Revelation 4:1

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Jason Rachels rachelsj at aol.com
Sun May 16 15:18:58 EDT 1999

Dative Participle Luke 8:27 Limerick: Mark 3.1 Some have claimed that grammatical errors in Revelation distinguish it from books by John the apostle. Are any of you aware of “errors” in the Greek or have any input on the authorship of Revelation.Jason RachelsCoral Springs Christian AcademyCoral Springs, FL

Dative Participle Luke 8:27Limerick: Mark 3.1

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Jason Rachels rachelsj at aol.com
Sun May 16 15:18:58 EDT 1999

Dative Participle Luke 8:27Limerick: Mark 3.1

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun May 16 15:57:35 EDT 1999

Limerick: Mark 3.1 Limerick: Mark 3.1 At 3:18 PM -0400 5/16/99, Jason Rachels wrote:>Some have claimed that grammatical errors in Revelation distinguish it from>books by John the apostle. Are any of you aware of “errors” in the Greek>or have any input on the authorship of Revelation.We don’t normally deal with questions of disputed authorship on ;suffice it to say that there are a number of items in Revelation that thosewho look for standard grammatical constructions would term”solecisms”–barbaric deviations from standard usage, and certainly thepresence of these is one of the factors that those inclined to doubt theauthor was John the Apostle make part of their argument (of course the bookclaims to be written by John “the Elder” rather than John “the Apostle” inany case).One of the odd things, others will add others and there is a list, I think,of them in BDF:1:8 … hO WN KAI hO HN KAI hO ESOMENOSwhere the articular participles and standard and common, but thecombination of the finite verb HN with an article is, to my knowledge,unexampled elsewhere in Greek except where it imitates this.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Limerick: Mark 3.1Limerick: Mark 3.1

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun May 16 15:57:35 EDT 1999

Limerick: Mark 3.1Limerick: Mark 3.1

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Sun May 16 16:52:11 EDT 1999

Limerick: Mark 3.1 Grammatical errors in Revelation? At 03:18 PM 5/16/99 +0000, you wrote:>Some have claimed that grammatical errors in Revelation distinguish it from >books by John the apostle. Are any of you aware of “errors” in the Greek >or have any input on the authorship of Revelation.> >Jason RachelsJason,Take a look at volume 4 of Nigel Turner’s Grammar of NT Greek. He discussesthe stylistic markers of the various NT authors. It has been fairly wellknown for a long time that the author of Rev differs significantly in stylefrom the Johannine materials (the gospel and the epistles). Turner listsnumerous examples- so he is the place to start.On the “errors” of Rev- yes, it is terrible greek.Best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

Limerick: Mark 3.1Grammatical errors in Revelation?

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Sun May 16 21:43:24 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Dative Participle Luke 8:27 Dear Jason,(1) Yes, there are what appear to be CONSTRUCTIO AD SENSUM inRevelation. As Carl has pointed out, scholars have indeed stated that anumber of solecisms occur in Revelation. In his detailed commentary onRevelation, David Aune has a section on CONSTRUCTIO AD SENSUM inRevelation. In part, he writes that there are “fifty-three occurrencesof present participles of the verb LEGW; twelve are solecisms (4:1, 8;5:12, 13; 6:10; 11:15; 13:14; 14:7; 15:3; 19:1, 6, 17; details arefound in the Notes to each of these passages)” [Revelation 52A, CCVI.Word Commentary Series]. (2) I’m not so sure that the author of Revelation writes “bad Greek.”For years, some have claimed that the Gospel of Mark contains “badGreek.” Recent research has shown otherwise. While it is true thatthere are apparent anacolutha in Revelation, its quite possible thatthe seemingly “bad Greek” is nothing more than natural and goodHebraism. Linguists can either be descriptive or prescriptive in theiranalysis of language. If one takes a descriptive approach to BiblicalGreek, then its quite possible that the so-called “bad Greek” ofRevelation is simply la parole. Or, from a sociolinguistic viewpoint,it could be just good old Hebraism (Cf. Rev. 1:4. Consult Gen. 15:1, 4LXX).Regards,Edgar— Jim West wrote:>At 03:18 PM 5/16/99 +0000, you wrote:>Some have claimed that grammatical errors in Revelation distinguish itfrom books by John the apostle. Are any of you aware of “errors” inthe Greek or have any input on the authorship of Revelation.<>Jason Rachels>Jason,>Take a look at volume 4 of Nigel Turner’s Grammar ofNT Greek. He discusses the stylistic markers of the various NTauthors. It has been fairly wellknown for a long time that the author of Rev differssignificantly in style from the Johannine materials (the gospel and theepistles). Turner listsnumerous examples- so he is the place to start.<>On the “errors” of Rev- yes, it is terrible greek.>Best,>Jim===Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne Collegehttp://www.egroups.com/list/greektheology/_____________________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Dative Participle Luke 8:27

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Sun May 16 21:43:24 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Dative Participle Luke 8:27

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Sun May 16 16:52:11 EDT 1999

Limerick: Mark 3.1Grammatical errors in Revelation?

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Sun May 16 22:47:46 EDT 1999

Dative Participle Luke 8:27 Grammatical errors in Revelation? At 06:43 PM 5/16/99 -0700, you wrote:> >(2) I’m not so sure that the author of Revelation writes “bad Greek.”I disagree. If we, for a moment, forget that the book is found in the canonof scripture, and grade it simply on its merits as a greek document, we cansurely agree that it does not measure up very highly as a competentconstruction. It is only ideology which keeps us from such an assertion.In this case, it is the ideology, spoken or not, that since it is a biblicaldocument it must be good.>For years, some have claimed that the Gospel of Mark contains “bad>Greek.” Recent research has shown otherwise. Please give examples. I would like to check this supposition out.>While it is true that>there are apparent anacolutha in Revelation, its quite possible that>the seemingly “bad Greek” is nothing more than natural and good>Hebraism. Whether or not hebraisms or semiticisms are involved has no bearing on thefact that the greek is poor. This seems to me to be an effort to excuse theauthor for poor work rather than an explanation of it.>Linguists can either be descriptive or prescriptive in their>analysis of language. If one takes a descriptive approach to Biblical>Greek, then its quite possible that the so-called “bad Greek” of>Revelation is simply la parole. Or, from a sociolinguistic viewpoint,>it could be just good old Hebraism (Cf. Rev. 1:4. Consult Gen. 15:1, 4>LXX).Again, such an effort to explain away really does not explain why someonewriting Greek writes it so poorly. Perhaps the writer is a semite. Welland good. And suppose he is doing his best- again, well and good. But thefact remains, attempts to ameliorate notwithstanding, that the greek is bad.Best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

Dative Participle Luke 8:27Grammatical errors in Revelation?

Grammatical errors in Revelation? George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Sun May 16 23:20:14 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Grammatical errors in Revelation? Hi Jim ~I got done reading your post and wanted to find that rotten writer and just give him a piece of my mind!!>From: Jim West>you wrote:>If we, for a moment, forget that the book is found in the canon>of scripture, and grade it simply on its merits as a greek document, we can>surely agree that it does not measure up very highly as a competent >construction.This is looking pretty bad for the writer of it, huh.>It is only ideology which keeps us from such an assertion.>In this case, it is the ideology, spoken or not, that since it is a >biblical document it must be good.Well, it IS a little hard to set aside its inclusion in the Bible ~ For me that minute is close to eternal… :-)>Whether or not hebraisms or semiticisms are involved has no bearing on the >fact that the greek is poor.Sure doesn’t seem to ‘measure up’ hardly at all… Bad Greek.>This seems to me to be an effort to excuse the>author for poor work rather than an explanation of it.The Author’s poor work is obviously VERY inexcusable…>Again, such an effort to explain away really does not explain why someone >writing Greek writes it so poorly. Perhaps the writer is a semite. Well >and good. And suppose he is doing his best- again, well and good. But the >fact remains, attempts to ameliorate notwithstanding, that the greek is >bad.Terrible!!Thinking about this, perhaps the writer had no Greek scribe to write it for him this time, and perhaps he was very old and feeble ~ Maybe even kinda simpleminded to begin with ~ Not too quick mentally, if you get my meaning… [A good man to know…]Perhaps, perhaps ~Does it matter that he would flunk a Greek composition class?SOMEONE didn’t seem to think so…. I wanna be in His pile!George_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Grammatical errors in Revelation?

Grammatical errors in Revelation? George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Sun May 16 23:20:14 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Grammatical errors in Revelation?

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Sun May 16 22:47:46 EDT 1999

Dative Participle Luke 8:27Grammatical errors in Revelation?

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Mon May 17 00:08:01 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Use of Greek in Email and Chatrooms for Teaching 1st Year Greek —Jim West wrote:>At 06:43 PM 5/16/99 -0700, you wrote:>(2) I’m not so sure that the author of Revelation writes “bad Greek.”<>I disagree. If we, for a moment, forget that the book is found inthe canon of scripture, and grade it simply on its merits as a greekdocument, we can surely agree that it does not measure up very highlyas a competentconstruction. It is only ideology which keeps us from such anassertion. In this case, it is the ideology, spoken or not, that sinceit is a biblical document it must be good.<Notice my disclaimer, Jim. I said that “I’m not so sure” the author ofRevelation “writes bad Greek.” I’m open to discussion on this issue,and I am not making a dogmatic assertion. True, I have strong feelingsabout Biblical inspiration, but I would hardly call my views any moreideological than those who try to dismiss the Johannine authorship ofRevelation offhand.>For years, some have claimed that the Gospel of Mark contains “badGreek.” Recent research has shown otherwise.< >Please give examples. I would like to check this supposition out.<I have found the essay by DA Black entitled “Discourse Analysis,Synoptic Crticism, and Markan Grammar: Some MethodologicalConsiderations” to be very enlightening. He reviews a number ofexamples that raise doubts about the “bad grammar” of Mark. Especiallynoteworthy is his reference to AT Robertson’s grammar and the exampleof Pindaric construction (Robertson 1934:405). Another essaydiscussing the problems of Markan grammar is Dan Wallace’s paper: “TheSynoptic Problem.” He too shows the crossroads Markan study is atregarding Mark’s grammar and the Synoptic problem. >While it is true that there are apparent anacolutha in Revelation,its quite possible that the seemingly “bad Greek” is nothing more thannatural and goodHebraism.< >Whether or not hebraisms or semiticisms are involved has no bearingon the fact that the greek is poor.<If the Greek of the NT was influenced by the LXX, it does (See Aune).>Linguists can either be descriptive or prescriptive in their analysisof language. If one takes a descriptive approach to Biblical Greek,then its quite possible that the so-called “bad Greek” of Revelationis simply la parole. Or, from a sociolinguistic viewpoint,it could be just good old Hebraism (Cf. Rev. 1:4. Consult Gen. 15:1, 4LXX).<>Again, such an effort to explain away really does not explain whysomeone writing Greek writes it so poorly. Perhaps the writer is asemite. Well and good. And suppose he is doing his best- again, welland good. But the fact remains, attempts to amelioratenotwithstanding, that the greek is bad.<For one, such an explanation is fully in accord with the findings ofdiscourse analysis, literary criticism, and sociolinguistics.Secondly, the expression APO hO WN KAI hO HN KAI hO ERXOMENOS is oftencited as an example of supposed “bad Greek” contained in the book ofRevelation. DA Black, however, points out that there is nothing wrongwith the expression per se. It conveys its meaning clearly, and thatis the purpose of language. Furthermore, the clause is properly Jewishsince the Divine name was viewed as indeclinable by the Jews. It is nowonder that the nominative case is used where one would normallyexpect the genitive case. Black’s discussion can be found on pp. 13-14of his _Linguistics For Students of NT Greek_.Regards,Edgar ==Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne Collegehttp://www.egroups.com/list/greektheology/_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Use of Greek in Email and Chatrooms for Teaching 1st Year Greek

