[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #859
b-greek-digest Thursday, 14 September 1995 Volume 01 : Number 859
In this issue:
A Student with Questions
1 John 1:1-4
Re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU
Re: 1 John Commentaries
Re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU
Style analysis
Re: Style analysis
RE > 1 John Commentaries an
Re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU
Re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU
Re: Style analysis
Re: Style analysis
Re: RE > 1 John Commentaries an
Re: Style analysis
Re: Style analysis
Re: Style analysis
Re: Style analysis
Black 1988
re Questions from a Student
Re: Style analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carabine@aol.com
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 01:45:53 -0400
Subject: A Student with Questions
To All:
I hope I have found the forum that can give critical (constructive)
comment on some of my observations and questions--mostly questions--I have
amassed after years of poring over critical commentaries and works dealing
with Greek grammar. For example, does anyone know of anything that purports
to vitiate any of Lane McGaughy's rules by which we may determine the
subjects in equative sentences? (See Lane McGaughy, _Toward a Descriptive
Analysis of EINAI as a Linking Verb in New Testament Greek_ [Missoula, MT:
SBL, 1972].)
Consider a surprising effect upon translation that can result from a
certain application of McGaughy's "Rule 3d": "If both words or word clusters
[subject and subjective complement] are determined by an article, the first
one is the subject" (p. 53). Specifically, it seems to me that this rule
should have a bearing on translation of John 1:1c. How so? Consider: If
John had wished to write John 1:1c commensurate with trinitarianism, then he
could have written it just as we see it in Codex L (KAI hO QEOS JN hO LOGOS),
for concerns about syntactical ambiguity in equative sentences (i.e., 'What
is the subject--what is the predicate--in the example taken from Codex L?')
cannot obtain in the light of McGaughy's Rule 3d--provided it is valid.
Sincerely,
Al Kidd
------------------------------
From: Jezzy111@aol.com
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 03:42:29 -0400
Subject: 1 John 1:1-4
Hello everyone :-)
My name is Wayde Gilliam and would like to receive some comments on the
following questions concerning the first four verses of 1 John from those
involved in this forum. Here they are:
1. (v.1) --- "ap archs" What does the "beginning" (archs) refer
to?
2. (v.1) --- "peri tou logou tns zwhs" How have some of you
translated this
phrase and
why?
3. (v.1) --- "tou logou zwhs" I recognize that John is obviously
speaking about
Christ here, but I am
still uncertain as to why John
refers to him as "the
word of life" (v.1) and "this
eternal life" (v.2).
What do you think?
4. (v.4) --- "h peplhrwmenh" I recog. this to be a periphrastic
use of the perfect,
but I am unable to
confidently translate the phrase.
How would you translate
it, and what is the meaning
of this verse (if you got
any ideas)?
5. By the way, if you got any comments on the overall structure
of 1Jn.1:1-4
please send them to me as well (always looking for more hints
into
understanding the thrust of John here) :-)
Thanks for you help in advance. My email address is Jezzy111@aol.com
Grace and Peace in Christ,
Wayde Gilliam
Vista, CA
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 05:40:20 -0500
Subject: Re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU
I've been very busy yesterday, but I have been thinking further about
Carlton's post. I appreciate his two responses to a couple initial concerns
about Mark's "church" and the pre-70 (albeit not very long before) dating
of the gospel of Mark. I am still somewhat troubled by the apparent
implications of Carlton's use of "church," even granting that Mark would
have used the word "disciples," because I think he still envisions some
sort of an institutional relationship between the disciples, and I'm not
sure therre's a justification for that. Maybe he doesn't mean to imply it.
