation of Mayser.
Turner frequently states, "the pap." but does not give references to 
specific papyri.
Moulton and Milligan were out of date as soon as they published, I don't 
know if there is anyone who will disagree with that, such is the nature of 
documentary studies.
I don't know why the new lexicon in progress would be a rival in ideology or 
otherwise to MM, and it was certainly never considered as such, especially 
considering the wealth of documentary soruces published for the first time 
or republished after 1976.
Yes, I agree with you that the NT is certainly not to be explained totally 
by reference to 1st century Koine. I certainly do agree that there are 
Semitisms, but I certainly don't agree that there was Jewish Greek.You said, 
Turner "did not believe in Holy Greek"- yet surely this is precisely what he 
is known for. Turner states that the Greek of the Bible is "a unique 
language with a unity and character all of its own". (Syntax, 4)
To quote Turner: "Intense study of vocabulary and syntax seem to me to 
establish that there was a distinguishable dialect of spoken and written 
Jewish Greek. That is to say, the Biblical language was more than a written 
product of those whose mother tongue was Semitic and who floundered in Greek 
becuase they knew so little of it that they must copy Semitic idioms as they 
penned it. I am not the first to suggest that the Greek of the OT was a 
language distinct from the main stream of the Koine, yet fully understood by 
Jews... Biblical Greek is so powerful and fluent, it is difficult to believe 
that those who used it did not have at hand a lnaguage all ready to use. 
This, I submit, was the normal language of Jesus, at least in Galilee - 
rather a separate dialect of Greek than a norm of the Koine, and 
distnguishable as something parallel to classicil, Hellenistic, Koine and 
Imperial Greek." (Turner, Grammatical Insights into the N.T. (Edinburgh, 
1965) 183.
In A Grammar of NT Greek, Style, (Edinburgh, 1976) 1-2, Turner wrote, "The 
nature of the Greek of the NT demands close attention, raising the question 
as to what kind of 'dialect' it is, and whether it is even a unity within 
itself... Though there is a comparative style for each author, I believe the 
styles are not so far apart as to impair the inner homogeneirty of Biblical 
Greek..."
Horsely (NDIEC 5.5) states, "One might have thought that the acceptance of 
the existence of a special dialect of koine called 'Jewish greek' was today 
a minority view, an aberration within the context of NT philological 
study...While N. Turner has been perhaps the most forthright and consistent 
exponent of this position over the last thirty years..."
Max Wilcox's article on Semitisms ANPW 11.25.2 (1984) 978-1029 demonstrates 
why the presence of Semitisms in the NT does not amount to a case for Jewish 
Greek. (He also wrote The Semitisms of Acts.)
At least MM, in their lexicon, no matter how recent or othwrsie their Greek, 
do give valuable references, despite missing out 17% of NT words and not 
providing references for 800 that they did give. However, I have always felt 
sorry for Moulton as he must have received heaps of ribbing for his "famous 
last words" of 1910: "I do not think that papyrology will take us much 
further. New papyrus collections will only add details now."
Best wishes,
Ann Nyland

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Smith (REL110, 211,212)" <rel21x at charter.net>
To: "Dr A. Nyland" <nyland at tsn.cc>
Cc: <B-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Alleged Semitic idiom and TurnerRe: KATALUSAI and 
PLHRWSAI


> 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