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Mon May 17 00:08:01 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Use of Greek in Email and Chatrooms for Teaching 1st Year Greek

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Jim West jwest at highland.net
Mon May 17 21:31:03 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Matt 11:28-30 chiasm or parallelism? At 05:49 PM 5/17/99 -0400, you wrote:>At 04:52 PM 5/16/99 -0400, Jim West wrote:> >>On the “errors” of Rev – yes, it is terrible greek.> >I am uncomfortable with the assumption that we can make this kind of>judgement. Revelation is certainly effective and breathtaking language>which has captured the imagination of many people.Perhaps so. But facts are facts and the fact is, Rev. is the worst greekgrammatically speaking, in the NT.> >It is also unusual Greek, different in style from the rest of the New>Testament. But most of it is understandable, and gripping, if breathless>and idiosyncratic. It reminds me of a Van Gogh who piles on paint instead>of brushing it on.well and good- but still- it is awful grammar. you would never considerusing rev. as an example of how to write greek sentences.> >Remember when people used to say that Hemingway was badly written? Many>English writers are idiosyncratic – E.E. Cummings, Faulkner, Langston>Hughes…I suppose we could say each of these wrote ‘terrible English’, but>that would be missing the point.but the point here is not the aesthetic beauty of the symbols of rev. theoriginal question had to do with the acuracy of the grammar of rev. it isawful.best,jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Matt 11:28-30 chiasm or parallelism?

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Jonathan Robie jonathan.robie at sagus.com
Mon May 17 17:49:10 EDT 1999

Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Grammatical errors in Revelation? At 04:52 PM 5/16/99 -0400, Jim West wrote: >On the “errors” of Rev – yes, it is terrible greek. I am uncomfortable with the assumption that we can make this kind ofjudgement. Revelation is certainly effective and breathtaking languagewhich has captured the imagination of many people.It is also unusual Greek, different in style from the rest of the NewTestament. But most of it is understandable, and gripping, if breathlessand idiosyncratic. It reminds me of a Van Gogh who piles on paint insteadof brushing it on.Remember when people used to say that Hemingway was badly written? ManyEnglish writers are idiosyncratic – E.E. Cummings, Faulkner, LangstonHughes…I suppose we could say each of these wrote ‘terrible English’, butthat would be missing the point.Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://metalab.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://metalab.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://metalab.unc.edu/B-Hebrew Home Page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bhebrew

Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWNGrammatical errors in Revelation?

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Jim West jwest at highland.net
Mon May 17 21:31:03 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Matt 11:28-30 chiasm or parallelism?

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Jonathan Robie jonathan.robie at sagus.com
Mon May 17 17:49:10 EDT 1999

Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWNGrammatical errors in Revelation?

Grammatical errors in Revelation? John Oaklands j_m_oaklands at yahoo.com.au
Mon May 17 22:14:55 EDT 1999

Matt 11:28-30 chiasm or parallelism? Revelation Greek Good for you Jim. I support you wholeheartedly. There are so manyexamples in print even of such poor grammar. That doesn’t detract fromthe inspired message at all. John— Jim West <jwest at highland.net> wrote:> At 05:49 PM 5/17/99 -0400, you wrote:> >At 04:52 PM 5/16/99 -0400, Jim West wrote:> > > >>On the “errors” of Rev – yes, it is terrible> greek.> > > >I am uncomfortable with the assumption that we can> make this kind of> >judgement. Revelation is certainly effective and> breathtaking language> >which has captured the imagination of many people.> > Perhaps so. But facts are facts and the fact is,> Rev. is the worst greek> grammatically speaking, in the NT.> > >> >It is also unusual Greek, different in style from> the rest of the New> >Testament. But most of it is understandable, and> gripping, if breathless> >and idiosyncratic. It reminds me of a Van Gogh who> piles on paint instead> >of brushing it on.> > well and good- but still- it is awful grammar. you> would never consider> using rev. as an example of how to write greek> sentences.> > >> >Remember when people used to say that Hemingway was> badly written? Many> >English writers are idiosyncratic – E.E. Cummings,> Faulkner, Langston> >Hughes…I suppose we could say each of these wrote> ‘terrible English’, but> >that would be missing the point.> > but the point here is not the aesthetic beauty of> the symbols of rev. the> original question had to do with the acuracy of the> grammar of rev. it is> awful.> > > best,> > jim> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++> Jim West, ThD> email- jwest at highland.net> web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest> > > —> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as:> j_m_oaklands at yahoo.com.au> To unsubscribe, forward this message to> $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to> subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > > ===John V. Oaklands31/115 Main RoadCardiff NSW 2285AustraliaPhone 02 4954 4665FAX 02 4953 7097Email j_m_oaklands at yahoo.com.au_____________________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

Matt 11:28-30 chiasm or parallelism?Revelation Greek

Grammatical errors in Revelation? John Oaklands j_m_oaklands at yahoo.com.au
Mon May 17 22:14:55 EDT 1999

Matt 11:28-30 chiasm or parallelism?Revelation Greek
Grammatical errors in Revelation? Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Mon May 17 23:04:32 EDT 1999

Revelation Greek Grammatical errors in Revelation? At 10:49 PM 5/17/99 -0500, you wrote:>I thought the worst Greek in the New Testament was Peter.You were misinformed. Peter is, in fact, some of the very best Greek in theNT. Again, I urge listers to take a look at Nigel Turner’s Grammar, vol 4,where he discusses all these things quite thoroughly.best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

Revelation GreekGrammatical errors in Revelation?

Revelation Greek John Oaklands j_m_oaklands at yahoo.com.au
Mon May 17 22:28:20 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Grammatical errors in Revelation? This is in reply to Jim West’s most recent posting on the topic. Itried to reply directly but it came back to me for reasons of a numberof problems so here we go this way.JimGood for you. I support you wholeheartedly. I have in my files firmexamples of such grammatical errors. However, for me, that doesn’tdetract from the inspired message of the book. Some uneducated peoplespeaking faulty grammatical English — or German — can utter amazingtruths that are quite clear regardless. So why not John in Revelation? John===John V. Oaklands31/115 Main RoadCardiff NSW 2285AustraliaPhone 02 4954 4665FAX 02 4953 7097Email j_m_oaklands at yahoo.com.au_____________________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Grammatical errors in Revelation?

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Mon May 17 23:04:32 EDT 1999

Revelation GreekGrammatical errors in Revelation?

Revelation Greek John Oaklands j_m_oaklands at yahoo.com.au
Mon May 17 22:28:20 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Grammatical errors in Revelation?

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Cindy Smith cms at dragon.com
Mon May 17 23:49:42 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN I thought the worst Greek in the New Testament was Peter.Cindy Smith Spawn of a Jewish CarpenterGO AGAINST THE FLOW! __ _///_ // >IXOYE=(‘> <`)= _<< A Real Live Catholic in Georgiacms at dragon.com // /// cms at star-nets.comcms at romancatholic.org Delay not your conversion to the LORD,Put it not off from day to day Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8Read the mailing list Bible at dragon.comRead the mailing list Literature at dragon.comRead the mailing list nt-trans at dragon.com (Greek New Testament)Read the mailing list ot-trans at dragon.com (Hebrew Old Testament)

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Cindy Smith cms at dragon.com
Mon May 17 23:49:42 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Randy Leedy rleedy at bju.edu
Tue May 18 09:11:54 EDT 1999

Syntax Mark 8:4 Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN Carl,I have written this note for the list, but before posting it I wouldlike to run it past you. If you believe it would be helpful, thenplease either forward it to the list with your comments or let me knowand I will send it myself.I think I will be in Swannanoa tonight, and I am planning to be therepreaching both services on Sunday. Should you care to try to meetsomewhere for a little snack and a hello, I’d enjoy it. But myschedule will be pretty full, and it might not be worth the effort onyour part. So feel perfectly free to decline.RandyHere’s the note.A few, I suspect, have recalled in connection with this thread arather uncomfortable exchange a year or so ago between Edward Hobbsand myself regarding a similar issue with respect to Ephesians 1. Ihave relived that ordeal myself and would like to offer a thought ortwo that I hope will prove more constructive than those I expressed atthat time.I suggested at that time that comments on “bad Greek” reveal as muchabout the critic as about the object of his criticism. While I think Iwould no longer like to take that thought in quite the direction I didat that time, I still believe it to be true. When one calls grammar”bad” or “stupefying” or “terrible” rather than using some moreneutral term such as “non-standard,” he has revealed not onlysomething about the nature of the grammar but also something about theliterary values he holds. I think that today we might be able to speakmore confidently of “bad grammar” when we find certain kinds ofconstructions and expressions common among the uneducated classes.Non-standard expressions of this sort do seem to keep rather poorcompany. But do we know enough about 1st-century usage across thesocial spectrum to be able to say that the non-standard grammar wefind in various places in the NT keeps such poor company? Or are weinstead seeing something that, albeit idiosyncratic, would not at allhave been received as “poor grammar” by even the most educated amongits first audience?Some people seem to have the gift of bluntness. I think that I may beamong them; at any rate, I have always appreciated someone’sexpressing himself in language that doesn’t leave me wondering what hethinks. But may I express again, perhaps more winsomely this time,that the consideration we fundamentalists and other staunchconservatives are asked to show on the list by refraining from thelanguage that we might naturally be inclined to use toward the moreliberal members ought to characterize comments from ALL around thetable. I think I understand exactly what Jim West means by “terriblegrammar,” and I am not offended by it. But those inclined to use suchlanguage ought also to be aware that it can be easily misunderstood asdenigrating toward Scripture and would do well to make every effort tomake themselves clear on ALL points–not just that the grammar is odd,but also that they intend no disrespect toward Scripture. If thelatter point would in fact be an untruth–if they DO intend theircomments to convey disrespect, then, according to list policy, thecomment should not be made at all, and someone who would insist onvoicing such disrespect ought to be held liable to standard listdiscipline.********************************In love to God and neighbor,Randy LeedyBob Jones UniversityGreenville, SCRLeedy at bju.edu*********************************

Syntax Mark 8:4Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Randy Leedy rleedy at bju.edu
Tue May 18 09:11:54 EDT 1999

Syntax Mark 8:4Mark 2:16 hOI GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Randy Leedy rleedy at bju.edu
Tue May 18 11:41:01 EDT 1999

None Hebrews 11:1 OOPS!!!To all concerned,This new email program got me. I sent to the list a message that Iintended for Carl alone. I originally addressed it to the list, andwhen I went back and changed the address to Carl’s, I didn’t realizethat I was adding a second address rather than replacing the first. Sonow the message is on the list, for better or for worse. For better, Itrust. Apologies where necessary.Randy Leedy

