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

Dave Smith (REL110, 211,212) rel21x at charter.net
Sat May 20 11:50:40 EDT 2006


Curtis,

After all the rhetoric, Yiddish (Jewish-German) did/does exists. And
Jewish-English exists in Orthodox circles today. When some of these guys
(Jewish-English) get on a roll, I have a hard time understanding it myself,
and I speak English. Well, at least I speak a dialect of English, since I am
from NC.

NC dialect: If I'd of knowed, you'd could of goed; at least I'd seed you had
a way to went!
Which translates =>
Upstate SC dialect: I'd of carried you in my automobile.
American English: Would you like a ride home.

Dave Smith
Hudson, NC

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Curtis Hinson" <curtis at curtishinson.com>
To: "B Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 10:25
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Alleged Semitic idiom and TurnerRe: KATALUSAIand
PLHRWSAI


> I find disturbing the proposition that were was no "Jewish Greek" when
> the NT and LXX show such a unique character.  I've read 'early' goyische
> 'fathers' and it's different certainly.
>
> After all, we have other Jewish languages like Yiddish, Landino, even
> Jewish English with plenty of Hebrew and Yiddish mixed in.  When has
> Judaism NOT mixed with local languages to create new languages or unique
> dialects is a better question than when DID it.  I'm doing my own study
> of the issue in a way I don't know of ever having been done before, I
> will have more to say in time.
>
> I am not so concerned about the peeing contest with Turner and Horsely
> and their egos and disciples in the 70s.  The NT is Jewish Greek if it
> is any kind of Greek unless you want to claim the Septuagint is
> classical Greek or non-Jewish.  I have often thought that Moses and
> Abraham are better sources than Homer and Lysias when looking at the way
> words are USED in NT Greek, which is often Septuagintal.  Words often
> have a technical Septuagintal meaning outside the normal range in
> non-Jewish Koine, in my little bitty opinion.  The NT can be read using
> a non-Jewish Koine, but you're just misunderstanding the text then in my
> opinion.
>
> I certainly don't believe the obviously Jewish Greek of the NT is some
> special language -- obviously we're looking at a snapshot of a living,
> breathing language.
>
> But hey, Horsely dissed Turner and his rhetoric is stronger so it's all
> over, and majority opinion is always right.  Right?
>
> Bless the Name
> Curtis Hinson
> http://curtishinson.com
>
>
>
> Ann Nyland wrote the following on 5/20/2006 3:40 AM:
> > 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > ---
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> -- 
> My local weather at the time of this email:
> 69F (20C), Fair
>
> Server status:
>  08:54:01 up 58 days,  9:41,  1 user,  load average: 0.02, 0.10, 0.09
>
> ---
> 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