[B-Greek] Review of Culy, 1-3 John
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jan 25 10:20:47 EST 2007
It's an interesting review. But it raises a serious question (I cite
the review):
"Is it enough to assume that a reader with a 'basic Greek
knowledge' will adequately find her or his way through the
grammatical, linguistic, and syntactical remarks, picking up and
understanding the presupposition and points of departure that are
employed in the book? If not, the user-friendliness of the book will
be jeopardized. On the other hand, it could be asked whether
providing more guidance in the introduction would amount to a sort of
'basic grammar,' something that could easily be found elsewhere and
that is evidently not the purpose of the book ... "
The question that jumps out here is: just exactly what do we mean by
"a reader with a 'basic Greek knowledge"? I suspect that opinions on
this would range over quite a spectrum, but the question raised in
the review sets one thinking along lines that have recurred
throughout my career as both a student and a teacher of Greek (and
Latin): every commentary seems to be idiosyncratic: it speaks to
questions that are not the ones that I am asking or that another
person might ask, but it surely does speak to questions that some
people ask. Going all the way back, I find that one of the best
commentaries I ever used was was Benner's _Selections from Homer's
Iliad with Vocabulary_, first published in 1903 and still available
today in a paperback format (Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/2vezfx); I
used it as a sophomore in college in 1953 and I delight to work
through it today. Another of the most valuable commentaries I ever
used was Barrett's on Euipides' Hippolytus (out of print now, I
fear), and another was Eduard Fraenkel's on the Agamemnon of
Aeschylus (republished by Oxford in 2003 but currently unavailable).
I owe an inestimable amount of what Greek I know to these
commentaries. But I've worked through commentaries that were
practically useless for me, commentaries that answered none of the
questions I wanted assistance with but all sorts of questions I
wasn't raising or interested in.
I am inclined to think that what constitutes a good commentary on a
Greek text is one that makes one understand the Greek language
better, not just this particular author's Greek, but more generally.
On Jan 25, 2007, at 8:52 AM, James Spinti wrote:
> All,
>
> There is a review of Culy's "1,2,3 John: A Handbook on the Greek Text"
> on the RBL website:
> http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5146
>
> His summary paragraph:
> In conclusion, I think Culy provides us with a handbook that will be
> welcomed by many
> students of the Letters of John. I am especially positive about the
> fact
> that the book is
> written in such a way that inexperienced Greek students who might
> consider bypassing
> the analysis of the Greek text now have a handbook that will help them
> to conquer their
> fear, hopefully giving them the necessary confidence to integrate the
> analysis of the Greek
> language with their exegetical activities, leading to a responsible
> understanding of the
> Letters of John.
>
> HTH,
>
> James
> ________________________________
> James Spinti
> Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
> Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 30 years
> Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
> jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
> Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
> Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
> Fax: 574-269-6788
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list