NoneHebrews 11:1

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Randy Leedy rleedy at bju.edu
Tue May 18 11:41:01 EDT 1999

NoneHebrews 11:1

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Edgar Krentz ekrentz at lstc.edu
Tue May 18 15:28:45 EDT 1999

Luke’s Semitic Style (exx) Bad Greek >At 04:52 PM 5/16/99 -0400, Jim West wrote:> >>On the “errors” of Rev – yes, it is terrible greek.> >I am uncomfortable with the assumption that we can make this kind of>judgement. Revelation is certainly effective and breathtaking language>which has captured the imagination of many people.> >It is also unusual Greek, different in style from the rest of the New>Testament. But most of it is understandable, and gripping, if breathless>and idiosyncratic. It reminds me of a Van Gogh who piles on paint instead>of brushing it on.> >Remember when people used to say that Hemingway was badly written? Many>English writers are idiosyncratic – E.E. Cummings, Faulkner, Langston>Hughes…I suppose we could say each of these wrote ‘terrible English’, but>that would be missing the point.Jonathan,It aint real good to make the tes ‘o outstandin correctness fur sintax adecision as to whether or not one has communicated. I trust the priorsentence communicated, even though.You are applying a modern standard to ancient Greek, which did not know it.sorry about that, but the Apocalypse simply has some construkctions that afirst year Greek student paper would get a red line through.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Edgar KrentzProfessor of New Testament EmeritusLutheran School of Theology at Chicago1100 E. 55th StreetChicago, IL 60615 USA773-256-0752e-mail: ekrentz at lstc.edu (Office) GHRASKW AEI POLLA DIDASKOMENOS.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Luke’s Semitic Style (exx)Bad Greek

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Edgar Krentz ekrentz at lstc.edu
Tue May 18 15:28:45 EDT 1999

Luke’s Semitic Style (exx)Bad Greek

Grammatical errors in Revelation? ParkL at aol.com ParkL at aol.com
Tue May 18 22:41:23 EDT 1999

Bad Greek Grammatical errors in Revelation? Out of curiosity, did any of the early Christian writers complain about the bad Greek grammar of the book of Revelation? And if they didn’t consider it to be poor Greek, perhaps Revelation’s grammar is merely a permutation of the Koine, an example of relatively fluid grammar, because it was the linguistic “coin of the realm”.Park Linscombminister of the gospelManchester church of Christ

Bad GreekGrammatical errors in Revelation?

Grammatical errors in Revelation? ParkL at aol.com ParkL at aol.com
Tue May 18 22:41:23 EDT 1999

Bad GreekGrammatical errors in Revelation?

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Dale M. Wheeler dalemw at teleport.com
Wed May 19 01:00:54 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Discussion about *style* Well, since everyone else was putting in their $0.02 worth, I thought Iwould as well, since my view is fairly different from anything else said onthe topic… (-:There are two other views as to why John wrote such bad Greek:1) Darryl Schmidt (the editor of the revision to BDF going on right now)has written an article (I’m at home and don’t have access to it, but I’llget the reference if you’all want it) on the topic, and he has suggestedthat John deliberately imitated the style of the prophetic/apocalypticsections of the LXX, thus the “bad” Greek. If he’s correct, then thedeliberate stylistic imitation is to reinforce the validity and power ofhis message. It seems to me that there is a great deal to be said for thisapproach, but, I’d suggest perhaps another solution…2) John was hearing all of what transpired in Hebrew, and was translatingit “on the fly” as he recorded it in Greek; thus the “bad” translationGreek. Yes, yes, I know that would mean he would have to be a very fastwriter, and there are structural considerations, etc. The good news is,for us Hebrew Profs, that they speak Hebrew in heaven; the bad new is, forus Greek Profs, that they don’t speak Greek… (-:BTW, either of these suggestions solves for me the real problem of Eph 1that Carl has pointed out, ie., Eph 1:3-14 is formally an OT Hebrew PsalmForm (Baruk Praise), and Paul has used a whole bunch of Hebrew structuralforms to put the whole thing together and indicate where the units andsub-units are (Relative Particle/Pronouns; Substantival Ptcs; Repetition ofRenewed Calls to Praise…didn’t I once post an outline to this section to ??), which are not typical of Greek rhetoric.Well, that’s my $0.02 worth…XAIREIN…***********************************************************************Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw at teleport.com ***********************************************************************

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Discussion about *style*

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Dale M. Wheeler dalemw at teleport.com
Wed May 19 01:00:54 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Discussion about *style*

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 19 06:41:16 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Syntax Mark 8:4 At 10:41 PM -0400 5/18/99, ParkL at aol.com wrote:>Out of curiosity, did any of the early Christian writers complain about the>bad Greek grammar of the book of Revelation? And if they didn’t consider it>to be poor Greek, perhaps Revelation’s grammar is merely a permutation of the>Koine, an example of relatively fluid grammar, because it was the linguistic>“coin of the realm”.> >Park Linscomb>minister of the gospel>Manchester church of ChristThis is not really the place to talk about history of the canon as such,but from what I have read, the place of Revelation in the canon was debatedat some length and it was not until the tenth century that its place in thecanon was secure. I don’t think, however, that the Greek grammar of thedocument was a major factor in the debate.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Syntax Mark 8:4

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 19 06:41:16 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Syntax Mark 8:4

Grammatical errors in Revelation? clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Wed May 19 04:06:55 EDT 1999

Discussion about *style* Grammatical errors in Revelation? Dale M. Wheeler wrote:> 2) John was hearing all of what transpired in Hebrew, and was translating> it “on the fly” as he recorded it in Greek; thus the “bad” translation> Greek. Yes, yes, I know that would mean he would have to be a very fast> writer, and there are structural considerations, etc.But Dale, in the Apocalypse John SEES more than he HEARS. Does John alsosee in Hebrew and translate it on the fly?I am one of those stubborn fellows who thinks that John actually had avision and actually wrote it down. I know this sort of thinking makesall the people from academia roll their eyes and wag their heads butfrankly I don’t care.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

Discussion about *style*Grammatical errors in Revelation?

Grammatical errors in Revelation? clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Wed May 19 04:06:55 EDT 1999

Discussion about *style*Grammatical errors in Revelation?
What is “bad Greek”? (was “Grammatical errors in Revelation?”) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue May 18 12:53:26 EDT 1999

Hebrews 11:1 Matt 11:28-30 At 11:41 AM -0400 5/18/99, Randy Leedy wrote:>OOPS!!!To me, who have sent more private messages to the list than I care toremember, Randy’s little mishaps brings a chuckle. We are hAPANTES subjectto goofs!At 9:11 AM -0400 5/18/99, Randy Leedy wrote:>I suggested at that time that comments on “bad Greek” reveal as much>about the critic as about the object of his criticism. While I think I>would no longer like to take that thought in quite the direction I did>at that time, I still believe it to be true. When one calls grammar>“bad” or “stupefying” or “terrible” rather than using some more>neutral term such as “non-standard,” he has revealed not only>something about the nature of the grammar but also something about the>literary values he holds. I think that today we might be able to speak>more confidently of “bad grammar” when we find certain kinds of>constructions and expressions common among the uneducated classes.>Non-standard expressions of this sort do seem to keep rather poor>company. But do we know enough about 1st-century usage across the>social spectrum to be able to say that the non-standard grammar we>find in various places in the NT keeps such poor company? Or are we>instead seeing something that, albeit idiosyncratic, would not at all>have been received as “poor grammar” by even the most educated among>its first audience?I think there are two distinct points that Randy is raising here:(1) Are we denigrating the author and the text of Revelation or any otherBiblical book by referring to it as written in “bad Greek”?–I would personally not assume so, nor would I want to be thought to bedenigrating the author or text by referring to it thus. Although I have (asI recently noted) changed my view about the grammatical competence of theauthor of Mark’s gospel, for years I used to say things such as that “Markcouldn’t pass a first-year course in Greek composition, but he has writtenwhat is one of the most profound literary compositions as well as one ofthe most profound spiritual challenges in the whole of the Biblicalcorpus.” I think that I might say something similar even now about theauthor of Revelation. Both of these books have numerous passages thatdiverge considerably from the literary Greek of the educated classes, butthe grammatical deviations from the norm are no hindrance to the powerfulmessage of both.–On the other hand, I have often enough in this forum (perhaps too often)deplored the Greek of Ephesians 1:3-10. I know that for many and perhapsfor most readers this passage is profoundly moving, while for me it isscarcely intelligible. The most satisfactory explanation I have seen forthis catena of disparate and disconnected units of thought is that it isliturgical; that may well be the explanation of the style, yet I would liketo think that liturgical Greek can be more articulate than this. Without atall disparaging the canonicity or importance of Ephesians as a Biblicaltext, I must nevertheless confess that (and I am expressing only my ownopinion here) I find it difficult personally to believe that the sameauthor wrote this passage in Ephesians and 1 Cor 14:19 ALLA EN EKKLHSIAiQELW PENTE LOGOUS TWi NOI MOU LALHSAI, hINA KAI ALLOUS KATHCHSW, H MURIOUSLOGOUS EN GLWSSHi. In sum, I find this passage to be “bad Greek” notbecause it violates grammatical rules but because it does not quitecommunicate as successfully as it seems to me it should. Randy may wellfeel that I AM disparaging scripture in saying this, and undoubtedly Ibetray hereby that I may hold a different conception of inspiration thanmany others, but I simply have to say quite honestly, that I find the Greekof these verses really problematic.(2) A second and different question: do we know enough about first-centuryGreek usage to be able to judge the affinities of NT Greek documents withinthe spectrum of first-century Greek writing on the whole? Whether or not”we” know enough in an absolute sense to make such a judgment, I reallythink “we” do haveenough evidence (and Egyptian papyri gradually being read and publishedfrom the Oxyrhyncus garbage heap are telling us all the time more about theGreek written by the less-educated of Egyptian Greek-speakers) to make somerelative judgments: that the NT documents are pretty well reflective offirst-century Greek, from the relatively unpolished to the relativelypolished. I think it really IS possible to make RELATIVE judgmentsregarding the degree of conformity of NT texts to the grammar taught in theschools at the time. BUT, I would hope and I do believe that we candifferentiate between a judgment of grammatical and literary style and ajudgment of literary and religious value.>I think I will be in Swannanoa tonight, and I am planning to be there>preaching both services on Sunday. Should you care to try to meet>somewhere for a little snack and a hello, I’d enjoy it. But my>schedule will be pretty full, and it might not be worth the effort on>your part. So feel perfectly free to decline.I hope there may be another opportunity to meet this summer, Randy, butI’ve been mowing and weed-eating most of the day, and I don’t think I’mready to drive into the Asheville area tonight.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Hebrews 11:1Matt 11:28-30

What is “bad Greek”? (was “Grammatical errors in Revelation?”) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue May 18 12:53:26 EDT 1999

Hebrews 11:1Matt 11:28-30

Bad Greek (used to be “Grammatical errors in Revelation?”) Randy Leedy Rleedy at bju.edu
Wed May 19 09:05:50 EDT 1999

