Robert from…

Please introduce yourself here, if you haven't already.
Robert Crowe
Posts: 108
Joined: January 8th, 2016, 11:06 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Robert from…

Post by Robert Crowe »

Robert from Ballymena. If you don't know where that is, I'll let you guess. Getting on with people is letting them do just that, proof–their love of quizzes. So, how about Magadan? Clue–it's presently -17ºC. Advice–don't go by boat.

Initially, I have joined the forum to ask help with a conundrum. Quote: 'The direct object usually combines with the verb to form a new verbal idea that has another accusative the complement as its object.' Question–Where did I find this? Answer–'Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics' p.183. Conundrum–DB Wallace is here describing the Object-Complement construction. In the given quote it seems to me he has got the terms 'direct object' and 'complement' the wrong way round. Surely it is the 'complement' that more naturally extends the verbal idea. Having given it more thought I excogitate he's not exactly wrong. Yes, I cogitated, both the direct object and the complement can be thought of as having an adverbial force. The 'Direct Object' I guess limits a verb as to affect, whereas the 'Complement' does so as to effect. But it still seems to me that verbs are better married to complements. All cogitations welcome, or excogitations for that matter.

Would just like to conclude my introduction by saying that I am very impressed by the current status of NT Greek scholarship. GGBB is a splendid work. I began learning Greek using a Classical primer and thought the NT ones were poor by comparison, but at the intermediate level the NT scholars are top class. Other works I have been impressed with are 'Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek' and 'Advances in the Study of Greek', both by Constantine Campbell.
Tús maith leath na hoibre.
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4167
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Robert from…

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Dia dhuit, Robert!
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Robert Crowe
Posts: 108
Joined: January 8th, 2016, 11:06 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Robert from…

Post by Robert Crowe »

χαίρειν

Betaken by the range of abilities across the forum, and wondering wherein mine lies therein, so as to give you some idea thereof. Self auditing…(this will take a moment)… . Well yes, I can sight read uncomplicated passages feeling like a true and bold Greek sweeping across the Trojan plane to certain κῦδος .––– Teasing Interlude: 'Why does this word for 'glory' not appear in the NT?' Prize for best answer. –––Then ἐξαίφνης I find myself in a thicket of complicated grammar, syntax, and hyperbaton. Actually, in Homer, in such instances there usually is something literally stuck in a thicket and you can sense him feeling really smug as a poet using his full panoply of wordy skills. In the NT an allegorical thicket would be some areas of Pauline theology. So inevitably one turns to that big pile of lexicons, grammars, commentaries etc., not forgetting 'That Note I Made Somewhere'.

But let's get real. It happened during a reading group I was attending a couple of years back. (Euripides' Medea.) When ἐξαίφνης!-----(a word that proves time flows with jumps and starts) –––when ἐξαίφνης! ----(good inculcation this repetition don't you think?). Well, suddenly εῖδον φῶς, ‘I saw a light'. I asked myself: 'Did these Athenians watching a one-off play and probably swigging retsina by the gallon (it would have been a bacchanalian festival remember) really understand everything said in toto. But the clue here is 'watching'. 'Watching' is thereafter our big loose-out, whereby I mean the body-language, hand-signs (and yes, they were used extensively, and virtually as intelligible as modern sign-language). This and also voice tone were great assets for comprehension that we now don't have.

MORAL: Some things in ancient languages are always going to be speculation because we only have a grainy image. βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι‘ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι ‘Now we see it enigmatically.'

So how about the church in Colossae getting a letter from Paul? I know it wan't just copied and passed around and probably they were not drinking retsina.

I Invite any corrective criticism.
Tús maith leath na hoibre.
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4167
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Robert from…

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Could you please be a little more concrete with your question? I don't know what aspect of Greek syntax or Greek texts you are asking about.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Robert Crowe
Posts: 108
Joined: January 8th, 2016, 11:06 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Robert from…

Post by Robert Crowe »

Jonathan Robie wrote:Could you please be a little more concrete with your question? I don't know what aspect of Greek syntax or Greek texts you are asking about.
Yes I know their are specific questions and answers regarding this. I am presently gearing myself to raise and perhaps tackle some of them within the relevant sub-forums. By 'gearing' I mean becoming familiar with the recent discussions.

Robert
Tús maith leath na hoibre.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Robert from…

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Robert Crowe wrote:But let's get real. It happened during a reading group I was attending a couple of years back. (Euripides' Medea.) When ἐξαίφνης!-----(a word that proves time flows with jumps and starts) –––when ἐξαίφνης! ----(good inculcation this repetition don't you think?). Well, suddenly εῖδον φῶς, ‘I saw a light'. I asked myself: 'Did these Athenians watching a one-off play and probably swigging retsina by the gallon (it would have been a bacchanalian festival remember) really understand everything said in toto. But the clue here is 'watching'. 'Watching' is thereafter our big loose-out, whereby I mean the body-language, hand-signs (and yes, they were used extensively, and virtually as intelligible as modern sign-language). This and also voice tone were great assets for comprehension that we now don't have.
In general our appreciation of New Testament Greek is somewhat disembodied from the language. It is something like the difference between personally dancing a Polish dance yourself and listening to Liszt's Polonaise melancolique. In trying to bridge the gap - get back to the "real" experience so to speak - there is the hope that one can continue to remain as a member of the audience rather than be exposed to criticism as performers might be, hold to all the trappings of the world outside the dance, and to introduce familiar steps by which we have grown accustomed to understand the actual steps of the Polish dance.

