From: clayton stirling bartholomew (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Mar 06 1999 - 16:11:57 EST
> You are, of course, really asking hermeneutical questions here more than
> questions about what the Greek really means, but without entering into a
> real hermeneutical response as such, let me just raise a question whether
> perhaps this hUMIN TOIS AKOUOUSIN is equivalent to the device with which
> Mark's gospel frequently frames statements of Jesus: hOS AN WTA ECEI
>>My main interest in this question is not determining which is the
>>correct answer. It is rather, to observe how the semantic structure of
>>this passage determines the answer to this question. An analysis of the
>>lexical/syntactical issues here will not resolve this issue. One is
>>forced to look at higher levels of discourse structure to address this
> I think the question I raise does go to the question you raise here.
Yes it does. I would agree that the semantic function of hUMIN TOIS
AKOUOUSIN could be nearly identical to hOS AN WTA ECEI AKOUSATW. The way
we end up discovering this is by doing work at the semantic level not by
looking at the lexical/syntactical details of the formula. We discover
that hOS AN WTA ECEI AKOUSATW serves a similar function to hUMIN TOIS
AKOUOUSIN by looking at how they are used to introduce a speech segment
in the narrative.
> I know, Clay, especially from what you've told me, that you don't want to
> "think like an academician," but I have to say that it seems to me that
> you're trying to start doing again from scratch what has already been done
> back in the 20's by Dibelius and Bultmann in the least controversial part
> of their "Formgeschichtliche" investigations. Although their terminology
> differed, it's always seemed to me rather remarkable that the logical
> categories which they developed in order to group narrative segments of the
> gospels by structural factors did in fact coincide so well with each other.
> You may prefer to do this work all over again, but you would not be wasting
> time to read the old classic of Bultmann, _History of the Synoptic
It is quite possible that I have picked up some ideas from Bultmann and
Dibelius through intermediaries. My reading of Bultmann was limited to a
study I did of the Incarnation in John which was now nearly 25 years
ago. Even then my reading of him was not extensive.
I suspect that their may be some apparent similarities between what I am
thinking about and what was written by Bultmann and Dibelieus 75 years
ago but I have some doubts about any real solid similarities. My reason
for doubting is the type of scholars I have reading in the last 20
years. Most of them have been linguists, for example E.A. Nida and J.P.
Louw. I have had some exposure to literary critical theory in the realm
of OT studies, for example the use of the Code of Hammurabi as a pattern
for understanding the Torah. Who knows where one gets all of ones ideas.
If you read a lot and keep it up for 30 years you kind of loose track of
who contributed what.
I guess what I am saying is, I suspect there is more than just a
difference in terminology here. I suspect that the difference is
probably quite basic since the whole
Saussure . . . Chomsky (early). . . E.A. Nida . . . school of though
which I have studied and subsequently rejected, was not really in place
in the 20's. I think most of my thinking about high level semantic
analysis started by reading J. P. Louw, The Semantics of New Testament
Greek, Fortress 1982. However, what I am doing in Luke does not really
follow any model that Louw sets forth in this work.
But you are right, it wouldn't do me any harm to take a look at Dibelius
and Bultmann. I would probably find there something which could be
gleaned and added to my excessively eclectic approach to NT exegesis.
-- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:19 EDT