The problem for me is that the separation between the destruction of
Jerusalem and the Parousia--or, if that word be undesirable because Mark
doesn't use it, the appearance of the Son of Man (still the same thing,
isn't it?). Let me go to the specifics of Carlton's original post again:
At 9:37 PM 9/11/95, WINBROW@aol.com wrote:
> . . . . . . I would like to suggest
>though that Mark is not necessarily thinking of parousia and the time of the
>end but of the manifestation of the risen Christ to the church to aid them in
>their one task that consumes Mark, the proclamation of the gospel to the
>nations starting in Galilee (14:28 & 16:7). For Mark the central verse in
>the Olivet discourse seems to be 13:10, "and most importantly (PROTON may be
>an adverbial accusative) this gospel must be preached unto all the nations"
>(unto all the nations is emphatic). I have long thought that the key to the
>"Messianic Secret" in Mark is 9:9, "While they were coming down the mountain,
>he commanded them not to tell anyone until the Son of Man had risen from the
>dead." Mark considered that preaching the Son of Man as Messiah before the
>crucifixion/resurrection would be to preach with an inadequate concept of
>Messiah. As Morna Hooker has pointed out in the Son of Man in Mark, the
>title Son of Man carried with it from Daniel a note of both suffering and
>vindication. Just as Jesus could not be Messiah apart from suffering and
>vindication, Mark conceives that there is no discipleship without suffering
>and faith that the gospel would be vindicated. The whole section from the
>healing of the blind man in chapter 8 to the healing of blind Bartimaeus in
>chapter 10 is a 3-fold cycle of suffering, vindication, and teaching about
>true discipleship patterned after true messiahship.
>
>All this leads me to think that in Mark 13, Mark is presenting Jesus seeking
>to separate for the disciples the events of the destruction and the turmoil
>in which the church was being birthed (birthpangs) and had to preach the
>gospel and the parousia. If this is true, the vision of the Son of Man may
>not have anything to do with parousia (Mark avoids the word). He even said
>early on that the wars and rumors of wars were inevitable but the end is not
>yet. Werner Kelber in his book The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and A New
>Time claims that Mark is trying to separate these two things. I would think
>that his date after the destruction is too late. Reading Josephus'
>description of the events leading up to 70 BCE furnishes us with the setting
>of messianic deceivers and the rush headlong to free Jerusalem from the
>Romans. The vision of the Son of Man in 13:26-27 may be the vindication of
>the Son of Man and his sending his "messengers" forth to gather the elect,
>clearly the churches job in most of the NT. This would be parallel to the
>picture of the Son of Man in Rev. 1 walking among the lampstands, symbols for
>the churches of the vision of the Son of Man Luke reported as seen by Stephen
>as he died standing vindicated at the Father's right hand. In fact all the
>future Son of Man sayings in Mark may refer only to his vindication beyond
>death/resurrection so as to give faith to the disciples as Mark calls them to
>launch into the world mission of the church. The parable of the fig tree
>refers to judgment on Israel and the closing phrase translated "know that it
>is at the gate." The statement in vs. 24, "In those days after that
>tribulation" seems to me to be a kind of apocalyptic way of further
>separating 70 BCE from the parousia. The use of apocalyptic language from
>Joel in 24-25 should be compared with the use of the same language from Joel
>in Peter's speech in Acts 2 to refer to what happened on the day of Pentecost
>(Acts 2:17-21). The only direct reference in Mark 13 to parousia may be in
>vs. 32ff. That which happened in that generation was that the Son of Man was
>vindicated and sent his disciples to proclaim the gospel to all the nations.
> I don't think that there can be much doubt that Mark wanted his readers to
>be ready to do just that.
I don't really understand this conception of "the manifestation of the
risen Christ to the church to aid them in their one task that consumes
Mark, the proclamation of the gospel to the nations starting in Galilee
(14:28 & 16:7)."
It seems to me, after considerable reflection, to be based upon the way in
which Matthew's gospel has interpreted Mark's indications about Jesus
meeting the disciples in Galilee--i.e., Matthew presents in chapter 28 an
account of a mountaintop Galilean meeting of disciples with the
risen-and-ascended Christ who commissions them for their task. Perhaps I've
misunderstand Carlton here and that's not what he has in mind, but if it
is, I have to say that I'm not convinced that such a meeting is what Mark's
texts was pointing to. Then what is he pointing to in 14:28 and 16:7?
Marxsen thought, and I think Kelber and Perrin thought that Galilee was a
symbolic term for the world-at-large and the confrontation to take place
there would in fact be the parousia. I don't know that I find that
altogether convincing either. We can't help speculating about what we don't
understand in the gospels (and there's A LOT in the gospels that we don't
understand, isn't there?), but I'm not sure how much of a basis we have to
speculate on what the Galilean meeting was supposed to be. I have some
vague ideas, but they are so vague that I am far from ready to discuss
them.