Syntax Mark 8:4 1 Cor 4:6 (was: RE: Syntax Mark 8:4) Since Mitchell Gray has raised the point of John’s haste in writing,I’d like to underscore what I consider to be the value of that factorin this discussion. Of course there are those among us who would takethe Apocalypse as a carefully composed piece in which the scenario ofthe author’s being instructed to write down visions as they are shownto him is merely a literary device. But I do not hesitate to affirmthat the scenario can be taken at face value, the visions can beconsidered miraculous, and that John the Apostle wrote the best Greekhe was capable of writing under those circumstances. (I have nodifficulty with the hypothesis that the smoother Greek of the otherJohannine writings results from his use of an amanuensis.) If this isso, given the closing warning not to add to or take away from thewords of the book, I would imagine that John felt no liberty at all topolish the language. In fact, as I read the book, the awkwardness ofthe language at points strikes me as contributing effectively to theatmosphere of haste and urgency; I don’t see that John would havewished to alter the language if he HAD felt free to do so. Surely thebook would be the poorer for being rewritten in such a style as todraw the unmitigated approbation of university Greek professors, aclass not unknown for pedantry (as a member of that class I believe Ican say such a thing intending no insult–it’s a matter of thatself-awareness I have been stressing).In closing, I must say that I am puzzled to know what drives Jim Westto continue using the most pejorative possible terms to describe thegrammar of Revelation. What does “horrid” help us to understand moreclearly ABOUT THE TEXT than something like “solecistic” or even”highly awkward” would? Jim, I hope you don’t mind my probing a littlehere. Since you continue using such terminology, I don’t think I’m outof place in continuing to seek a clearer explanation.If this thread is getting outside the scope, I’m happy enoughto drop it for that reason. *********************************In Love to God and NeighborRandy LeedyBob Jones UniversityGreenville, SC*********************************P.S. Anyone who responds and wishes me to see that response beforetomorrow should CC me, since I get only the list digests.

Syntax Mark 8:41 Cor 4:6 (was: RE: Syntax Mark 8:4)

Bad Greek (used to be “Grammatical errors in Revelation?”) Randy Leedy Rleedy at bju.edu
Wed May 19 09:05:50 EDT 1999

Syntax Mark 8:41 Cor 4:6 (was: RE: Syntax Mark 8:4)

Bad Greek (used to be “Grammatical errors in Revelation?”) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 19 09:44:39 EDT 1999

Bad Greek Syntax Mark 8:4 At 9:05 AM -0400 5/19/99, Randy Leedy wrote:>Since Mitchell Gray has raised the point of John’s haste in writing,>I’d like to underscore what I consider to be the value of that factor>in this discussion. Of course there are those among us who would take>the Apocalypse as a carefully composed piece in which the scenario of>the author’s being instructed to write down visions as they are shown>to him is merely a literary device. But I do not hesitate to affirm>that the scenario can be taken at face value, the visions can be>considered miraculous, and that John the Apostle wrote the best Greek>he was capable of writing under those circumstances. (I have no>difficulty with the hypothesis that the smoother Greek of the other>Johannine writings results from his use of an amanuensis.) If this is>so, given the closing warning not to add to or take away from the>words of the book, I would imagine that John felt no liberty at all to>polish the language. In fact, as I read the book, the awkwardness of>the language at points strikes me as contributing effectively to the>atmosphere of haste and urgency; I don’t see that John would have>wished to alter the language if he HAD felt free to do so. Surely the>book would be the poorer for being rewritten in such a style as to>draw the unmitigated approbation of university Greek professors, a>class not unknown for pedantry (as a member of that class I believe I>can say such a thing intending no insult–it’s a matter of that>self-awareness I have been stressing).It seems to me that this argument rests upon a host of assumptions aboutthe authorship of Revelation that are certainly possible but hardlydemonstrable. I would add, for my own part, that I have no difficultybelieving that the composition of Revelation was indeed occasioned by anauthentic vision by the writer; I am more dubious about the haste and thestate of fear and trembling of the author being the occasion of thosegrammatical elements about which we have been carrying on this’Auseinandersetzung.’ I think that’s plausible but not really veryprobable, and of course, I am simply stating my own opinion on this matteras you, Randy, have stated yours.>If this thread is getting outside the scope, I’m happy enough>to drop it for that reason.I think that, insofar as the thread has shifted its focus onto questionsthat are much more fundamentally speculative and that seem to relate muchmore fundamentally to faith-perspectives regarding inspiration andhermeneutics, IT DOES SEEM TO ME ADVISABLE TO HALT IT AT THIS POINT. Ourfocus really should be on the Greek language and the Greek text itself andnot on history of the canon or theories of inspiration or speculation onthe composition of NT documents. I would like to think, however, that wehave brought to light some better ways of talking about the kinds ofdeviation from literary and scholastic Greek grammar that we find in NTdocuments.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Bad GreekSyntax Mark 8:4

Bad Greek (used to be “Grammatical errors in Revelation?”) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 19 09:44:39 EDT 1999

Bad GreekSyntax Mark 8:4

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Jon R. Venema 104412.344 at compuserve.com
Wed May 19 11:27:10 EDT 1999

halted thread Grammatical errors in Revelation >Message text written by INTERNET:ParkL at aol.com>Out of curiosity, did any of the early Christian writers complain aboutthe >bad Greek grammar of the book of Revelation? And if they didn’t considerit >to be poor Greek, perhaps Revelation’s grammar is merely a permutation ofthe >Koine, an example of relatively fluid grammar, because it was thelinguistic >“coin of the realm”.>Park Linscomb>minister of the gospel>Manchester church of Christ<Park,One early Christian writer, Dionysius of Alexandria (d. ca. 264) comes tomind. He was a pupil of Origin and became head of the AlexandrianCatechetical School and later bishop of Alexandria. He is cited at lengthby Eusebius (HE 7.25.24-27). I will just repeat the pertinent ending of alengthy citation from the translation by J. E. L. Oulton in the LoebClassical Library.”And further, by means of the style one can estimate the difference betweenthe Gospel and Epistle and the Apocalypse. For the former are not onlywritten in faultless Greek [APTAISTWS KATA THN TWN hELLHNWN FWNHN] , butalso show the greatest literary skill in their diction, their reasonings,and the constructions in which they are expressed. There is a completeabsence of any barbarous word, or solecism, or any vulgarism whatever. Fortheir author had, as it seems, both kinds of word, by the free gift of theLord, the word of knowledge and the word of speech. But I will not denythat the other writer had seen revelations and received knowledge andprophecy; nevertheless I observe his style and that his use of the Greeklanguage is not accurate [DIALEKTWN MENTOI KAI GLWSSAN OUK AKRIBWShELLHNIZOUSAN AUTOU BLEPW], but that he employs barbarous idioms, in someplaces commiting downright solecisms [ALL IDIWMASIN TE BARBARIKOIS CRWMENONKAI POU KAI SOLOIKIZONTA]. These there is no necessity to single out now. For I have not said these things in mockery (let no one think it), butmerely to establish the dissimilarity of these writings.”I hope this citation provides some clarification.Jon R. VenemaWestern Seminary

halted threadGrammatical errors in Revelation

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Jon R. Venema 104412.344 at compuserve.com
Wed May 19 11:27:10 EDT 1999

halted threadGrammatical errors in Revelation

Grammatical errors in Revelation Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Wed May 19 11:30:57 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation Grammatical errors in RevelationI agree with Jim that Revelation uses poor grammar, but I would point toJohn Hurtgen’s 1991 PhD dissertation, entitled something like”Anti-language in the Book of Revelation” for a discussion of why thegrammar is bad. “John P. Mason” wrote:> I agree with Jim that Revelation uses poor grammar, but I would point to> John Hurtgen’s 1991 PhD dissertation, entitled something like> “Anti-language in the Book of Revelation” for a discussion of why the> grammar is bad.> I think a lot of the dust up we’ve seen here re: the “bad” grammar of Rev. could havebeen avoided if we had simply echoed David Aune’s assessment that when compared toother instances of Biblical and (secular) Hellenistic literary Greek that of of Revis “peculiar”.Yours,Jeffrey Gibson–Jeffrey B. Gibson7423 N. Sheridan Road #2AChicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at ameritech.net

Grammatical errors in Revelation John P. Mason masonjoh at erols.com
Wed May 19 11:27:49 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation? Grammatical errors in Revelation I agree with Jim that Revelation uses poor grammar, but I would point toJohn Hurtgen’s 1991 PhD dissertation, entitled something like”Anti-language in the Book of Revelation” for a discussion of why thegrammar is bad.

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Grammatical errors in Revelation

Grammatical errors in Revelation Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Wed May 19 11:30:57 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation John P. Mason masonjoh at erols.com
Wed May 19 11:27:49 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation?Grammatical errors in Revelation

Grammatical errors in RevelationI agree with Jim that Revelation uses poor grammar, but I would point toJohn Hurtgen’s 1991 PhD dissertation, entitled something like”Anti-language in the Book of Revelation” for a discussion of why thegrammar is bad. John P. Mason masonjoh at erols.com
Wed May 19 11:42:27 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in Revelation FW: Mt 19:9 Let me try again with the proper signature:I agree with Jim that Revelation uses poor grammar, but I would point toJohn Hurtgen’s 1991 PhD dissertation, entitled something like”Anti-language in the Book of Revelation” for a discussion of why thegrammar is bad.John MasonPastor, Woodlawn Baptist ChurchColonial Heights Virginiamasonjoh at erols.com

Grammatical errors in RevelationFW: Mt 19:9

[] Solecisms in the book of Revelation: Demotic? Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed Aug 20 09:19:37 EDT 2008

[] Solecisms in the book of Revelation [] Solecisms in the book of Revelation: Demotic? I had thought we’d finished with this topic, leaving it as a matter of disagreement between Don Wilkins and myself, but apparently there’s more interest in this matter that at first seemed evident — quite apart from the ongoing endeavors to unsnarl issues of “Who’s who” and “Who did what” in Revelation, most of which questions don’t really seem concerned with the Greek text as Greek text so much as with the effort to find or demonstrate some inner consistency in what has always seemed to me a more-or-less kaleidoscopic perspective on TA ESCATA.Randall’s question about εἷς καθ’ εἷς hEIS KAQ’ hEIS (John 8:9) and Don Wilkins’ repeated claim that the author of Revelation employs “intentional solecism” have sent me scurrying back to BDF and some interesting issues of linguistic history. I am wondering whether what we are seeing in the author of Revelation and occasionally elsewhere in the GNT is not so much deliberate usage of what the writer knows to be “improper” Greek but rather Demotic intrusions into a text that the writer intends to compose in “standard” Greek. Some of the non-standard or “solecistic” items we note in the GNT and other Koine texts exemplify usage that will become much more common and ultimately even standard in the later language. One of these interesting developments in Greek linguistic history is the gradual fixation of nominative forms that may derive from what were originally accusative forms, some of the nominative forms then ultimately becoming indeclinable. An example is the modern Greek active participle: let’s take a verb that survives in MG from AG: βλέπω (BLEPW). The present active participle in MG is βλέποντας (BLEPONTAS). Superficially this looks like an accusative plural of the ancient participle, but in fact it is the accusative singular form with a nominative -S ending appended to it; the form is in fact indeclinable, as is evident in a sentence that might confound an unwary ancient Greek reader: βλέποντας, δέ βλέπει (BLEPONTAS, DE BLEPEI) “Seeing, he does not see,” i.e. “Although endowed with eyesight, he doesn’t see.”A comparable “solecism” that I had long failed to understand is the “nominative” πλήρης [PLHRHS] in John 1:14 Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας. [KAI hO LOGOS SARX EGENETO KAI ESKHNWSEN EN hHMIN, KAI EQEASAMEQA THN DOXAN AUTOU, DOXAN hWS MONOGENOUS PARA PATROS, PLHRHS CARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS]. It seems we ought to have an accusative form πλήρη [PLHRH] to agree with δόξαν [DOXAN], the object of ἐθεασάμεθα [EQEASAMEQA]. But apparently the originally nominative form πλήρης [PLHRHS] of this adjective has come to be — or is on the way in Koine to becoming indeclinable. BDAG has a very good account of this s.v. PLHRHS §2: “In some of the passages already mentioned πλήρης is indecl., though never without v.l., and almost only when it is used w. a gen., corresponding to an Engl. expression such as ‘a work full of errors’” One might note Acts 6:5 … Στέφανον, ἄνδρα πλήρης πίστεως καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου [STEFANON, ANDRA PLHRHS PISTEWS KAI PNEUMATOS hAGIOU]. What we’re dealing with here is not, I think, an “intentional solecism” but rather an intrusion of a Demotic usage into writing that the author really intends to keep more formal and conformant to “school” usage. I will get to the bearing of these observations on εἷς καθ’ εἷς [hEIS KAQ’ hEIS] down below.On Aug 15, 2008, at 2:28 PM, Don Wilkins (drdwilkins at sbcglobal.net) wrote:> Just a quick response to Carl’s comment on the solecisms. … it > seems to me that John’s solecisms are sufficiently violent that we > would expect to find Revelation riddled with many others, if the > comparatively few that we do find were not deliberate. It’s the old > story: you have to know the rules to (deliberately) break the rules. > If John really didn’t know better, then it’s a minor miracle that he > could write coherent Greek overall.Don and I have agreed to disagree about this “deliberate use of solecisms” — but it remains inexplicable to me why a writer who seems to know better would deliberately employ unacceptable grammar. I think there must be some explanation for each instance of “intentional solecism” if the usage really is intentional: WHY does a writer employ a solecism in any particular instance? We’ve explored some explanations for some of these (e.g. Iver re Rev. 7:9 where an implicit EIDON may explain the questionable accusative PERIBEBLHMENOUS, or a perhaps implicit infinitive POREUESQAI might explain a use of an accusative hUPODEDEMENOUS in Mark 6:9. But such usages as these could not be called “intentional” solecism; they fall rather under the classification of constructions where something unexpressed seems to have been understood in the writer’s mind and intention, something that a reader might be expected to infer from the context. On the other hand, I think I could be accused of “intentional solecism” if, upon being told repeatedly that I MUST perform a certain action without further ado, I responded with, “Well, I AIN’T gonna do that, and that’s all there is to it!” Here “ain’t” is unacceptable English, but I would be using it to underscore a stubborn resolution to follow my own counsel despite the advice of others.Upon further reflection, therefore, I’ve come to think that these “solecisms” in Revelation are to be explained — NOT in terms of a deliberate indulgence in non-standard grammar by an author who clearly knows how to write “school” Greek — but RATHER in terms of a slackening in the effort to compose the text in conformity to what one knows to be good “written” Greek and a slip-up that allows a usage that is not uncommon in the “spoken” Greek of everyday conversation.At any rate, that seems to me a much more reasonable explanation for the “solecisms” in Revelation than that we are dealing in each instance with a deliberate violation of the norms of written Greek.On Aug 19, 2008, at 3:12 PM, Bil buss (Paladin343 at aol.com) wrote:> Hi everyone,> Can anyone point me in the direction of scholarly works that list > and/or discuss solecisms in the Gospels, Acts and Revelation?I would think there must be some bibliography on this subject, but I only know of good material in BDF and some really fine information buried in the sub-headings of BDAG.As for bibliographies, I find that Micheal Palmer’s excellent site is still accessible at http://www.greek-language.com/ , and more specifically his page, http://greek-language.com/bibliographies/#Greek%20Linguistics (= http://tinyurl.com/5dnmsr); the reference to Rod Decker’s page is there, but note it directly anyway: http://faculty.bbc.edu/RDecker/bibliog.htmIn BDF I already called attention in an earlier post to §§136-7 (“More Serious Incongruencies (Solecisms)” (pp. 75-76). But there’s good stuff that’s relevant at other points in this book that is a much more useful reference than is commonly recognized. I’ll note one such item below with regard to εἷς καθ’ εἷς hEIS KAQ’ hEIS.On Aug 19, 2008, at 6:03 AM, Randall Buth (randallbuth at gmail.com) wrote:> While on the subject of solecisms, how do you all like εἷς > καθ’ εἷς EIS KAQ’ EIS ?> It seems intentional enough with the correct dropping of e vowel in > KATA, plus the correct Q θ before the word EIS ‘one’.> Proper Greek would say KAQ’ ENA καθ΄ ενα, though I can readily > understand KAQ EIS as a sub-standard dialect nominalization that > even rhymes with a Hebrew “ish ish”.On Aug 19, 2008, at 3:33 PM, Don Wilkins (drdwilkins at sbcglobal.net) wrote:> Another good example of “intentional solecism” IMO, probably > resulting from the influence of a foreign idiom as you point out. If > the writer used KATA correctly in other constructions, we wouldn’t > infer from this anomaly that he was ignorant of the proper use of > KATA.Again, I think that “intentional solecism” is a curious and infelicitous term suggestive (perhaps even intended by Don to mean) of deliberate injection of substandard usage into a text that is generally marked by good standard usage, an injection, moreover, that serves some intelligible rhetorical strategy. If that term is to be used, I would expect an explanation of what rhetorical strategy each such usage in Revelation is supposed to serve.I don’t think either that Randall really intended to suggest that hEIS KAQ’ hEIS derives from foreign idiom. What we have here seems better explained in BDF § 305 with respect to “Each” under the heading of Pronominal Adjectives”:”305. ‘Each’. ῞Εκαστος hEKASTOS, intensified εἷς ἕκαστος hEIS hEKASTOS. Fropm the distributive use of κατὰ KATA (ἀνὰ ANA, §248(1)), καθ’ KAQ’ (ἀνὰ ANA) εἷς hEIS developed, since καθ’ ἕνα ἕκααστον KAQ’ hENA hEKASTON became fixed as καθένα ἕκαστον KAQENA hEKASTON and a corresponding nom. was created: thus MGr καθείς KAQEIS καθένας KAQENAS ‘each’; cf. Jannaris §664; W.-S. p. 247 n.; Psaltes 192. Yet not many examples of this vulgarism are found in the NT.”So John 8:9 οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες ἐξήρχοντο εἷς καθ᾿ εἷς ἀρξάμενοι ἀπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ κατελείφθη μόνος καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἐν μέσῳ οὖσα. [hOI DE AKOUSANTES EXHRCONTO hEIS KAQ’ hEIS ARXAMENOI APO TWN PRESBYTERWN KAI KATELEIFQH MONOS KAI hH GUNH EN MESWi OUSA]. Although it’s possible to read εἷς καθ᾿ εἷς hEIS KAQ’ hEIS as a pronoun subject of EXHRCONTO, even Englishing it as “one by one,” the phrase as pronominal seems rather to be “each individual” ( = hEKASTOS) functions more or less adverbially as “individually” and the second hEIS with its preceding KAQ’ is not conceived grammatically as a nominative at all.In Modern Greek “each one, every one” is καθένας KAQENAS (Demotic), καθείς KAQEIS (Katharevousa). καθένας KAQENAS is derivative — like the MGr participle noted above — from the accusative καθένα KAQENA with addition of the nominative ending – ς -S.κάθε KAQE, we might note, seems to be in indeclinable adjective/ pronoun meaning “each” or “every.”Another quite comparable and interesting (from the perspective of Koine and a diachronic perspective on Greek) is κανένας KANENAS (Demotic), κανείς KANEIS (Katharevousa, with fem. KANEMIA, n. KANENA), meaning “none,” “no one,” or “not any.” This derives ultimately from AGr κἀν KAN, earlier καὶ ἂν KAI AN, still earlier καὶ ἐὰν KAI EAN “even if” — and ἕνα/εἷς hENA/ hEIS.κάνε KANE, as might be expected, is an indeclinable adjective/ pronoun meaning “none,” not any.”In sum then, I think that these “solecisms” in Revelation and elsewhere in the GNT are best explained as intrusions into a written composition of expressions that are already used in “demotic” speech but usually do not get used in writing.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] Solecisms in the book of Revelation[] Solecisms in the book of Revelation: Demotic?

[] Solecisms in the book of Revelation: Demotic? Randall Buth randallbuth at gmail.com
Wed Aug 20 15:17:25 EDT 2008

