From: c stirling bartholomew (cc.constantine@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Fri Sep 14 2001 - 15:21:33 EDT
on 9/14/01 10:12 AM, Tony Costa wrote:
> BEST(Greek)-GOOD(Greek)-POOR(Greek)in terms of their Greek grammar
Tony,
Not sure these categories will stand up to scrutiny since they imply some
sort of standard and there will be a whole lot of disagreement about what
should be the standard. Is the Greek of Luke really better than Mark? What
would be the yard stick for making such a statement?
I have been working in 2nd Peter for just over a month now. I would
characterize the grammar of this book as generally difficult and at times
bizarre but there are a number of syntax patterns which are repeated often
enough to make them intelligible. The syntax is in a number of places is
very "exotic" giving evidence that the author had more than a casual
background in the language. However, these "exotic" passages would not
qualify as "good" Greek anymore than some of William Faulkner's 100 word
sentences would qualify as "good" English. The do illustrate however that
the author of has a command of the language.
Short of defining some set of measurable criteria which can be used to
classify an author's style. I suspect that talking about good and bad Greek
is not going to get you anywhere.
Clay
--
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:07 EDT