[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