[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #930
b-greek-digest Friday, 27 October 1995 Volume 01 : Number 930
In this issue:
Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW, & Mark
Identifying peak
Contradiction in Nestle-Aland text?
Re: Eph. 4:9 again
Textual Criticism
Re: Textual Criticism
Re: Textual Criticism
Re: Textual Criticism
Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
Anonymous posting on textual criticism
TEXTUAL CRITICISM
Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
Textual criticism
Re: Textual Criticism
Re: TEXTUAL CRITICISM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 15:37:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
On Wed, 25 Oct 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> 2. Since Greek work order is not fixed in any significant way that I have
> seen (though my sample size may be too limited, as I've not ventured much
> outside the NT heretofore), I question Gundry's comments on the significance
> of word order. I would accept that in Hebrew SOV is an emphatic word order,
> but in Greek, that could be business as usual. Can we really draw significance
> in Greek from word order?
>
> I'm not trying to take a strong stand here, as I admit to having a limited
> database of experience from which to draw (the NT and a tiny bit of the LXX).
Most any reference grammar contains a section on expected word
order. (See, for instance Blass-DeBrunner #472-#477.) When there is a
deviation from that, it is often significant. One, of course, must take
into account the styles of the respective writers: on this see Turner's
book on style (4th vol. in Moulton's Grammar).
Seems I remember someone on the list recently denigrating
Turner's work on style. If there is something more up-to-date which is
also scholarly and accurate, I'd be appreciate the bibliographic reference.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 08:59:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW, & Mark
On Wed, 25 Oct 1995, Rod Decker wrote:
> 4. The clear and distinct function of the perfective and
> imperfective aspects in this passage suggest that further
> explanation is unnecessary. (That does not mean that more couldn't
> be said other than what I've summarized here [e.g., I didn't
> comment on the imperfect form in v. 4], but that the reason for
> the use of the verb forms is adequately explained by the discourse
> function of aspect.)
But to note the discourse function of the forms is only to note
distribution of forms within the discourse in correlation with discourse
functions. In order to EXPLAIN those functions, one needs to account for
WHY these particular forms are distributed in this way; i.e., what is the
function of these forms such that they can be used in this way in the
discourse? What accounts for your understanding of the discourse
functions in the first place? Does that make sense? [I'm in a hurry on my
way to class; I'm afraid I'm not making sense right now.]
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 22:39:23 CST
Subject: Identifying peak
On Sat, 21 Oct 1995, Philip L. Graber wrote:
>But again, in KG narrative (take for example the Gethsemane story in
>Matthew 26:36-46 where there is a high concentration of present tense
>verbs), there seem to be both aorist and present tense verbs carrying the
>main line of the story, and they alternate (at least they are not
>clustered together at one point so as to identify an identifiable "peak"
>or any such thing).
Actually "peak" is a zone of turbulence in a text. There does not have to be
a complete switch from one grammar form to another in order for peak to exist.
It is enough to make a noticeable shift from the usual style. That shift does
not start abruptly. It begins even in the pre-peak areas of the text and
continues through post-peak areas.
I have not done an analysis of Matthew, but if I were to guess I would say
that Matt. 26:36-46 is pre-peak and the peak region is found in the
crucifixion. It would be interesting to test this hypothesis (also a lot of
hard work). Now there is a master's thesis topic in NT 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: Michael Holmes <holmic@homer.acs.bethel.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 95 09:33:50 CST
Subject: Contradiction in Nestle-Aland text?
Re the question by Paul Watkins about Matt 10:10//Mark 6:9, to which Carl
and Rod have already responded helpfully:
The problem was recognized already in the second century, by Tatian, who
attempted to resolve the matter when he composed his Diatessaron; see:
Tj. Baarda, "A Staff Only, Not a Stick. Disharmony of the Gospels and the
Harmony of Tatian (Matthew 10.9f; Mark 6.8f; Luke 9.3 & 10.4)," in The New
Testament in Early Christianity, ed. J. M. Sevrin (BETL 86; Louvain, 1989)
311-334.
