[b-greek] Re: BDAG at Rv 3:14 - Christ was the first creation now probable

From: James Ernest (jernest@hendrickson.com)
Date: Thu Jan 25 2001 - 09:33:40 EST


I see no connection between the etymological fallacy and the idea that
first- or fourth-century Christian Greek writers might offer useful evidence
as to what a first-century Christian Greek writer could have meant by a
particular phrase in a definite context. I also disagree that Didymus is
too late to help us with NT Greek. I don't think any classicist would
comment on a Homeric line without consulting the Alexandrian scholiasts--and
in that case the gap is much larger. Obviously, in either case the opinions
expressed by the later writer must be assessed critically, and in the case
of Didymus (e.g.) that includes taking account of his own theological
agenda.

Me genoito that I should minimize the value of modern linguistic theory or
set up a false dilemma between knowledge of modern theory and knowledge of
ancient texts (I wish I knew both as well as some other members of this
list), but I suspect that a scholar who has read lots of classicial,
Hellenistic (incl. LXX), and patristic Greek (I do not mean myself, by the
way) but has no idea what "conversational pragmatic implicture" is (OK, I'll
confess being clueless at this point, though I hope to learn when time
permits) would have a massive advantage over a linguistic theoretician who
has not read much Greek outside the NT (and here I am definitely not
referring to anyone in particular, just to a tendency in which some
beginners in Greek might be encouraged by some threads on this list) in
understanding a NT passage. I think the best thing would be to have both
and neglect neither; but I would advise a beginner who wants to understand
the Greek NT to read ancient Greek texts and the Hebrew Bible, and study the
development of early Judaism and early Christianity--and also to study
linguistic theory as much as possible without neglecting these basic
disciplines.

------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest, Ph.D.
Associate Editorial Director, Hendrickson Publishers
S-MAIL: Hendrickson Publishers, 140 Summit Street, P. O. Box 3473
  Peabody, MA 01961-3473 USA
FAX: 978/573-8243
PHONE: 978/573-2243
E-MAIL: ernest@bc.edu (accessible to me anywhere)
E-MAIL: jernest@hendrickson.com (accessible to me in the office)
http://www.hendrickson.com/
------------------------------------------------------



|-----Original Message-----
|From: Rolf Furuli [mailto:furuli@online.no]
|Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 12:06 PM
|To: Biblical Greek
|Subject: [b-greek] Re: BDAG at Rv 3:14 - Christ was the first creation
|now probable
|
|
|James D. Ernest wrote:
|
|
|>Fair enough. Just one final meta-question: Do some list
|members presuppose
|>that for understanding the meaning of a particular Greek
|phrase in the Bible
|>(e.g., he archh ths ktisews) the application of modern
|linguistic theories
|>or of traditional grammatical categories (i.e., what kind of
|genitive is
|>this?) is more helpful than evidence of how ancient writers
|whose first
|>language was Greek and who work in similar semantic terrain
|(e.g., other NT
|>authors, or Didymus) assessed the possible range of meaning
|of the phrase?

|>Maybe the answer is "No, but the former approaches are also
|valuable, and
|>this list is devoted to them"--which is ok with me, though it
|seems a little
|>narrow. But if the answer is Yes, I confess myself befuddled.
|>
|>James
|>
|
|Dear Ernest,
|
|I am sorry to contribute to your befuddlement, but my answer
|is a qualified
|"yes".
|
|James Barr rightly debunked the "etymological fallacy", and he
|showed that
|what counts is the contemporaneous use of a word. So the NT writers are
|valuable witnesses - but we should keep in mind that *use* is
|not the same
|as *meaning*. The NT writers had a Hebrew background, so
|contemporaneous
|Hebrew use would also accord with Barr's words. The problem is
|that we have
|to see this use through Rabbinic and Essenic eyes, and
|retrotranslation is
|not allways easy.
|The views of Didymus and the Church fathers have little weight
|because they
|lived so long after the NT writers, and the translations in the LXX are
|useful only to the extent it can be demonstrated that the text
|was used in
|the first century.
|
|Modern linguistics has progressed rapidly the last two-three
|decades, and
|it has thrown much light on Greek grammar and the nuances of
|communication
|inside the NT. Just think of the studies of Porter and and
|Fanning and the
|extremely valuable distinction made by Mary Broman Olsen between
|"conversational pragmatic implicture" and "semantic meaning".
|Linguistics
|is just a tool; we cannot say that because this or that rule,
|this phrase
|*must* mean this or that. But following sound linguistic procedures
|together with a study of contemporaneous use will make us better
|interpreters.
|
|
|
|Regards
|
|Rolf
|
|
|Rolf Furuli
|University of Oslo
|
|
|
|---
|B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
|You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jernest@hendrickson.com]
|To unsubscribe, forward this message to
|leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
|To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
|
|

---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu




This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:49 EDT