Stephen Carlson wrote:I think you're begging the question that it's bad Greek. I don't agree with that assumption.
Assumption? It is not an assumption it is an observation. After reading the account through, I would say that the sections of bad (foreign sounding) Greek occur only in the speeches of the Chief-magicians (or the other accusers) to caricature them as being either (a) not Christian (Greek speakers) or (b) like buffoons. It seems that one of the ways that that bad Greek is marked is by extra ὁτι's, bad collocations, wrong use of synonyms or over elaborate formulaic utterances. These may have been points of language that the editor / authour of the account thought that non-Greek (not Christian Roman) speakers used when they spoke Greek.
Stephen Carlson wrote:If anything, the Greek is fairly late, post-Koine, and that may be what's throwing you off.
Lol. I'm not being "thrown off". I have read as widely in Modern Greek as I have in Classical Greek, and both of those severally are more than I have read in the Koine. I've also read right through this account.
I agree that it is post Koine. Aside from this and the other speeches by the archmagician, the Greek is reasonably good. Perfect participles seem to only be used as adjectives - while aroist and perfect participles seem to be used syntactically. Also, the only perfect verbal form that I can find is at 134r, line 24. From that I assume that the writer recognised that participles were used in the Koine style that he was trying to write in, but was not themself used to using the perfect. The other point of the ἑαυτόν for ἐμαυτόν at 135v, line 18. Perhaps he is thinking of a quote.
If I was to follow your line that the Greek was not bad, but was just late and the ἦσαν ἀνατραπέντες was a valid form at that period (and it just so happened that the person who was using that form was a person that we were supposed to boo and hiss at because they are the bad guys in the story - whereas our 2 heroes spoke good Greek like the narrator), then we could say that the periphrastic form was formed from the aorist because the translator/ editor didn't have an actively creative perfect to form things from.
Stephen Carlson wrote:I think you're begging the question that it's bad Greek
I think that the question is not whether it is bad Greek or not, but why?
We might assume that Persian martyrs Jonas and Barachisil were actually speaking the same language at the time the account was written. Here, however, they are using Greek at the same standard as the narrator. So, perhaps either their speeches were touched up from the original translation while the persian's (even though Jonas and Barachisil were Persians), or that the translator made the Archmagicians sound like some non-Greek speaking traders or something that they had encountered.
You and I have rather different ways of arriving at knowledge and the type of knowledge that we are looking for is different. If you could not cut this off because you do not agree with it, I would appreciate that greatly.
Stephen Carlson wrote:Bentein's study of Greek periphrasis
Does this work that you are refering to claim to cover Byzantine Greek?
"αἴκα" (The Spartan Ephors' reply to Philip II of Macedon) is even better than "nuts" (General Anthony McAuliffe reply to General Heinrich Freiherr von Lüttwitz).