Imagine how we neophytes feel. I took Hebrew with a Semitic philologist
who disliked linguistics but used modern linguistic terminology. I later
reviewed Hebrew with a more "traditional" Jewish scholar who preferred
using Hebrew names instead of linguistic terminology. The two textbooks
used by the two different instructors differed even in the morphologies
of the verbs presented in the paradigms! Somehow I managed to pass my
graduate Hebrew exam.
Now for Greek:
Alfred Loisy and other commentators consider Acts 14:13 TAUROUS KAI
STEMMATA . . . ENEGKAS as a hendiadys for TAUROUS ESTEMMENOUS. Is this
purely a stylistic choice on the part of Luke? (I've checked Smyth and
BDF). Was hendiadys considered "elevated" or "colloquial" style in the
early imperial era? Apart from stylistic concerns and providing
additional minor evidence about Luke's social location, I do not see that
interpretation of 14:13 is greatly affected by the use or non-use of
hendiadys.
Does anyone have any information or references about the status
qaestionis of the influence of Semitic languages, such as Aramaic, upon
koine? Just curious.
Thanks.
Lynn Kauppi
PhD cand
New Testament
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago