[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Classical Greek
I do not want to belabour the point either, but the distinctions are important.
Ted Brunner says:
> I really don't want to belabor a point, but here's just one (of
> countless) reasons why an understanding of the New
> Testament can be aided by a knowledge of Classical Greek: if I were a
> student of the N.T. (which admittedly I am not), I would most likely
> be interested in what later christian writers had to say about that text so
> dear to my heart. Theologians such as Eusebius. Cyril of Alexandria.
> John Chrysostom. And others in late antiquity, who--though admittedly
> writing homilies and other similar compositions in Koine--tried to
> approximate what they thought was Attic Greek in many of their
> theological treatises. Was it Wilamowitz who said that "Chrysostom's
> language is the most Attic of all"?
I would never say that a knowledge of Classical Greek can not aid the
study of NT Greek, only that there are closer forms of Greek in both
time and style and that if one has to turn to Classical Greek for an example
of grammar or word usage found in the NT s/he must go carefully.
If one wants to know the thoughts about the NT by
later writers who purposely imitated Classical Greek, then the value
of knowing Classical Greek greatly increases, indeed, becomes imperative.
But that is a study of others views, not the NT text itself, an important
distinction within the current debate.
Glenn Wooden
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| R. Glenn Wooden | JANET: rgw1@uk.ac.st-and |
| St. Mary's College | Internet: rgw1%st-and.ac.uk@cunyvm.cuny.edu |
| St. Andrews University | EARN/BITNET: rgw1%st-and.ac.uk@UKACRL |
| Scotland | UUCP: rgw1%st-and.ac.uk@UKC.UUCP |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------