However that may be, I am still troubled by the apparent implication of
Carlton's understanding of Mark 13, that there will be a considerable gap
between the destruction of Jerusalem and whatever-you-may-want-to-call the
ultimate coming of the Son of Man on the clouds. The Marcan text that seems
to me to run counter to that view is 9:1 (but 14:62 addressed to the
Sanhedrin leaders seem to me to point in the same direction).
9:1 AMHN LEGW hUMIN hOTI EISIN TINES hWDE TWN hESTHKOTWN hOITINES OU MH
GEUSWNTAI QANATON hEWS AN IDWSIN THN BASILEIAN TOU QEOU ELHLUQUIAN EN
DUNAMEI.
This is the same passage that seemed to me crucial in the earlier
discussion with Jan Haugland. I don't see how the destruction of Jerusalem
can be characterized by the phrasing "the Kingdom of God HAVING COME WITH
POWER." This verse and 14:16 really seem to me to indicate that Mark the
evangelist understood the gap between the destruction of Jerusalem and the
full realization of God's Kingdom/Reign as short enough for some of those
now alive (either in Jesus' hearing or at the time of Mark's redaction) to
experience it as a fait accompli. Is there another way to understand this
passage?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: J.D.F.=van=Halsema%BW_KG%TheoFilos@esau.th.vu.nl
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 14:42:49 EET
Subject: Re: 1 John Commentaries
The commentary in the 'Anchor bible series' by R.E. Brown is, imho, very
fine. But perhaps that the scope of this book (812 pages) is beyond the need
of a bible study group.
Greetings, Erik
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik van Halsema |Research Assistant Vrije Universiteit
j.d.f.van_halsema@esau.th.vu.nl |Faculty of Theology
jdfvh@dds.nl |De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, NL
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 08:42:36 -0500
Subject: Re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU
At 5:40 AM 9/13/95, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>However that may be, I am still troubled by the apparent implication of
>Carlton's understanding of Mark 13, that there will be a considerable gap
>between the destruction of Jerusalem and whatever-you-may-want-to-call the
>ultimate coming of the Son of Man on the clouds. The Marcan text that seems
>to me to run counter to that view is 9:1 (but 14:62 addressed to the
>Sanhedrin leaders seem to me to point in the same direction).
>
>9:1 AMHN LEGW hUMIN hOTI EISIN TINES hWDE TWN hESTHKOTWN hOITINES OU MH
>GEUSWNTAI QANATON hEWS AN IDWSIN THN BASILEIAN TOU QEOU ELHLUQUIAN EN
>DUNAMEI.
>
>This is the same passage that seemed to me crucial in the earlier
>discussion with Jan Haugland. I don't see how the destruction of Jerusalem
>can be characterized by the phrasing "the Kingdom of God HAVING COME WITH
>POWER." This verse and 14:16 really seem to me to indicate that Mark the
>evangelist understood the gap between the destruction of Jerusalem and the
>full realization of God's Kingdom/Reign as short enough for some of those
>now alive (either in Jesus' hearing or at the time of Mark's redaction) to
>experience it as a fait accompli. Is there another way to understand this
>passage?
Correction: Lest there be any confusion about the matter, the reference to
Mark 14:16 in the last paragraph is an error; it should have been 14:62, as
was indicated in the first paragraph cited.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 09:32:19 CST
Subject: Style analysis
As part of a project to possibly propose a consistent method for evaluating
internal support for textual variants, I am interested in finding out a little
more about analyzing the style of the various NT writings. To be specific, what
criterion are used when evaluating the style of NT Greek? Any pointers would be
greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Mark O'Brien
- ----
"For with you is the fountain of life;
in your light we see light." -- Psalm 36:9
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 10:26:12 CST
Subject: Re: Style analysis
On Wed, 13 Sep 95, Mark O'Brien wrote:
>As part of a project to possibly propose a consistent method for evaluating
>internal support for textual variants, I am interested in finding out a little
>more about analyzing the style of the various NT writings. To be specific, what
>criterion are used when evaluating the style of NT Greek? Any pointers would be
>greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
A major consideration must be the type of text: narrative, expository,
hortatory, persuasive, procedural. A change in any of these will generate a
change in style, although some, like hortatory and persuasive, are much more
alike than others. One must be careful to compare "apples" to "apples."
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Karen Pitts <karen_pitts@maca.sarnoff.com>
Date: 13 Sep 1995 11:37:20 U
Subject: RE > 1 John Commentaries an
RE > 1 John Commentaries and intermed. grammer 9/13/95 11:17 AM
Hi. I'm a newcomer to this reflector and I've been mostly watching the mail
go by.