While you are referring to sight, there is a whole world of other senses and experiences that can be brought to our appreciation of Greek.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Robert Crowe
Posts: 108
Joined: January 8th, 2016, 11:06 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Robert from…

Post by Robert Crowe »

Stephen Hughes wrote:In general our appreciation of New Testament Greek is somewhat disembodied from the language. It is something like the difference between personally dancing a Polish dance yourself and listening to Liszt's Polonaise melancolique. In trying to bridge the gap - get back to the "real" experience so to speak - there is the hope that one can continue to remain as a member of the audience rather than be exposed to criticism as performers might be, hold to all the trappings of the world outside the dance, and to introduce familiar steps by which we have grown accustomed to understand the actual steps of the Polish dance.

While you are referring to sight, there is a whole world of other senses and experiences that can be brought to our appreciation of Greek.
Elegantly put, Stephen. However, the actual contortions we sometimes resort to in the 'dance' seem to me decidedly less so. Dare I call it 'Dancing with a Crutch'. No offence intended to anything Polish. By 'Crutch' I allude to 'Context'. A problem with context is that there are many degrees of it extending all the way from the textual setting to background. The problem is that, no matter which kind we use, our understanding here is essentially subjective. I say this while recognising that the more immediate context is generally regarded as more weighty.

As an example, let me quote Gal 2:16
εἰδότες [δὲ] ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ , καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ.

[My translation: 'Knowing that a man is not made righteous by the works of the law but through his faith in Jesus Christ/ Christ's faith and we believe in Jesus as the Christ, that we may be made righteous by our faith in Christ/by Christ's faith and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no flesh at all will be made righteous']

At face value, the Greek here is ambiguous, and in my opinion is best left so. As I see it, the only context we can resort to 'resolve' the issue is doctrine. We may say that we shouldn't do this, but that's easier said than done. Doctrine is very sneaky. I, for one, have never adopted the mind-set that every ambiguity must be hammered out, as if it were some sort of eye-sore. Not at all. Ambiguity is wonderful. Why? Because it gives free reign to our illusions.

'Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone you may still exist, but you have ceased to live.' [Mark Twain]

Indeed, let's continue to dance with our full repertoire of skills. But let's not spurn Ambiguity. She may show us steps we thought impossible.
Tús maith leath na hoibre.
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4167
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Robert from…

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Yes, many sentences can be understood in more than one way, and this ambiguity is often lost in translation. That's why we read in Greek.

On B-Greek, doctrine is out of scope, we focus on what the Greek text may legitimately be understood to mean. The illusions other people may have about the text are also out of scope. Again, we focus on what the Greek text may legitimately be understood to mean. This narrow scope has served us well.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Robert from…

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Robert Crowe wrote:As an example, let me quote Gal 2:16
εἰδότες [δὲ] ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ , καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ.

[My translation: 'Knowing that a man is not made righteous by the works of the law but through his faith in Jesus Christ/ Christ's faith and we believe in Jesus as the Christ, that we may be made righteous by our faith in Christ/by Christ's faith and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no flesh at all will be made righteous']
Are you used to translating everything to understand it?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Robert from…

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

Robert Crowe wrote: As an example, let me quote Gal 2:16
εἰδότες [δὲ] ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ , καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ.

[My translation: 'Knowing that a man is not made righteous by the works of the law but through his faith in Jesus Christ/ Christ's faith and we believe in Jesus as the Christ, that we may be made righteous by our faith in Christ/by Christ's faith and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no flesh at all will be made righteous']

At face value, the Greek here is ambiguous, and in my opinion is best left so. As I see it, the only context we can resort to 'resolve' the issue is doctrine. We may say that we shouldn't do this, but that's easier said than done. Doctrine is very sneaky. I, for one, have never adopted the mind-set that every ambiguity must be hammered out, as if it were some sort of eye-sore. Not at all. Ambiguity is wonderful. Why? Because it gives free reign to our illusions.

'Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone you may still exist, but you have ceased to live.' [Mark Twain]

Indeed, let's continue to dance with our full repertoire of skills. But let's not spurn Ambiguity. She may show us steps we thought impossible.
Robert,

Thanks for joining and posting. Found your first posts the most entertaining reading on this forum since Bearded Bill of Asheville departed decades ago. On ambiguity I agree. I wonder however how you reconcile this with approval of GGBB which as I see it attempts (unsuccessfully) to stamp out all ambiguity.

RE: off topic subjects

there are other forums like Textkit that have more latitude if you want to discuss forbidden topics like doctrine, context and so forth.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Post Reply

Return to “Introductions”