[B-Greek] "Do not insist on classical distinctions"

Carl W.Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Sep 20 08:31:16 EDT 2008


Rick Brannan in his most recent blog entry (Friday, Sept. 19: http://www.supakoo.com/rick/ricoblog/2008/09/19/BestParagraphIveReadToday.aspx 
  = http://tinyurl.com/5x9hlt) calls attention to the above admonition  
in Richard Young's _Intermediate New Testament Greek : A linguistic  
and exegetical approach_.

The full paragraph:

"Do not insist on classical distinctions—As noted above, Hellenistic  
Greek is not characterized by the strict usage of classical Greek. The  
preposition ἐν, for example, displays a wide variety of meanings  
beyond its root idea, much of which comes from Semitic influence. One  
of the major shortcomings of Lenski’s commentaries is his tendency to  
insist on the classical meaning of ἐν. Moule (1968:49) states, “It  
is a mistake to build exegetical conclusions on the notion that  
Classical accuracy in the use of prepositions was maintained in the  
κοινή period.” In connection with this, it might be misleading  
to say any preposition (especially ἐν [EN]) has a literal or proper  
meaning. Rather prepositions have a range of possible meanings with  
some more common than others."

I can recall pretty vividly my own awakening to some usages of EN in  
Biblical Greek that astounded me, and more than fifty years of study  
have not inured me to the shock of learning surprising new things  
about ancient Greek (like Solon, GHRASKW (KAGW) AEI POLLA  
DIDASKOMENOS). I guess the instrumental usage of EN hit me earliest  
(Mk 1:7 βαπτίσει ὑμᾶς ἐν πνεύματι  
ἁγίῳ [BAPTISEI hUMAS EN PNEUMATI AGIWi]) -- and then, checking  
LSJ brought to light that the instrumental usage of EN while not so  
common does indeed appear in earlier Greek -- even in Homer.

So at least a couple caveats come to my mind when I see this  
admonition that Rick has neatly called to our attention:
(1) Are we really quite aware of "classical distinctions" between  
prepositions -- and other supposed differentiations as well?
(2) How rigorously distinguished in fact are those "classical  
distinctions" in earlier Greek? (Elizabeth Kline called attention  
recently to usage of APO + genitive to indicate agent with a passive  
verb in a text from Sophocles' Oedipus at Colonus, then to comparable  
usage in Acts 2:24 and 4:36. Is this a poetic distinction in Classical  
Attic? No; LSJ describes it as "of the person from whom an act comes,  
i.e. by whom it is done" and cites instances in Herodotus and  
Thucydides and even Plato.

All of which inclines me once again to insist, as does Caragounis (The  
Development of Greek and the New Testament), that NT Koine is a  
language in flux and that understanding and describing it accurately  
involve appreciation of Greek forms and usage prior to and subsequent  
to the era of NT Koine. There are alpha-aorist forms of second-aorist  
roots already in Homer (HNEGKA and ECEA) and the modern Greek usage of  
NA + subjunctive is prefigured in the range of hINA substantive  
clauses in the NT Koine.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Ret)




More information about the B-Greek mailing list