[] Solecisms in the book of Revelation: Demotic? [] Solecisms in the book of Revelation Nice post, Carl.And you are correct about my intentions. I don’t think either that John broughtEIS KAQ EIS directly from Hebrew, nor that he intended it as “sub-standard”(like O HN in Revelation).Rather, it is an intrusion from a sub-standard dialect. The correct dropping ofa vowel in hiatus and Qeta before EIS ‘one’ shows its ‘well-formedness’within the Greek world, howbeit, definitely non-standard or sub-standard.However, one wants to label it. The gospel writer intended it as Greek, andit is, of a sort.ερρωσοιωανης2008/8/20 Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>:> I had thought we’d finished with this topic, leaving it as a matter of> disagreement between Don Wilkins and myself, but apparently there’s more> interest in this matter that at first seemed evident — quite apart from the> ongoing endeavors to unsnarl issues of “Who’s who” and “Who did what” in> Revelation, most of which questions don’t really seem concerned with the> Greek text as Greek text so much as with the effort to find or demonstrate> some inner consistency in what has always seemed to me a more-or-less> kaleidoscopic perspective on TA ESCATA.> > Randall’s question about εἷς καθ’ εἷς hEIS KAQ’ hEIS (John 8:9) and Don> Wilkins’ repeated claim that the author of Revelation employs “intentional> solecism” have sent me scurrying back to BDF and some interesting issues of> linguistic history. I am wondering whether what we are seeing in the author> of Revelation and occasionally elsewhere in the GNT is not so much> deliberate usage of what the writer knows to be “improper” Greek but rather> Demotic intrusions into a text that the writer intends to compose in> “standard” Greek. Some of the non-standard or “solecistic” items we note in> the GNT and other Koine texts exemplify usage that will become much more> common and ultimately even standard in the later language. One of these> interesting developments in Greek linguistic history is the gradual fixation> of nominative forms that may derive from what were originally accusative> forms, some of the nominative forms then ultimately becoming indeclinable.> An example is the modern Greek active participle: let’s take a verb that> survives in MG from AG: βλέπω (BLEPW). The present active participle in MG> is βλέποντας (BLEPONTAS). Superficially this looks like an accusative plural> of the ancient participle, but in fact it is the accusative singular form> with a nominative -S ending appended to it; the form is in fact> indeclinable, as is evident in a sentence that might confound an unwary> ancient Greek reader: βλέποντας, δέ βλέπει (BLEPONTAS, DE BLEPEI) “Seeing,> he does not see,” i.e. “Although endowed with eyesight, he doesn’t see.”> > A comparable “solecism” that I had long failed to understand is the> “nominative” πλήρης [PLHRHS] in John 1:14 Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ> ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ> πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας. [KAI hO LOGOS SARX EGENETO KAI> ESKHNWSEN EN hHMIN, KAI EQEASAMEQA THN DOXAN AUTOU, DOXAN hWS MONOGENOUS> PARA PATROS, PLHRHS CARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS]. It seems we ought to have an> accusative form πλήρη [PLHRH] to agree with δόξαν [DOXAN], the object of> ἐθεασάμεθα [EQEASAMEQA]. But apparently the originally nominative form> πλήρης [PLHRHS] of this adjective has come to be — or is on the way in> Koine to becoming indeclinable. BDAG has a very good account of this s.v.> PLHRHS §2: “In some of the passages already mentioned πλήρης is indecl.,> though never without v.l., and almost only when it is used w. a gen.,> corresponding to an Engl. expression such as ‘a work full of errors'” One> might note Acts 6:5 … Στέφανον, ἄνδρα πλήρης πίστεως καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου> [STEFANON, ANDRA PLHRHS PISTEWS KAI PNEUMATOS hAGIOU]. What we’re dealing> with here is not, I think, an “intentional solecism” but rather an intrusion> of a Demotic usage into writing that the author really intends to keep more> formal and conformant to “school” usage. I will get to the bearing of these> observations on εἷς καθ’ εἷς [hEIS KAQ’ hEIS] down below.> > On Aug 15, 2008, at 2:28 PM, Don Wilkins (drdwilkins at sbcglobal.net) wrote:> >> Just a quick response to Carl’s comment on the solecisms. … it seems>> to me that John’s solecisms are sufficiently violent that we would expect to>> find Revelation riddled with many others, if the comparatively few that we>> do find were not deliberate. It’s the old story: you have to know the rules>> to (deliberately) break the rules. If John really didn’t know better, then>> it’s a minor miracle that he could write coherent Greek overall.> > > Don and I have agreed to disagree about this “deliberate use of solecisms”> — but it remains inexplicable to me why a writer who seems to know better> would deliberately employ unacceptable grammar. I think there must be some> explanation for each instance of “intentional solecism” if the usage really> is intentional: WHY does a writer employ a solecism in any particular> instance? We’ve explored some explanations for some of these (e.g. Iver re> Rev. 7:9 where an implicit EIDON may explain the questionable accusative> PERIBEBLHMENOUS, or a perhaps implicit infinitive POREUESQAI might explain a> use of an accusative hUPODEDEMENOUS in Mark 6:9. But such usages as these> could not be called “intentional” solecism; they fall rather under the> classification of constructions where something unexpressed seems to have> been understood in the writer’s mind and intention, something that a reader> might be expected to infer from the context. On the other hand, I think I> could be accused of “intentional solecism” if, upon being told repeatedly> that I MUST perform a certain action without further ado, I responded with,> “Well, I AIN’T gonna do that, and that’s all there is to it!” Here “ain’t”> is unacceptable English, but I would be using it to underscore a stubborn> resolution to follow my own counsel despite the advice of others.> > Upon further reflection, therefore, I’ve come to think that these> “solecisms” in Revelation are to be explained — NOT in terms of a> deliberate indulgence in non-standard grammar by an author who clearly knows> how to write “school” Greek — but RATHER in terms of a slackening in the> effort to compose the text in conformity to what one knows to be good> “written” Greek and a slip-up that allows a usage that is not uncommon in> the “spoken” Greek of everyday conversation.> At any rate, that seems to me a much more reasonable explanation for the> “solecisms” in Revelation than that we are dealing in each instance with a> deliberate violation of the norms of written Greek.> > On Aug 19, 2008, at 3:12 PM, Bil buss (Paladin343 at aol.com) wrote:> >> Hi everyone,>> Can anyone point me in the direction of scholarly works that list and/or>> discuss solecisms in the Gospels, Acts and Revelation?> > I would think there must be some bibliography on this subject, but I only> know of good material in BDF and some really fine information buried in the> sub-headings of BDAG.> As for bibliographies, I find that Micheal Palmer’s excellent site is still> accessible at http://www.greek-language.com/ , and more specifically his> page, http://greek-language.com/bibliographies/#Greek%20Linguistics (=> http://tinyurl.com/5dnmsr); the reference to Rod Decker’s page is there, but> note it directly anyway: http://faculty.bbc.edu/RDecker/bibliog.htm> > In BDF I already called attention in an earlier post to §§136-7 (“More> Serious Incongruencies (Solecisms)” (pp. 75-76). But there’s good stuff> that’s relevant at other points in this book that is a much more useful> reference than is commonly recognized. I’ll note one such item below with> regard to εἷς καθ’ εἷς hEIS KAQ’ hEIS.> > On Aug 19, 2008, at 6:03 AM, Randall Buth (randallbuth at gmail.com) wrote:> >> While on the subject of solecisms, how do you all like εἷς καθ’ εἷς EIS>> KAQ’ EIS ?>> It seems intentional enough with the correct dropping of e vowel in KATA,>> plus the correct Q θ before the word EIS ‘one’.>> Proper Greek would say KAQ’ ENA καθ΄ ενα, though I can readily understand>> KAQ EIS as a sub-standard dialect nominalization that even rhymes with a>> Hebrew “ish ish”.> > On Aug 19, 2008, at 3:33 PM, Don Wilkins (drdwilkins at sbcglobal.net) wrote:> >> Another good example of “intentional solecism” IMO, probably resulting>> from the influence of a foreign idiom as you point out. If the writer used>> KATA correctly in other constructions, we wouldn’t infer from this anomaly>> that he was ignorant of the proper use of KATA.> > Again, I think that “intentional solecism” is a curious and infelicitous> term suggestive (perhaps even intended by Don to mean) of deliberate> injection of substandard usage into a text that is generally marked by good> standard usage, an injection, moreover, that serves some intelligible> rhetorical strategy. If that term is to be used, I would expect an> explanation of what rhetorical strategy each such usage in Revelation is> supposed to serve.> > I don’t think either that Randall really intended to suggest that hEIS KAQ’> hEIS derives from foreign idiom. What we have here seems better explained in> BDF § 305 with respect to “Each” under the heading of Pronominal> Adjectives”:> > “305. ‘Each’. ῞Εκαστος hEKASTOS, intensified εἷς ἕκαστος hEIS hEKASTOS.> Fropm the distributive use of κατὰ KATA (ἀνὰ ANA, §248(1)), καθ’ KAQ’ (ἀνὰ> ANA) εἷς hEIS developed, since καθ’ ἕνα ἕκααστον KAQ’ hENA hEKASTON became> fixed as καθένα ἕκαστον KAQENA hEKASTON and a corresponding nom. was> created: thus MGr καθείς KAQEIS καθένας KAQENAS ‘each’; cf. Jannaris §664;> W.-S. p. 247 n.; Psaltes 192. Yet not many examples of this vulgarism are> found in the NT.”> > So John 8:9 οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες ἐξήρχοντο εἷς καθ᾿ εἷς ἀρξάμενοι ἀπὸ τῶν> πρεσβυτέρων καὶ κατελείφθη μόνος καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἐν μέσῳ οὖσα. [hOI DE AKOUSANTES> EXHRCONTO hEIS KAQ’ hEIS ARXAMENOI APO TWN PRESBYTERWN KAI KATELEIFQH MONOS> KAI hH GUNH EN MESWi OUSA]. Although it’s possible to read εἷς καθ᾿ εἷς hEIS> KAQ’ hEIS as a pronoun subject of EXHRCONTO, even Englishing it as “one by> one,” the phrase as pronominal seems rather to be “each individual” ( => hEKASTOS) functions more or less adverbially as “individually” and the> second hEIS with its preceding KAQ’ is not conceived grammatically as a> nominative at all.> > In Modern Greek “each one, every one” is καθένας KAQENAS (Demotic), καθείς> KAQEIS (Katharevousa). καθένας KAQENAS is derivative — like the MGr> participle noted above — from the accusative καθένα KAQENA with addition of> the nominative ending -ς -S.> κάθε KAQE, we might note, seems to be in indeclinable adjective/pronoun> meaning “each” or “every.”> > Another quite comparable and interesting (from the perspective of Koine and> a diachronic perspective on Greek) is κανένας KANENAS (Demotic), κανείς> KANEIS (Katharevousa, with fem. KANEMIA, n. KANENA), meaning “none,” “no> one,” or “not any.” This derives ultimately from AGr κἀν KAN, earlier καὶ ἂν> KAI AN, still earlier καὶ ἐὰν KAI EAN “even if” — and ἕνα/εἷς hENA/hEIS.> κάνε KANE, as might be expected, is an indeclinable adjective/pronoun> meaning “none,” not any.”> > In sum then, I think that these “solecisms” in Revelation and elsewhere in> the GNT are best explained as intrusions into a written composition of> expressions that are already used in “demotic” speech but usually do not get> used in writing.> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> > > > — Randall Buth, PhDwww.biblicalulpan.orgrandallbuth at gmail.comBiblical Language CenterLearn Easily – Progress Further – Remember for Life

[] Solecisms in the book of Revelation: Demotic?[] Solecisms in the book of Revelation

[] Solecisms in the book of Revelation: Demotic? Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Thu Aug 21 10:05:04 EDT 2008

