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

Barry nebarry at verizon.net
Sat Sep 20 09:25:25 EDT 2008


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carl W.Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
To: "B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Cc: "Rick Brannan" <textgeek at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 8:31 AM
Subject: [B-Greek] "Do not insist on classical distinctions"


> "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."

> 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.

Good points all.  With regard to Semitic influence, didn't Deismann find 
many parables in the papyri of with alleged Semitisms in the NT?  Another 
way of saying this is that Greek, even if we restrict it to the Classical 
period, was a living language, and it certainly behaved liked a living 
language.  We have only a tiny portion of all that was written and none of 
what was spoken (but unrecorded) during that period, and that is 
insufficient to show us all the different usages that may have been play.

N.E. Barry Hofstetter

Fecisti nos ad te et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te...
    -- Augustine, Confessions 1:1

http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry/
http://my.opera.com/BarryHofstetter/blog/ 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list