[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #863
b-greek-digest Monday, 18 September 1995 Volume 01 : Number 863
In this issue:
Re: Style analysis
Re: Style analysis
Re: Mark 16 (Oh, no, not again?)
Re: Clapp-Friberg Analytical Concordance
Re: Mark 16 (Oh, no, not again?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 13:11:06 CST
Subject: Re: Style analysis
On Wed, 13 Sep 95, Mark O'Brien responded to my post that in evaluating style
a major consideration must be the type of text (narrative, expository,
hortatory, persuasive, procedural):
>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?
The answer to all three questions is no. My dissertation research showed that
Paul uses two different statistically-significant styles in 1 Corinthians in
responding to the Corinthians' letter and in reacting to oral reports about
them which he had received. In addition, there was a statistically-
significant shift in style between the bulk of the letter and the peak (12-15),
apparently marking what I have called epistolary climax. See my dissertation
and/or book on this. The style of a letter is to some extent due to the
rhetorical situation in which the author is composing the letter. Obviously,
answering people's questions and pointing out problems which they have that
they haven't told a writer about are two different situations. At this
point, not enough research has been done to know what kinds of shifts in style
to expect to occur with different rhetorical situations and between letters.
I would hypothesize that letters written at similar times in similar
situations would substantially share the same style.
Commentators have often noted that the first two chapters of Luke are in a
different style than the rest of the book. They are said to be in the style
of the LXX.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 13:26:51 CST
Subject: Re: Style analysis
On Wed, 13 Sep 95, Mark O'Brien wrote:
>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?
Clearly; just note how many times Mark begins sentences with KAI. This is in
imitation of the Hebrew narrative style. There are, to be sure, whole
sections with very few KAI's beginning sentences, but they are rare. This is
a significant argument against the Markan authorship of the long ending of
Mark as well as of in the passage in question. The danger in this is that
style dictates a likelihood of a particular conjunction occuring. It really
cannot say whether in a given situation it did or did not occur.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 13:55:25 CST
Subject: Re: Mark 16 (Oh, no, not again?)
On Fri, 15 Sep 1995, Carlton Winbery wrote:
>Bruce Terry wrote,
>>(I'm having trouble deciding whether hRHGNUMI in
>Mk. 2:22 and hRHSSW in Mk. 9:18 are the same or different words.<
>
>Bruce, I'm working off the top of my head here since I am at home. I think
>that James Brooks and I list these as variations of the same root - hRHG.
> One forms the present (stem of the first Princ. part) by adding NU and uses
>the MI endings in the present. The second one forms the present by adding a
>consonantal I which combines with the G to form the SS. Another words that
>do the same is KRAZW. Note that the perfect passive of that one is
>KEKRAGMAI.
Thanks to Carlton and Carl Conrad for responding to my question.
I see the morphological activity involved, although I don't claim to understand
it fully. It is clear to me that hRHGNUMI and hRHSSW are from the same root.
But are they two forms of the same word, or two words derived from the same
root? KRAZW seems to show this morphological activity in inflexional forms,
but this is apparently not the case with hRHG, since both hRHGNUMI and hRHSSW
have present tense forms. Thanks for any further help in seeing whether these
are derivationally separate words, or merely inflexionally different forms of
the same word.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 14:04:59 CST
Subject: Re: Clapp-Friberg Analytical Concordance
On Fri, 15 Sep 95, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> I'm looking for comments on the Clapp-Friberg concordance, both the
>grammatical and lexical volumes. Specifically, when would I want to
>consult these works as opposed to a more basic analytical concordance
>like Preschbacher? Thanks.
Use the lexical volume for a poor-man's concordance to the UBS/NA text. It's
only $30 through CBD right now. Use the grammatical volume when trying to
formulate stylistic characteristics and grammatical rules. I have used both
of these volumes in producing posts for B-Greek.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 15:28:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Mark 16 (Oh, no, not again?)
At 2:55 PM 9/17/95, Bruce Terry wrote:
>I see the morphological activity involved, although I don't claim to understand
>it fully. It is clear to me that hRHGNUMI and hRHSSW are from the same root.
>But are they two forms of the same word, or two words derived from the same
>root? KRAZW seems to show this morphological activity in inflexional forms,
>but this is apparently not the case with hRHG, since both hRHGNUMI and hRHSSW
>have present tense forms. Thanks for any further help in seeing whether these
>are derivationally separate words, or merely inflexionally different forms of
>the same word.
I wouldn't want to be dogmatic about this, but it would certainly seem to
me that we have to see hRHG-NUMI as a characteristic (and as old as Homer)
present-tense using the most common of the regular -MI verb formative
elements (SKEDA(N)-NUMI, OLLUMI < OL-NUMI, DEIK-NUMI, etc., etc., whereas
hRHSSW is derived from one of the most basic -W verb formative elements,
- -yO/E, so that hRHG-yW --> hRHSSW is precisely analogous to PRAG-yW -->
PRASSW. I don't believe that hRHSSW as a verb form appears earlier than
koine, perhaps than NT, although I haven't immediate access to tools to
check that. It would seem to me that these verb forms are analogous to the
concurrent verb forms AFIHMI and AFIW, the latter being a secondary -W
formation of the same root and stem as the much older and still essentially
unique form in classical Attic, AFIHMI. It is a matter of -W formations
competing with and eventually supplanting the older -MI formations.
Moreover, unless I am badly mistaken, the original root of hRHG- is hRAG-,
i.e., this was a long alpha which changed to eta in Attic-Ionic dialects.
The root is cognate, I believe, with old English "wrack" and Latin FRAG as
seen in "fragmentum" and "frango."
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/
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #863
*****************************
** 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