[] Comprehensive 1c Bilingual Koine Greek Dictionary[*Webster’s] [] Is ECWN a solecism in Revelation 21:14? My apologies for the length and impossible formatting of this response; I would expect that most ers would delete it a first sight.On Aug 20, 2008, at 6:13 PM, Don Wilkins wrote:> Shame on you for pulling me back into this, Carl, by your impeccable > scholarship and logic. As always, you both clarify and educate, and > I’m forced either to concede everything to you or to attempt to > respond, as I do below.“It’s YOUR fault,” he shouted. I tried to send you an off-list e- mail, but you evidently have one of those spam-killers that keeps everybody but your household pets and sister-in-law from getting through to you that way. If you hadn’t employed that provocative phrase “intentional solecism” once more in your reply to Randall, I might have held my electronic tongue, but the notion of a supposedly good writer repeatedly and deliberately indulging in what he knows to be bad grammar seemed to cry out for response, and since I couldn’t get in by the back door, I had no recourse but to respond publicly.> On Aug 20, 2008, at 6:19 AM, Carl Conrad wrote:> >> I had thought we’d finished with this topic, leaving it as a matter >> of>> disagreement between Don Wilkins and myself, but apparently there’s>> more interest in this matter that at first seemed evident — quite>> apart from the ongoing endeavors to unsnarl issues of “Who’s who” and>> “Who did what” in Revelation, most of which questions don’t really>> seem concerned with the Greek text as Greek text so much as with the>> effort to find or demonstrate some inner consistency in what has>> always seemed to me a more-or-less kaleidoscopic perspective on TA>> ESCATA.>> >> Randall’s question about εἷς καθ’ εἷς hEIS KAQ’ hEIS (John>> 8:9) and Don Wilkins’ repeated claim that the author of Revelation>> employs “intentional solecism” have sent me scurrying back to BDF and>> some interesting issues of linguistic history. I am wondering whether>> what we are seeing in the author of Revelation and occasionally>> elsewhere in the GNT is not so much deliberate usage of what the>> writer knows to be “improper” Greek but rather Demotic intrusions >> into>> a text that the writer intends to compose in “standard” Greek.> > I assume that by “intrusions” you mean that the writer intends to > write standard Greek, but unconsciously lapses into street language > that is commonplace to him. Please correct me if I’m > misunderstanding you. This is an interesting idea, since NT > scholarship has gone to a lot of trouble to define the NT as non- > literary Koine. If you are right, it shows that the categories for > NT Greek are generalizations, more so than we realized.I am glad you called for clarification here, because more than one significant point is involved.(1) Perhaps “intrusion” was not the best choice of words. What I meant was more simply that I and most people I know well enough to judge about tend to write a different kind of English in regular correspondence to non-family members from the English we speak to those we feel close to. I think we’re taught to do that; you’ve probably had to read papers by freshman students as I have and found you sometimes had to admonish kids from using conversational idioms in formal expository writing. That’s what I think these solecisms that we find occasionally in the GNT but more often in Revelation actually are: expressions that are probably not uncommon in conversational usage but are frowned upon by schoolteachers (like us!). If I gave you the explanation of my response to you via the phrase, “Stuff happens,” I think you would understand me perfectly well, even with the euphemism employed therein, but I think you might be surprised to find the equivalent of that in a depiction of the fate of the Great Whore of Babylon.(2) If “NT scholarship has gone to a lot of trouble to define the NT as non-literary Koine,” — in terms as loose as that –, then NT scholars are considerably more naive than I think they really are. “Non-literary Koine” strikes me as a more-or-less useless characterization of the speech-level of the writing of the GNT. Is it really true that we lump the Greek of Luke and Hebrews and the Greek of Mark’s gospel and Revelation all under one heading of “non-literary Greek”? My own sense of matters is that even before the advent of Atticism and the writers of the Second Sophistic, there was a considerable spectrum of speech-levels between the style of the scribes who maintained records and handled official correspondence and writers such as Philo or Josephus at one end and the “barbarous” NEILOUTI letter of Antonios to his Mom we were discussing here earlier this month. Surely it would be more accurate to speak of Hellenistic Greek as ranging across a spectrum from usage taught in schools and maintained in official correspondence and “good” writers at one end and street-language at the other. Some of the most amusing items in “literary” Greek are those which turn on shifts of speech-level within: I’m thinking of Aristophanes’ mix of Spartan Doric and Athenian Attic in “Lysistrata” and “Acharnians,” or Theocritus’ representation of the patois of Alexandrian suburban mothers going downtown to watch the big parade. Surely you’ve seen the work of Phrynichos of Bithynia (late 2nd c. CE) and found it amusing as well as instructive? Caragounis does us a great service by printing out a neat catalog of the entire EKLOGH of Phynichos along with the schoolmaster’s reasons for rejecting each impropriety and corresponding Attic, NT Koine, and MG equivalents (Development of Greek and NT, pp. 124ff.). I would reiterate here one of my “ad nauseam” assertions, that the notion that NT Koine should be understood strictly from a “diachronic” perspective is erroneous and a hindrance to understanding the language. NT Koine Greek is hardly homogeneous; it is a language in flux, a language employing both older and newer forms and expressions and a broad range of speech-levels, often enough mixed within the same document by the same author. This is one reason why defining “solecism” is itself a risky business: we’re in some instances less than sure about what usage is “acceptable” and what is not.>> Some of>> the non-standard or “solecistic” items we note in the GNT and other>> Koine texts exemplify usage that will become much more common and>> ultimately even standard in the later language. One of these>> interesting developments in Greek linguistic history is the gradual>> fixation of nominative forms that may derive from what were >> originally>> accusative forms, some of the nominative forms then ultimately>> becoming indeclinable. An example is the modern Greek active>> participle: let’s take a verb that survives in MG from AG: βλέπω>> (BLEPW). The present active participle in MG is βλέποντας>> (BLEPONTAS). Superficially this looks like an accusative plural of >> the>> ancient participle, but in fact it is the accusative singular form>> with a nominative -S ending appended to it; the form is in fact>> indeclinable, as is evident in a sentence that might confound an>> unwary ancient Greek reader: βλέποντας, δέ βλέπει>> (BLEPONTAS, DE BLEPEI) “Seeing, he does not see,” i.e. “Although>> endowed with eyesight, he doesn’t see.”>> >> A comparable “solecism” that I had long failed to understand is the>> “nominative” πλήρης [PLHRHS] in John 1:14 Καὶ ὁ>> λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν>> ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν>> αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ>> πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ>> ἀληθείας. [KAI hO LOGOS SARX EGENETO KAI ESKHNWSEN EN >> hHMIN,>> KAI EQEASAMEQA THN DOXAN AUTOU, DOXAN hWS MONOGENOUS PARA PATROS,>> PLHRHS CARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS]. It seems we ought to have an accusative>> form πλήρη [PLHRH] to agree with δόξαν [DOXAN], the >> object>> of ἐθεασάμεθα [EQEASAMEQA]. But apparently the originally>> nominative form πλήρης [PLHRHS] of this adjective has come to >> be>> — or is on the way in Koine to becoming indeclinable. BDAG has a >> very good account of this s.v. PLHRHS §2: “In some of the passages>> already mentioned πλήρης is indecl., though never without >> v.l.,>> and almost only when it is used w. a gen., corresponding to an Engl.>> expression such as ‘a work full of errors’” One might note Acts>> 6:5 … Στέφανον, ἄνδρα πλήρης πίστεως>> καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου [STEFANON, ANDRA PLHRHS>> PISTEWS KAI PNEUMATOS hAGIOU]. What we’re dealing with here is not, I>> think, an “intentional solecism” but rather an intrusion of a Demotic>> usage into writing that the author really intends to keep more formal>> and conformant to “school” usage. I will get to the bearing of these>> observations on εἷς καθ’ εἷς [hEIS KAQ’ hEIS] down below.> > I can imagine John slipping into the nominative, perhaps > contemplating the wonder of DOXA to the extent that he chooses to > ignore the grammar. Acts 6:5 is more interesting. We would expect > Luke to be strict in his observation of grammar, but here he > juxtapositions ANDRA and PLHRHS, producing a glaring “solecism”. The > early copyists parted company, with the hand of B showing the > accusative PLHRH. This stymied modern editors as well; in the 25th > NA edition they opted for B, but thereafter the editors accepted the > nominative as an indeclinable form and went with p75/Aleph/A etc. I > did a quick check of PLHRHS and found it declined as usual > elsewhere, with the possible exception of Mark 4:28 (another > interesting textual decision). But in 2 John 8 the accusative > singular is found in a normal construction. On balance, the rule for > PLHRHS in the NT clearly is standard usage. So the picture I get > from Demotic intrusion is that the writers at this point in time are > freely using an indeclinable PLHRHS in ordinary street conversation, > but taking pains to decline it in their writing of scripture. In > Luke’s case, assuming that the nominative form is the correct > reading, he uses it in a somewhat absent-minded mode in Acts 6:5 and > evidently never reviews his writing, because the juxtaposition would > be hard to overlook. At the same time, I must admit that I don’t > have a good explanation for the nominative here, unless it is > serving as a form of emphasis such as I might argue for John 1:14, > or Luke is citing PLHRHS…hAGIOU as a kind of title or nickname of > honor that Steven had acquired. The nominative is clearly the harder > reading here, and therefore preferable.Ich danke Ihnen herzlich, mein gelehrter Herr Doktor! I think most of us who read the GNT in a neatly-edited-and-printed NA27 or UBS4 are somewhat shocked to look at the range of readings and spellings in the older original MSS and papyri. I find it instructive just to compare the same verse in NA27 and Majority Text, where the glaring problematic text that the eclectic editors think more like to be original has finally been settled in a form that is more familiar to the Greek one has learned in school.>> On Aug 15, 2008, at 2:28 PM, Don Wilkins (drdwilkins at sbcglobal.net)>> wrote:>> >>> Just a quick response to Carl’s comment on the solecisms. … it>>> seems to me that John’s solecisms are sufficiently violent that we>>> would expect to find Revelation riddled with many others, if the>>> comparatively few that we do find were not deliberate. It’s the old>>> story: you have to know the rules to (deliberately) break the rules.>>> If John really didn’t know better, then it’s a minor miracle that he>>> could write coherent Greek overall.>> >> >> Don and I have agreed to disagree about this “deliberate use of>> solecisms” — but it remains inexplicable to me why a writer who >> seems>> to know better would deliberately employ unacceptable grammar. I >> think>> there must be some explanation for each instance of “intentional>> solecism” if the usage really is intentional: WHY does a writer >> employ>> a solecism in any particular instance?