I've found Barclay's series on the New Testament to be helpful for Bible
Studies. They are scholarly enough to provide some additional background and
information, but not so detailed that you can't prepare for the next meeting.
It all depends on how fast you go. We usually do a chapter a week and have
used Barclay for Gospel of John, Revelation, and Acts.
Fee and Stewart, in "How to Read the Bible for all its Worth", have suggested
commentaries and a method for selecting commentaries which I've also used and
I've been pleased with the commentaries they recommend.
For my own personal study, I'm looking for a good grammer that's inbetween
introductory Greek (for which I already have three, Efrid, Voeltz, and "It's
Greek to Me") and Smythe. I got my Greek from weekly sessions with
seminarians at Princeton Theological Seminary and from weekly readings with my
pastor, but feel the need for something which fills in the gaps. I'm also
teaching introductory Greek, so I need something to answer my students'
questions. I can dig answers out of Smythe, but it usually takes me several
hours and I end up scanning through a bunch of stuff I don't need.
Glad to have found this resource.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Pitts
kpitts@sarnoff.com
Hopewell Pres. Church (teacher of NT Greek), Hopewell, NJ, USA
David Sarnoff Research Center (statistician), Princeton, NJ, USA
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 14:00:57 -0400
Subject: Re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU
Carl Conrad wrote,
>I don't really understand this conception of "the manifestation of the
risen Christ to the church to aid them in their one task that consumes
Mark, the proclamation of the gospel to the nations starting in Galilee
(14:28 & 16:7)."
It seems to me, after considerable reflection, to be based upon the way in
which Matthew's gospel has interpreted Mark's indications about Jesus
meeting the disciples in Galilee--i.e., Matthew presents in chapter 28 an
account of a mountaintop Galilean meeting of disciples with the
risen-and-ascended Christ who commissions them for their task. Perhaps I've
misunderstand Carlton here and that's not what he has in mind, but if it
is, I have to say that I'm not convinced that such a meeting is what Mark's
texts was pointing to. Then what is he pointing to in 14:28 and 16:7?
Marxsen thought, and I think Kelber and Perrin thought that Galilee was a
symbolic term for the world-at-large and the confrontation to take place
there would in fact be the parousia.<
What convinces me that Mark saw Galilee as the jumping off place for
preaching to the nations is 14:28 & 7 coming in the dramatic moments in which
they are placed by Mark. You are right about Perrin, Kelber, & Marxsen (tho
their theses are very different in some ways) and I also see Galilee holding
some symbolic meaning (Seppori excavations very interesting). What I am
suggesting is that for Mark the vindication of the Son of Man is in whatever
convinced the early Christians that he was raised and exalted. For Mark this
in not PAROUSIA. That is still to come and all that can be known about it is
that no one knows and that it places on disciples the responsibility to
"watch" (be involved in the proclamation = be disciples). It seems to me
that Mark may well have been afraid that disciples would become involved in
defending Jerusalem/Palestine. Marxsen places the writing on the eve of the
Jewish/Roman war. If it was written after then the situation changes and
Mark would have been justifying the disciples' abandonment of Jerusalem.
"The Kingdom of God having come with Power" (9:1) and "This generation will
not pass away until all these things happen" 13:30 do not have to refer to
the same thing, but certainly would refer to things that Mark conceived were
close at hand. the reference in 9:1 refers to the realization by the
disciples beyond the cross of the true nature of the Kingdom. The
resurrection means that the Kingdom of God is present in a way that it cannot
be stoped by the threat od death. In 13:30 followed as it is by 31 is a
prophetic declaration that the fall of Jerusalem will surely happen and
cannot be stopped.
I differ from Jan Haugland in that I think Mark sought to separate the
destruction from Parousia which he thought was to be at an unknown point in
the future.
Man, this is an involved question!
