Re: ATTIC VS. KOINE

From: Steven Craig Miller (scmiller@www.plantnet.com)
Date: Mon Dec 13 1999 - 18:53:54 EST


<x-flowed>To: Pastor Jim Dewan,

<< This is a rather ignorant question, but I'm afraid I must ask it. >>

Most questions are rooted in some sort of ignorance, else they would not be
asked. But your question is not inappropriate, nor does it reflect upon you
poorly, indeed, if anything it reflects a thoughtful and intelligent person.

<< My I hear what exactly the benefit is of learning Attic Greek for
improving one's grasp of Koine Greek? Is there a benefit? Should I take
the time and effort to learn it, or continue to learn Koine Greek? >>

IMO there is little difference (that is not to say "no difference") between
Attic and Koine. In fact, there is more of a difference between Homeric
Greek and Attic Greek than there is between Attic and Koine.

A brief history: The Macedonian king Phillip (the father of Alexander)
adopted Attic Greek as the official language of Macedonia. Euripides and
Aristotle, along with other famous artists of the period, helped Atticize
the Macedonian aristocracy. Alexander's conquest of Persia ushered in the
Hellenistic age, and Greek became the official language of much of the
western end of the Mediterranean region. This Greek is referred to as Koine
Greek (or: "Common Greek"). Thus Koine derives from and is an extension of
Attic Greek.

IMO the problem is not Attic vs. Koine, rather the problem is that too
often NT students limit their Greek studies to one book, namely the NT.
Think of it this way, supposed you limited your whole knowledge of the
English language to one English translation of the NT, do you feel that
would be a sufficient knowledge of English to really understand this
English translation? If NT Greek students really knew Koine and read
Josephus, Polybius, Epictetus, etc., IMO there wouldn't be any real
problem. Rather the problem IMO is that many NT Greek students don't learn
Koine, rather they learn a sub-set of Koine.

My first year was from "Reading Greek" by the Joint Association of
Classical Teachers (Cambridge UP). My third semester was reading the Gospel
of John. My fourth semester was reading "Medea" by Euripides. I had the
good fortune to be attending a Jesuit university, so in addition to reading
Homer, Sophocles, Plato, etc., one semester we read "The Oecumenical
Documents of the Faith" by T. Herbert Bindley and F. W. Green, which
included various early creeds (e.g. the Nicene Creed), the Chalcedonian
Definition, and three letters from Cyril to Nestorius. IMO that is the type
of education in Greek which should be normative for NT students who are
serious about learning to read the Greek NT. Only the other hand, I
understand that in the real world some compromises have to be made. A
person has to decide how much time (how many years) one has to devote to
what is arguably a lifetime study.

In fact, one can still find beginning grammars which cover both. There is
"Beginning Greek: A Functional Approach" by Stephen Paine (Oxford, 1961),
which might still be in print. It uses readings from the Gospel of St. John
for the first half, and readings from Xenophon's "Anabasis" for the second
half. Not that I feel that one would need to go such a route. Personally, I
would recommend either "Athenaze" (Oxford Press) or "Reading Greek"
(Cambridge Press).

-Steven Craig Miller
Alton, Illinois (USA)
scmiller@www.plantnet.com
Disclaimer: "I'm just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree),
what do I know?"

---
B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu

</x-flowed>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:49 EDT