> > Carl, your “AIN’T” example below provides one explanation, if I may > call it unacceptable grammar. But you’re right, if the solecism is > intentional, there must be an explanation. The problem is, our > inability to think of one does not necessarily eliminate the > possibility.I once had a Psych professor in college who liked to explain “scientific probability” in terms of the difficulty of disproving the proposition that “The moon is made of green cheese.” You can believe it if you want to, but don’t try to convince me of its likelihood without offering some credible evidence. I can readily enough accept the proposition that the author of Revelation invented the combo “hO WN KAI hO HN KAI hO ERCOMENOS” in all its solecistic splendor. I acknowledge the author’s imagistic creativity and the majesty of his kaleidoscopic vision, but I continue to think that there are real “rough spots” in his Greek that haven’t been explained away satisfactorily in terms of “intention.” For that matter, I also happen to think that the gospel of Mark is a literary masterpiece, despite the presence of a number of usages that might with difficulty get past a university Greek composition instructor’s red pencil.>> We’ve explored some>> explanations for some of these (e.g. Iver re Rev. 7:9 where an>> implicit EIDON may explain the questionable accusative>> PERIBEBLHMENOUS, or a perhaps implicit infinitive POREUESQAI might>> explain a use of an accusative hUPODEDEMENOUS in Mark 6:9. But such>> usages as these could not be called “intentional” solecism; they fall>> rather under the classification of constructions where something>> unexpressed seems to have been understood in the writer’s mind and>> intention, something that a reader might be expected to infer from >> the>> context.> > Quite right. I have been sloppy in my use of “intentional solecism,” > lacking a better term to use at the moment.> >> On the other hand, I think I could be accused of “intentional>> solecism” if, upon being told repeatedly that I MUST perform a >> certain>> action without further ado, I responded with, “Well, I AIN’T gonna do>> that, and that’s all there is to it!” Here “ain’t” is unacceptable>> English, but I would be using it to underscore a stubborn resolution>> to follow my own counsel despite the advice of others.>> >> Upon further reflection, therefore, I’ve come to think that these>> “solecisms” in Revelation are to be explained — NOT in terms of a>> deliberate indulgence in non-standard grammar by an author who >> clearly>> knows how to write “school” Greek — but RATHER in terms of a>> slackening in the effort to compose the text in conformity to what >> one>> knows to be good “written” Greek and a slip-up that allows a usage>> that is not uncommon in the “spoken” Greek of everyday conversation.>> At any rate, that seems to me a much more reasonable explanation for>> the “solecisms” in Revelation than that we are dealing in each>> instance with a deliberate violation of the norms of written Greek.>> > Taking Acts 6:5 as an excellent example of what you would call a > slip-up, I have to come back to the question of whether Luke would > be so blind as to miss the mistake upon a reading of his work, > unless we want to assume that he never looked at it after writing > it. And a formal proofreading wouldn’t be required, only a moment’s > reflection on what he has just written. In the nine other places > where Luke uses PLHRHS, he declines it, and does so correctly.Well, of course, things are different with our own earlier practice of writing rough long-hand drafts, correcting them, and finally writing a “fair copy.” Horace told would-be poets to read and re-read their work and wait nine years before publishing, but I suspect that Luke dictated to an amanuensis and trusted him/her to get it onto wax- tablet or papyrus as dictated. I suspect that the way we write e-mail now is closer to the fashion of writing with which Luke would have been familiar. When I look afresh and what I what written when I see it in e-mail responses above or below the response, I’m often appalled at what I see that I have written.>> On Aug 19, 2008, at 3:12 PM, Bil buss (Paladin343 at aol.com) wrote:>> >>> Hi everyone,>>> Can anyone point me in the direction of scholarly works that list>>> and/or discuss solecisms in the Gospels, Acts and Revelation?>> >> I would think there must be some bibliography on this subject, but I>> only know of good material in BDF and some really fine information>> buried in the sub-headings of BDAG.>> As for bibliographies, I find that Micheal Palmer’s excellent site is>> still accessible at http://www.greek-language.com/ , and more>> specifically his page, http://greek-language.com/bibliographies/#Greek%20Linguistics>> (= http://tinyurl.com/5dnmsr); the reference to Rod Decker’s page is>> there, but note it directly anyway: http://faculty.bbc.edu/RDecker/bibliog.htm>> >> In BDF I already called attention in an earlier post to §§136-7>> (“More Serious Incongruencies (Solecisms)” (pp. 75-76). But there’s>> good stuff that’s relevant at other points in this book that is a >> much>> more useful reference than is commonly recognized. I’ll note one such>> item below with regard to εἷς καθ’ εἷς hEIS KAQ’ hEIS.> > Another source for solecisms is Turner’s contribution of the 4th > volume of Moulton’s Grammar, On Style. I don’t think he is fair in > his appraisals, but it is a good source nonetheless.>> >> On Aug 19, 2008, at 6:03 AM, Randall Buth (randallbuth at gmail.com) >> wrote:>> >>> While on the subject of solecisms, how do you all like εἷς>>> καθ’ εἷς EIS KAQ’ EIS ?>>> It seems intentional enough with the correct dropping of e vowel in>>> KATA, plus the correct Q θ before the word EIS ‘one’.>>> Proper Greek would say KAQ’ ENA καθ΄ ενα, though I can >>> readily>>> understand KAQ EIS as a sub-standard dialect nominalization that>>> even rhymes with a Hebrew “ish ish”.>> >> On Aug 19, 2008, at 3:33 PM, Don Wilkins (drdwilkins at sbcglobal.net)>> wrote:>> >>> Another good example of “intentional solecism” IMO, probably>>> resulting from the influence of a foreign idiom as you point out. If>>> the writer used KATA correctly in other constructions, we wouldn’t>>> infer from this anomaly that he was ignorant of the proper use of>>> KATA.>> >> Again, I think that “intentional solecism” is a curious and>> infelicitous term suggestive (perhaps even intended by Don to mean) >> of>> deliberate injection of substandard usage into a text that is>> generally marked by good standard usage, an injection, moreover, that>> serves some intelligible rhetorical strategy. If that term is to be>> used, I would expect an explanation of what rhetorical strategy each>> such usage in Revelation is supposed to serve.> > And you are right to do so.>> >> I don’t think either that Randall really intended to suggest that >> hEIS>> KAQ’ hEIS derives from foreign idiom.> > I should let Randall speak for himself, but he indicated that the > expression might be based on the Hebrew “ish, ish” as I recall. To > get a better perspective, I ran a TLG search on the phrase (both > hEIS KAQ’ hEIS and hEIS KATA hEIS). It does not occur in the LXX, > which otherwise might have revealed a Hebrew connection. Outside of > the NT it is found only twice, both in the writings of Constantine > VII, tenth century. The writer uses it in places requiring the > nominative. Maybe something like Demotic influence can explain this, > if it was an idiom used on the streets that remained popular over > the centuries. Certainly in English, and probably in all other > languages, we have idioms or frequently used phrases that are > substandard. Even if we make it a point to avoid them in our writing > or in formal conversation, there are times when we use them > deliberately, sometimes because they are especially effective at > clarifying something (as in AIN’T), and at other times because we > are speaking to someone who routinely uses them, and we want to show > empathy with him.Randall has already spoken for himself: he never intended to suggest that hEIS KAQ’ hEIS derives from Hebrew usage but only that it was similar. He made that clear again in his response to my message yesterday.KAQ’ hEIS is found in the GNT also at Rom 12:5 οὕτως οἱ πολλοὶ ἓν σῶμά ἐσμεν ἐν Χριστῷ, τὸ δὲ καθ᾿ εἷς ἀλλήλων μέλη. hOUTWS hOI POLLOI hEN SWMA ESMEN EN CRISTWi, TO DE KAQ’ hEIS ALLHLWN MELHAnd — without elision of the alpha: Mark 14:19 ἤρξαντο λυπεῖσθαι καὶ λέγειν αὐτῷ εἷς κατὰ εἷς· μήτι ἐγώ; HRXANTO LUPEISQAI KAI LEGEIN AUTWi hEIS KATA hEIS: MHTI EGW?BDAG s.v. hEIS 5.e.: ἓν καθ᾿ ἕν hEN KAQ’ hEN (Aesop, Fab. 274 P.; PLeid II, X 1, 22) each one Rv 4:8. In this pass. the second ἕν hEN could be an undeclined nom. as in εἷς κατὰ εἷς hEIS KATA hEIS (cp. Lucian, Sol. 9; 3 Macc 5:34.>> What we have here seems better>> explained in BDF § 305 with respect to “Each” under the heading of>> Pronominal Adjectives”:>> >> “305. ‘Each’. ῞Εκαστος hEKASTOS, intensified εἷς>> ἕκαστος hEIS hEKASTOS. Fropm the distributive use of >> κατὰ>> KATA (ἀνὰ ANA, §248(1)), καθ’ KAQ’ (ἀνὰ ANA) εἷς>> hEIS developed, since καθ’ ἕνα ἕκαστον KAQ’ hENA>> hEKASTON became fixed as καθένα ἕκαστον KAQENA hEKASTON>> and a corresponding nom. was created: thus MGr καθείς KAQEIS>> καθένας KAQENAS ‘each’; cf. Jannaris §664; W.-S. p. 247 n.;>> Psaltes 192. Yet not many examples of this vulgarism are found in the>> NT.”> > Actually καθένα ἕκαστον never occurs in the TLG > sources. According to LSJM, KAQEIS is a back-formation from KAQEN. > Interestingly, Lucian (2nd cent. A.D.) uses the expression KAQ’ hEIS > twice in one of his dialogs, so if we are going to call it a > solecism, we probably should blame him as well.>> >> So John 8:9 οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες ἐξήρχοντο>> εἷς καθ᾿ εἷς ἀρξάμενοι ἀπὸ τῶν>> πρεσβυτέρων καὶ κατελείφθη μόνος>> καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἐν μέσῳ οὖσα. [hOI DE AKOUSANTES>> EXHRCONTO hEIS KAQ’ hEIS ARXAMENOI APO TWN PRESBYTERWN KAI KATELEIFQH>> MONOS KAI hH GUNH EN MESWi OUSA]. Although it’s possible to read>> εἷς καθ᾿ εἷς hEIS KAQ’ hEIS as a pronoun subject of>> EXHRCONTO, even Englishing it as “one by one,” the phrase as>> pronominal seems rather to be “each individual” ( = hEKASTOS)>> functions more or less adverbially as “individually” and the second>> hEIS with its preceding KAQ’ is not conceived grammatically as a>> nominative at all.> > KAQ’ hEIS shows up 18 times in the TLG sources, including Lucian and > Constantine VII (if taken as one word), and is consistently used as > a nominative. Lucian seems to be the oldest, and almost all the rest > are Christian sources.>> >> In Modern Greek “each one, every one” is καθένας KAQENAS>> (Demotic), καθείς KAQEIS (Katharevousa). καθένας KAQENAS>> is derivative — like the MGr participle noted above — from the>> accusative καθένα KAQENA with addition of the nominative >> ending –>> ς -S.>> κάθε KAQE, we might note, seems to be in indeclinable adjective/>> pronoun meaning “each” or “every.”> > Interesting, but I think the earlier Greek is more relevant.I think, as does Caragounis, that there’s an ongoing development; I simply don’t buy that “diachronic” conception of what Koine Greek must be.> >> >> Another quite comparable and interesting (from the perspective of>> Koine and a diachronic perspective on Greek) is κανένας >> KANENAS>> (Demotic), κανείς KANEIS (Katharevousa, with fem. KANEMIA, n.>> KANENA), meaning “none,” “no one,” or “not any.” This derives>> ultimately from AGr κἀν KAN, earlier καὶ ἂν KAI AN, still>> earlier καὶ ἐὰν KAI EAN “even if” — and ἕνα/εἷς >> hENA/>> hEIS.>> κάνε KANE, as might be expected, is an indeclinable adjective/>> pronoun meaning “none,” not any.”>> >> In sum then, I think that these “solecisms” in Revelation and>> elsewhere in the GNT are best explained as intrusions into a written>> composition of expressions that are already used in “demotic” speech>> but usually do not get used in writing.> > I wouldn’t rule this out categorically, and indeed it is an > interesting theory. But I still think we are in the agree-to- > disagree state as to whether these are unintentional errors.You are welcome to disagree, but if you really want to get anyone to believe in this notion of “intentional solecism,” you’re going to have to adduce some plausible evidence.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] Comprehensive 1c Bilingual Koine Greek Dictionary[*Webster’s][] Is ECWN a solecism in Revelation 21:14?

2 thoughts on “Revelation 4:1”

Troy Day says:

The #RAPTURE of the Church in Rev 4: 1 explained with all the original lingo fixings for those who still wanna see the truth Ricky Grimsley


May 15, 2018 at 8:44 pm
Troy Day says:

The #RAPTURE of the Church in Rev 4: 1 explained with all the original lingo fixings for those who still wanna see the truth Ricky Grimsley


February 19, 2018 at 8:35 pm

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

People who read this article also liked:

2 thoughts on “Revelation 4:1”

Leave a Reply