Carlton Winbery
Fogleman Prof. NT & Greek
LA College, Pineville, LA
(318) 487-7241 Fax (318) 487-7425 off. or (318) 442-4996 home
Winbrow@aol.com or Winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 14:06:37 -0400
Subject: Re: SHMEION TOU UIOU ANQRWPOU
Carl Conrad also wrote,
>This verse and 14:16 really seem to me to indicate that Mark the
evangelist understood the gap between the destruction of Jerusalem and the
full realization of God's Kingdom/Reign as short enough for some of those
now alive (either in Jesus' hearing or at the time of Mark's redaction) to
experience it as a fait accompli.<
I would think that Mark did not think that the realization of the Kingdom was
directly related to the event of the destruction, but that the destruction,
persecution, and turmoil was the framework that they must proclaim the
Kingdom once they were convinced by the Resurrection and experience of the
risen Christ the the true Kingdom of God was present.
I've got to go back to the office. I'll look over Carl's post more when I
get there and clear my desk.
Carlton Winbery
LA College Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 12:13:46 CST
Subject: Re: Style analysis
Original message sent on Wed, Sep 13 10:26 AM by terry@bible.acu.edu (Bruce
Terry) :
> On Wed, 13 Sep 95, Mark O'Brien wrote:
>> As part of a project to possibly propose a consistent method for evaluating
>> internal support for textual variants, I am interested in finding out a
little
>> more about analyzing the style of the various NT writings. To be specific,
what
>> criterion are used when evaluating the style of NT Greek? Any pointers would
be
>> greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
> A major consideration must be the type of text: narrative, expository,
> hortatory, persuasive, procedural. A change in any of these will generate a
> change in style, although some, like hortatory and persuasive, are much more
> alike than others. One must be careful to compare "apples" to "apples."
This is, of course, a good point. Would you expect a particular author to be
consistent within each of these types? For example, if Paul writes some
expository material in Galatians, would you expect his style to remain
reasonably (whatever that means!) consistent if he did the same thing in Romans?
Similarly, would you expect Luke's narrative style in his gospel to be
necessarily consistent with his narrative style in Acts?
Mark O'Brien
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 14:55:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Style analysis
Mark O'brien wrote,
>As part of a project to possibly propose a consistent method for evaluating
internal support for textual variants, I am interested in finding out a
little
more about analyzing the style of the various NT writings. To be specific,
what
criterion are used when evaluating the style of NT Greek?<
The person that I know of who used style as a criterion in textual decisions
was G.D.Kilpatrick. About all that he published in the area was an
occassional journal article. Several were in Novum Testamentum. His student
J.K. Elliott at Leeds in England does a lot of reviews in Novum Testamentum,
but I do not know of anything he has published.
Kilpatrick often made his textual decisions on stylistic considerations
alone. I heard him say several times that the only thing he used the
manuscripts for was to isolate the variant readings, but that they were all
equally untrustworthy. For instance in his Diglot on Mark at Mark 1:14 he
preferred KAI META over META DE in spite of the overwhelming mss support
because the former was more in keeping with Markan style.
Carlton Winbery
LA College, Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 15:03:19 -0400
Subject: Re: RE > 1 John Commentaries an
Karen Pitts wrote,
>For my own personal study, I'm looking for a good grammer that's inbetween
introductory Greek (for which I already have three, Efrid, Voeltz, and "It's
Greek to Me") and Smythe. I got my Greek from weekly sessions with
seminarians at Princeton Theological Seminary and from weekly readings with
my
pastor, but feel the need for something which fills in the gaps. I'm also
teaching introductory Greek, so I need something to answer my students'
questions.<
If you want to answer your student's question, you should have Robert Funk, A
Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek. Vol. I gives good
discusions for the mastery of morphology with enough syntax to get started.
Vol. II is Syntax and Vol III is a very useful appendix and further
explanation of Morphology. Many people have found Brooks and Winbery, Syntax
of NT Greek an easy introduction to syntax, but I have often disagreed with
some of the examples selected by Brooks.
Carlton Winbery
La College, Pineville, La
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 13:46:56 PDT
Subject: Re: Style analysis
winbrow@aol.com wrote:
> The person that I know of who used style as a criterion in textual decisions
> was G.D.Kilpatrick. About all that he published in the area was an
> occassional journal article.
Do I remember correctly that Kilpatrick edited, or was involved with
the editing of, UBS2? If so, to what extent were his textual views
visible in the final UBS2 product?
