Gospel of Mark as Classical and High Koine Greek

Biblical Greek morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Gospel of Mark as Classical and High Koine Greek

Post by RandallButh »

Mattityahu--Ματθαίῳ, χαίρειν

As a good place to start, you might want to work through a fairly long article published 2014, Brill, and available here:
https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/ ... ishing.pdf
Buth "Distinguishing Hebrew from Aramaic in Semitized Greek Texts, with an Application for the Gospels and Pseudepigrapha"
in The Language Environment in First Century Judaea, Edd. Buth and Notley.

Actually, you could do worse than working through all of the articles in that volume.
As a caveat, you will find out in that article that a considerable amount of NT scholarship is not methodologically rigorous, whether in favor or against semitic explanations.

For an almost humorous example of how a whole field can self-deceive and echo group mistakes, you can work through another longish article, Buth and Pierce "Hebraisti in Ancient Texts: Does Ἑβραϊστί Ever Mean Aramaic?", available here: https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/ ... RAISTI.pdf . (Short answer: "No.")
Matthew Longhorn
Posts: 760
Joined: November 10th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Gospel of Mark as Classical and High Koine Greek

Post by Matthew Longhorn »

Thanks for those, I will definitely check the articles out and add the book to my wishlist. Too many on the way at the moment to justify another purchase just yet!
I have Ong’s book Multilingual Jesus and the Sociolinguistic World of the New Testament coming in the post (although the publisher is really really not Brilliant at shipping speeds). Do you have any familiarity with that?

Also - I am aware that I have just effectively derailed the topic of my own thread. αἰβοῖ καὶ μεταμέλομαι
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Gospel of Mark as Classical and High Koine Greek

Post by RandallButh »

Yes, I am aware of Ong, and no, he does not control the detail in the articles mentioned above.
Here is a little example of ignorance: "It is important to note, however, that Luke's three references to τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ (the Hebrew dialect) may not necessarily refer to the Hebrew language, but rather, and most likely, to the language of the Hebrews.100" Ong is wrong on the facts and probabilities, as the article above will show, but he is also wrong in his footnote "100" where he cites a person who contradicts his claim, without Ong's mentioning that this is a contradictory position, not supportive. However, a person should not be too harsh with Ong because he wrote the dissertation without the supervision of a strong Hebraist and mishnaicist on his committee. Many of his citations are misunderstood or misapplied. One could say it's not his fault, but Dr. Ong really shouldn't be writing in this field, yet.

Here's a little quicktest for people working in this field, easily grasped by non-Semitists: are they aware that ALL 2000+, yes 100%, of ancient Jewish story parables are recorded in Hebrew, even within Aramaic contexts? A scholar may still argue that 1st century rabbis in land of Israel taught commonly parables in other languages (wrongly, I would argue), but if they don't deal with this datum, or if they are unaware of this fact, they are out of touch with first hand data.
Matthew Longhorn
Posts: 760
Joined: November 10th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Gospel of Mark as Classical and High Koine Greek

Post by Matthew Longhorn »

RandallButh wrote: September 23rd, 2021, 2:52 pm Yes, I am aware of Ong, and no, he does not control the detail in the articles mentioned above.
Here is a little example of ignorance: "It is important to note, however, that Luke's three references to τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ (the Hebrew dialect) may not necessarily refer to the Hebrew language, but rather, and most likely, to the language of the Hebrews.100" Ong is wrong on the facts and probabilities, as the article above will show, but he is also wrong in his footnote "100" where he cites a person who contradicts his claim, without Ong's mentioning that this is a contradictory position, not supportive. However, a person should not be too harsh with Ong because he wrote the dissertation without the supervision of a strong Hebraist and mishnaicist on his committee. Many of his citations are misunderstood or misapplied. One could say it's not his fault, but Dr. Ong really shouldn't be writing in this field, yet.
Certainly makes me feel like I made a good investment when I bought that book then…

What would you say is the best book/work against your position? Not suggesting you are convinced by it, or you wouldn’t hold the position you do
Post Reply

Return to “Greek Language and Linguistics”