Paul asked if the Majority reading might "solve" the problem; that reading
is very suspect precisely because it does appear to "solve" the problem
(although, as Carl pointed out, it really doesn't). Which is more likely:
that a scribe introduced a contradiction, or that he tried to eliminate
one? Here we have a fine example of the most basic rule in textual
criticism: the reading most likely to be original is the one which best
accounts for the origin of the others.
This same basic rule also bears on the question asked by Eric Vaughn about
Matt 20:22 and John 3:13, to which Carl and Rod have already replied in
their usual helpful way. Here the question is, what is a scribe most
likely to have done: dropped a phrase present in the text, or, influenced
by parallel passages elsewhere which do have the phrase, added it? The
answer is clearly the latter, which means that the longer reading in each
of these two cases is suspect as secondary. The NASB is simply translating
the best-attested form of the verses (i.e., it is not leaving out anything).
------------------------------
From: MAbendroth@aol.com
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 11:12:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Eph. 4:9 again
UNSUBSCRIBE
------------------------------
From: DearPastor@aol.com
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 11:31:25 -0400
Subject: Textual Criticism
>>Here the question is, what is a scribe most
>>likely to have done: dropped a phrase present in the text, or, influenced
>>by parallel passages elsewhere which do have the phrase, added it? The
>>answer is clearly the latter, which means that the longer reading in each
>>of these two cases is suspect as secondary. The NASB is simply translating
>>the best-attested form of the verses (i.e., it is not leaving out
anything).
Actually, due to the work of Colwell, Clark, Streeter, Royse, and Head, it
has been shown that due to various factors scribes were more likely to omit
than to add to the text.
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 11:06:10 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism
On Thu, 26 Oct 1995 DearPastor@aol.com wrote:
>
> Actually, due to the work of Colwell, Clark, Streeter, Royse, and Head, it
> has been shown that due to various factors scribes were more likely to omit
> than to add to the text.
Uh, this is quite a misleading overgeneralization and distortion.
Especially in the Synoptic Gospels texts, it is necessary to make *large*
allowances for harmonization and other stylistic changes that may add or
drop or whatever.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 12:09:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism
At 10:31 AM 10/26/95, DearPastor@aol.com wrote:
>>>the best-attested form of the verses (i.e., it is not leaving out
>anything).
>
>Actually, due to the work of Colwell, Clark, Streeter, Royse, and Head, it
>has been shown that due to various factors scribes were more likely to omit
>than to add to the text.
Does "DearPastor" have an identity as well as an e-address? Some sort of
signature--and I DON'T mean full academic credentials--inclines some
readers to take a post more seriously than does an anonymous dictum.
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: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 95 11:13:38 PDT
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism
DearPastor@aol.com wrote:
>
> Actually, due to the work of Colwell, Clark, Streeter, Royse, and Head, it
> has been shown that due to various factors scribes were more likely to omit
> than to add to the text.
I know about the Colwell, Royse, and Head work on longer/shorter readings.
What Clark and Streeter results are you referring to?
hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca responded to the anonymous aolite:
> Uh, this is quite a misleading overgeneralization and distortion.
> Especially in the Synoptic Gospels texts, it is necessary to make *large*
> allowances for harmonization and other stylistic changes that may add or
> drop or whatever.
What I've seen confines itself to the pre-fourth-century papyri,
but for this question, that's certainly a cogent, specialized area.
About distortion, Dr. Hurtado, I don't quite follow what allowance
you feel should have been made for harmonization and stylistic effects.
Are you saying that the reported preponderance of deletions over additions
applies only to accidental corruptions, but the intentional corruptions
(for harmony and style) lengthen the text? The studies I saw looked at
singular readings, including perforce both kinds of corruption.
And the singular readings tended to shorten the text.
Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil = o
2224 33d St. Phone: +1 619 284 3775 = _ /- _
San Diego, CA 92104-5605 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W = (_)> (_)
------------------------------
From: Karen Pitts <karen_pitts@maca.sarnoff.com>
Date: 26 Oct 1995 14:48:12 U
Subject: Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
Rod:
You are correct, my statement
>Mark's Greek is so sloppy, that I don't know that I'd place any importance on
>the tenses he uses
is a bit too general. What I should have said, is that Mark uses imperfect
FAR more than any of the other Gospel writers. My snail-pace class learns
imperfect in lesson 3 and aorist in lesson 12 (which is sometimes separated by
a year or more), so I search widely for Biblical examples of imperfects. They
are almost always in Mark. Therefore, I don't know that I would place that
much interpretation on his use of imperfect vs. the aorist. I'd have to study
this in depth to support my intuition, which I'm not prepared to do right now.
I still maintain that Mark's Greek is sloppy. He uses participles in purpose
clauses where you would expect an infinitive and he uses periphrastic phrases
far more than anyone else (although John does use them quite a bit). And I
find his use of imperfect a bit jarring.
Anyway, I'll try to keep my generalizations a little less inflamatory.
Back to specifics of this passage (which I just read and discussed this last
week)
you pointed out the following on Mark 2:1-12:
>2. All the conversation is recorded with the present form
>(foreground) (exceptions are noted with [ ] ):
>
> he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."
>
> "Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who
> can forgive sins but God alone?"
>
> he said to them, "Why do you raise such questions in your
> hearts?
>
> Which is easier, [to say: A] to the paralytic, 'Your sins are
> forgiven,' or [to say: A], 'Stand up and [take your mat:
> A] and walk'?
>
> But so that [you may know: R] that the Son of Man has
> authority on earth to forgive sins"--he said to the
> paralytic--
>
> "I say to you, stand up, [take your mat: A] and go to your
> home."
>
>3. The focal point of the entire passage is expressed with the
>most heavily marked form: perfect (frontground)
>
> so that you may know (hina de eidHte), v. 10
My comments are twofold. Mark still mixes present and aorist in the direct
discourse in a fashion that I can't give any meaning to. And, your point 3, I
always though that oida, although perfect in form, was treated, for all
intents and purposes, as a present.
Thanks for the text recommendations for teaching aspect (partially exerpted
below for anyone else who interested).
>From Rod Decker
>I use Mounce's textbook which introduces verbs from an aspectual approach and
>distinguishes between aspect (the primary significance of "tense forms" in
his >system) and time (secondary in his system). . . .I spend quite a
>bit more time at the beginning of second year discussing temporal
>implicature. That is also the point at which I have them read Silva's _God,
>Language and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the Light of General
>Linguistics_ for an intro to the use of linguistics in biblical studies.
Karen
Karen Pitts
Hopewell Presbyterian Church, Hopewell, NJ, teacher of NT Greek
David Sarnoff Research Center, Princeton, NJ, statistician
kpitts@sarnoff.com
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 15:07:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Anonymous posting on textual criticism
From: IN%"DearPastor@aol.com" 26-OCT-1995 12:30:27.87
Subj: Textual Criticism
<Actually, due to the work of Colwell, Clark, Streeter, Royse, and Head, it
<has been shown that due to various factors scribes were more likely to omit
<than to add to the text.
The Anonymous Poster has struck again!
This statement is nonsense. Colwell was my teacher. Clark was my friend.
Royse was my student (I was on his dissertation committee, one of three, and
the only text-critic). And Streeter's writings on this subject were my
bread and butter long before I took my Ph.D., almost half a century ago.
The ONLY one of them who argued that scribes tended to add rather than omit was
my student Jim Royse (at that time also teaching philosophy at San Francisco
State, where he may still be), who over-generalized the results of his
extremely limited study of a few papyri. If several dozen more
dissertations on the issue, studying some uncials, above all post-300CE
uncials, were to show the same, we would have to rethink this question.
May I also remind the List that scribes copied MUCH other material than New
Testament documents! There actually is (believe it or not!) a discipline
called Textual Criticism among classicists. Some of you might wish to read the
great works on this issue by A. E. Housman (who, in his lifetime, was NOT known
as the poet who wrote "A Shropshire Lad".. One of my many favorite statements
by Housman is: "To do textual criticism, you must have brains, not pudding, in
your head." Scribes didn't suddenly develop new habits when the documents
before them were "Christian."
Further, the List might consider that we have a well-trained Textual Critic
(New Testament, too!) on this List: Larry Hurtado. It might be worth while
listening to his words. At least in comparison with an Anonymous Poster, his
credentials are good!
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 95 15:47:22 -0600
Subject: TEXTUAL CRITICISM
> Actually, due to the work of Colwell, Clark, Streeter, Royse, and
> Head, it
> has been shown that due to various factors scribes were more likely
> to omit
> than to add to the text.
Well, actually that depends on the size of the omission. When you're dealing
with a small unit of text, scribes were indeed more likely to skip part of a
line than to repeat something they'd just copied. But when dealing with a
larger unit of text, scribes were more likely to interpolate than omit.
Grace and peace,
Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 95 16:40:48 EDT
Subject: Re: Grammatical Tense, LEGW,
Karen Pitts wrote:
> What I should have said, is that Mark uses imperfect
>FAR more than any of the other Gospel writers. My snail-pace class learns
>imperfect in lesson 3 and aorist in lesson 12 (which is sometimes separated by
>a year or more), so I search widely for Biblical examples of imperfects. They
>are almost always in Mark. Therefore, I don't know that I would place that
>much interpretation on his use of imperfect vs. the aorist. I'd have to study
>this in depth to support my intuition, which I'm not prepared to do right now.
For LEGW/EIPON, Mark actually uses the aorist more than the imperfect.
He does use the imperfect more than the others, but it's pretty popular
in John as well. Here's a chart:
Form Matt Mark Luke John
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
LEGEI 54 62 14 123
LEGOUSIN 23 16 4 9
EIPEN 119 59 231 115
EIPAN 16 9 28 26
ELEGEN 3 31 20 13
ELEGON 8 19 4 35
LEGWN 49 18 47 8
LEGOUSA 8 1 4 2
LEGONTES 47 15 36 10
LEGEIN 5 8 12 1
EIPEIN 2 2 7 0
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: Michael Holmes <holmic@homer.acs.bethel.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 95 17:04:46 CST
Subject: Textual criticism
In response to the comment from "DEARPASTOR," Edward, Larry, Perry, and
Carl have said about all that needs to be said--thanks, guys!
Mike Holmes
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 17:30:40 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism
All I was trying to say about over-generalizations about scribal
tendencies is that we must beware about taking observations about what
might or might not be the more frequent scribal habit in this or that ms
or book of the NT and force such observations into some kind of
predictive rule. Nothing substitutes for examining each variation unit
carefully, taking account of *all* factors, including general tendencies
of scribes, specific types of variation that may pertain to the NT book
in question (e.g., in Mark harmonizations seem much more frequent than in
the other Synoptics), scribal tendencies of the particular ms being
examined, and other factors.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 19:10:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: TEXTUAL CRITICISM
On Thu, 26 Oct 1995 perry.stepp@chrysalis.org wrote:
>
>
> > Actually, due to the work of Colwell, Clark, Streeter, Royse, and
> > Head, it
> > has been shown that due to various factors scribes were more likely
> > to omit
> > than to add to the text.
>
>
> Well, actually that depends on the size of the omission. When you're dealing
> with a small unit of text, scribes were indeed more likely to skip part of a
> line than to repeat something they'd just copied. But when dealing with a
> larger unit of text, scribes were more likely to interpolate than omit.
>
> Grace and peace,
>
> Perry L. Stepp, Baylor University
>
>
It is also good to know the MSS individually, if possible. MSS
that show indications of having, in their genealogy, a copy made from an
oral reading of the original are more apt to omit words that might seem
not essential to the meaning than are those copied from a textual original.
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 #930
*****************************
** 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