From: Edgar M. Krentz (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Nov 07 1996 - 21:00:59 EST
>However I'm not qualified to qualify! When I used the expression "bad
>Greek," I had in mind, as I've already expressed, that which does not
>occur in literary writing. That is essentially an objective
>assessment. Now that the discussion has taken the turn toward the
>subjective evaluation of style, I no longer qualify as a participant,
>having read little outside the NT.
>Questions of style have always intrigued me, though I rather suspect
>that nobody will ever succeed in subjecting literary style to
>quantitative analysis. Nigel Turner's volume on Style in Moulton's
>grammar has an interesting collection of data, but I've never been
>able to draw anything from it that I can get a grip on.
>I wonder whether our sense of style in English (or whatever our
>native language may be) rests on a breadth of exposure that we are
>unlikely to equal in the study of any ancient language.
Some few scholars have read enough, long enough to do that. Walter Bauer
read ALL the texts listed in the preface to his lexicon--and went half
blind doing it. Ulrich von Wilamowitz Moellendorf read most of the
surviving Greek literature. Erasmus in the sixteenth century had read most
of Latin literature and was himself a stylist in Ciceronian prose.
these were all people who began the study of Greek at age 10 or earlier,
and read it professionally for 50+ years. They can discuss style, as Eduard
Norden did in DIE ANTIKE KUNSTPROSA.
Edgar Krentz, New Testament
email@example.com OR ***** firstname.lastname@example.org
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
1100 East 55th Street
CHICAGO IL 60615
TEL.: 773-256-0752 FAX: 773-256-0782
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:56 EDT