Vincent Broman, code 786 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 16:55:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Style analysis
Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu> wrote:
>As part of a project to possibly propose a consistent method for evaluating
>internal support for textual variants, I am interested in finding out a little
>more about analyzing the style of the various NT writings. To be specific, what
>criterion are used when evaluating the style of NT Greek? Any pointers would be
>greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
A book that you might want to look at, Mark, is the fourth volume
of the Moulton grammar, _Style_, by Nigel Turner. It was first published
in 1976, so it's probably not the most recent info available. But it does
focus on some of the matters you mention above.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 14:13:22 CST
Subject: Re: Style analysis
Original message sent on Wed, Sep 13 12:55 PM by WINBROW@aol.com :
> The person that I know of who used style as a criterion in textual
> decisions was G.D.Kilpatrick. About all that he published in the area
> was an occassional journal article. Several were in Novum
> Testamentum. His student J.K. Elliott at Leeds in England does a lot
> of reviews in Novum Testamentum, but I do not know of anything he
> has published. Kilpatrick often made his textual decisions on
> stylistic considerations alone. I heard him say several times that the
> only thing he used the manuscripts for was to isolate the variant
> readings, but that they were all equally untrustworthy. For instance
> in his Diglot on Mark at Mark 1:14 he preferred KAI META over
> META DE in spite of the overwhelming mss support because the
> former was more in keeping with Markan style.
Interesting! I do not, however, wish to pursue the rigorous eclecticism
proposed by Kilpatrick and Elliott. As I understand it, no one has ever put
together a clear and consistent methodology for dealing with internal evidence
in the same way that Westcott and Hort did with external evidence. The aim here
is to try and come up with a reasonably (again, whatever that means!) accurate
method of evaluating internal evidence along with external evidence, without
neglecting one or the other (a suitably simple task, no doubt!).
However, your example raises the question: How did Kilpatrick arrive at the
conclusion that KAI META was more in keeping with Markan style? Was there some
objective method for deducing this?
Mark O'Brien
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 20:04:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Style analysis
Mark O'brien wrote,
>As I understand it, no one has ever put together a clear and >consistent
methodology for dealing with internal evidence
>in the same way that Westcott and Hort did with external >evidence.<
That's probably because internal considerations have to be applied more
subjectively. I assumed at first that your original question focused on
style. However, "internal evidence" would include much more than style.
There have been canons of criticism drawn up for the broader area of
"internal evidence." These would also include transcriptional probabilities,
the author's style, content, theology, etc., and matters of language usage
both of the original author as well as groups of scribes who tended to
correct grammar or update the language. Surely there is still room for
refining methodologies in all these areas. Papers in the SBL NT Textual
Criticism Section have focused sometimes on these questions. Someone else
has suggested Nigel Turner's work. It is still, in my opinion a good work on
style.
Carlton Winbery
LA College, Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: RoyRM@aol.com
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 22:10:13 -0400
Subject: Black 1988
In a message dated 95-09-12 01:25:49 EDT, you write:
>I'm curious about critical reviews, about use in courses, about use in
>articles; but especially what people on the list might think.
>
>
I learned Greek from a member of this list--I'll not say who in case I should
say something off the wall and reflect poorly on him!--who used Black as a
text in 2d year Greek. I found it a good introduction to a subject I knew
little about. I found it fascinating enough that if I can fit it into career
goals I would like to pursue some study in linguistics.
Roy Millhouse
6508 E.125th #12
Grandview, MO 64030
RoyRM@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Carabine@aol.com
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 22:11:58 -0400
Subject: re Questions from a Student
re Questions from a Student
I apologize for any moment's hesitation that my erroneous transcription
(into the English alphabet) of the verb in John 1:1c may have caused some
readers. I should have (?) transcribed it as "HN" (without the quotes, of
course), so that my eta should have found a match for its shape in the
capital
letter "H". Using an ASCII DOS text editor, I find that I too easily forget
the location of the proper keys for transcription. I had intended to check
the appropriateness of my choice of transcriptional characters, but forgot
to do so in a timely manner.
Al Kidd
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 16:55:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Style analysis
Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu> wrote:
>As part of a project to possibly propose a consistent method for evaluating
>internal support for textual variants, I am interested in finding out a little
>more about analyzing the style of the various NT writings. To be specific, what
>criterion are used when evaluating the style of NT Greek? Any pointers would be
>greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
A book that you might want to look at, Mark, is the fourth volume
of the Moulton grammar, _Style_, by Nigel Turner. It was first published
in 1976, so it's probably not the most recent info available. But it does
focus on some of the matters you mention above.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #859
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu